Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-10-11 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 11, 1999 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN Approval of September 27, 1999 Minutes Approved AD99-21: Washington Regional Medical Center, pp250 Approved PP99-9: Crystal Springs, Ph. II, pp245 Approved RZ99-29: Atlas Construction, pp367 Denied RZ99-30: Schader, pp600 Approved MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Don Bunch Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Phyllis Johnson Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Bob Estes Don Marr Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin Janet Johns Ron Petne Dawn Warrick None • Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1999 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes from the September 27, 1999 Meeting Johnson: I will call to order the October 11, 1999 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission on this Columbus Day. We have 5 items on the agenda. First, let me confirm with staff that none of those items have been pulled. Conklin: All items remain on the agenda. Johnson: The first item is approval of the September 27th minutes. Are there additions or corrections to be made to the minutes? Seeing none, those minutes will be approved as distributed last week. AD99-21• ADMINISTRATIVE WASHINGTON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, PP250 This item was submitted by Kurt Jones of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Washington • Regional Medical Center for property located north of Appleby Road and west of Northhills Blvd. The request is to accept revisions to the Large Scale Development approved January 11, 1999. • Kurt Jones was present on behalf of the request. Staff recommended approval subject to all conditions of the previously approved large scale development LSD98-36. Commission Discussion Johnson: This is west of the existing medical park and fronts on Appleby Road. Staff, if you would give us a quick overview of this item. We took it off the last agenda and it came before Subdivision and we discussed it at agenda session. Conklin: This item did go back to the Subdivision Committee. At that meeting, they did discuss the changes to the project and tree preservation. They forwarded this back to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval of the revised plans which have been submitted to the City. The changes include a change to the building footprint; they added an additional 14,000 square feet; the northernmost access offNorthhills Blvd. has been relocated further to the north; the entrance into the hospital has been rearranged with a circular drive and parking area; and, the building elevations have been revised. We have those revised elevations displayed for you this evening for your review. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1999 Page 3 revisions to the previously approved large scale development. If you have any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer them. Johnson: I believe at Subdivision and through staff, there has been a very careful look at tree preservation and the net result of that work is that there will be some large trees lost. With the trees that will be saved and the fact that the stream won't be reworked to the extent that was once proposed this is probably the best overall plan for the site and the best environmental result. Is that a fair statement from the Subdivision Committee's point of view? Hoffman: Yes. Johnson: What about staff? Conklin: That is correct. They are proposing to save a tree they had previously designated for removal with the original large scale development approval. This redesign does protect additional trees along the creek and therefore staff believes this is a better plan and should be approved. Johnson: Anything additional from Subdivision or questions that the Commission would pose to the applicant or staff? Okay. Does the applicant have anything to add before we invite public comment? Odom: I have a point of order. I believe this is on the Consent Agenda. Johnson: You are exactly right. That is my error in overlooking that. Would anyone ask to remove this item from the Consent Agenda? MOTION Hoffman: I make a motion to approve AD99-21. Johnson: I will accept that as a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Is there a second? Shackelford: I'll second. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1999 Page 4 PP99-9: PRELIMINARY PLAT CRYSTAL SPRINGS, PHASE II, PP245 This item was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Engineers on behalf of Howard Davis, JED Development, Inc. for property located south of Crystal Drive and west of Holcomb Elementary School. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 4.67 acres with 15 lots proposed. Mel Milholland and Micki Harrington were present on behalf of the request. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. All conditions of approval for the original preliminary plat apply. 2. All lots within the floodplain shall have a minimum of 6,000 square feet of buildable area above the base flood elevation. A floodplain development permit will be required to place fill within the floodplain and a Letter of Map Revision accepted by FEMA. • 3. Construction of the concrete swale located on the east side of this development as was previously approved shall be considered a part of this phase of construction. • 4. All comments from Plat Review and Subdivision meetings. