Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-10 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on July 10, 2000 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Approval of Minutes June 19 & June 26, 2000 AD 00-22.00: Administrative Item (The Mill District, pp 523) LSD 00-14.00: Large Scale Development (Trinity Temple, pp 252) LS 00-22.00: Lot Split (Martin, pp 609) LSD 00-16.00: Large Scale Development (Keating Enterprises Inc., pp 289) RZ 00-20.00: Rezoning (Dixie Development, pp 176) AD 00-01.00: Parking Waiver (Home, pp 484) MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Don Bunch Bob Estes Lorel Hoffman Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Lee Ward Don Marr Sharon Hoover STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Diana Varner Ron Petrie Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Denied Approved MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF ABSENT None Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 2 Approval of minutes from the June 19 and June 26, 2000 meetings. AND CONSENT AGENDA: LS 00-22.00: Lot Split (Martin, pp 609) was submitted by Paula Nall on behalf of Kenneth Martin for property located at 0 Hunt Lane. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 2.34 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1 34 acres and 1 acre. AD 00-01.00: Parking Waiver (Horne, pp 484) was submitted by Cathy and David Horne for property located at 21 South Block Avenue (the southwest corner of the downtown square). The property is zoned C-4, Downtown Commercial and contains approximately 0 12 acres. The request is for a waiver of 2 parking spaces for an addition of approximately 600 s.f. within the existing structure. Odom: Ladies and gentlemen I would like to welcome you to the July 10, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. Before we begin tonight's agenda 1 would like to bring to everyone's attention that there will be a subcommittee meeting of the Future Land Use Map and General 2020 Plan. This is the General Plan 2020 Update Subcommittee for members and interested citizens scheduled for July 13, 2000 at 5:30 pm in room 326 here at City Hall. All those interested are welcome to attend. Moving on to tonight's agenda, the first item we will cover is the consent agenda which are items that will be approved unless a member of the audience or a member of the Planning Commission would like to remove one of those items to be discussed at a later time. We have three items on consent. The first being the approval of the June 19 and June 26, 2000 meeting. The next item on the consent agenda is LS 00-22.00 submitted by Paula Nall on behalf of Kenneth Martin for property located at 0 Hunt Lane. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 2.34 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.34 acres and 1 acre. The next item on the consent agenda is AD 00-01.00: Parking Waiver submitted by Cathy and David Horne for property located at 21 South Block Avenue. The property is zoned C-4, Downtown Commercial and contains approximately 0.12 acres. The request is for a waiver of 2 parking spaces for an addition of approximately 600 feet within the existing structure. Those are the items on consent that will be approved unless a member of the audience or a member of the Planning Commission wishes to remove them. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Does anyone from the audience which to remove any of those items? • • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 3 COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom. Does any member of the Planning Commission? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the consent agenda is approved on a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Hoffman was not present for this vote. • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 4 AD 00-22.00: 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 to amend the City's Master Street Plan by eliminating a collector street (West Avenue) which is designated to nm along the property's western boundary between 6th Street and Prairie Street. Odom: The first item that we have under new business tonight 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 corner of west 61h Street and south School Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial. The request is to amend the City's Master Street Plan by eliminating a collector street which is designated to run along the property's western boundary between 6th Street and Prairie Street. Staff recommends that the applicant comply with the conditions of the previous Master Street Plan amendment with the condition that they dedicate the right-of-way for a collector street along the west property line. Staff, are there any other notes that you would like to add to that? Conklin: At your agenda session one of the Commissioners did request Perry Franklin take a look at this item. He has written a response to that and in summary, he does agree with Mr. Ernie Peters, the traffic consultant on this item, with regard to the relocation of West Street over to Government Avenue. That's all I have. 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 Project on the corner of School Street and 6`h Street. First I want to begin by apologizing for bringing this matter back a year later. When we were working on the project several issues kept coming up. I would like to summarize shortly the information that we have now that we did not have when we came before you previously. We have done some consultation with a traffic engineer, Ernie Peters of Little Rock. We have completed our real estate appraisal and budgets. We've consulted with local urban design organizations such as the UACDC and the Downtown Dickson Enhancement Project. We've also done quite a bit of work with the Trails Committee on trying to develop a bicycle trail between 6'h Street and the Dickson Street area. We have also just become a lot more familiar with the site. Basically when we look at that site and try to find a way to make it inviting and successful in a vibrant area, the first thing we think of is that this area does not need more asphalt. There are streets everywhere, large amounts of parking everywhere and it just didn't seem to be a good idea to have yet another street going through that • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 5 property. We've looked at different alternatives and we think the best one is to, if a collector street is needed, have it occur in the Government Avenue right-of-way. The reasons for that are, we think, first of all, it makes West Street a safer street. I think if West Street tied directly into 6th Street it will encourage cut through traffic from 6th Street which is not a good street for that kind of traffic. The site lines are short because of the topography. The street is narrow. It has a big retaining wall on the east side which makes expansion difficult. It has houses right up against the street on the west side which makes expansion difficult. So, I think, in general, making this a wide safe street will be almost impossible. We think that if you encourage more traffic on this chute it will make things very dangerous for the residents along West Avenue. Also, I think that if we use Government Avenue as the collector street it will make a better intersection. It's a four way intersection instead of a T intersection. It would allow traffic flow to go across 6`h Street. If it ever did become a signalized intersection it's about half way between Hill Street and School Street. It's a better place for an intersection if traffic ever builds up along that route. We think that eventually will provide better connectivity to the city because Government Street could eventually tie into 15th Street which ties into I-540. In general I think connectivity would be better along that street and the traffic engineer agreed with that assessment. Another issue that has come up is plans for a bicycle path along the western edge of our property. In general the Sidewalks and Trails Committee has been working to develop a bicycle trail along the abandoned railroad right-of-way. They have gotten appraisals on the land and made a commitment to make that a reality. If we could get the collector street moved we could put the bicycle trail on our lot along the western edge which would connect 6th Street all the way to the downtown area with