Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-06-26 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on June 26, 2000 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Approval of Minutes LS 00-18.00: Lot Split (Anders/Bryan, pp 141) LS 00-17.00: Lot Split (Gladden, pp 167) LSD 00-12.00: Large Scale Development (Gary Hampton Parking, pp 245) RZ 00-19.00: Rezoning (Sage House, pp 247 RZA 00-2.00: Annexation (St. Joseph's Church, pp 373) AD 00-18.00: Administrative Amendment AD 00-22.00: Administrative Item (The Mill District, pp 523) AD 00-23.00: Administrative Item (The Mill District, pp 523) MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Don Bunch Bob Estes Lorel Hoffman Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Ron Petrie Kim Rogers Eric Schuldt Diana Varner ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Removed by Applicant Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Sharon Hoover Don Marr STAFF ABSENT None Planning Commission Minutes • June 26, 2000 Page 2 • • CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES and LS 00-18.00: Lot Split (Anders/Bryan, pp 141) was submitted by Patricia Anders for property located at 4650 E. Gulley Road The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 5.33 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 4 33 acres and 1 acre. Odom: Good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the June 26, 2000 meeting of the Planning Commission. The first thing I want to bring to your attention before we begin the meeting tonight is that Item 7 on the agenda which is AD 00-22.00 submitted by Tom Bourdeaux of Town Creek Builders on behalf of Mill District LLC for property located at the northwest comer of west 6`h Street and south School Avenue has been pulled. That item will not be discussed at tonight's meeting. There is however an item that is related to that that will be talked about tonight and that's Item 8 on tonight's agenda AD 00-23.00. To begin tonight's agenda we have the consent agenda which are items that will be approved without a discussion unless a member of the audience or Planning Commission wishes to pull one of these items from the consent agenda. The first item is the approval of the minutes of the June 12, 2000 meeting and the other item is LS 00-18.00: Lot Split submitted by Patricia Anders for property located at 4650 E. Gulley Road The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 5.33 acres The request is to split into two tracts of 4.33 acres and 1 acre Does any member of the audience or Planning Commission wish to pull these items from the consent agenda? Seeing none I'll ask that you call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the consent agenda was approved 7-0-0. Planning Commission Minutes • June 26, 2000 Page 3 • • LS 00-17.00: Lot Split (Gladden, pp 167) was submitted by George Faucette on behalf of Jo Ann Gladden for property located at Howard Nickell Road and Salem Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 70 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 40 acres and 30 acres. Odom. The first item on tonight's agenda is a lot split submitted by George Faucette on behalf of Jo Ann Gladden for property located at Howard Nickell Road and Salem Road The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 70 acres The request is to split into two tracts of 40 acres and 30 acres. Staff's recommendation is for approval subject to four conditions of approval. The first is dedication of 45 feet of right-of-way along the west boundary of Tract B for the future extension of Salem Road, which is a minor arterial and requires 90 feet of right-of-way and dedication of 110 feet of right of way centered on the lot split line for the extension of Howard Nickell Road, principal arterial, as shown on the Master Street Plan. Please note that the applicant is requesting in lieu of the 45 feet right-of-way dedication for Salem Road, a lesser dedication of 25 feet and is requesting in lieu of the 110 feet of right-of-way dedication on Howard Nickell Road a lesser dedication of 50 feet be accepted with a covenant restriction that prohibits structures within the future Master Street Plan right-of-way. Staff is recommending that the applicant be required to dedicate the right-of-way pursuant to § 156D.1.a.(3) of the Unified Development Ordinance requiring Master Street Plan dedication and to be consistent with the dedication that was required of the adjacent property owner to the east of Tract B, which was LS 98-20. Any lesser dedication must be approved by the City Council. The second recommendation is that if a lesser dedication is accepted, Staff recommends that it only apply to this lot split as well as one additional lot split of the 40 acre tract. That all subdivisions and further lot splits shall be viewed independently as to the Master Street Plan requirements. Third, a permit is issued by the Arkansas Department of Health for an individual sewage disposal system. Fourth, proof of the Arkansas Department of Health permit for an individual sewage disposal system shall be provided to the Planning Division prior to the lot split being filed. Fifth, that the Plat Review and Subdivision comments, to include the written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. Sixth, staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations, where applicable, for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, both public and private, 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. Staff, are there any further conditions of approval? • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 Page 4 Conklin: Odom: Conklin: Odom: Bunch: Odom: Bunch: Odom: Conklin: Odom: Faucette: Chairman Odom, I would like to make one correction with condition 1. It should refer to Rupple Road extension not Salem Road extension so that does need to be corrected. Salem Road needs to be Rupple Road. One other comment with regard to Mr. Tom Cocker who is referred to in Mr. Faucette's letter, that is Dr. Tom Cocker who is a prospective purchaser of one of these lots. I just wanted to make that one point. I would ask the applicant to come forward at this time. Mr. Chairman? Yes Commissioner Bunch. Due to a business relationship with one of the prospective purchasers I will be abstaining from this issue. Also, at the Subdivision Committee I was unaware of the potential purchasers and I did participate in a vote there. My vote at that time was to forward this to the full Commission. Okay. Thank you Commissioner. Mr. Faucette I will note that there are 2 Commissioners absent and one Commissioner has noted that they are going to abstain and that you need five votes on a lot split or just a majority? Just a majority of those present. So, you don't have as many of us as you normally do but you only need four of us. Okay. I'll go ahead. Thank you for advising me of that. Chairman Odom and Commissioners thank you for hearing this request tonight. I know you have my letter of explanation so I promise you to be brief. I'm sensitive to the time you all spend on the Commission. Let me again state my objective of being here and of my request. You know that City Council has to ultimately approve any action you take, at least regarding this dedication. So, my objective in presenting the facts tonight is to have you all recommend favorably to the City Council that they consider not requiring the entire dedication for these two streets. Let me again emphasize what it is not. It is not a request to change the Master Street Plan. It is very simply, as Chairman Odom read in the letter, a wish to reduce the requirement for the 110 foot arterial