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 6. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 4 foot sidewalk with 5 foot green space along one side of this extension of Pyrite Drive. 7. Preliminary Plat approval is valid for one calendar year Commission Discussion Johnson: All of this land was before the Commission in January, 1995. A preliminary plat for a larger tract of 35 plus acres was approved then consisting of 104 lots. At this time, that has not been developed and the applicant is requesting a much smaller development consisting of 15 lots on 4.5 acres. Has the applicant seen the conditions of approval? Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1999 Page 5 Milholland: Yes. Johnson: Have you signed the agreement? Milholland: We concur with the conditions. Johnson: You will sign the agreement stating that you do concur. Staff, do you have anything additional for us on this? Conklin: Staff has nothing further. Johnson: I think one change this preliminary plat will bring with it is that 2 streets that had been a part of this old plat will be lost at this time because this is a much smaller development. The street running east to Deane Solomon Road and the one to the south running to Mount Comfort will not be a part of this project. Will the applicant be asked to provide money in lieu or any construction of those 2 streets? Conklin: At this time, the City is not asking the developer to contribute any money or to construct those streets. When additional phases of development occur on this overall property, we would look to the developer to build those streets to Deane Solomon Road and to Mount Comfort. Johnson: Are there initial questions? Does the applicant have anything to add? I think we're in good shape at this point. Public Comment None. MOTION Odom: I'll move approval of preliminary plat 99-9. Hoffman: Second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Odom, seconded by Commissioner Hoffivan to approve preliminary plat 99-9. Is there further discussion? Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 6-0-0. • Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1999 Page 6 RZ99-29: REZONING ATLAS CONSTRUCTION, PP367 This item was submitted by Kurt Jones of Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Atlas Construction for property located on Sycamore Street east of Woodland Heights. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1 acre. The request is to rezone the property to R-1.5 Moderate Density Residential. Kurt Jones and Frances Ferguson were present on behalf of the request. Staff recommended approval of the proposed R-1.5 zoning based on the findings included as part of the staff report. Commission Discussion Johnson: Staff, would you give us the background on this proposed rezoning. Conklin: The applicant is requesting R-1.5 zoning on a 1 acre tract of land located on • Sycamore just east of Woodland Street and west of College Avenue. They have requested this rezoning in order to build 6 units. They plan on bringing forward to the Commission a Planned Unit Development for 2 three unit condominiums. They have offered a Bill of Assurance and staff has distributed that to the Commission this evening. The Bill of Assurance states that they will limit the maximum density to 6 units per acre. Staff is recommending approval. This site is adjoined to the north by the Richardson Center, Woodland Jr. High School and undeveloped property. To the south is Gregory Park and west of that is a medical clinic, an office, and a fast food restaurant. To the east, there are 3 single family homes. The closest single family home is zoned R-1. Two of the other single family homes immediately east of that one are zoned R -O and there is a dance studio and another fast food restaurant. Further west are several single family homes zoned R-1 and R-1.5. The house on the northeast corner of Woodland and Sycamore is zoned R-1.5 which was rezoned in 1987. Also, a conditional use was approved at that location for a child care facility. Staff has also handed out this evening approximately 12 letters in opposition to this rezoning. We have included a map locating where the opposition is coming from within the neighborhood. • Johnson: Is the applicant here and do you have additional information for us? Jones: My name is Kurt Jones and I'm representing the owner, Frances Ferguson. We can explain details of what he is trying to do. He plans to develop 6 individual single family units. Basically, there would be 2 buildings containing 3 units. He is planning to sell these as individual units. Each unit will have approximately 2,800 square feet. The price range will be between $140,000 to $160,000 per unit. Mr. Ferguson does intend to live in one of these units. • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1999 Page 7 They are not apartments. We have given the City a Bill of Assurance which limits the development of this property to a maximum of 6 units per acre which would enable Mr. Ferguson to do the development he wants to do. This is an upper scale condominium or townhouse development. Public Comment Nate Allen residing at 1917 Woodland was present. Allen: It seems Atlas has transferred the weight of the world on our neighborhood's shoulders with the announcement of this proposed zoning change. It's good new to none of us. Traffic is overloaded already in our area especially concerning activities at Woodland Jr. High School and the Richardson Center. With that said, I would like