a nice wooded trail that goes along Town Creek. I think some of this type of alternate transportation is going to be of far more benefit to the city than yet another collector street. The other issue we were concerned a little bit about was where West Street comes into Prairie and takes a short jog and then picks up again. When we talked to the UACDC they said this was the type of intersection that is particularly dangerous to pedestrians because traffic has to make a little zig zag and that is a lot of the problems that they have been having up at the University. I've included that letter in with our submission. A final comment is we think that amending this Master Street Plan is a way to encourage people to develop areas that need help. It's going to be something that the city won't have to spend any money to encourage this development. In fact they will save maintenance fees on this piece of collector street. I don't want to go through all of the petitions and recommendations that we have collected. They are all in this packet that we submitted to you. We've got a lot of support from the neighbors for this scheme. We have support from the Downtown Dickson Enhancement Project, the UACDC, Bicycle Coalition of the Ozarks, and finally, today, Perry Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 6 Franklin issued a memo in which he basically, as Tim Conklin said, agreed that this solution is the better solution for the collector street. I would conclude by asking you to give this consideration one more time and help us to develop this project. Thank you. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Thank you Robert. We may have some questions but first I'd like to ask if there is any member of the audience that would like to address us on this issue? Please come forward at this time. Please identify yourself by your name and your address before you begin. Littell: My name is Annee Littell and I live at 411 West South Street which is the corner of West and South. I have a double lot that fronts on West Street. So, even though my address isn't West Street, I feel like I'm a neighbor. I've seen just in the last month an accident where you come over a hill and it's blind and then you go down. People like to come kind of fast. It may be kind of fun to do. A neighbor was pulling out of their driveway and they got hit. Nobody was hurt. 1 don't think the topography is at all suitable to emphasize that street as more of a collector street. School Street, right next door, I guess is listed as an arterial, but it seems to function as a collector. I'm not sure of all the differences but having that major street right next door, one block away, it seems to me we could funnel traffic coming from the library, assuming that happens, could go up Mountain and down School and School already connects with 6`" Street. It just seems to me like having two streets a block apart that are both major collectors is overkill and would really hurt our neighborhood. The street is narrow and has no sidewalks on my block of it. If you were to do what the collector needs, that 70 foot, would be probably impossible to make it truly a collector street. So I would just like to support this as a property owner. Odom: Thank you very much. Was there someone else who wanted to speak to this? If you all could please come up and line up behind each other so we don't spend a lot of time waiting. Ostner: Hi, my name is Alan Ostner. I'm a resident of 111 West Avenue. Pretty much what Aimee has just said I really agree with. The topography of West Street is really steep. 1 don't know if you have been over there but we refer to it as the roller coaster. When Dickson empties out at 2 00 am it's a free for all. The police would be way too busy if they ever stopped there and tried to pick up drunks and speeders. You can get a great deal of speed going down and then the hill slows you coming up the other side and everyone knows that. They love to do it both • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 7 ways. It is very narrow. Expanding it to the east would be difficult. You would either run into the new library or the big retaining wall at City Hospital, or have to bulldoze houses and living rooms. The point that Rob brought up about the railroad right of way becoming a street between Prairie and 6th Street, I really agree with. The short jog near Wilson Park comes to mind to me and how difficult that is when you are going along the western edge of Wilson Park and you have to turn and go west and then turn again just to get onto Gregg is very cumbersome. If we have a chance to not create things like that I think it's a good idea just from a user standpoint. As he said the CDC does recommend that it is dangerous and I can see that from a pedestrian standpoint too. West Street is very dangerous. We've been planning on coming down here as a neighborhood anyway. We need traffic calming. We need a stop sign. The number of near misses far exceeds the number of collisions from backing out, as Annee was saying. The volume is very low on that street but I would bet the number of collisions in perspective to the low volume would make a very high incident rate. I think West is pretty dangerous and I think widening it would exacerbate the problem. Thank you. • Kelly: Hello, I'm Laura Kelly. I'm glad Alan brought up the fact of joy riding and catching air on the hill. I didn't realize that was ever an occurrence until I was on that street just the other day. I was just walking across West Avenue, there is no sidewalk. I was just walking from one yard to the next and a car, I didn't realize cars tried to catch air. It was going faster than just trying to go fast and it had to veer into the other lane almost into the ditch. As the property owner pulled up a few minutes after, I realized if he had been coming up that hill a moment earlier I would have witnessed a lot of death. I just can't convey enough that the topography there being virtually unalterable. It would be a major revision to cause a safer street to increase or encourage traffic there. Also If anyone has any questions regarding the bicycle plan, I have been working with Chuck Rutherford and the Sidewalk and Trails Committee for years and years and years. How I would love to see this connection down 6' Street. I live down there past 6th Street and my son and I are on our bicycles now and we would love a safe way to town. Thank you. Odom: Thank you. Anyone else like to address us on this issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Then I will close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant. • Does anyone have questions for the applicant or staff? • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 8 Ward: Tim, what are we giving up by giving up this West Avenue? Is this something that the City Council will have to make a final determination on? Conklin: Yes. City Council will have to amend the Master Street Plan in order to relocate it if the motion is to relocate it over to Government Avenue. Once again, back in 1999 the agreement was to relocate it off the alley that was east of the feed mill and move it over to the railroad right-of-way. At that time they agreed to dedicate 70 feet of right-of-way sufficient for a collector street. They did approach the city. I did ask for them to do some research on this and make a presentation to the Planning Commission. As staff I felt that bringing this back a year later after an agreement was made to dedicate the right-of-way that we should have some evidence that this is not a good idea and that we should abandon having a street connection down to 6i1' Street. That's why they went out and talked to different groups and got a traffic study done with regard to whether or not it should be at this location or moved further to the west. So to answer your question, are we giving anything up, based on Perry Franklin's letter and the traffic engineer it sounds like we are not really giving anything up other than allowing the Master Street Plan to be amended and there will not be a requirement on their part if they redevelop this industrial site with their mixed use project to have to build that street. Hoover: Tim, is it my understanding then that in lieu of the street they are going to give a right-of-way for the trail coming through their project? Conklin: Let me just make sure everyone is clear on the issue of