Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-06-12 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on June 12, 2000 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Approval of Minutes AD 00-17.00: Administrative Item (Garroutte, pp 137) LSD 00-7.10: Large Scale Development/P.U.D. (Indian Springs phase 11, pp 372) VA 00-4.00: Vacation (Milsap Road Investment, pp 213) VA 00-5.00: Vacation (Wiggins Memorial United Methodist Church, pp 523) VA 00-6.00: Vacation (Stevens, pp 521) LSD 00-11.00: Large Scale Development (Ozark Electric Cooperative Corporation, pp 440) RZ 00-16.00: Rezoning (Gale, pp 60) CU 00-13.00: Conditional Use (Hooker Construction, pp 209) LSD 00-9.00: Large Scale Development (Hooker Construction, pp 209) LS 00-14.00: Lot Split (Hooker Construction, pp 209) RZ 00-17.00: Rezoning (Damen, pp 364) RZ 00-18.00: Rezoning (Holland/Osborne, pp 251) AD 98-8.00: Administrative Amendment: Chapter 172 AD 00-8.00: Administrative Item: Amendment to Chapter 162 MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Don Bunch Bob Estes Lorel Hoffman Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Lee Ward Don Marr Sharon Hoover STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Jim Beavers Diana Varner ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF ABSENT Ron Petrie • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of minutes from the May 22, 2000 meeting. AD 00-17.00: Administrative Item (Garroutte, pp 137) was submitted by Rick Garroutte for property located at 2108 & 2110 Cinnamon Way, lot 11 Missouri Oaks Subdivision. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. The request is for a triplex on a lot that was limited to a duplex by the final plat. LSD 00-7.10: Large Scale Development/P.U.D. (Indian Springs phase II, pp 372) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sweetser Properties for property located south of Hwy 45 and west of Madison Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 3.20 acres with 18 units proposed. VA 00-4.00: Vacation (Millsap Road Investment, pp 213) was submitted by Henry Kelly, Jr. of Millsap Road Investments for property located at 655 Millsap Road. Lot 19 of CMN Business Park Phase I. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.58 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of an existing water line easement within lot 19. VA 00-5.00: Vacation (Wiggins Memorial United Methodist Church, pp 523) was submitted by Harvey Luttrell on behalf of Wiggins Memorial United Methodist Church for property located at 205 W. 6th. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.18 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of the City right of way. VA 00-6.00: Vacation (Stevens, pp 521) was submitted by Joe and Angela Stevens for property located on Old Farmington Road between Beechwood and Eastern. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 0.23 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of Old Farmington Road Odom: Good evening and welcome to the June 12, 2000 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. The first thing that needs to be brought to everyone's attention is that at the Agenda Session, Item 6 that is on the agenda, AD 00-19.00 Administrative Item appeal of the Floodplain Development Permit and Grading Permit for LSD 00-5 Steele Crossing has been pulled from the agenda and will instead be heard at a special Planning Commission Meeting a week from today, June 19, 2000 at 5:30 pm here in this room. We have five items on the consent agenda today. The first item is the approval of the minutes of the May 22, 2000 meeting. The second is AD00-17 submitted by Rick Garroutte, and I apologize if I pronounced that wrong, for property located at 2108 & 2110 Cinnamon Way, lot 11 Missouri Oaks Subdivision. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density • • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 3 Residential. The request is for a triplex on a lot that was limited to a duplex by the final plat. Item two is LSD 00-7.10 submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sweetser Properties for property located south of Hwy 45 and west of Madison Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 3.20 acres with 18 units proposed. The third item is VA 00-4.00 submitted by Henry Kelly, Jr. of Millsap Road Investments for property located at 755 Millsap Road. Lot 19 of CMN Business Part, Phase I. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.58 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of an existing water line easement within lot 19. Item number 4 is VA 00-5.00 submitted by Harvey Luttrell on behalf of Wiggins Memorial United Methodist Church for property located at 205 W. 6ih . The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.18 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of the city right-of-way. The fifth item on the consent agenda is VA 00-6.00 submitted by Joe and Angela Stevens for property located on Old Farmington Road between Beechwood and Eastern. The property is zoned 1-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 0 23 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of Old Farmington Road. These items on the consent agenda will be approved by the Commission unless a member of the Commission or the audience wishes to pull an item to discuss it individually. PUBLIC COMMENT & COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Does any member of the Commission or the audience wish to pull any of the items on the consent agenda? Marr: Mr. Chair, just a question. Is the only change on item three which we received a revised copy? Odom: Item three, there was a change by the staff and it is my understanding there was an agreement by the applicant that that change was acceptable. Conklin: That is correct. We do have signed conditions of approval on every consent item on the agenda. Odom. Any further questions? Call the Roll. ROLL CALL: • Upon roll call the motion to approve the consent agenda carries unanimously 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 4 LSD 00-11.00: Large Scale Development (Ozark Electric Cooperative Corporation, pp 440) was submitted by David Powers of McGoodwin, Williams, & Yates Inc. on behalf of Ozarks Electric Cooperative Corporation for property located at 3641 Wedington Drive. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 44.36 acres. The request is for an expansion of current facilities. Odom: The next item on tonight's agenda is LSD 00-11.00 Large Scale Development from Ozark Electric Cooperative Corporation submitted by David Powers of McGoodwin, Williams, & Yates Inc. on behalf of Ozarks Electric Cooperative Corporation for property located at 3641 Wedington Drive. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 44.36 acres. The request is for an expansion of current facilities. Staff? Conklin: This is a large scale development for expansion of Ozark Electric. There is one issue the Planning Commission will need to address tonight and that is to allow a 26 foot wide parking lot aisle in several places of the new parking lot. Staff is recommending approval of the 26 foot wide drives. They do have larger truck traffic that will be entering the facility. Once again, this is their existing facility on Wedington Drive and they plan on adding additional office space of 13,066 square feet and 4,264 square feet of warehousing. They will also be adding 8,200 square foot service building and 6,360 square foot vehicle parking canopy on the site. Outdoor storage will be screened by a chain link fence with vegetation. There is one rare tree on the site that will be removed due to the overall health of the tree. In A-1 zoning, there is no minimum percent tree canopy. The applicant is here tonight to go over his plans for Ozark Electric. Odom: Thank you. Sir, if you will please identify yourself for the record by giving us your name and then making your presentation. Powers: David Powers of McGoodwin, Williams & Yates. I also have with me Allen Combs who is Vice President of Operations for Ozarks Electric and Rick Cowdry of McGoodwin, Williams & Yates, Civil Engineer and John Seaverson also of McGoodwin, Williams & Yates, the architect. Mr. Conklin has pretty well covered the basics. One item I might mention as evidenced by the rendering that is down on the floor here, that the entire building, office and warehouse, will be renovated both interior and exterior with the exterior being renovated to match the new building. It's a total facelift for the existing portion of the office building to match the new construction. Again, the primary issue I think, is the request for the waiver. You have a letter in your packet from Ozarks Electric with regard to allowing a couple of the driveways to be 26 foot wide in lieu of the 24 foot width. With that, maybe it would be better for me to simply address any questions you • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 5 might have in regard to the plan. Odom: Okay. We will take questions from the Commission in just a minute. Is that the extent of your presentation? Powers: Yes. PUBLIC COMMENT• Odom: Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this large scale development? This is LSD 00-11.00, Ozark Electric Cooperative Corporation. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom. Seeing none, I will close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant for questions and comments of the Planning Commission. MOTION: Hoffman: Mr. Chairman, I will go ahead and move approval of this item subject to staff comments. Ward: I'll second. Odom. Does the motion and the second incorporate the granting of the waiver? Hoffman: Yes it does. Specifically to grant the waiver for the increased truck traffic. Again I would like to emphasize the importance of the vegetative screening on the chain link fence next to the R zoned property to the west. Odom: That is an item we discussed at agenda session. Hoffman: That is an item in the staff requirements. I have no other additions. Odom: Okay. Any further discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and a second by Commissioner Ward. Would you call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion carries unanimously 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 6 RZ 00-16.00: Rezoning (Gale, pp 60) was submitted by Arden Gale for property located at 1530 Albright Road The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 4.21 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Odom: The next item on tonight's agenda is RZ 00-16.00 submitted by Arden Gale for property located at 1530 Albright Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 4 21 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based upon the findings in their report. Staff do you have anything further? Conklin: This is a rezoning request from A-1 to R-1 and contains 4.21 acres on Albright Road in the northeast part of town. There is a single family home currently on this lot and they have requested the R-1 zoning to bring forward a future lot split on this property. Odom: I would ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. Now, you don't have to but do you have any presentation that you would like to make to us? Gale: No sir. Odom: And your name for the record? Gale: Arden Gale. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Let me ask if there are any members of the audience that would like to address us on this rezoning request? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom. Seeing none I will close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions, comments or motions. MOTION: Shackelford: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we approve RZ 00-16 based upon staff recommendations. Hoffman: Second. Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 7 Odom. We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Hoffman. Do we have any further discussion: Bunch: Mr. Chairman, this is more of a comment and primarily for the record. Since this does not have sewer service we need to take a strong look for it at the lot split as it comes through, should the City Council approve this, then the next action would be the lot split that has already been filed, to make sure we have the proper septic systems. Normally in the city we don't address septic issues so we need to make sure this is on the record to notify people when it does come up before Subdivision Committee that it is properly addressed with the septic considerations. Odom: Thank you Commissioner Bunch. Any further discussion? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion to recommend approval carries 9-0-0. Odom: You have to go to the City Council now. They are the ones that make the decisions on the rezonings. Gale: Odom: Thank you. Thank you very much. • • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 8 CU 00-13.00: Conditional Use (Hooker Construction, pp 209) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates, Inc. on behalf of Hooker Construction for property located at 1409 W. Van Asche. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.34 acres. The request is for a warehouse (use unit 21) in C-2 district. Odom: The next item we have on tonight's agenda is CU 00-13.00 submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates, Inc. on behalf of Hooker Construction for property located at 1409 W. Van Asche. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.34 acres. The request is for a warehouse which is a use unit 21 in a C-2 district. Staff's recommendation is approval of the conditional use subject to 2 following conditions of approval. One is for screening of parking areas adjacent to the street right-of-way on both sides of the entry drive shall apply as provided by §172.01 (F)(4) "c. Required Plant Materials". And item two subject to all conditions stated for Large Scale Development and Lot Split approvals also requested by the applicant at this time. Staff, are there any further conditions of approval? Conklin: Those are the only two conditions of approval associated with this conditional use. This conditional use request also applies to item number 10 which is your Large Scale Development and item number 11 which contains a Lot Split in here. Once we look at this if you want to take this separately and approve it we will get to the large scale development where we can take a look at where the landscaping is and parking. Odom: I'll ask the applicant or Dave to come forward at this time. Jorgensen: My name is Dave Jorgensen and I represent the... Estes: Mr. Chairman it will be necessary that I recuse on items number 9, 10, and 11. Odom: Thank you very much. Go ahead Dave. Jorgensen: I represent the owners on this project. We have them here in the audience if we have questions for them. We also have Jim Key, Architect which as Tim mentioned, the next two items on the agenda also concern this. Basically, I don't have anything to say about the conditional use other than the fact that we do need to request one because of the warehouse storage. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Any member of the audience like to address us on the specific issue of conditional • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 9 use that is currently before us? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: MOTION: Bunch: Shackelford: Odom: Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Odom. Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions, comments or motions. Mr. Chairman, I move we approve CU 00-13.00. I'll second. We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch and a second by Commissioner Shackelford to approve CU 00-13.00. Is there any discussion? I do have a comment. Prior to approval I would just like to say that in two Subdivision Committee meetings which I was present at one, it became apparent that we have a possible area we need to revise or review in the Design Overlay District with regard to the use of corrugated metal siding in an architectural application and not just in a shed application. I'm not quite sure, not being an architect how to correctly state that, but it was used in a tasteful manner and is in direct violation of the Design Overlay District Requirements and I would like to request that we put together a short revision to that ordinance and send it forward to the Ordinance Review Committee. I would be happy to do the writing on that with, perhaps Sharon's help. I'm always unsure of process but I think that might be a way to go forward with that. Yes. If you want to propose an amendment to our Unified Development Ordinance you can bring that forward to this Commission and they can vote on it. Once they do make a recommendation we can take it to the Ordinance Review Committee and then on to the City Council. We can place it on an agenda. We do need 15 days notice of what the proposed amendment will entail. It won't be anywhere near within 15 days. Okay. The next meetings won't work but let me know. Thank you very much. Any further discussion? Call the roll. Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 10 ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion carries 8-0-1 with Commissioner Estes abstaining. Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 11 LSD 00-9.00: Large Scale Development (Hooker Construction, pp 209) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates, Inc. on behalf of Hooker Construction for property located at 1409 W. Van Asche. The.property is located within the Design Overlay District and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial containing approximately 2.34 acres. Odom: The next item on the agenda is directly related on that item and it is LSD 00-9.00 submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates, Inc. on behalf of Hooker Construction for property located that we just discussed. The property is located within the Design Overlay District and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial containing approximately 2.34 acres. Findings by staff is that the property is visible from 1-540 and is adjacent to the city limits of Johnson. Tomlinson Asphalt is located directly to the east and a concrete company is located to the north. All adjacent property in Johnson is zoned Industrial To the west is the Restaurant on the Corner and The Grill. The property was formerly occupied by Midwest Cable with unscreened outdoor storage. The applicant is proposing office buildings with warehousing as a conditional use. The staff is recommending approval subject to eight conditions of approval. Staff are there any further conditions of approval? Conklin: There are no further conditions of approval. I would like to point out on condition number one with regard to compliance with our Commercial Design Standards and Overlay District Regulations, in our Design Overlay District it states that no structure shall be allowed that have metal sidewalls unless such metal siding is similar in appearance to wood, masonry or a natural looking material. This is what Commissioner Hoffman was referring to. I think when you look at this project this evening and look at the elevations and the metal that they do propose on this project you do need to make that finding that it does have a similar appearance to wood or masonry. If not, you would need to grant a variance from that section of our Design Overlay District Ordinance. That is all I have on this project. Odom: It is my understanding the Planning Commission has to make a decision as to either it looks like wood or to grant a variance. Conklin: That is correct. Odom. Do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: No we don't. Odom: I would ask the applicant to come forward at this time. Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 12 Key: My name is James Key, the architect for JM Hooker Construction and Hydraulic Solutions. On behalf of this project, as has been stated, we worked closely with the Subdivision Committee. We looked at revising the materials that were proposed to be used several times from Technical Plat Review through to the first Subdivision Committee meeting. Our initial intent was to try to use a corrugated galvanize type wall panel with a scored concrete block base material. I know there was some concern of meeting the letter of the ordinance. It was our desire to build a facility that had the character of the corrugated metal and blocks similar to the Nadine Baum Center or the Pauline Whitaker Arena on the Agri Campus of the University of Arkansas. We have revised the materials once to reflect a red brick masonry material again, due to the wordage of the ordinance, as Ms. Hoffman has commented, there was some concern that perhaps it is excluding the use of metal material that could be used in an architectural fashion. Due to the way that was approached and the comments we received through Subdivision Committee we did look at revising our building materials as is reflected in the materials sample board here and is reflected on the third revised rendered elevations that you received in your packages. They are mounted on the board. We are proposing to use a buff colored split face block on the two main facades of both buildings for a base material with a scored concrete block above that. A green slate tile product as an accent around the openings and a metal awning suspended from the side of the building. On two sides of each building, on the JM Hooker building on tract 2, the eastern most tract, we were proposing along the east side and south side to utilize a prefinished metal wall panels. On the west side and south side of the Hydraulic Solutions building which is the western most tract 1, we propose to use a metal wall panel on those two facades. They are not visible from Van Asche. I think it was agreed that the visibility from I-540 is minimal with the evergreen plantings that are proposed on the east and west there will be a minimal view. We have proposed to use this prefinished metal panel with the approach that it does simulate a wood board and batten product. We have used this same product on a building in the overlay district within the last 12 to 18 months. The Liquor -to -Go facility on North Garland near I-540 we used a dry-vit material a split faced block material and a prefinished tan panel which was meant to match the tone of the buff colored block as a finished product on the sides that were not as visible. That was deemed acceptable as an alternative to a natural wood product or a masonry product. It is a metal siding simulating a wood material. There is a picture of that here. That facade that you mentioned did use an R panel. It's a 12 inch smooth surface with a 2 inch wide breaking element that drops back down to the 12 inch wide smooth surface then pops back out so you have the effect of 2 inch batten every 12 inches. I don't think it's far fetched that that is a simulated wood product. It is what that product is intended to represent. It has been used in that fashion before and we feel that that is Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 13 acceptable in this situation. Odom: Thank you. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Any member of the audience like to address us on this issue of large scale development? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Seeing none I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission for comments, questions or motions. Marr: Key: • Allen: Could you bring that closer so 1 can see it. When I look at this drawing I guess I'm not opposed to how it is but I have a hard time thinking this is wood -like. I think there is a big difference between what I've seen in the drawings. I want to make sure it is what 1 remembered. In terms of a broken design of split face and that at the top which is very similar to that drawing there versus this whole side being purely that product. That is just my initial thoughts. I personally would be more in favor of a variance on it based on what I'm seeing as opposed to saying it meets our design standards. One comment in that respect, it was our initial intent to have four sides of the building that all matched. We had a block base for 4 feet. We had a corrugated metal siding around all four sides. We had some painted steel surfaces as accents around the main entry and facades and a nice little canopy. But due to the desire that the facade and the front of the building be more appealing to the eye from the street, we tried to put all of our money, if you will, up front. I don't know, the owner would have to address this, if they would be opposed to running a masonry base around all four sides of the building. One big point of contention being that the east side of the JM Hooker building particularly was within about 6 feet of an adjacent building on Industrial property to our east and will not be visible what - so -ever. No one is ever going to see that facade and for that reason we felt it was not needed to dress that facade up. The same is true on the west facade of the Hydraulic Solutions building. It is backed up against the kitchen and trash service area of the restaurant to the west of us. Again, for those reasons we felt we minimized the amount