to make it clear that our relationship to the current traffic around Woodland Jr. High and the Richardson Center is not like someone moving next door to George's Majestic Lounge and then complaining about the noise. We respect the needs of both the Jr. High and the Richardson Center and believe we have been good neighbors. The multiple dwelling tenements have never been part of the equation. Increased traffic puts the school children and ourselves at risk. Home owners in our neighborhood, and some have been there for decades, have invested their lives in their homes with the understanding this neighborhood would be for homes and only for homes. Those who rent homes here rented with the presumption that multiple dwelling apartments would not be a part of the mix. They presumed they would be a part of a neighborhood of homes. I read that the builder of this project proposes it will be upscale and we've just heard that again. Well, increased traffic is increased traffic no matter the scale of the additional drivers. Besides, even presuming the builder's upscale intention, things change. Owners change. What begins as upscale can and often does deteriorate. Also, no matter how upscale these tenements might be, changing the zoning opens a pandora's box. Apartments spread like crabgrass, especially when some homeowners who live near these proposed apartments get discourage and sell out and another unique neighborhood will fade into apartmentalized oblivion. Another local developer has a slogan, "We bring great neighbors together." This threat to our great neighborhood has indeed brought great neighbors together and we urge you to keep our great neighborhood great by resisting the zoning change that could only detract from it's greatness. Thank you. Johnson: I am interested in a show of hands of those who are in agreement with Mr. Allen's position. Approximately 10 people raised their hands. Steve Parker residing on Sycamore Street was present. Parker: I am a local attorney and National Guard officer. I live on Sycamore Street and I • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1999 Page 8 happened to see the rezoning sign and I made a trip down the street to 7 houses and 6 of those were vehemently opposed to this rezoning. Some of them are here in the audience tonight. I'm speaking on behalf of some who asked if they needed to come and 1 said let's see if it gets approved and if so, you'll have to go to the City Council meeting. Hopefully, it won't get past this stage. Traffic was mentioned and I remember the Council talking about residential homes in a development each generating approximately 10 traffic trips per day on the average. I would imagine that multi family housing on Sycamore Street will be rented to students and groups of students. First, you have a higher than normal amount of traffic coming out of that area. Believe me, on Sycamore St., we don't need anymore traffic. As a matter of fact, we need more stringent enforcement of the speed limit. It's 25 and people already use it as one of the major thoroughfares like they do Township. We certainly don't want to see this rezoning which would increase the amount of traffic in that area. It is a single family dwelling neighborhood regardless of what Mr. Conklin said. I don't know if there is still have a child care facility. Maybe that conditional use has already passed or maybe not. It's still single family homes. We're looking at a population that is stable in that area consisting of people who buy homes to settle and live there and let their kids go to the school nearby. If you have the 6 units that they are proposing to build as multi family housing, you're going to get transiency in there to a far higher degree. I don't know if you have the paperwork but I understand that the Richardson Center felt strongly enough about this that their board considered this particular matter and voted to oppose it. Is that correct? Allen: That's what I was told. Parker: They were going to relay that to you in written fashion. Did that occur? Conklin: I spoke to the director and he didn't say whether he was for the rezoning or opposed to the rezoning. That was last Friday. Parker: I believe he signed one of the petitions opposing the rezoning so I would think that would make the position of the Richardson Center quite clear. I would say that any change to multi family housing is going to tend to degrade the neighborhood. We're close to College Avenue. We have had incursions at the edges of the neighborhood and we certainly don't want it to reach the middle. As they mentioned, to the east is single family housing. To the west is single family housing. We do not want to plop apartments right in the middle of it. We want to preserve the unique character of our neighborhood. It's a beautiful place. It's right across from Gregory Park and we wish for you to give the same consideration that would to other areas such as the Wilson Park area where you respect the beautiful relationship between City park land and single family homes that exist in other places. We would like you to please consider that and vote against this rezoning and turn it down. I'm speaking on my behalf and also on behalf of a number of neighbors who said they would willing to come if they have to but I certainly hope that is not required. • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1999 Page 9 Jack Legune residing at 1833 Woodland was present. Legune: I live directly across the street from the Woodland