this right-of-way for the trail. Under our Master Street Plan, within that 70 feet of right-of-way, it has a provision for two 6 foot sidewalks which is a 6 foot sidewalk/multi use trail. That would have been a requirement as part of this project. If we required them to build the street they would have to build the trail. So they are not really giving us the multi use trail if we give up this right-of-way because that would have been a requirement. Odom: Conklin: But I believe that Commissioner Hoover wanted to make sure we weren't giving that up also. That's part of the plan. It will stay. Well, my understanding this evening is they will be going to the Parks Board to ask that the right-of-way for the trail be credited towards their greenspace requirement for their residential units in this facility. I think one question that I have and I asked Chuck Rutherford to raise it this evening was with regard to who would pay for the cost of construction of that trail. Typically the developer would pay for half of the street. So you have a 14 foot from centerline, curb, gutter, • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 9 storm drainage and the 6 foot sidewalk. I do want to make sure when a large scale development comes through that we do understand who's paying for that trail. I'm not sure who's going to be building that trail. That's what I'm saying this evening. Hoover: That brought up a question, is that how we've handled other developments? That the developer is building the trail in past approvals? Conklin: If there is a Master Street Plan requirement, yes, they are building 6 foot wide sidewalk/multi use trails. We may be giving that up. Rob, I'm not sure if you are able to answer that question tonight. Are you building the trail? Constructing it? Sharp: In the past when we have talked, Tim, informally we were just giving the land for the trail. We are giving the land along our side and also we are giving a piece of land up near Center Street that we've purchased to facilitate the trail. So we are giving them two parcels of land to allow them to build the trail. This trail will be built as they build the entire Prairie Street Trail. We'll be back soon with a large scale development plan that will show all of these details. Odom: Commissioner Hoover, did that answer your question? Hoover: Yes. Thank you. Marr: Tim, I guess my question is the recommendation of city staff was to have it remain the same and now that the additional information has come through would you concur or would you stand by this? Conklin: Well, with regard to the additional information, I would agree that there is reason to relocate it over to Government Street. This information that was submitted to the city at 2:30 on Thursday. Staff was not able to write any new staff report. Since then we were able to get with Perry Franklin and he does agree with Ernie Peters that it is a good idea and something to look at to relocate it over to Government Street. The only concern I had, once again, was relocating over to Government Street we are removing the requirement to construct a trail because normally we don't require people to construct trails on private property whereas, if it was left in that location they would be constructing a 6 foot wide sidewalk/multi use trail. MOTION: Ward: Mr. Chair, I think that with all of this said and to facilitate the redevelopment of Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 10 Shackelford: Odom: Conklin: that area down there, I want to go ahead and recommend approval for AD 00-22 especially since our Traffic Superintendent, Perry Franklin, agrees with you on your concept of moving it over to Government Street. Maybe when it comes back through large scale we will be able to look at some give and take on the trails and so on. But I will recommend approval at this time. I'll second. I'd like to speak to the motion if I could. I think potentially what you have here is, if in fact the City Council approves the amendment to the Master Street Plan, you don't have the requirement any longer of the trail program. Now I think that Robert is saying that they are going to do that and it's going to be incorporated into their plan, but if we are in fact giving something up it's, number one, city property that we currently have dedicated but number two, it's also the potential loss of use of a trail. Am I right? That's correct. Odom. Because there is no longer a requirement that the trail be put there since there's no longer a Master Street Plan requirement. Conklin: Ward: It would make me more comfortable if you incorporated into your motion that this agreement or idea of this dedication of this right-of-way for a trail subject to that. I'll amend my motion to where we do get the dedication of the necessary tracts for the trail. Shackelford: I'll agree to that on my second. Odom: Bunch: Odom: Conklin: That takes care of my concern. Mr. Chair, then we get back to the question of who is going to build the trail since you are giving up the street and not having to build the street then it seems like, should that be included in the same motion? I think that would be more properly addressed at the large scale development. Tim, with regard to the construction, who's required to construct the trail? That will be more appropriately addressed at large scale development. Is that correct? That is correct. I can tell you right now we typically don't require trails to be built as part of development. That's not a normal requirement. That's why I • • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 11 brought it up this evening. I do believe we are potentially giving that up. Bunch: Even though it's not a normal requirement since we are giving up a right-of-way and a street can we include that as a requirement? Is it permissible to do that? Hoffman: Mr. Chair, this may have happened before you were on the Commission, but I think we did require a trail and require that one be constructed on the Marinoni property by the creek or wetland area in lieu of a sidewalk along what would be an unused intersection. So, I would think that we would have an opportunity at that time to make that requirement. Conklin: Yes, we did do that in the past and that sidewalk, instead of having it go along Shiloh Drive we did have it come back in on the property. Hoffman: And it was a trail? Conklin: Yes, it was classified as a trail. Keep in mind we did require that when we did amend the Master Street Plan a year ago that they dedicate 70 feet of right-of-way. We are giving up 70 feet of right-of-way too so I guess to answer your question we have in the past required items from applicants as a condition of amending our Master Street Plan. Man: Would we require that at this time or at large scale development? Conklin: If you want to make it crystal clear for the applicant you should require it now. I would say in your motion that they would be required to build the trail If you want to wait till large scale development we can also make that a condition of approval at large scale development. I guess I'm concerned about doing that. Legally we don't have any ordinances in place that allow us to require that. Shackelford: I have a question of the applicant and I think this will weigh into this, did you not mention that there is another piece of property that this group owns that you are in negotiations on deeding a part of that property for the trail in another area, is that correct? Sharp: That's right. Shackelford: So, there are other aspects that will go into play here as far as negotiation on the trail and who builds the trail and who's going to pay for the trail. There is another piece of property that the city is looking at trying to get ownership of, is that correct? • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 12 Sharp: That's right. Shackelford: I personally think that, that negotiation we could handle at the large scale development. I think we have put the applicant on notice that that is something that we are going to look at in Large scale development. I understand the city's position and 1 don't think we need to give away that right either but I'm not necessarily sure that we have to address that at this point. Odom: Ultimately this is the City Council's call anyway. They will receive copies of our notes and note that we are definitely concerned about who is going to construct the trail. Conklin: That's