of materials on those facades that are not visible from the street and from 1-540 and put all of our bang up front. Mr. Chairman, I think they have come a long way and it looks a lot better. I have • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 14 Key: no problem at all with a variance. But calling it wood when it's aluminum doesn't make it so. Well, that I think is inherent of the problem in the way the ordinance is written right now. It says you can't have metal unless the metal simulates or looks like wood, masonry or other natural occurring materials. How is metal going to simulate another natural looking material unless the pattern of it or the texture of it. We could emboss that metal with a wood grain. Quite truthfully that is not desirable on our part. In terms of simulating the rhythm of the materials is what this product is intended to do. I understand your comments, Ms. Allen. Honestly we have a little concern that we want a product that looks nice. This is going to be the business headquarters for these businesses and they will be entertaining public clientele coming in. Quite truthfully they would have preferred to have had the scored block with the corrugated metal as opposed to an embossed woodgrain metal panel, this was thought to be an acceptable alternative considering it had been looked at previously and in our opinion had been deemed to be acceptable. I personally had worked on the project in reference that is on the board. Mr. Hooker's company had built that building. We all went through this process and came before the Plat Review, Subdivision Committee and the Planning Commission. That was during a time when the Overlay District Requirements and the Commercial Design Standards were in effect. So, we felt it was a reasonable proposal and that is why we opted for that on those two sides as opposed to trying to get corrugated metal on those two sides. We opted to go with a prefinished panel that matched the color of the masonry intended and had the pattern and rhythm of a board and batten wood installation. Shackelford. Just a couple of things. First of all I personally don't have any problems with the building and don't have any problem backing a variance on the property. I like Commissioner Hoffman's recommendation to amend the ordinance in this situation so we don't have to deal with that. I do have one question of the applicant. It was mentioned by staff earlier that we do not have signed conditions of approval. Are there any other situations or disagreements on any of the other eight issues that we need to talk about? Key: I was not aware that you didn't have a signed copy of the conditions of approval. 1 don't believe there are any concerns on the owner's part on the eight conditions of approval. They were all things we were aware of through Subdivision Review. It was just an oversight we didn't get a signed copy of that back to you. I'm sure the owner will be glad to sign that and file it with the city along with any other conditions if there are such. I reviewed those with him today over the phone. There were no surprises and we are in complete understanding. It would be our • • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 15 Bunch: Key: Conklin: Bunch: Odom: MOTION: Bunch: hope the Commission agrees this product meets the intent of the ordinance and that it does simulate a wood product or another natural occurring material and that a variance would not need to be granted. And I think that is the way Mr. Conklin had presented it. If the Commission felt it was within the guidelines of the ordinance that's fine and it can be approved as it is. If it's not within those guidelines, if it's not thought to be a simulated wood product or acceptable based on the terms of the ordinance that a variance would need to be granted. This might be for either staff or the applicant, does anyone know the approximate size of the Arkansas State Highway Division property to the south and what the intended use of the property is? Staff may be aware of that. It is my understanding that it is going to be used for their yard and lot storage. Gravel materials, asphalt trucks, graders, that type of thing. I've not seen any documentation on that. I believe it will be an operations center. I'm not sure what the acreage is. With the type of industrial operations in close proximity and with the City of Johnson and the Arkansas State Highway Department having a yard to the south of it I would lean more towards a variance rather than approval of the material. This is a justifiable transition from other uses. I know it's right at the edge of our Overlay District but it seems like, considering everything that is around it that a variance would probably be more in order than a material approval that might come back to haunt us on many other projects. How do we go about putting the variance in? Just move for a variance? Just move for approval granting a variance subject to staff conditions I'll do that then. Shackelford: I'll second that. Whatever he said I'll second. Bunch: I move for approval of LSD 00-9.00 with a variance for the materials on the sidewalls. Shackelford: I'll second. • Odom. Motion by Commissioner Bunch second by Commissioner Shackelford to • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 16 approve LSD 00-9. Any further discussion? Hearing none, would you call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion carries 8-0-1 with Commissioner Estes abstaining. • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 17 LS 00-14.00: Lot Split (Hooker Construction, pp 209) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates, Inc. on behalf of Hooker Construction for property located at 1409 W. Van Asche. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.34 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.17 acres and 1.17 acres. Odom: The next item we have is LS 00-14 submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates, Inc. on behalf of Hooker Construction for property located at this area we are talking about. Staff's recommendation is for approval subject to the standard conditions listed below which is three conditions of approval. Staff, are there any further conditions of approval? Conklin: There are no further conditions of approval. Odom. Do we have a signed conditions of approval? Conklin: No we don't. Odom. I'll bring it back to the applicant for any comments or concerns with regard to the • three conditions of approval. Jorgensen: We are in agreement with all the conditions. Odom: Thank you Dave Jorgensen on behalf of the Applicant. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on the lot split? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom. Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment and bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions, comments or motions. MOTION: Shackelford: Mr. Chairman I make a motion to approve LS 00-14 subject to the three conditions of approval listed by staff. Allen: I'll second. • Odom: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and seconded by Commissioner • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 18 Allen for approval of LS 00-14. Is there any further discussion? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion carries 8-0-1 with Commissioner Estes abstaining. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 19 RZ 00-17.00: Rezoning (Damen, pp 364) was submitted by Northstar Engineering on behalf of Emad Damen for property located at 2323 Deane Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.47 acres. The request is to rezone to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Odom: The next item we have on tonight's agenda is RZ 00-17 submitted by Northstar Engineering on behalf of Emad Damen for property located at 2323 Deane Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.47 acres. The request is to rezone to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Staffs recommendation is for approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as a part of this report. Staff, any further conditions? Conklin: There are no further conditions. Odom: I would ask the applicant to come forward at this time. Scott: My name is John Scott. I'm the applicant's attorney actually. He was trying to make his way back from Neosho, Missouri and it appears he has not gotten here yet. We have a representative from Northstar who actually submitted the application so whoever you would prefer to hear from. Odom: Whoever wishes to give a presentation should you wish to do so. Scott: We really don't at this point unless there are any questions that we can address PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Any member of the audience like to address us on this rezoning request? Please come forward and state your name and address for the record. Maynard: Hi, My name is Richard Maynard and I live at 1717 Sang Avenue which is near but not adjacent to Mr. Damen's property. I also own the property where I reside. I want to start out by saying I'm not here just as a private citizen this time as I was a year ago when I came before this Commission about another rezoning issue but as President and spokesperson for the Asbell Neighborhood Association which extends from Deane Street to Wedington on the north and south with Lewis on the east and right beyond Porter almost to the bypass on the west. I mentioned this because these are not just arbitrary boarders that we decided to set up but because our membership, now 65 members and growing each week, live in all four corners of that area and we came together last fall to object to another rezoning proposition; in fact the same one. Although not the same property, the same Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 20 request of R-1 to R-2, that we felt then and feel now would change the character of our neighborhood into something we could not live with. Out of that we formed this association because we felt we needed to have a more active voice in development zoning decisions that affect our lives and our neighborhood. I did not ask for a lot of people to come tonight, Just our officers because I didn't want to waste their time. I want to say right up here, we are not here to necessarily oppose this request only that we are very concerned about it. We ask you to please, please to listen to these concerns. Whatever decision you make about any rezoning petition, no mater how small, affects those of us who live in the neighborhood in visible and, sometimes, not so visible ways. Our first concern is density. Now on the surface this petition, and the one I mentioned from last fall, would seem to be completely different, 11.5 acres as opposed to 1.5 acres, apartment complexes as opposed to a few duplexes. If that were all there was to it I would have to say this is probably a no brainer and you should approve it. Two thin lots sitting next to R-2 duplexes to the west and sitting right on top of a large development of duplexes to the south, Linda Jo Place, who could possibly object to that? But here is the problem. Once the zoning changes it changes for good and there is nothing in this petition that binds the developer or owner to do what he says he intends to do. Under R-2 zoning he can develop this property with far greater density. Far greater than would be possible than would be possible with these duplexes. In other words, he could change his mind or sell it to somebody else and they would have zoning with a lot of freedom to do what they like. Now by saying that, I am not by any means, and I want to make this clear, suggesting that there is any deception going on at all. I have no reason to believe that they are not going to do what they say they are going to do. We usually don't do things on a handshake. There is nothing to prevent them from doing that either. Our point is that certainly, anyone can do what they want with their property. In other words, as long as I meet building codes, I could paint my house pink and black if I wanted to and it would really be nobody else's business. The property is mine but the zoning is not. That is our point. It belongs to all of us and in this case I would argue it belongs primarily to those of us who live in the area. If we are asked to bend on our zoning then we would like to have some assurance that our property and our neighborhood, our homes, our quality of life, whatever, are protected. I think you get my point. This is primarily an R-1 neighborhood. And I'm going to say that because last fall that was really the basis of the argument before the City Council and the City Council agreed with us that the neighborhood was much larger than what the petitioners at that time wanted everyone to believe. That was really the basis of their decision not to grant that rezoning because it would adversely affect too many of the residents and owners. People who have lived in the neighborhood for years, sometimes 30 or 40 years and have an investment in their properties and in their homes. I don't want to • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 21 have to revisit that argument again. I hope we can accept the Council's decision that this is primarily R-1 and what happens in one section of that neighborhood does effect the entire neighborhood. Everything is connected which brings us to our second concern. Where does this stop. Now I think you know what I'm getting at What we are afraid of is losing the very thing that we fought for and organized ourselves to protect ourselves from incrementally as lot by lot comes up for rezoning each pointing to a prior decision by this Board or by the City Council as the basis of approving their requests. The density getting a little greater each time until we are getting very close to R-3, which we also have in our neighborhood. Each time we as neighbors or as an association bend and try to be reasonable and not be perceived as `aginners, we make it harder for ourselves to defend our neighborhood and it slowly becomes what other people who don't live there want it to become. As sure as I am about death and taxes, I'm equally sure that the 11.5 acre question mark right in the middle of our neighborhood is going to come up for rezoning again after November 16, after one year has elapsed. I'll talk to you privately about how I know that. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to say that now. But when that happens you can bet that they will point to your decision tonight and any other zoning decision you make in the interim concerning our neighborhood, as a precedent because they will not recognize the difference between R-2 duplexes or R-2 College Park because they don't have to. It's all the same. That is why we are hesitant to give up a little of our zoning even for something that would seem to be as harmless or even compatible with the immediate area as a few duplexes. Now we do want to be reasonable. We just want some assurance that one, any development is compatible in density with the existing neighborhood and two, this does not start a trend where we see increasing density under R-2 or under R-3 zoning. I don't think what we are asking is unreasonable. What we ask you to do is look at the big picture and all the factors including the rights and welfare of those of us who chose to live and buy the property in the Low Density family oriented R-1 neighborhood. Zoning is one of the few safeguards we have to protect our property and our quality of life. We count too and we depend on you to look out for us. Thank you. Odom: Thank you. Any other member of the audience like to address us on that issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant and to the staff. I think that Mr. Maynard has given a very eloquent presentation and has raised some concerns with regard to the density. Staff, do you want to just tell us real quickly what the difference in the density is between R-1 and R-2 so we are all clear. • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 22 Conklin: Sure. Under R-1 zoning the density allows 4 units per acre. Under R-2 zoning, Medium Density Residential it's 24 units per acre. Odom: That is a pretty significant spread. It is my understanding that the person who is doing this property has some conceptional ideas with regard to what they are going to do with it, is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. They did talk about that in their application to us. They would like to construct six additional duplex units. So twelve additional units plus the two existing houses which would be 14. I have informed the applicant of some of the concerns and questions that were asked at agenda session and did explain to them how bills of assurances do work. However, as staff, we never ask them to offer those as a condition of rezoning. Bunch: Has