Jr. High gymnasium. I don't have a whole lot to say other than I agree with what has been said. There are times in the afternoon when the parents pick up the children at Woodland that I have to work to get out of my drive way. There is that much traffic. The traffic is so heavy around 3 p.m. that if there was an emergency on that street, it would be hard for an emergency vehicle to get up that street. They park on both sides of the street. A fire truck couldn't get up the street. Thank you. Marie Legune residing at 1833 Woodland was present. Legune: I think Jack failed to mention something that we have a great concern for and that's the Richardson Center. Elizabeth Richardson established that school many years ago. She picked a place that would be safe and in a neighborhood for the little children to go there. We've lived there 35 years at the same address. You have to have lived there a long time to realize what goes on in that neighborhood. We knew when we located there that we would have traffic but we didn't know to what extent it was going to be. Beyond that is the safety of these children. Their playground is very close to this proposed site for this multiple housing project. While we know or think we know right now that the tenants of these townhouses or whatever are going to be choice people that have been picked by the developer or owner, ee all know that property changes hands. Also, rental property has a variety of people that come to live in these places and we have a great concern for the safety of the children attending not only Richardson Center but the Jr. High as well. A number of children at the Jr. High walk to McDonalds and their safety should be considered as well. I would dearly appreciate you considering denying this rezoning of the property for multi housing. Tim Sweethalp residing at 1847 Woodland was present. Sweethalp: I would just ask this body to consider the costs and the benefits when making this decision. That property is currently zoned low density and I think there is reason why it was zoned low density to begin with and I think that any benefit should be a huge benefit if that is going to be changed to moderate density. I know that the person who wants to put these units in is anxious to speak and I would like to hear him address that issue. What is the overwhelming benefit to this neighborhood to having a change in the zoning. Burch Raley residing at 132 Sycamore was present. Raley: I want to echo all of the things that have been said. I've lived on Sycamore since 1965. Marie Wischser residing at 1700 Woolsey was present. • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1999 Page 10 Wischser: I'm here tonight to ask that you give serious consideration to not rezoning that lot. I think Fayetteville is already overbuilt their apartment capacity. I don't think all the complexes are filled 100%. This is a nice, quite residential area and we don't need another apartment complex. It will affect our property values. Sycamore is an extremely busy street. I live on the corner of Sycamore and Woolsey. During the winter time, when the weather is bad, we have at least 4 or 5 accidents. You can count on it. Please give your consideration to not rezoning this lot. Thank you. Connie Weiderspan residing at 1732 Green Valley was present. Weiderspan: I think we've communicated quite effectively what our hearts want. When I come up the street to approach Sycamore, it is a very dangerous road The traffic issues have a lot of validity. I've lived there for a year and a half. What my neighbors are saying is very true. This is a long established neighborhood. I would not like to see any multi family housing. Thank you. Kathleen Plat Parker residing at 112 W. Sycamore was present. Parker: I want to say that traffic is really bad and there is also a lot of trash that is thrown out in our yard. It's very dangerous I don't let my dog out in the yard without a leash in my own yard. I have to be very careful about crossing the street to go to the park. We have to be very careful with our children. It's dangerous backing out of the driveway. If you add 6 more units with several people and several cars, that's going to increase traffic. There is a heavy load from the apartments on the other end of Sycamore and we don't want that to change in our area. Please think about this when you decide. Thank you. Further Commission Discussion Johnson: On this one acre, if it was developed under R-1, what would be the maximum number of units that they could handle? Conklin: The density is limited to 4 units per acre. Looking at this, in my opinion, they would have to do a planned unit development to get the 4 units on this property. Johnson: Maximum R-1 development would have 4 units and the proposal is for 6 units. Conklin: That's correct. Jones: I wanted to address the comments of the adjoining property owners. First, this is not an apartment complex. These will be single family homes which people will purchase. They will not be rented. They are not rental units. They are homes. Mr. Conklin pointed out the • • Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1999 Page 11 existing allowable density for this property would be 4 units. All we're asking for and guaranteeing with our Bill of Assurance is 2 additional units. The traffic situation, specifically regarding Woodland, will not be affected. We don't plan any access to any street other than Sycamore. Sycamore is a collector street. As a collector is serves the City as