correct. Odom: But as the motion stands now it does not address who's going to construct the trail only that it be dedicated. Conklin: Yes. Bunch: Mr. Chair, can I make a little bit of a campaign speech here for the Committee for the revision of the Master Street Plan, in looking at this and remembering what West Avenue used to be like between Prairie and Mountain, prior to the time it was widened and paved and what the traffic pattern used to be like then, I would encourage people in the neighborhood to attend the meetings of the Subcommittee, particularly the one this Thursday that has already been announced, to request the change in status of West Avenue between Prairie and Mountain Streets to request to be put back to a local street rather than a collector. If that's what you would like in looking at the comments from the neighbors and the petitions on this, I would encourage you to avail yourselves of that process. Odom: Any further discussion on the motion? Marr. Mr. Chair, I'm in support of the motion to actually change the Master Street Plan. I do want to go on record of saying I would not be in support of losing what would have otherwise been a developed trail by the developer. I think that we had that as part of this approval That's the one thing 1 struggle with here. Not only did we have the dedication we would have had it built. So when it comes through with large scale I just want to make it clear that's the position I'm coming from. I do support this change. • Allen: I have the same concern. • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 13 Bunch: And I concur. Odom: Well, we can all do that when we vote. Odom. It will go to the City Council and neighbors will have an opportunity to visit it then as well. Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion passes 9-0-0. • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 14 LSD 00-14.00: Large Scale Development (Trinity Temple, pp 252) was submitted by Carter & Hodges on behalf of Trinity Temple Assembly of God for property located at 1100 Rolling Hills Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Single -Family Residential and R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 7.19 acres. The request is to build a multi use building. Odom: The next item that we have on our agenda is LSD 00-14.00 for Trinity Temple submitted by Carter & Hodges on behalf of Trinity Temple Assembly of God for property located at 1100 Rolling Hills Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Single - Family Residential and R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 7.19 acres. The request is to build a multi use building. The property is zoned both R- 1 and R -O. There is R -I zoning to the east and to the south and C-2 zoning to the west. The request is for an addition of a 13,200 square foot multi purpose building with 18 additional parking spaces. The new building is located behind the existing church. It is approximately 780 feet from Harold Street, 355 feet from Sheryl Street, and 730 feet from College Avenue. The recommendation of the staff is for approval subject to conditions. Staff, do we have signed conditions of approval? • Conklin: Yes we do. Odom: Are there any further conditions of approval. • Conklin: I would like to make the Commission aware of the additional landscaping that was discussed at the Planning Commission agenda session on Thursday. You should have in front of you a letter dated July 7, 2000 from Kim Hesse our Landscape Administrator. They are proposing to plant 2 inch caliper trees along the western side of the building. I think one of the concerns at the agenda session was the metal sidewall that was visible from Market Street and the Blockbuster Video parking lot. This is something that Kim Hesse has recommended. Odom: Okay. I would ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. Estes: Mr. Chairman, it will be necessary that I recuse on this proposed large scale development 00-14. Odom: Okay. Commissioner Hoover? Hoover: I will also have to abstain from LSD 00-14. Odom: Commissioner Hoover and Commissioner Estes will be abstaining from the vote. Anybody else? Go ahead. • • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 15 Hodges: In addition to building the building there we are also accomplishing two drainage issues as well. Odom: Did you tell the staff who you were? Hodges: I'm sorry, I'm Kevin Hodges, engineer on the project. To the east there are some ponding problems along the back property lines of the residents to the east. We are going to channelize this and help it to drain into a detention pond which is going to also slow down the water which leaves our property. There is a drainage problem across from the Blockbuster where there is some ponding there as well. We are proposing a detention pond so our post -development flows will be less than our pre -development flows. From last weeks agenda session there was a suggestion about incorporating trees along the west side of the building to break up the building outline. I did contact Kim Hesse and I met her on site and she gave me a recommendation of several different tree types that we could put there and the spacing which we did incorporate that into the plan as well. The sides of the building, if you notice we do have them banded to help break up the outline of the building itself. In a nutshell, that's about all I have to say. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Thank you Kevin. Let me ask if there is any member of the audience that would like to address us on this issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Seeing none I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions or comments. Hoffman: Mr. Chair, in the letter from Kim Hesse dated July 7, 2000 they refer to a detail of the plantings, is that detail available to us? Conklin: That's shown on your actual large scale development plan. Hoffman: And the spacing on those is going to be 30 foot on center? Conklin: 30 foot on center. Hoffman: I'll go on record by saying I don't think that's enough. I will not vote for this • project with that few trees on that elevation. • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 16 Odom: Hodges: Hoffman: Rogers: Hoffman: Bunch: Hodges: Bunch: Hodges: Hoffman. Conklin: Hoffman: Kevin, do you want to come back up and address that? The recommended spacing that I had from Ms. Hesse was 25 feet. These are columnar maples and so they don't grow out as wide. They are more of a tall slender tree and that's why she gave me the spacing of 25 feet. We just made it a little bit more to give it a little bit more room. I'm not a landscape expert but I think that the mass of that wall is going to be quite visible from, at least certainly Market Street. So, I would suggest that more plantings would be in order, possibly bushes. If that's the spacing on the trees that's advised because of eventual root growth and trunk area and canopy, I understand that, but I would prefer to see some more in -filling with smaller bushes in-between those trees not just the trees because the building itself is so large. Is that something that you might be agreeable to that you could work out with Ms. Hesse? More bushes is no problem. (Darryl Rogers representing the applicant) Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Isn't there a 6 foot tall fence there? There is just to the north of where the trees will be planted, yes. My question then is would there be a fence in this area where there would potentially be shrubs that would obscure the view of the shrubs? No. There is just an existing fence from right behind the store which they will leave there. There is an open space there where trees and shrubbery will be visible. I would appreciate that. It's not the part behind the store because that is not visible and I guess there might be some overlap, a slight amount, but I'm talking about the area that is just directly adjacent to the parking lot. Staff, is that something that can be coordinated between Kim and the applicant? Sure, we can coordinate that. Then I would vote for the project. • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 17 MOTION: Shackelford: Mr. Chair I'll go ahead based on city staff findings and signed conditions of approval I'll make a motion that we approve LSD 00-14. Bunch: I'll second. Odom: Marr. Petrie: Motion by Commissioner Shackelford and second by Commissioner Bunch that we approve LSD 00-14 subject to all staff comments and the additional comment by Commissioner Hoffman Any further discussion? Mr Chair, I just had a question for the city staff. I received several phone calls on concerns about drainage. Have you gone out and looked at this particular property and signed off on it? Yes. They called me early on in this process which I really appreciate. I was able to coordinate with Kevin Hodges on this project. The main problem is over the years with the construction of some utility lines and also possibly some parking Lots and playgrounds it has created basically a pond back there and water just can't get out. What they have proposed is to open that up and drain it back to the west into a detention pond which will alleviate the ponding back there. They expressed some concerns to me about possibly making that ditch all concrete. That's not something that I felt like I had the authority to do since this is all private drainage. I believe the situation will be corrected. Marr: Thank you. Odom: Any further discussions? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion carries on a vote of 7-0-2 with Commissioner Estes and Commissioner Hoover abstaining. • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 18 LSD 00-16.00: Large Scale Development ( Keating Enterprises Inc., pp 289) was submitted by Chris Brackett ofJorgensen & Associates on behalf of Keating Enterpnses Inc., for property located on lots 1 & 2 of Sunbridge. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 2.89 acres. The request is for office/lease space. Odom: The next item on tonight's agenda is LSD 00-16.00 for Keating Enterprises submitted by Chris Brackett ofJorgensen & Associates on behalf of Keating Enterprises, for property located on lots 1 & 2 of Sunbridge. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 2.89 acres. The request is for office/lease space. Finding of the staff is that the property is located on the northwest corner of Sunbridge Drive and Villa Boulevard. There is a mobile home park located immediately north of this project which is zoned R-2 and a small shopping center, Curry's, to the east zoned C-2. The property was rezoned C-1 on February 14, 2000. The applicant is proposing three buildings. The building to the west is 11, 463 square feet. The middle building is 7,200 feet. The eastern most building is 2,040 square feet. Additional landscaping is being provided in order to screen this property from the residential property to the north. No rare or landmark trees are being removed. One 12 inch oak is being removed. The is currently 7.43 percent canopy. The applicant is proposing to preserve 7.19 percent canopy. The recommendation of staff is approval subject to the conditions of approval listed. There are seven conditions of approval Staff, are there any further conditions of approval? Conklin: I do need to make the Commission aware and the applicant this evening, and I apologize, I found this in my mailbox this afternoon. Cheryl Zotti with our Solid Waste Division has requested that 4 trash dumpsters be sited at this shopping center. Currently we are showing two. I think that is something that staff can work out with the applicant if you approve this project this evening but she is looking for four containers. That's all I have. Odom: Staff, those containers would have to be screened according to the ordinance is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. Brackett: Hi, my name is Chris Brackett. I'm here representing the owner. On the trash thing, l can't really speak to that due to the fact that I didn't know about it. We are proposing three additional buildings on this lot. We have met extensively with Kim Hesse regarding the 12 inch oak that we are taking out. She has signed off on that as the only feasible way to open this property. It went through many different modifications to try and save as many trees as we can. We feel this is • • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 19 the best plan. 1 would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Odom. We will take questions after public comments. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Let me ask now if there is any member of the audience that would like to address us on this issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom. Seeing none I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant for questions or comments of the Planning Commission. Bunch: Brackett: Bunch: Brackett: Shackelford: Conklin: Mr. Chair, in the northeast corner, the stand of trees, is that an existing stand or some that you are adding? There will be, in-between the utility easement and along the front and the back utility easement, we are going to plant a grove of native trees. That was requested by Kim and we agreed to do that. There are some trees right behind the existing sidewalk and we are preserving those also. My concern here was in looking at your plan, most of the trees were designated as new trees but there is that one grove in the northeast corner that would increase considerably your canopy but it wasn't clear on the drawing of what exactly that's composed of. But that is native trees? Yes sir it is. That's something that we agreed to work out with Kim at the time of development. Mr. Chairman, Tim, do we have a signed conditions of approval on this? Yes we do. Shackelford: Thank you. MOTION: Ward: Mr. Chair, I'll go ahead and recommend approval of LSD 00-16 for Keating Enterprises with you being able to work out the four screened dumpsters, instead of two dumpsters that are shown on the plat, with staff. • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 20 Bunch: I'll second. Odom. Is that subject to staff comments? Ward: Subject to staff comments. Odom: Any further discussion? Staff do we need to specifically address the variance request or is that just automatically incorporated into the motion? Conklin: That is in the staff report. I believe it is incorporated into the motion. If you want to go over it, it might be beneficial for the public. Odom: Any further discussion? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion carries on a vote of 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 21 RZ 00-20.00: Rezoning (Dixie Development, pp176) was submitted by Gary Carnahan of the Benham Group on behalf Ben Israel of Dixie Development, Inc. for property located at 2416 E. Joyce Street. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 5 acres The request is to rezone to R -O, Residential Office. Odom: The next item we have on tonight's agenda is RZ 00-20.00 submitted by Gary Carnahan of the Benham Group on behalf Ben Israel of Dixie Development, Inc. for property located at 2416 E. Joyce Street. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 5 acres The request is to rezone to R -O, Residential Office. Staffs recommendation is for approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as part of the report. Staff is there any further information? Conklin: There is no additional information. Odom: I would ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. Commissioner Ward? Ward: It will be necessary for me to recuse from this rezoning. Odom: Noted as abstained. Anyone else? Go ahead. Basham: I'm Jerry Basham with Dixie Development. Ben, at the last moment, had to be out of town this evening. I'm not sure exactly what you need to know. You have the plans, I believe before you. Odom: If you are here only to answer questions and so forth, we will reserve that for the second portion. Basham: Yes. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom. What we will do now is ask if there are members of the audience that would like to address us on this issue. Please come forward at this time. Hudson: My name is Lloyd Hudson I own the property north of this property concerned here tonight. On the surface I have no objection to rezoning this property as such. My concern deals with the environmental issues that are inherent here. North of this property that we are talking about is a wetland that has been designated as an official wetland by the US Army Corps of Engineers. There is a 17 acre property • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 22 Odom• Galbraith: there designated as a nature study area that will be maintained in perpetuity as a nature study area. Now the problem here is not a great one but enough of a concern that you ought to consider it before doing anything or developing it. There is probably less than an acre of this five acre lot that drains into this wetland. You know the potential problem here. I think before any effort is made for development or anything for that matter that the principals concerned should sit down and discuss this with the property owners and the trust property which is represented here tonight also and see if we can work out this thing amicably to everybody concerned. My concern is to protect the wetland. Their concern, of course, is to develop it. So, we should be able to come to some agreement but we should approach this problem before we go any further. As you know, these environmental problems are sticky and they should be taken care of before we proceed further. Thank you. Good evening Commissioners. I'm Greg Galbraith with Ozark Regional Land Trust. We are a nonprofit conservation organization that operates throughout Northwest Arkansas and Missouri throughout the Ozarks. We've been very active in Fayetteville. I've been before the Planning Commission and the Council before and worked out very good deals where development and environmental concerns were compatible. Several years ago there was a proposed development next to Dr. Hudson's property. Dr. Hudson, who just addressed you, has made a significant commitment to leaving his property in a conservation, nature education center that would benefit Fayetteville. He's working with our organization, Ozark Regional Land Trust. The last time a development was proposed just to the east of his property there was going to be a significant impact because there is some major drainage into that property and it was settled quite well. We actually bought 4 acres of that property. So the land trust itself is a property owner involved here. We purchased that at a fair market value so we have a significant investment in the future of this property plus the money we have spent on the restoration of that four acres. At that time the city also recommended, before this was all played out, that the developer leave .5 acre of the main drainage site to the city because they didn't want to see this nature center plan disrupted. In the end we ended up buying that 1/2 acre plus 3.5 additional acres. Currently the property that is in question is just south of Dr. Hudson's property. Being on Joyce Boulevard we don't deny that there will probably be development of that property eventually but our concern is how that development is going to impact that property that we are investing considerable time and money into protecting. Like Dr. Hudson mentioned it is immediately adjacent to the drainage and wetland that is integral to this area. We haven't had any discussions with the developer to see how this • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 23 would impact and maybe some ways we could put a conservation easement on the upper strip or to minimize the impact. We would be in favor of some sort of low density, low impact development that would also address our concerns for protecting the property. I would have to come out in opposition to the rezoning from A-1 to R -O because most of the properties around Dr. Hudson are A-1 and as such we feel comfortable with what's happening. Zoned R -O we have no idea what type of impact the development will have on our plans. Although I'm not absolutely opposed to a rezoning, it seems premature to us for that to happen without taking into account both the environmental considerations of the wetland and also the plans that we have been working on for several years. That's my comment on it. Odom: Thank you. Any other member of the audience like to address us on this request? Smith: My name is Harvey Smith and I have a home that is adjacent to Dr. Hudson's property that is east and north of the property that is being requested to be rezoned. I just wanted to state that my feelings are that R -O is the best and least obtrusive thing that this could be. I would rather it be that than homes. I think that Dr. Hudson would agree with that if his issues were addressed and his concerns addressed. If those things can be taken care of I certainly would rather it be R -O. Odom: Thank you Dr. Smith. Any other member of the audience? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom. Then I will bring it back to the applicant for questions and comments. Marr: Mr. Chair I guess my thoughts on this are when I look at number 2 of the findings, determination of whether the zoning is Justified or needed I have a real question of whether we need it in this area There seem to be several vacant parcels undeveloped at this point that are already zoned R -O and a couple of new one that are going in that are just now beginning development. So, from my perspective I have a difficult time finding that there is a justified need. Hoffman: Mr. Chair, I share the concern of Commissioner Marr and have in past votings on R -O property in this area because by my account there are almost 10 that are not developed within a very close short distance of this request. I do have a question for the applicant. When we went on tour it appeared to me that about 2/3 of this site is pasture land and then there is the house. Behind that there is a grove of trees or forest area. Could you describe that to me and what the plan might be? Is • • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 24 there a concept that might help? Basham: I have not seen the concept. From what Ben Israel said I think the property that he is wanting to develop or put the clinic on is out toward the street and not toward the back. Hoffman: Right. Is there a slope up that goes up the hill? Basham: Is there now? Yes. Hoffman: Yes. It goes uphill from the house I believe or am I completely backwards on that? Basham: I think that's right. Hoffman: So the drainage from this property would not be back onto the preserve behind. It would be towards the street. Basham: I have not walked over the property so I don't know. Hoffman: Okay. Thank you very much. Estes: Mr. Chairman, I had a question similar to the one Just asked. How does the adjacent watershed drain into the designated wetland if you know? Basham: I do not know. Estes: I understand that is not determinative in the rezoning issue but I do concur with Commissioner Marr and Commissioner Hoffman's other comments. Hoffman: Mr. Chair, I have an idea that I would like to throw out. In a PUD where the zoning would be accomplished at the same time that the project is brought forward, it's more possible for us to answer these types of questions and I might move that to the applicant as a suggestion should this not pass either the Planning Commission's recommendations or the City Council. As I understand it our vote would only be as a recommendation to City Council of whether or not to rezone the property but that a PUD is brought forward at the same time as the rezoning or not. That's how I always think of it. • Conklin: We have not done that in Fayetteville. There are other communities that do have combined site plan review and zoning. I've seen some applicants bring in Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 25 development proposals along with their rezonings and offer a bill of assurance to build it according to their plan but we have not typically done that. Hoffman: We've done it more in residential. I don't mean to interrupt. On a residential type plan, we've done that for some townhouses recently, I believe, where the buildings are grouped according to where the best location is to preserve environmental features and so forth. Conklin: Yes. That's allowed under our zoning for residential uses. The non residential uses typically require the rezoning. Allen: Mr. Chair, other than a yes or no vote then is there anything that we can do as the Commission that helps to waylay Dr. Hudson's concems about the wetlands? Odom. Not necessarily at this point. Staff do you want to comment any further on that? It's really more of a development issue than a rezoning issue. Conklin: The issue of the wetlands and drainage will be addressed during the development. Odom: And they will be addressed? Conklin: Yes. Either at the Subdivision or at large scale development. Hoover: Mr. Chair, I especially like Commissioner Hoffman's suggestion of having the site plan come in at the same time. I know other cities are doing