R-1.5 been investigated as far as how it is applicable to the conceptional design for this project? Conklin: One of the things that R-1.5 zoning requires are individual lots that meet the • frontage and area requirements similar to the situation that we saw with the Planned Unit Development on Sycamore Street for Atlas Construction. It is going to limit the density and flexibility and design if you go with R-1.5. R-2 with multifamily, if you meet the lot frontage requirement, 90 feet or more, you can go with apartments without going and creating individual lots. • Hoffman: Mr. Chair, I have a question for staff that I forgot to ask at agenda session. Would it be possible to approach this as a conditional use in the existing zoning? Conklin: No. Under R-1 you are required to have 80 feet of frontage and 12,000 square feet for each duplex so it would not meet the requirements. Hoffman: That would not be something we could specify as a condition because it's seemingly in conditional use permits those run with the land. Conklin: It's called out under our zoning ordinance and R-1 with the lot width is and what the lot area is. You would not be able to vary from that. Hoffman: Thanks. Estes: Mr. Chairman, Tim, I understand that staff does not routinely or ever recommend a bill of assurance as a condition for rezoning. With that said, would it be acceptable for the Commission to request of the applicant a bill of assurance as a • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 23 condition of approval? Conklin: No. We are not supposed to ask the applicants to do things in order to obtain rezoning. Hoover: Mr. Chair, a question for staff. Going back to the conditional use question which was also my question, I don't know the dimensions on these lots. Would you be able to get, if you are saying 80 foot frontage and they are going to have a private street here, so I'm assuming the frontage is not fronting on Deane, could that be considered fronting on the private street then? Conklin: No. It has to be on a public street. Really, their project that they have drawn on a conceptional format, it does meet the R-2 zoning in my opinion, for them to develop in that manner. Putting those units that close together and using a private drive to access those units meets R-2 zoning. Estes: Scott: Estes: Scott: Odom: Scott: Mr. Chairman, I have no disagreement with the applicants proposal that is presented to us for a total of 14 units. I am concemed about the permitted density and that would be my concern and would be a reason that I would at this point and time vote against the rezoning request. In what way was the density a problem? Are you saying as far as the proposed plan and how it fits within an R-2? The proposed density is 14 units. I have no problem with that but the permitted density is 24 units and that does concern me. Sure and I think I can represent on behalf of my client whatever it's going to take to get that across, that it is not the intention to go above 8 units which would be comprised of duplex and single family housing. I think under any scenario we would not be going above 14 on 1.5 acres. Mr. Scott, do you understand that as a Planning Commission and a staff we can not recommend that you, on behalf of your client, offer us a bill of assurance for that? That that actually has to come from you the applicant. I can tell you my client is willing to execute a bill of assurance and the question I have to some degree is what exactly the contents and who is proposing what the bill of assurance would contain. That is what I'm not exactly certain of. Odom: Typically, an applicant, you see we can't recommend this because that would be • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 24 Scott: AI-Madhoun: Odom: an abuse of our power to try to limit your use to that right, but an applicant could offer a bill of assurance not to build more than "blank" units, I guess 14 units in this instance, should the rezoning be allowed. I'm going to let the engineer speak as he seems to have something to say. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. My name is Shawki Al-Madhoun. The geometrical property really dictates no more than eight units. When I looked at the property I thought about apartments. Being so small it Just wouldn't work. The client did not really wish to have apartments. He wanted duplexes to be in line with what he has on the south side of this property. That is why we went to a private road, simply because, if it was to be dedicated as a public street, the property is only 200 foot wide. So if you have a 50 foot right-of-way then there is nothing left. It won't fit. He instructed me as late as last night, he said Shawki, this is what I want. These units that you have in there, the six, and the two existing houses. That is all we want to do. So what ever it takes to assure them we will do it. That is what I'm here on his behalf for, to assure you of that. I hear you saying eight units. AI-Madhoun: That would be the six duplexes and the two existing homes. Odom. So we are actually talking about, Tim correct me if I'm wrong, 14 units? Conklin: Odom: Fourteen units, yes. You do need to make that clear. It's 14 units on 1.47 acres which I calculate about 10 or 9.5 units per acre I think for the record, if he is offering a bill of assurance, it's 14 units on 1.47 acres. Okay. Al-Madhoun: That will only fit reasonably on the property. It won't work any other way. Odom: Scott: Hoffman: Okay. So is it my understanding then that the applicant is offering a bill of assurance for 14 units on 1.47 acres? Yes sir. Mr. Chair, the mechanics of the bill of assurance, I would Just like to make sure that we understand on both sides what that means. Does this actually get recorded on the county plat in some manner? Tied to the lot so that 50 years from now when everybody is gone away and someone else has purchased this property and • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 25 it has this R-2 zoning in 50 years, they will understand when they buy land, the title company will have a way to find out that no more units are permitted. Conklin: Yes. Once it goes to City Council and they pass the ordinance that gets attached to the ordinance and recorded at the county. We also in our office, make a note on our plat pages of these actions and what bills of assurances we do have and in the future we will be able to manage that better with our computer systems. Odom: And staff, they run with the land, not the applicant. Conklin: They run with the land. That is correct. Hoffman: Okay. That is a major concern. I know I'm not asking for the public comment to reoccur, I think we have closed the floor to public comment, right? Odom. We have closed public comment. Hoffman: It appeared to me that the gentleman speaking for the neighborhood organization • had heard of the proposed number of units and had no problem with that so... • Odom: MOTION: Well, so we are clear, this is nothing more than a recommendation to the City Council and therefore, the public will be entitled to give their comment with regard to weather or not they feel that it's acceptable or not at the City Council Meeting. Hoffman: That being said then, I'II go ahead and make a motion to approve this RZ 00-17 subject to receipt of a bill of assurance limiting development to no more than 14 units total on the two lots and that it be duly recorded. And that all other staff comments would apply. Ward: I'll second. Odom: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and a second by Commissioner Ward to approve RZ 00-17 subject to a bill of assurance and all staff comments. Is there any further comments? Would you call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion carries 9-0-0. • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 26 RZ 00-18.00: Rezoning (Holland/Osborne, pp 251) was submitted by Richard Grubbs of Arkansas Commercial Real Estate on behalf of Tommy & Jodi Holland and Richard & Mary Osborne for property located on east Appleby. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential and contains approximately 2.53 acres. The request is to rezone to R -O, Residential Office. Odom. The next item we have on tonight's agenda is RZ 00-18 submitted by Richard Grubbs of Arkansas Commercial Real Estate on behalf of Tommy & Jodi Holland and Richard & Mary Osborne for property located on east Appleby. The property is zoned R -I.5, Moderate Density Residential and contains approximately 2.53 acres. The request is to rezone to R -O, Residential Office. Staff's recommendation is for approval of the requested rezoning based upon the findings as a part of their reports. Staff, is there any further comments? Conklin: No additional comments. Odom. I will ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. • Ward: I would like to abstain on this particular issue. Odom: Commissioner Ward will be abstaining from this particular issue. Go ahead. • Grubbs: Thank you. I'm Richard Grubbs and I will be speaking on behalf of the owners of this property. I really don't have any comments right now. If you have any questions I can answer. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Any member of the audience that would like to address us on this issue? Charlie, you all have anything to share with us? You are visiting over there? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: I will close the floor to public comment and bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions or comments of the applicant. Hoffman: Mr. Chair, a question regarding screening, and it's probably in my packet and I missed it, if this rezoning is granted will screening be required between it and the R-2 neighborhood to the south? Conklin: Between non residential and residential uses we do require the screening. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 27 MOTION: Hoffman: Okay. I'll move for approval of RZ00-18 subject to staff comments. Shackelford: I'll second. Odom: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and a second by Commissioner Shackelford to approve RZ 00-18. Any further discussion? Will you call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion carries on a vote of 8-0-1 with Commissioner Ward abstaining. • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 28 AD 98-8.00: Administrative Amendment to Chapter 172 "Parking and Loading"of the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 172.01 (D)(1) "Standards for the Number of Spaces by Use - Off-street Parking" to revise the minimum required parking for eating places (restaurants) from 1 space per 200 square feet of floor area to 1 space per 4 seats plus one space per employee on the maximum shift. Odom: Item number 14, which is the next item on tonight's agenda is an Administrative Amendment to Chapter 172 "Parking and Loading"of the Unified Development Ordinance, § 172.01 (D)(1) "Standards for the Number of Spaces by Use - Off- street Parking" to revise the minimum required parking for eating places from 1 space per 200 square feet of floor area to 1 space per 4 seats plus one space per employee on the maximum shift. Staff recommends approval of the amendment to revise § 172.01(D)(1) to make the 1 space per 4 seats plus one space per employee on the maximum shift the maximum number of spaces allowed and retain the 1 spaces per 200 square feet of floor area as the minimum number of parking spaces required for eating places. Staff do you have any presentation you would like to make? • Conklin: Commissioner Marr asked about when we could look at our parking lot ordinance with regard to increasing the amount of parking allowed for restaurants. As many of you probably recall we do typically have to grant waivers over and beyond what the maximum number of parking is allowed for restaurants. I went back and looked at our April 13, 1998 Planning Commission meeting where we did discuss this item and it did not pass. The biggest concern at that time was with regard to how this would impact restaurant development in our downtown square and Dickson Street area Looking at that, I think the solution is to keep our existing parking requirements, which is 1 space for 200 square feet of floor area, and add as a maximum number the 1 space per 4 seats plus 1 space per employee on the maximum shift. That will allow restaurants in our downtown area not to have to meet the higher number of spaces that newer restaurants in our newer commercial areas are requesting. Staff is recommending approval. In approving this item it will have to go to City Council. It is only a recommendation and the City Attorney will prepare an ordinance to amend the current ordinance we have. That's all I have. • PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom. Let me ask if there is any member of the audience that would like to address us on this issue? • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 29 COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: MOTION: Marr: Hoffman: Bunch: Conklin: Hoover: Odom: Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Marr, do you want the floor or do you need an ambulance? No, I am so excited that we actually are presenting this that I'm all choked up. I'm in full support of this motion to make this change and send it to the City Council. So, I'm going to move approval of AD 98-8.00. And I'll add a hardy second to that. It sounds like a good plan. For the record, this is the recommended motion as opposed to what is described after AD 98-8? That is correct. Looking through and doing the research for staff report, I did make that change to reflect not to require the additional parking for restaurants that would be in our Dickson Street area or Square area. Mr. Chair, I have a comment. I just want to thank staff for looking carefully at this whole situation. Originally I was not for this when it came in 1998 because of the downtown area and how it would affect all that parking. I think you have done a grand job here of solving problems in the downtown and the new restaurants that are outside that area. So, I am very much in support of this. I would just like to comment that we get so many of these waiver requests on restaurants and we routinely grant them that it only makes sense to take care of this by this motion. It also does take care of the concems that were raised before so I think it is a good motion. Any further discussion? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call for the first time in the history of the Planning Commission Don Marr has a motion that passes unanimously 9-0-0. • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 30 AD 00-8.00: Administrative Item Amendment to Chapter 162 "Use Units"of the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 162.01 "Establishment and Listing" to allow additional retail uses in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District. Odom: Item number 15 on tonight's agenda is another administrative item Amendment to Chapter 162 "Use Units"of the Unified Development Ordinance, § 162.01 "Establishment and Listing" to allow additional retail uses in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District. Staff recommends approval of amendment 162.01 (0) Use Unit 15 Neighborhood Shopping Goods, of the Unified Development Ordinance, to allow the additional retail uses as listed in the staff report. 1 will just to ahead for the record and note the following uses are proposed to be added to Use Unit 15 in the retail trade it is an Antique Shop, Apparel and accessory, Clothing, Shoe, Tailoring, Bicycle Shop, Camera Shop, Hobby Shop, Jewelry, Leather Goods and Luggage, Optical Goods, Pet Shop, Radio and Television Store, Record and Tape Shop, Sporting Goods, Stationary Store, and Toy Shop. Staff, are those the only additional uses that are proposed? Conklin: Yes and the uses that are listed to be added to Use Unit 15 are being redesignated • from Use Unit 16 which is Shopping Goods. This will not change what is allowed in other commercial zoning districts. Use Unit 15 is allowed under C-2, C-3 and C-4 zoning districts. What it is doing is taking uses that are compatible in a C-1 zoning and placing them in this use unit which will make them a use by right. Part of the problem we are having in our office when new businesses are opening up or going into these C-1 neighborhood commercial shopping centers are that they don't allow the clothing sales and the antique sales. We are running into situations where we have had to in the past actually rezone it to C-2 to allow clothing sales. This will take care of that. • Odom: And in that situation it allows for much more severe type retail that goes in. Conklin: Yes. In C-2 when they apply for the C-2 rezoning we end up looking at the used car sales, gas stations, or adult entertainment type