a main route between College and Gregg and over to Leverett and Garland. I think it will continue to do that. The majority of the traffic on Sycamore is not from the residents living along Sycamore. This number of units is not going to significantly increase the traffic on Sycamore. I want to stress this is not an apartment complex. If the City or the Commission feels they need more assurance that it will not an apartment complex, I'm sure the owner would offer additional assurances. This is going to be an upscale townhouse type development similar to the duplexhownhouse type units that are located on Joyce Blvd. along the golf course. These will not be rental units. They are not apartments. They are going to be single family units. Johnson: Is there a way that you know of that a Bill of Assurance could get the assurance that these townhouses will be owner occupied and not rental units? Is there any way that can be addressed? Conklin: I do not believe so. We have not addressed the ownership question in Bills of • Assurance. R-1.5 allows single family, duplex and triplex. It does not allow for anything larger than a 3 unit structure or triplex. • Johnson: I imagine that one can offer anything one wishes in a Bill of Assurance. I'm not sure whether it would be enforceable. Ferguson: We propose to be the builder of these units. As Mr. Jones said, these are not rentals. They are not apartments. We have used this plan before and every unit sold. I'm the first buyer. The people buying the previous units which are this same, basic plan in other areas are people that are tired of mowing grass and all the yard work and watering and would rather be out playing golf or fishing. This complex will have a maintenance crew to take care of the outside. We'll have covenants to accomplish that. These are townhouses which are joined and have a zero lot line. This is quite common in other areas. It is single family. I have 2 other prospective buyers. I can't go forward until I get this rezoned. They start at $140,000. There is rental property next door to this. It's a tiny house with maybe 500-600 square feet. 1 can assure you we will do much better than that. I think you will find this comparable to anything in the area The entire area will be fenced. We'll dedicate the required right of way for Sycamore which could help the traffic. Basically, I'm marketing to seniors. Thank you. Hoffman: If this were rezoned to R-1.5 with no Bill of Assurance, how many units would be permitted? Conklin: 12 units per acre. • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1999 Page 12 Hoffman: If this zoning is approved it would be half of what is allowable. Conklin: Yes, with the Bill of Assurance as offered by the applicant. Hoffman: This neighborhood compared itself to the Wilson Park neighborhood. 1 used to live there and I have close ties to the Wilson Park area. One of the charms of that neighborhood is the residential diversity. There is a mixture of single family, duplex, and apartments. There are apartments right next to the south end of the park. As a Planning Commissioner, I've tried to be sensitive to neighborhoods yet take into account the overall benefit to the City. This might be a nice addition to the neighborhood and wouldn't impact as badly as you think on the traffic. Unless the residence of the proposed development have children, they wouldn't be using Woodland. They would be more likely to go down Sycamore. They have no reason to tum back to the neighborhood. Conklin: I looked at the site several times. Exiting this development, you would be on a collector street. Down Woodland is not the most direct route. Hoffman: There's no stoplight at Poplar. There's a stop sign on Green Acres. They wouldn't use that as a cut through to get to College. I'm more likely to support this with the Bill of Assurance. Odom: I think this is a good opportunity for the neighborhood but the neighborhood doesn't feel that way. 1 think the neighborhood has a problem because they don't have anything to look at. I get upset when a neighborhood comes in here and says they don't want things to change and that they've bought into a brand new home in a brand new area with a completely undeveloped area next to it but this is completely different. This area has an expectation of single family homes in R-1 residential. It's currently zoned R-1. I think the burden is on the developer more in this area than say another area of town. I agree with the staff comments that it does meet the general land use plan but what exists there now meets the general land use plan, too. Personally, I think this is a good project but I'm not going to support it. Johnson: Does the Commission have as much say in a P.U.D. development? Isn't that something where we look very closely at the development. Conklin: I would say the Commission has more discretion as far as where the buildings are located, amenities, and green space location requirements. That gives you latitude to be sure it is compatible with the surrounding area. Bunch: What is the compelling reason to rezone this neighborhood to something other than single family and change the character of it? • Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1999 Page 13 Jones: The target market is for people who don't want to maintain a yard. It's a beautifully wooded lot with trees and that makes it attractive for this development. These are single family homes, they just happen to be connected. Bunch: It's a good concept but that