this. This is an issue where I'm not necessarily against R -O right here but I am against giving up any leverage we have of not knowing what's going to happen to it. I want more control. I know we can't do zoning with conditions but I would appreciate if the city would look into how other cities are doing this because they are doing this and they are saying, this could be rezoned if you do this particular development and we know you are going to do it this way and there is a bill of assurance. I think here is a perfect example of when we need that. Hoffman: Mr. Chair, I do have one thing that might help compromise. On another property we have voted not to rezone the entire property but we voted to rezone only portions of the property. In this case I would think that the front portion because it is relatively flat and does not obviously drain towards the wetlands, it faces a major collector street, or whatever Joyce is termed, that the front, say 50 percent of the property could be rezoned R -O with no problem and not impact the trees, wetlands or anything. If anybody on the Commission would be interested in going forward with that I can try to craft a motion to do that and then leave the • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 26 back part of the property A-1. But I'm not sure that will fly. I can run it up the flagpole though. Odom: Well, you have run it up, let's see if we have anyone that wants to comment on it. Bunch: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Hoffman would that be primarily from the break in the property? Having looked at it it appears as though the bulk of the property drains towards the south towards Joyce and just the part from the tree line to the north I believe are the parts that might drain towards the wetland. We may want to ask Dr. Hudson. Hudson: That's essentially true It's Just a small part, maybe an acre that is of concern. Our only concern is not the rezoning but not draining into the wetlands. That's our concern. Estes: Mr. Chairman, the applicant brings to us a request to rezone the approximate 5 acres. I do not feel that we as a Commission can sua sponte amend the applicants rezoning request. I will not vote for the rezoning request as it now stands but likewise I'm very much concerned about this Commission sua sponte on it's own motion amending this applicant's zoning request. I think that is way outside the scope of our authority. Our granted authority from the City Council. Hoffman: Mr. Chair. Just to respond to your concern. I certainly understand. I think that we have dealt with other difficult large tracts in that manner. There was a church on Hwy 265 that retains that zoning. They had asked for a larger portion of the property to be rezoned and the Commission took the initiative to say okay, only the front portion could be rezoned. I think that was upheld by City Council so I'm not sure if it is outside the boundaries of our authority. Estes: My remembrance of that issue is that the applicant acquiesced to that suggestion. Hoffman: Then I would have that same question to this applicant. Basham: What was your question? Hoffman: Would you be interested in acquiescing to an amended type of zoning in order to go forward with this that would leave out a portion of the rear of the property and leave it A-1? Basham: My position is I can refer that to Mr. Israel and go from there. • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 27 Odom: MOTION: Hoffman: Well, let's all keep in mind a couple of things. First this is nothing more than a recommendation to the City Council if we approve it. If we deny it then it's up to the applicant whether or not they wish to appeal the denial and so forth. I would caution those members of the Commission not to find against the development because they would like to see it come thorough all at one time. That is not what we are charged with. I think Commissioner Marr has made a point that it is on point because it addresses a specific finding that we must determine whether or not R -O zoning is appropriate or needed at this time by citing number 2. I would encourage those who are going to support it to stick with those findings In particular and on that issue, I do not agree with Commissioner Marr's assessment. It seems to me that that area of Joyce Street, R -O, which not only is designated on the Land Use Plan as office and residential and is compatible with the General Land Use Plan but the R -O zoning on Joyce Street that I'm familiar with is accurate. I know there was a recent sell of an R -O zoning that we recently rezoned on the comer of Joyce just down the street from this. There is construction on other R -O sites as well. This is an area of town that is growing rapidly and in my opinion, needs more R -O zoning. So, I differ in opinion on that finding. So, I would support a motion for approval of this R -O zoning. Mr. Chair, I will make a motion to recommend an R -O zoning from the portion of the rear of the house forward to Joyce Street only. The house is shown on page 5.7 of our material, and that the remainder of the property north of the house remain A-1. And that the applicant would submit a revised survey to the staff should this particular motion be seconded and passed. Odom. Do we have a second to the motion? Going once, going twice, the motion fails for lack of a second. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Conklin: Mr. Chairman, under chapter 154 of our UDO under amendments just to let the Commissioners know what they can and can't do with regard to amendments to our zoning map. The Planning Commission may take one of the following actions 1) Approval. The proposed amendment may be approved as presented. 2) Approval in Modified Form. Approved in a modified form by a majority of the Planning Commission and recommended for adoption by the City Council with the reasons for such recommendations stated in writing. 3) Disapproval. If the Planning Commission disapproves a proposed amendment the reason for such Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 28 Odom. MOTION: Shackelford: disapproval shall be given in writing to the petitioner. 4) Neither Approve nor Disapprove. There is a time line on here of 45 days you have if you don't act on the item within 45 days it's deemed approved and goes to City Council. I just wanted to go over those items with you. I didn't know that. Mr. Chairman, I guess I concur with most if not all of your statements that there is a need for R -O in this area and probably want to expand on that a little bit further. I'm also in agreement with the comments that Dr. Smith made. I think if you look at the 2020 plan and look at the location of this property it will be rezoned and developed at some point. I think that R -O zoning would have the least impact on this property especially if you started thinking of R-1.5 or R-2 and the density that it could be zoned and built at that point. Projected on this property is a medical building which is going to be very low impact on this property. Personally I think we are not giving up any control. I think we still have control over the runoff and those sorts of situations with the LSD that would have to come back before this panel for approval. So, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve RZ 00-20 as it is presented and reserve the right to deal with those specific issues as this panel when the LSD comes through. Odom. We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford. I will second the motion. Do we have any discussion on the motion? Hudson: Allen: Conklin: Shackelford: I believe we are making a lot out of this. Really none of us, I don't believe, none of us object to this rezoning per say. The problem is we have just not sat down around a cup of coffee and resolved this. It could be resolved probably very, very quickly. That's all I'm saying. Looks like to me maybe the recommendation that all the parties get together and have a cup and resolve this and it could come back to you. It looks like that could settle the issue. Mr. Chair, what was that option of the 45 day thing again? Could you read that one more time? Deemed approved or if everybody agrees, both parties, you can extend that time. Mr. Chair, I still hold firm to the opinion that we ought to go ahead and approve the rezoning as it is and let the applicant know that prior to the LSD being approved we would like to