that would go east to west and the minor Planning Commission Minutes • June 26, 2000 Page 5 • • arterial that would go north to south after it turns south on, I guess, what would be Rupple Road ultimately. Those 50 foot dedications are consistent with requirements for residential streets, fully improved residential streets in the county and, as a matter of fact, in the City of Fayetteville too. Additionally, as again Chairman Odom suggested, we are offering a bill of assurance or deed restriction that would mandate that no additional buildings could be built in the entire principal or minor arterial as defined by the Master Street Plan. The reason for that is that if the city ever, down the road somewhere, whether it's 10, 40 years, whatever it is, decides that in fact this needs to be what is defined now, that the taking for compensation at that point would not have to include any structures. It would only be the land. Again, the provision would hold true not only for this split but for one more split of the north 40 into tracts that would be no less than 15 acres. In the ordinance in D,1,a,1 (3) it talks about dedication of Master Street Plan. It says very clearly that the City Planner shall not waive the preliminary and final plat requirements of this chapter for a proposed subdivision until the subdivider dedicates sufficient right-of-way etc.... It further says however, provided the Planning Commission may approve a lesser dedication in the event of undue hardship or practical difficulties. Such lesser dedication shall be subject to approval by the City Council. In my opinion the hardship in this case is manifested in three ways. The first has to do with the faimess with regard to notices in the providing of city services to residents in the growth area. When this Master Street Plan was adopted in 1995 absolutely no direct notice was given to any of these landowners affected, as I'm sure none in the Growth Area of the City was. The only way these folks could have learned about it was to have read legal notices and or news stories in the local newspapers. I would suggest to you that even if folks see a news story headline in the Times or the Morning News or whatever that says City of Fayetteville Master Street Plan is going to be discussed at public hearing, there is little chance that people in the county will take notice because they don't consider themselves subject to city regulations. They consider themselves residents of the county and they are not subject to those regulations nor are they the recipients of city services, water, fire, police protection. The historical perspective is that the city business is for the people who live inside the city. So, for all intents and purposes, these folks as well as others in the Growth Area had minimal chance for input into this Master Street Plan when it was adopted, and in this case very dramatically adopted. I'd also submit to you that the situation is grossly different from most of the effects of Master Street Plan definitions within the city. Most of those, not all certainly but many of those, lie on existing developed city streets. So, if the city decides to widen or otherwise improve that street, they can do so and they can take the land but they have to compensate the landowner for it. A second factor has to do with what I think I understand is the theory of nexus. Last week at your meeting I chose to beat Planning Commission Minutes • June 26, 2000 Page 6 • • myself up by watching all five and a half hours if it on TV and I applaud you for your patience in doing that. But during the meeting Commissioner Estes mentioned the theory of nexus when he was, I think, discussing whether all the folks that submitted the appeal had standing to do so, was there a connection between what they were trying to do in the appeal of the Grading Permit. So, as I understand it a nexus is a tie, link or connection from one thing to another and as I interpret nexus as it applies to planning, it is will the requested split create enough additional use or load on infrastructure or other factors to consider the taking, again, without compensation. This particular request is to take a 70 acre parcel and to divide it into three parcels an average of 23 acres per parcel. Again, I would ask does that warrant the taking of the full arterial? And lastly, I mentioned a couple of times, has to do with compensation. This represents about 4.25 acres worth of land as defined and based upon the value of that land under contract and some value for the house that's over $80,000.00 that is a loss. Secondly, and getting close to lastly, is the dedication even necessary? As you know from the Master Street Plan, from the little map that I included with the packet that you all have, at the point that Howard Nickell Road currently ends Salem Road turns south and is improved either fully or partially all the way to Mount Comfort Road. It is now the traffic route that people take to go to schools or whatever. The Master Street Plan is drawn to contemplate over 1.7 miles of new road from the point that Howard Nickell ends at Salem to the point that it would connect back at Mount Comfort Road presumably Rupple at that point and of that there is .25 mile that is marginally improved gravel road and about .02 that is improved to go to the new school. So that is in excess of 1.25 miles of completely new road that would have to be done if this street went in. Combined with the fact that the city's Growth Area where this proposed Howard Nickell Road ends and turns south, northwest of that point is outside of the Growth Area. So, this is at the extreme northwest corner of the city's defined Growth Area at present. I would ask you why cause a taking when it would cause a road to break new ground when an improved road exists and in all likelihood future street patterns might dictate that that road be the one used. Tim mentioned to you a president in the immediate vicinity, that lot split and I think Chairman Odom read it, and I would submit to you that it is significantly different from this request in that it was a 2.5 acre parcel divided into 2 lots. And in two one acre parcels is grossly different density from 23 acre parcels which is the average that this request would result in. There is a third president 1 mentioned in my letter. In 1997 almost the exact same situation occurred northeast of the Fayetteville city limits on Gulley Road. It was also in the Growth Area. There was a 90 foot minor arterial that was shown directly through the heart of a 60 acre tract that was being split. In that situation the City Council did not take any lands. They did require the mandate of no structures. They felt like who knows down the road if Planning Commission Minutes • June 26, 2000 Page 7 • this was fair to take them. I can't tell you what was in their minds exactly, but my guess is that they felt it was not a fair taking given the likelihood of that road being developed. Your recommendation to the Council is not out of, in my opinion and my own experience, the historical character or practice of the Planning Commission. In times past your body has been called to make calls between the lines, so to speak, of things that seem fair and reasonable in light of the request I would submit to you that this is a reasonable solution and fair solution and no one loses. I believe it's win, win not only for the residents and or future resident of the city in this case but also for the city's need to justly support people's property rights. That's all I'm going to say. I want to thank you for reading my four page letter and for listening to me tonight. I'd be happy to answer any questions and I would like to reserve the right to respond to any comments made by either the public or the Commissioners. Odom: Mr. Faucette, what we will do at this time is take public comment then come back to questions and you will be given the opportunity to respond. Faucette: Thank you. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Let me ask if there is any member of the audience that would like to address us on this lot split request? Would you please come forward at this time. Bailey: Yes, my name is Scott Bailey and 1 just wanted to make sure that, I'm looking at the top 40 acres there and we are not planning to go in there and put 80 half acre lots in there. A friend and I are going to split that, probably 25 and 15 acres each and put an estate on there so we can have some horses and things like that. There won't be a high traffic area from the north 40 of that area for sure. I just wanted to let those intentions be made known. Odom: Thank you Dr. Bailey. Bailey: Thank you. Odom. Any other member of the audience like to address us on this issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the applicant and the Planning Commission for • questions or comments of the applicant or staff. Staff, I'm just going to go ahead Planning Commission Minutes • June 26, 2000 Page 8 • • and chime in here and ask you if you could give us an understanding of what the applicant is wanting to do and what kind of effect that has. Does it run with the land? How long does it last? What are the practicalities of what they are proposing? Conklin: With regard to what they are proposing, they have 70 acres of land. They would like to split it into a 40 acre tract and a 30 acre tract. Their proposal is to require or offer a lesser dedication of right-of-way. That's 50 feet of right-of-way through the center of this property and then 25 feet of right-of-way along the westem boundary line. They also have offered to place a deed restriction to make sure no homes or structures are built within the remaining area that we would need if we build this principal arterial and minor arterial on this property. What effect that has with regard to the city, if we had the right of way now we would not have to acquire it in the future. With regard to making sure structures are not built on it, as long as we keep up the deed restriction and make sure that any homes or structures built out there are not within this area that can also achieve the same purpose. However, the county does not have building permits and it would be difficult to try to keep up with trying to make sure nothing does get built within this easement area. That is pretty much how I view it. Once again the ordinance requires the City Planner to get the right-of-way at the time of this lot split. Typically you would not see a lot split this size before the Planning Commission. The applicant has requested this lesser dedication be submitted to you and then that will have to go to the City Council for approval Odom: Tim, if what Scott Bailey says he wants to do, let's say we do this and he get's killed in a plane crash tomorrow and someone comes and buys the property and puts 1000 duplexes on there, that actually has to come back before us for a large scale development or would it out in the county? Conklin: Yes Anything over an acre or if he does a subdivision would have to come back before the Planning Commission. What I'm trying to do is try to make sure we are consistent with what we are requiring of developers. Our ordinances require that anytime they adjoin a Master Street Plan or our Master Street Plan goes through their property that we do get this right of way. So, with regard to if something happens in the future, what we have put as condition 2 in our staff report, if the Commission would like to entertain an option to dedicate just 50 feet of right-of-way, staff has a condition that we recommend that it only apply to this lot split and the one additional lot split on the north 40 acre tract. That way any additional lot splits or subdivisions or Targe scale developments, we could look at requiring that additional right-of-way that is required under our Master Street Plan. I don't want to give everything up, I don't want the Commission to give • • Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 Page 9 everything up forever into the future. I would like to make sure that if we do decide to accept something less it only applies to this lot split and the future lot split on that north 40 tract. Odom. So we would have an opportunity in the future to get this dedication if something else came back before us then? Conklin: Sure. Ward: Mr. Chairman? Odom. Commissioner Ward. Ward: Tim, how does the structure out there now, as far as the 110 foot right-of-way, how does that effect that? Conklin: It does impact that structure. With regard to our Master Street Plan we havebeen flexible in the past with regard to moving it back and forth to avoid structures. I'm not recommending we take the 110 feet of right-of-way through the existing house. It would be pushed further to the south and avoid that structure. That is something that, if we do require the 110 feet of right of way, not keep it directly in that straight line but try to avoid that structure. Even with 50 foot of right of way we need to take a look at where exactly we would want that to avoid that house. Odom: Mr. Faucette could I ask you to come back to the podium please. What you are essentially doing is saying we are going to agree not to build on what you want but we are only going to give you half of what you are asking for at this time. What is the purpose behind that if you are not going to be building anything on it or using it? What's the purpose in not just going ahead and taking the full dedication at this time? Faucette: To have the use of the land for one. And two, just the basic feeling that it's not right to take it if you aren't going to need it without paying for it. So, it's a value loss to the people both the buyers and the sellers. Hoffman: Mr. Chairman: Odom: Commissioner go ahead. Hoffman: If I understood, and I'd like to address this to Mr. Faucette, if I understood Tim • correctly, further subdivision of the property could be taken at a later date and not, Planning Commission Minutes • June 26, 2000 Page 10 • if a subdivision came through for an additional part of this tract, that that could be essentially taken at that time. So, it's either, sounds like now or later. I'm not sure that you understand. Faucette: I do understand that if someone comes back later and wants to take the 30 acres and divide it into a bunch of lots then the Planning Commission has the right at that point to say yes we want the entire right-of-way. Hoffman: And there is no restitution for that though? Faucette: No. If they want to get their subdivision approved they dedicate, right. That's correct. Hoffman: So, I'm having trouble envisioning a scenario, if we do, I'm not terribly opposed to the lesser dedication if we do have a method in place to eventually take that land if it's needed. If this is going to be a low density development for a large estate for horses, we don't need the road at this time. But later on I'd like to have the assurance that if we do have density out there that we get the proper amount of land. Odom: The only potential problem that I see with it is that if, let's Just say that these farms stay out there for 100 years and development continues all around them, what's the status of it at that point in time? Then we don't have the right-of-way for the road to extend through when it's needed. Is that the only drawback of it really? Conklin: Yes. The city would have to go out and acquire the additional right-of-way. Faucette: Chairman Odom, that being the case the road might not be needed. If it stayed a large 30, 40, 50 acre farms then maybe there is no need for the principal arterial. Estes: Mr. Chairman? Odom: Commissioner Estes. Estes: If I'm analyzing this correctly what I see is if the proposed extension west of Howard Nickell Road was made today the present owner would require compensation to avoid a 51h amendment regulatory taking. What is before us this evening is that this applicant is proposing a 50 foot street dedication. They are going to dedicate that to the city without cost. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 Page 11 Faucette: Estes: Ward: Odom: MOTION: Ward: Estes: Odom: Estes: Odom. Estes: Right. Should there be other large scale developments to come before this Commission we would review the need for additional right-of-way at that time. If there was an extension of Howard Nickell Road west today there would be required compensation for the taking to avoid the 5th amendment regulatory taking. What this applicant proposes is to make the 50 foot street dedication. This applicant also is proposing to agree not to build any structures on the additional right-of- way so that in the event it is necessary for there to be a 5'h amendment taking, which would be at a cost to the city, it would not include the cost of the structures placed in the right of way. It's for those reasons that I would support the requested lot split. Mr. Chair? Commissioner Ward. I'll go ahead and make a motion and we can go from there. I make a motion that we approve LS 00-17 and that we will keep the 45 feet of right-of-way along the west boundary of tract B and give a variance because of undue hardship for a 50 foot taking of right of way and allowing 60 feet to be left encumbered and with the restrictive covenants placed on it to allow no construction of anything on that property until, forever, and with all other staff comments. Mr. Chairman. Yes. With the addition that all subdivisions and further lot splits will be reviewed independently as to the Master Street Plan requirements, I'll second the motion. Isn't that incorporated in Staff's recommendations? Yes. I just want to make that very clear that that is there and is a condition of my second. Odom. We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second with clarity by Commissioner Estes. Planning Commission Minutes • June 26, 2000 Page 12 • Conklin: Mr. Chairman. Odom: Yes. Conklin: Does that include that the applicant will be allowed to split the north 40 tract one more time without this issue coming back before the Planning Commission? Odom: It's my understanding that that was your understanding. Conklin: Okay. Yes. Just want to make sure that is clear. Hoffman: Mr. Chair. Odom: Yes. Hoffman: One additional question. With regard to building the structures out of the right- of-way, can we include that to incorporate required setbacks so we don't create nonconforming structures? Is there any way to know what the front setback would be? Is it 25 feet typically? Conklin: The setbacks would differ. We would have to pick a certain zoning district inside the city that we might want to use. Hoffman: Say R-1. Conklin: Okay. We can look at that. Hoffman: Is that something that you would be agreeable to? Faucette: Sure. That would be fine. Hoffman: I would like to include that as a friendly amendment to the motion if possible. Ward: I'll accept that. Odom: I don't even know what it is that you are asking. Hoffman: Just in regard to the main motion that, is it item 2 that if a lesser dedication, where is the part about not building in the right of way? • Odom: It's in the first part of the motion. Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 Page 13 Hoffman: Well, incorporating in that motion then, please just add that no structures would be built in the right-of-way nor within 25 feet of that right-of-way. Faucette: Can I clarify, that is 25 feet of the 110. Hoffman: Of the 110. Odom: Of the 110. Faucette: And Lee, if I understand your motion, you are in fact recommending that 50 foot be requested but you want the full 45 on the west side of the south 30 acres? Ward: Right. Conklin: Mr. Chairman. Odom: Yes. Conklin: Then we would be looking at an additional 25 feet beyond the 110 for setbacks of any structures. Faucette: That's what I understood Commissioner Hoffman to say. Hoffman: Yes. If that's agreeable to everybody I'd like to add that. Odom: Okay. Is there any further discussion? We typically don't go back on public comment but Scott, real quick, what you got? Bailey: I Just wanted to make sure, there is an existing house that will be in the 110 that you said that you all would go ahead and go south of, I just wanted to make sure everybody knew there is already a house there. Okay. Odom: Staff does typically work with applicants with regard to where the exact right-of- way is going to be and so forth. Any further discussion? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call, the motion carries on a vote of 6-0-1 with Commissioner Bunch abstaining. Planning Commission Minutes • June 26, 2000 Page 14 LSD 00-12.00: Large Scale Development (Gary Hampton Parking, pp 245) was submitted by Charlie Venable on behalf of The City of Fayetteville for property located at 2790 N. Salem Road. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional and contains approximately 8.23 acres. The request is for an additional lot containing a 147 parking spaces. Odom. The next item on tonight's agenda is actually listed as item 3 LSD 00-12.00: Large Scale Development (Gary Hampton Parking, pp 245) was submitted by Charlie Venable on behalf of The City of Fayetteville for property located at 2790 N. Salem Road The property is zoned P-1, Institutional and contains approximately 8.23 acres. The request is for an additional lot containing a 147 parking spaces. Staff's recommendation is approval subject to 5 conditions of approval. I would ask the applicant to come 'forward at this time. Staff is there any further conditions of approval besides the 5 that are listed? Conklin: There are no further additional conditions of approval and we do have signed conditions. Odom: Eric do you want to come up to the podium and tell us who you are for the record? • Schuldt: Eric Schuldt, I work in the Parks and Recreation Division. Kim Rogers is here also with the Parks and Recreation Division to answer any questions you all have. Basically we built a wonderful new softball complex named Gary Hampton. We opened it up a couple of months ago and have had parking problems ever since we opened the facility. We have an unique relationship in that we are located adjacent to a public school and we share parking. With all of the activities going on at the school and in our complex there just aren't enough parking spaces. We are seeing people park on the sidewalks, in the grass, in the entrance to the facility, just about anywhere they can. This past weekend we had a tournament out there plus there was a basketball tournament at the Holcomb gymnasium next door and that caused parking problems. We are requesting to build, I believe it says 147 but I believe in Subdivision they changed that to 157 spaces. You might want to double check that, I'm not sure that is correct. City Council approved our budget adjustment for that project at the last City Council meeting. We will be happy to answer any questions. • PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Let me do this. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this request? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 Page 15 Odom: Seeing none I'll bring it back to Eric and the Planning Commission for questions or comments. I want everybody to note that part of this is a variance request with regard to parking lot ordinance requiring one tree for every twelve spaces. Instead they are going to be doing it around the perimeter, is that correct? Schuldt: That is correct. One of the reasons we are doing that is the school is in the process of leasing us the land to build the parking lot on. One of the things they would like to see out of the parking lot is the opportunity to use it for recreational purposes. They have a play space located behind the school that they use for physical education classes and playground. That gets wet a lot of times. It's a very saturated wet soil area so they can't use that and they would like to use the parking lot areas. We've agreed to put a gate at the entrance to this facility so that during school hours that parking lot could be used by the school for recreational purposes. We would also use it for recreational purposes by putting up some basketball goals and such. Odom: Commissioners, any questions or comments? Staff anything further? Conklin: Mr. Chair, I do want to point out that the Parks and Recreation Division did submit a letter on page 3.3 regarding how the parking is calculated. They are basing their parking on the estimated number of people that will be at this facility. If you look at the peak times during tournaments they are estimating at one time they can have as many as 2, 116 people at this facility. That translates into 529 parking spaces. I bring this up because we do have to use that ratio in our parking lot ordinance with regard to how many spaces they can have minimum and maximum and I relied on the Parks and Recreation Division to come up with that number. One other point I would like to make is that this parking lot will be approximately 50 feet to the west of Crystal Springs Phase II. They are proposing a 6 foot high combination berm with landscaping. That is a setback that's required. This is an unlighted parking lot and that will help mitigate the parking lot from those future single family homes to the east. Estes: Mr. Chairman. Odom. Commissioner Estes: MOTION: Estes: I know both from personal experience and from communication with constituents that there is a compelling need for additional parking at the Gary Hampton Softball Complex. The variance that's been requested complies with and is • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 Page 16 Allen: Odom: Shackelford: Odom: Shackelford: Petrie. requested by reason of Holcomb Elementary School wanting to utilize the parking lot for physical education and recess during wet conditions. That together with the matters that Mr. Conklin has just mentioned lead me to support the requested large scale development and it's for that reason that I would move that we approve LSD 00-12.00 subject to all conditions of approval which I understand have been signed and accepted by the applicant. I'll second. We have a motion by Commissioner Estes and second by Commissioner Allen. Any further discussions? Mr. Chair. Yes Commissioner Shackelford. Question for staff Just for clarification. Are we talking 147 or 157 spaces as the applicant mentioned? It should be 157. It's shown correctly on the plan but we didn't change it on the report. Shackelford: Thank you Odom: Any further discussion? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion passes on a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission Minutes • June 26, 2000 Page 17 • RZ 00-19.00: Rezoning (Sage House, pp 247) was submitted by the Community Development Division on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located west of Deane Solomon Road, north of Moore Lane and south of west Salem Road. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 2.715 acres. The request is to rezone to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Odom. The next item on tonight's agenda is RZ 00-19.00: Rezoning (Sage House, pp 247) submitted by the Community Development Division on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located west of Deane Solomon Road, north of Moore Lane and south of west Salem Road. The property is zoned 1-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 2.715 acres. The request is to rezone to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Staff's recommendation is approval of the request for rezoning based upon the findings as a part of their report. Staff, is there anything further? Conklin: There is nothing further. This is a request for rezoning from 1-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial to R-2. The request is to be able to build 15 apartment units on this property. Directly to the north of this, Children's House will be looking at locating on this property also. That is zoned I-1. It's a use by right to have a child care facility, however, I did feel like having this apartment building at this location that it truly was a multi family use and therefore it needed to be rezoned to R-2. That's all I have. Odom: Thank you. Is there any member of the staff that's going to make a presentation or is that pretty much it? Conklin: That's pretty much it. I can answer any questions that you have. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Let me ask if there is any member of the audience that would like to address us on this rezoning request? 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: Hoffman: Mr. Chair. Planning Commission Minutes • June 26, 2000 Page 18 • • Odom. Yes Commissioner. Go ahead. Hoffman: I'm going to go ahead and move approval of RZ 00-19 for the reasons that this is a down zoning. I believe it will, in the end, not generate as much traffic as possible development in I-1. In addition we had had some concerns that the property might be located in the wetland area. We have been provided with a map by staff that shows the property to be north and outside of that wetland area. In addition when Phase II of the high-tech park is built we will have an additional road to get us out off of Deane Solomon away from Mount Comfort Road in the way of going down Technology to Digital Way and eventually winding your way up to I-540. So for those reasons I'll go ahead and make that motion for approval subject to all staff comments. Shackelford: I'll second. Odom: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and a second by Commissioner Shackelford to approve RZ 00-19. Any further discussion? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion carries on a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 Page 19 RZA 00-2.00: Annexation (St. Joseph's Church, pp 373) was submitted by Candy R. Burton of Phillips Law Firm on behalf of St. Joseph's Catholic Church for property located on Starr Drive. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 18.59 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Odom: The next item we have on tonight's agenda is RZA 00-2.00: Annexation (St. Joseph's Church, pp 373) was submitted by Candy R. Burton of Phillips Law Firm on behalf of St. Joseph's Catholic Church for property located on Starr Drive. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 18.59 acres The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation based upon their report. I'd ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. Staff are there any further comments? Conklin: No further comments. Burton: I'm Candy Burton and I represent St. Joseph's Church in this annexation. I would just like to point out that most of the property that is contiguous to this property is already annexed into the city and we request that this 18 acres be annexed into the city. Odom: Let me ask if there is any member of the audience that would like to address us on this annexation request to please come forward at this time. Israel: I'm Ben Israel and I reside at 1501 Starr Road. We are extremely excited about the church being out there. We think they will make a great neighbor and we are in favor of it happening but I just wanted to point out some things that we feel like are extremely important and vital. As you know you approved the Crossroads Village Shopping Center at about 100,000 square feet, the Kantz Plaza of 100,000 square feet all within a mile of this property. You've approved and built Vandergriff Elementary School which houses 455 students, a new Middle School opens this fall with 600 students and of course the catholic church and school will be out there. We have new housing developments of Barrington Place, Covington Park, Timber Crest and Ridgemont View all of which are within a mile or mile and a half of this property and yet nothing has been done to handle the east -west traffic on Highway 45. If I pull out of Starr Road at 8:00 a.m. it may be 3 light changes before 1 can get onto Hwy 45. Do you know where Starr Road is? Have you been down Starr Road lately? There is another problem in that Starr Road is half owned by the county and half owned by the city. Half of Starr Road has curb and gutter and the other half has nothing. It's pot holes and shoulder. There is one point of Starr Road right in front of the subject property that's 15 feet wide. Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 Page 20 If I was a developer and wanted to put in a street 15 foot wide you would make me make it one way and yet the city gets by with having a 15 foot wide street. Two cars meeting, in fact I've lost 2 mirrors and 1 telephone antenna because at that point where it's 15 foot wide the trees are grown in so close to the road that if you meet a car you either force them into the ditch or sacrifice the right side of your car. We've lived with this for several years. Mayor Fred Hanna told me when I moved out there five years ago that Starr Road was going to be upgraded real soon. The county in maintaining the road, every 7 years comes by and puts gravel and oil on it and they claim that that's their rejuvenation of the road. Of course they cover by the city road too in doing that and so what we wind up with is a gravel oily mess in our ditches for about six months and then we are back to the same road we had previously. There is also a really dangerous dip just before the subject property. There at the old Indian Spring. If you come through there it's a real low dip and then you immediately climb a hill and just as you crest the hill there's a road that comes in from Sequoyah Woods and there have been numerous wrecks at that intersection. At the end of that drive, right before you approach my farm there is a 90° tum that probably five times a year somebody doesn't make. I've pulled three of them out of the ditch there myself in trying to help them. So, we are thrilled that the church is going to come out there and there is going to be another school there but we thing there has got to be some way that we can get out of our drives and out of our parking lots and meet another automobile on that street without the complications that we have. There are no sidewalks there. We believe there has got to be a turn lane into the school. At least do to Starr Road what was done at Hwy 265, that is, provide a turn lane to allow us to bypass the traffic as it's stopped going into the school. I believe the street has to be widened to code, at least 27 to 30 feet. It's only 15 feet in some spots. Right now it's an uneven street. With the county owning half they don't have the same depth of street that the city requires and so the asphalt goes to the middle and then it drops off about an inch an a half so if you happen to hit that particular ridge in the street, your car might jump 2 or 3 inches to the side and you are totally unaware that it's about to happen. I don't know what else to say. We want the church and school but we've got to have a better road if they are going to be there. We can't now exist on the road very easily. I'm surprised that there hasn't been somebody here fussing about it before. I would encourage you to go out and drive it and try to meet a dump truck at some of those intersections. Directly in front of my house if I meet another car, l have to drop off into a ditch in order to get by them. There are some points that mailboxes stick out so far into the street that you have to stop and allow another car to go by before you can get around it. So, I would encourage you to go look at it. I would encourage you to approve all of what they are asking you to do but we have a mess out there. Thank you. Planning Commission Minutes • June 26, 2000 Page 21 • • Odom: Thank you Mr. Israel. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address us on this request? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom. Seeing none I'II close the floor to public comment and bring it back to the Planning Commission. Staff, Mr. Israel has done a very good job of speaking against something that he supports. He makes a very good point in that there are some bad infrastructure problems out there. It's my understanding that the applicant has been made aware of those. Do you want to address that real quickly? Conklin: I met twice with the applicant. We have made it clear to them that when they do come in with the large scale development and conditional use for a church and school at this site that street improvements will have to be made in order for staff to support this project. We've had some preliminary discussions on what those improvements would entail and we do want to make sure that the street is adequate for two directions of traffic. They are aware of that and as we bring this project to you we will be making recommendations. It is interesting that the improvements that we are asking the church to make will be located in the county and not the city. That's somewhat different from what we have required in the past but we have made it clear that they will have to do improvements outside the city limits going to the north in order to have this project come forward. Odom: And, of course, this is just a recommendation to the City Council. I encourage those comments, of course, they will have our Planning Commission notes but I'm sure, Mr. Israel, you know the process is to go to the City Council and I would encourage those comments there as well. Commissioner Estes. Estes: Mr. Chairman 1 have a question for staff. I fully appreciate and understand that the Planning Commission is not in the business of building streets and roads but looking at our Master Street Plan I see that Starr Drive is designated a collector street. We've got the Barrington Park Subdivision, Sequoyah Woods, and Huntingdon, Tim, is there anything in the Capital Improvement Budget to improve Starr Drive which is designated as a collector? What can we look forward to? What can we anticipate? Conklin: I'm not aware of anything in our CIP to improve Starr Road. One of the problems has been that half of it is in the county outside of our city limits. This annexation will bring more of it into our city limits. With regard to in front of this annexation we are looking at improvements to meet our city standards with regard to what is • • Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 Page 22 Estes: Conklin: Estes: Conklin: Estes: MOTION: Hoffman: Odom. Hoffman: Ward: Odom: outside of the city limits to make sure it meets county standards and has adequate width to handle two directions of traffic. As we consider the applicant's request do I understand correctly that there is nothing in the Capital Improvement Budget for improvement to Starr Drive? There isn't anything at this time. And partially the reason for that is that half of it is in the city and half of it is in the county, is that correct? That's correct and it has been brought up before and I can bring it up again with our Public Works Director and our Street Committee. Thank you, Tim. Mr. Chair. Commissioner Hoffman. I'll move approval of RZA 00-2.00. Second. We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and a second by Commissioner Ward to approve RZA 00-2.00. Any further discussions? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion carries on a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission Minutes • June 26, 2000 Page 23 • • AD 00-18.00: Administrative Amendment to Chapter 166 "Development" of the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 1 66.04(A)(8) "Suburban Subdivision -Public Sanitary Sewer Not Accessible" to allow lots smaller than 1 'h acres that are on a septic system. Odom: The next item that we have on tonight's agenda is AD 00-18.00: Administrative Amendment to Chapter 166 "Development" of the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 166.04(A)(8) "Suburban Subdivision -Public Sanitary Sewer Not Accessible" to allow lots smaller than 1 '/z acres that are on a septic system. This is a proposal set out by the City Staff and so Tim, I'll let you run with it. Conklin: Sure. Approximately a month ago Washington County Inter -Governmental Council recommended we change the way we review our subdivision and lot splits in Washington County within our Growth Areas. That change has resulted in the City of Fayetteville now reviewing lot splits and subdivisions prior to the county approving them. In the past we always would require that the county approve the lot size and configuration prior to coming to our office and the Planning Commission. Looking at our lot splits that we've received recently and looking at what our ordinances require we do have a 1.5 acre minimum lot size when you are on a septic system inside our Growth Area. In 1992 we had a similar requirement for septic systems inside our city limits. Staff is proposing to change the ordinance to allow something less than 1 5 acres if they do provide a permit for a septic system. What I'm trying to do here is to make sure that we comply with our ordinance and that since the county is no longer approving lot sizes smaller than 1 5 acres prior to coming to us this is something I do need to bring to your attention. On page 6.3 under § 166.04 (A)(8)b everything that I've underlined is the new language that I propose to put into this section which applies to our Planning Area where we do review our lot splits and subdivisions. That states, "for lots having a gross area of less than one and one-half acres, an individual sewage disposal system may be used for each individual lot when a permit for a septic system is granted by the Arkansas Department of Health. A copy of the Arkansas Department of Health permit granted for each lot shall be provided at the time the application is submitted for subdivision or lot split approval for all lots Tess than 1 '/z acres. Existing septic systems, sewage disposal fields (leach fields), alternate disposal fields required by State law, and water wells onsite or offsite within 100 feet shall be shown on all proposed subdivisions and lot splits." Basically I would like to have the actual permit and perc tests completed and submitted along with the lot split application on anything less than an acre and a half. That way I will know for sure that it's meeting our ordinance and also will be able to be built on in the future. That's what I'm trying to accomplish with this ordinance amendment. Planning Commission Minutes • June 26, 2000 Page 24 • • Odom: And, staff, this will also make it consistent with what we do inside of the city. Conklin: That is correct. Odom: And that ordinance was passed back in 1992 to allow lots of less than 1.5 within the city to be approved without a waiver? Conklin: Yes. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Any member of the audience like to address us on this issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Seeing none I'll bring it back to the Planning Commission for sewage discussion. Estes: Mr. Chairman. Odom: I figured you'd be the first on that one. Commissioner Estes. Estes: Mr. Conklin, your requirement regarding the perc test, is that included in the sub part of §166.04? Conklin: Yes. In order to get a permit for a septic system they do have to hire someone to actually do the test and have that approved by the Arkansas Department of Health So, if I can get a permit in hand I do know that they've dug the hole, they've tested it and that it did pass and you can have a lot that is less than 1.5 acres. So, I'm asking for this permit up front. Estes: I want to be sure that you get what you are asking for so when the language is in there when a permit for a septic system is granted, are you telling us that when that permit come to your office it will have the perc test with it? Conklin: Yes. Estes: And that satisfies your requirement? Conklin: Yes. In order to get the permit they have to have the perc test already completed. Hoffman: Mr. Chair. Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 Page 25 Odom: Hoffman: Conklin: Odom: MOTION: Shackelford: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Hoffman. A little bit more on the subject. Were we able to locate, I'm trying to make this a little bit more user friendly since it'll be a different procedure for the folks that are used to doing things with the county first, can we get the soils map available at the city to give them a general idea of the good and bad areas that exist? Sure. I don't have a problem with making that available to the public. Once again, by the time we do get the permit that test will have been completed. It does cost money for a septic system or perc tests do cost around $300 to $400 each, however, the ordinance also reads what we currently are doing, anything over 1.5 acres the city is not going to require that that test be completed. So if you don't want to go out and spend the money to make sure that you can have a lot smaller than 1.5 acres, you can propose a 1.5 acre lot and bring that forward without that permit. I think it's important though, when you start going below 1.5 acres to make sure that these lots will be able to have their individual septic systems on them. Any further discussions? Motions? Odom: Commissioner Shackelford. Shackelford: I'll make a motion that we approve AD 00-18 subject to staff comments. Bunch: Odom: Bunch: Second. We have a motion by Commission Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Marr to approve AD 00-18. Commissioner Marr is not here. Odom. Oh well, excuse me Commissioner Bunch. Any further discussion? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion carries on a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission Minutes • June 26, 2000 Page 26 • AD 00-23.00: Administrative Item (The Mill District, pp 523) was submitted by Tom Bourdeaux of Town Creek Builders on behalf of Mill District LLC for property located at the northwest corner of West 6th Street and South School Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial. The request is for a lesser dedication of right of way along a portion of West 6'h Street than is required by the Master Street Plan due to an existing structure. Odom: The next item that we have on tonight's agenda is item 8, AD 00-23.00: Administrative Item (The Mill District, pp 523) was submitted by Tom Bourdeaux of Town Creek Builders on behalf of Mill District LLC for property located at the northwest corner of West 6th Street and South School Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial. The request is for a lesser dedication of right of way along a portion of west 6th Street than is required by the Master Street Plan due to an existing structure. Staff's recommendation is approval of the administrative request subject to the following conditions. First, only the right-of- way which would otherwise encroach the existing structure shall be subject to the lesser dedication. Item 2, the building in question will remain and be incorporated into the proposed design theme for the Mill District project on this site. Staff, do we have any further conditions of approval? Conklin: There are no further conditions of approval. Odom: Do we have a signed conditions of approval? Conklin: No. Odom: I'd ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. Sharp: My name is Robert Sharp. I'm the architect for the Mill District LLC. Tim asked us to get this item taken care of before we went through large scale development because it does effect our plan fairly substantially. There is an approximately 2000 square foot brick commercial building that is currently not in the street right- of-way but if a dedication is made it would be in the street right-of-way. We would like to keep this building and integrate it into the project and so we are asking that the right-of-way along 6th Street between the utility easement and School Avenue remain as it is. We would like a little space around the building so we can add aesthetic features to bring it into the rest of the project. So, we are asking not just for the building footprint but for the area to each side of it. We are in the process of taking this through the Board of Adjustment and at that point we will have drawings and elevations and they can approve the design at that point. Planning Commission Minutes • June 26, 2000 Page 27 • Odom: So, Robert, what you are telling me is that you are not in agreement with condition of approval 1 which is to only take the right-of-way which is being encroached by the building? Sharp: Right. We would like to get about 15 feet to the east and west of that building if possible. That's the area we plan, right now it doesn't have ADA bathrooms. We are going to use that area to modernize the building. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Let me do this. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this issue? Public: I'm sorry, I came in late, what's the issue? Odom: We are on the last item for our agenda tonight which is AD 00-23 which is the Mill District Project. Would you like to address us on that issue? Public: No, I was here for the rezoning on Deane Solomon Road. I thought the meeting was at 5:30. Odom: Yes, the meeting started at 5:30 and we are now at the last item on our agenda. Anybody else like to talk on this item before us? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Seeing none I'll close the floor to public comment and bring it back to the applicant. Staff do you want to comment on the additional 15 feet that they are wanting? Conklin: Typically we try to get the right-of-way that's required on the Master Street Plan. This allows us to put our sidewalk back, allows green space between the curb and sidewalk. Staff is only recommending that the right-of-way not be dedicated where the existing footprint is located. I have not heard anything tonight that would change my recommendation with regard to just giving up the right-of-way where the building is located. Hoffman: Mr. Chair. Odom: Commissioner Hoffman. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 Page 28 Hoffman: Odom: Bunch: Odom: Bunch: Sharp. Bunch: Sharp: Bunch: Sharp. MOTION: Hoffman: Odom. Hoffman: I would be concerned about not dedicating right-of-way to the east because that is a very busy intersection and I'm sure the turn lanes and other traffic islands and features will at some point be installed. So, I would not be in favor of decreasing the amount of right-of-way towards the intersection. I think I would just have to go with the staff recommendation, really, on the whole thing because this is such a heavily traveled site I don't think it could support an additional 15 feet on either side just because that road is so crowded now. Anybody else? Question for the applicant. Mr. Bunch. Maybe I was not listening closely enough, the reason you stated for the additional 15 feet of right-of-way on the east and on the west was for aesthetic purposes but then you started talking about bathrooms9 We are trying to integrate into the rest of the project. The other buildings on the site are much bigger than this and one of the things we are trying to do is make the building a little bit, give it a little more of a presence by extending it to the east and to the west. Also, that area is where we are going to put in new services like handicapped accessible bathrooms and things like that. That could not be accomplished by extending to the north? We could, yes. Where you already own the property? Right. It just artistically worked out better but it's not a huge thing. Mr. Chair? Yes Commissioner Hoffman. I do want to encourage this development. I think it's going to be an important development for the south side of town and I think it has the look that is so important in filling our existing commercial areas in a mixed use development. Planning Commission Minutes • June 26, 2000 Page 29 I'm very much in favor of that, however, the fact that the intersection is so busy I'm just unwilling, if you do have the option of building to the north, I understand that the bathrooms are probably on the south side. Be that as it may, I can move approval of this subject to staff comments. I'm sorry, I'm confused as to the number. Can somebody help me out with this? It's AD 00-23. So with that I make the motion subject to all staff comments. Allen: Second. Odom. We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and a second by Commissioner Allen to approve AD 00-23 subject to staff comments. Any further comments? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion carries on a vote of 7-0-0. Odom: Staff do we have any further items on our agenda for tonight? • Conklin: There are no additional items. Odom. Commissioners do you have anything? We are adjourned at 6:35 p.m. • • • • 1.5 `cj \o-cl -17.00 e-(1 GS in Co PrJc oo -Is. Cb on L>> c fAcn -49.a) b 0 un kA, Hoene- eat ao+ MOTION Loan t — Enke SECOND F -P_ff-) — A-11PA D. Bunch Rh 1n to Y :11 B. Estes t y L. Hoffman "I Y \f S. Hoover O GL.{- O I.1S Cti ,L -{- N. Allen \I Y N_ D. Marr OLA.. -k DLA- BLit L - - C. Odom C.Odom I t 1 Shackelford ii� L. Ward / y ACTION '-pQfbVCL -i fla e P��orle�l VOTE (p -0-"1 1'o -O vi --0 -0 • • • kz 5o oe oo-r9.a) twu5e no- ov 0700 5f. Tosephid Cb use,Ln /9-22 CO -18'' MOTION Rocc rvtx n rna n -V 1 -k -o. SECOND 5 hack€Ipirrl 1/ng,f cl D. Bunch 1 y B. Estes y \I 1 L. Hoffman \I y S. Hoover n u_4- n r A.4- n r kf N. Allen 1 1 y D. Marr OLI-4- 00-1— Cri 4- C. Odom C.Odom 1 y Shackelford 1 \/ L. Ward \I 1 ACTION Ptp rovE'_cL Pcpfr,led POc0Nl1' a - VOTE 'l,0-0 1-0-0 -1-0-0 RD DO aa0:1 HD 00 -.;3a4) MOTION .fkc_pc-vv-cx n SECOND D. Bunch 1 B. Estes L. Hoffman S. Hoover n C� ' CCA T N. Allen Y D. Marr n(�+ 0u4- C.Odom • Shackelford L. Ward v / ACTION VOTE 1 _0 _0