businesses and there are a lot of different uses that really are not compatible with neighborhoods. So, this will avoid having to take property from C-1 to C-2 to allow this type of uses. We have needed to do this for some time and I'm please to have it before you. Hoffman: Mr. Chair, I have a question. Eating places would be permitted in C-1 and I think are now? Conklin: Yes they are. That is unit 13. • • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 31 Hoffman: We do not have any regulation that I know of over alcoholic beverage sales but would an eating place that included those, I'm trying to make sure that an applicant would understand that an eating place could be a restaurant that served beer or wine or something like that but could not be a bar. Are we opening ourselves up to any kind of vagary by this change? It is already in there I understand. Conklin: It is already in there under use unit 13. They do allow alcohol sales. They do have to meet the standards that we have in our ordinances with regard to alcohol sales but this is not changing that. Hoffman: This doesn't change that and this is not going to be something new that we have to explain? Conklin: One thing I really looked at closely when you look at shopping centers such as. Glennwood Shopping Center on Hwy 45 and Hwy 265 where Harps Grocery Store is, that is zoned C-2. We have Cafe Santa Fe in there, you have the Chinese restaurant in there that serves alcohol. You also have other uses, a Jewelry store and directly caddy corner to that is a Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market zoned C -I. That wouldn't allow the jewelry store or the clothing store at this time. This pretty much cleans up the discrepancies between those two zoning districts without having to rezone that Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market to C-2 which would allow the used car lots and other type of uses that people have a lot of concerns with next to a neighborhood. Hoffman: Thank you. I'm fine with this list. I just want to make sure everybody is clear on what it included and what it didn't. And C-2 heavy uses are not in it. Bunch: Is our action here a recommendation to the Council? Is that what we are doing? Conklin: Yes. It is a recommendation to the City Council. This will probably go to Ordinance Review Committee then to the City Council. Odom: Should we recommend it go to the Ordinance Review Committee? Conklin: My understanding is they typically refer everything to the Ordinance Review Committee so I would contact the Chairman of that Committee, Ron Austin, and ask for him to place this on their agenda. • Odom: Okay. I don't think we need them, but if that is what the rules say, that's fine. • • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 32 Conklin: I'll check with the Chairman of the Ordinance Review Committee to see if they want to look at it first before it goes to City Council. Odom: I'd say do that otherwise it will get kicked back. Did you make a motion? MOTION: Hoffman: I didn't but I can. I have been making motions all night so I don't see why I shouldn't do it on this one. I'll recommend this be forwarded on to the appropriate Board or Commission, whether that be City Council or the Ordinance Review Committee with a specific recommendation for approval from the Planning Commission. Shackelford: I'll second. Odom: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and a second by Commissioner Shackelford for approval of AD 00-8.00. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this issue? I forgot that. Seeing none I'll close the floor and call the question. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion carries 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 33 Odom: Staff, surprisingly we are done a lot sooner than I anticipated we would be with a 15 item agenda. Are there any further items on the agenda? Conklin: There are no further items. I would like to make an announcement regarding our General Plan 2020 update subcommittee meeting schedule. I do invite the public. This is an opportunity for the public to look at our adopted plans, our General Plan 2020, our Master Street Plan, our Future Land Use Plan and participate in the process of identifying areas that we need to update. Our next meeting is on June 29, 2000 at 5:30 pm in room 326. We will be looking at the Master Street Plan and start looking at our Future Land Use Plan. Those documents are available in the Planning Division. We are open 8:00 am to 5:00 pm and we are open during lunch. You can also purchase those documents from our office. If you go to our web page we do have on there our Guiding Policies and Implementation Strategies and our Circulation Element also. I can be e-mailed at timc(u)citvmail.uark.edu and if you would like to review those or make any comments I'll be happy to get those to the Committee. I just wanted to bring that up. After June 29, 2000 our next meeting will be July 13 2000 room 326, July 20, 2000 room 326. Then I plan to take this up to the Planning Commission and then to City Council. I look forward to working with the Subcommittee and Planning Commission and the public through this process. Odom: With regard to our special meeting next Monday, June 19, 2000, I am giving consideration to having a, not an official meeting, but an agenda like session meeting at the end of the week, perhaps Friday. Conklin: Okay. Odom. I don't know how everybody else feels about that but it might be good just so we can all sort of get ready for the issues. I know the staff is going to be handing us an enormous amount of material probably to review on the weekend and I think it might be good to have that sometime Friday afternoon. Does anybody have any problem with that? Hoffman: I would just like to say Friday is good for me and remind you I will be out of town Thursday for Subdivision Committee. If everybody else can make it on Friday I can. Odom: I don't want a super long meeting but I definitely want to make sure we are all primed and understand what we are going to be doing on Monday night. Conklin: Would you like to have that at 3:30 or earlier? • • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 34 Odom: 3:30 is fine. Conklin: I will verify with the City Clerk that room 111 is open and do a press release. Odom. Yes. Notify those people out there. Marr: Do you know when we will get that information because I am out of town Friday and I would like to have it for the weekend. Shackelford: I am also out of town Thursday and Friday and need to make arrangements to get that information. Odom: I want to make it clear that this isn't a special meeting where we will be making any official actions or anything like that. It's just for those who want to attend. Conklin: This agenda session, you are looking for staff to give you information regarding appeals that may have been turned into our office as of this Thursday at close and any information that we talked about at the last agenda session. And I guess, Commissioner Shackelford and Marr, do you want us to drop it off at your house or hand deliver it, just let us know and we will get it to you. Odom. If nothing further the meeting is adjourned. Meeting adjourned at 6:50 pm. • • • (,' onses fl5einda. friiv.wt-es 5 -z2 -c° L sr) QC -II -0O T z CSO—go v4 -D cx - f Lim Do - 7. io vFt 00 -LI 04 co -5 VR. 0°-co MOTION f -lo rya ,, L.5hac Lei -RD rd SECOND (ADIA R-0 4LoWrvo n D. Bunch Y y Y B. Estes Y 4 y L. Hoffman y Y Y S. Hoover 1 y Y N. Allen y Y D. Marr Y y i C. Odom y '1 y Shackelford Y y y L. Ward 7 `I y ACTION VOTE q_o -p q -d -O q - o -o • • • Ccc_ vo 13 �s� oo-9 1-5 oo -14 MOTION TR unot Bu.Ac..h cSitiCtoQ-n1 SECOND :styr,kcal (4 5 hoe ke(or�l A-Ilen D. Bunch Y v � B. Estes 1 A bp /1 L b 4 i'1-0.1 n //1� L is I Ar he -i4 -a_( o 0,:kn L. Hoffman )[ Y ¥ S. Hoover y I y N. Allen 1 Y y D. Marr '9 1 y C. Odom V 11 Y Shackelford y 7 y L. Ward y y V ACTION VOTE g- D _ 1 3-0 - l -0 —i • • • • kZ oo-11 R 00-iB 40 93, U.00 MOTION poPTman HocTrnan f la.i r SECOND (tea rd 5 her LeiVo(cl 4JoPFina n D. BunchY 1 1 B. Estes ] 1 Y L. Hoffman Y y y S. Hoover y Y 7 N. Allen 1 y Y D. Marr Y 1 y C. Odom 1 1 Y Shackelford y y i L. Ward v 14 ba}cz4-1 1 ACTION VOTE 9 -o -o 8.-0-1 9-0-0 • • • • On- g• MOTION tfn I' Minn - n SECOND rkPI crn rcl D. Bunch 1 B. Estes / L. Hoffman 1 S. Hoover y N. Allen y D. Marr 1 C. Odom y Shackelford 7 L. Ward Y ACTION VOTE g_ o _o