see the concerns of the neighbors addressed and be • • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 29 Marr: prepared to present that with the LSD. We still have final say in that LSD approval and a big percentage of that would be whether or not we were satisfied with the runoff and the other situations that we look at with every LSD. So, I'm agreeing with the speaker that I don't think there is a general consensus against this rezoning and I don't think we are giving up any control on this by going ahead and recommending the approval of this rezoning to the City Council. Mr. Chair, I want to make sure I'm clear on item number 2. A couple of questions for Tim. We approved a 6 acre tract of R-0 in this area, is that developed currently and filled do we know? Conklin: That has not been developed at this time. Marr: And there is a new Millennium Place Subdivision that is R -O and C-1 and that is under development? Conklin: Yes. Their final plat is almost ready for signatures. Marr: And then there is R -O property further west on Joyce Boulevard that is undeveloped at this point? By the Post Office? Conklin: Yes. Marr. Thank you. Hoover: Mr. Chair, I have a question for staff. Just out of curiosity, I wanted to compare R -O to R-2 and the amount of concrete for parking needs for the two. Do you have Just off the top of your head, which one would require more concrete? Conklin: It's going to depend on the density they propose. Under R-2 you are allowed to have up to 24 units per acre. If they achieve that density you will probably have a lot more parking based on that density. Hoover: In an R-2 if you used it to its full capacity? Conklin: Yes. With R -O professional office at 1 space for 300 square feet of floor area, depending on the size of the office, if it's a multi story office building it could have potentially a lot of parking. That's a difficult question. • Hoover: I understand. I was just comparing notes here. Thank you. Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 30 Hoffman: Mr. Chair, so in R -O zoning there's a maximum percentage of the property that could be covered with pavement which is about 85 percent? Conklin: That is our Commercial Design Standards, yes, 85 percent. Hoffman: And if the property is rezoned and a large scale development come through that technically meets all of the ordinance requirements for tree canopy and replacement, drainage, detention and so forth, what is the minimum rear setback that can be from the north property line. Conklin: From the back property line is 25 feet. Hoffman: And would any kind of screening or buffering be required between the A -I and the R -O? Conklin: Yes. We do require screening between residential, non-residential uses. Hoffman: Essentially I'm for a rezoning on a property that has a certainty of being developed in an appropriate manner for this street because I do believe that Joyce is headed in that direction. However, because of the proximity to the wetlands and the other issues that remain to be resolved I don't think I can support it at this time. I'm struggling with a way to justify it in my mind when the adjoining property owners seem not to be too worried about it but want to sit down and discuss it, do you understand if the rezoning passes all of these items could come to pass. If a property meets design standards and is not asking for any variances and you have 25 foot setbacks and clear cutting of the treed area in the back, you could have a commercial development pretty close to your preserve. When rezoning has passed this level and City Council then in whatever manner it comes back for a large scale development if no variances are required it seems to me that the Planning Commission is going to be quite likely to pass it. So do you want to have your cup of coffee now or later? Smith: Won't those things be worked out in large scale development? Hoffman: If they meet all of these development standards for R -O zoning that can be an intensive use of the property. It allows for quite a bit of coverage of the property. It allows for 85 percent of it to be paved. Drainage could certainly be engineered to where they drain into detention ponds and so on but it doesn't leave much of an area or natural buffer between this development and the preserve behind it. So, for that reason I'm thinking I'm not going to support it if we can't get a little bit clearer picture of what's to occur here. Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 31 Hoover: Mr. Chair, I have one other question for staff and I'm sorry, I know you have told me this before, in an A-1 are there any conditional uses? Could they do an office complex in an A-1 with a conditional use? Conklin: Not in A-1. Hoover: What can you do in A-1? Conklin: Church, child care, agricultural uses. You need a conditional use for parking lots which serve a use within a different zoning district. Bunch: Mr. Chairman, I would offer possibly a friendly amendment to revise the motion by Commissioner Shackelford to exclude that portion of the property that drains into the wetland. To be a little more definitive than just saying from the house to the north. That the rezoning would be to R -O for all of the property with the exclusion of the portion that drains into the wetland and that would remain A-1. Would you accept that as a friendly amendment? Shackelford: I struggle with that a little bit to be honest with you. I still think that we can address that without doing divided rezoning in this situation. I think that Commissioner Hoffman has made some good points but just because you have the ability to build to this level there are a lot of times that we don't allow developers to build to the limit. I don't think we are giving anything away at this point. I think we still have final say on the large scale development. I think this situation will be addressed and will be resolved between the applicant and the surrounding people. I'm not necessarily sure that we want to start the trend of dividing rezoning requests. I think I would rather vote on it as it stands and if that's the direction you want to go if this fails, obviously you could make the motion and go forward with that. Bunch: Or would the applicant consider withdrawing this an bringing it back to us after they have had the time to talk to the neighboring property owners? Basham: Again, I'm not in a real good position to barter on that. I would Just leave it as it is right now. Petrie: Mr. Chair, if I may. I wanted to read what our regulations are concerning drainage into wetlands. Chapter 170.07 says areas defined as wetlands by the appropriate federal agencies shall be protected from adverse changes in runoff quantity and quality from associated land development. That is an item, of course, we are enforcing. Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 32 Odom: And that is addressed at the large scale development process? Petrie: Yes sir. Odom: Is there any further discussion on the motion? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion is denied by a vote of 3-5-1 with Commissioners Estes, Hoffman, Hoover, Allen and Marr voting against and Commissioner Ward abstaining. Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 33 Odom: Staff, is there any other business tonight? Conklin: There is no other business. Odom: Before we adjourn 1 want to make the quick announcement again that we have the upcoming meeting of the General Plan 2020 Update Subcommittee for members and interested citizens scheduled for Thursday, July 13, 2000 at 5:30 pm in room 326 here at City Hall. All those interested are invited to attend those meetings. Commissioners anything further? We are adjourned. Meeting adjourned at 6:50 pm. • • 1-/0- ov Can.lera 11: end).- ffittule5 Z.5 oo-aa•cn iii C-a/• 1 /W 66-079o0 r' L`JJ 00,1/00 7/a afimq CommtsSian 6�i9 euro /5/et o0 MOTION Lair-4 , %jnotetrora SECOND ShGtJJel -orrl Z3 L,, Ci D. Bunch 'i '1 I B. Estes 7 1 Pr ht la n L. Hoffman o y '1 S. Hoover I / A- bei-a in N. Allen 1 1 I D. Marr V 1 y C. Odom 1 y y Shackelford 1 y y L. Ward I I Y ACTION A pp roecl - p Pro uea! f }Faro%1 VOTE S -O -O 9-0-O 7-O,a • • • 7-70-00 rfb/1s1ti LSD 00-1.0.° Z Lb a0.o0 gommr on MOTION LnL'..rJ , )hMpkel-ror4 SECOND 3l A nO,k orvl D. Bunch V Y B. Estes '9 n L. Hoffman 1 lel S. Hoover y N. Allen V D. MarrV n C. Odom V y Shackelford y y L. Ward Y Rlh-.5; ACTION -Pass -Dent e d VOTE 9-0 _0 _3 _ _ ir