didn't address my question as to why this location was selected. Jones: We don't feel this changes the character. There is R -O zoning adjacent to this. There is commercial development, too. Johnson: This Commission does not have final say on rezoning. Rezoning must have 5 positive votes which will be difficult this evening because we are short handed. With 5 positive votes, this would be recommended to the Council. Without 5 positive votes, the applicant does have the right to appeal With less than a full Commission, I'll allow the applicant the opportunity to postpone. Does the applicant want to postpone this evening? Odom: I have a comment to that remark. The applicant was made aware at the agenda session that there would be very few members here tonight and if they were going to pull it they • were asked to pull it at that time. Johnson: My response to that is I thought there would be 7 here and we only have 6. I see a considerable difference between 6 and 7. • Jones: We would like to have the Commission vote on it. Hoffman: Is there a method where by a P.U.D. could be acted on and the zoning and density set at one meeting instead of rezoning and then having the P.U.D. come through? If there was a method, the applicant would be able to submit drawings or schematic plans to show what was being proposed. This is not very dense and more communication would probably help. Conklin: Their current proposal would not be allowed because of the required setback adjacent to R-1. Other cities do bring both the rezoning and the development forward together. The City of Little Rock, has a Planned Zoning District where they bring the site plan and the zoning together. We do not have that option. Shackelford: Zero lot line developments are a fairly new product for our market. I have had the opportunity to look at a couple of these in financing. It's my opinion that they are single family dwellings. I don't think you can group them in with apartment complexes. They will be sold and the buyers will maintain the property the same as we maintain our single family dwellings. MOTION • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1999 Page 14 Shackelford: Based on the fact that there will only be 2 more units than what is allowed under the current zoning and the fact that they will be of equal size and value of the surrounding homes, I support this project. The staff has addressed the traffic issues and the fact that this development will exit onto a collector and not into the neighborhood. I make a motion that we approve RZ99-29. Hoffman: I'll second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Shackelford and second by Commissioner Hoffman. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion failed with a vote of 4-2-0. Commissioners Bunch and Odom voted against the motion. • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1999 Page 15 RZ99-30: REZONING SCHADER, PP600 This item was submitted by Austin Schader for property located at 1854 S. Garland. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 2.36 acres The request is to rezone the property to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Austin Schader was present on behalf of the request. Staff recommended approval of the R-2 zoning based on the findings included as part of the staff report. Commission Discussion Johnson: On page 5.8 of our packet, I see that we have at least 3 different tracts. I'm not understanding why they are divided up. Conklin: The property is described by separate deeds but it is all one rezoning. Johnson: Commissioner Odom pointed out that the drawing of the entire tract is shown on page 5.9. The entire tract is to be rezoned to R-2 and it is merely described by 4 deeds Thanks. Are there questions? Is someone here representing Mr. Schader? Mr. Schader, will you come forward? Does staff have anything additional to tell us about this proposed rezoning? Schader: There are 4 separate descriptions. The only reason for the rezoning is my daughter is buying it and the VA would not approve a loan in an industrial zone. That's the only reason for the rezoning. There isn't going to be anything added to it. It will stay just like it is. Johnson: The plan is for residential. Schader. Yes. Johnson: I see the northern boundary adjoins an abandoned railroad which is now owned by the City. Is that a part of the abandoned railroad where a trail is planned? Conklin: The abandoned railroad right of way is where the tracks went to the Industrial Park. There is an effort by the City to re-establish the rail service to the Industrial Park. Rail service could be located in this right of way. • Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1999 Page 16 Public Comment None. MOTION Odom: I move to approve RZ99-30. Hoover: I'll second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Odom and the second by Commissioner Hoover that we approve RZ99-30. I should have advised you at the beginning of the discussion that you must have 5 positive votes for this to pass the Commission and we're short handed tonight. We only have 6 members present. If you wish to postpone consideration of this until we have a full contingent, I would allow you to do so. We are happy to vote this evening if you would like. Schader: Go ahead and vote. • Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 6-0-0. Johnson: The Council has the final say on all rezoning and this will go forward to them for their determination. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. •