Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-07-23 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on July 23, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN Minutes of the July 9, 2001 meeting Approved Page 2 LSD 01-23.00: Large Scale Development (Lindsey Office Building, p 174) Approved Page 3 RZN 01-13.00: Rezoning (Indoor Batting Cages, pp 138) Approved Page 8 ADM 01-30.00: Administrative Item (Reconsideration - Central United Methodist Church, p 484) Denied Page 16 ADM 01-31.00: Administrative Item (Copper Creek, pp 100) Approved Page 29 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Nancy Allen Lorel Hoffman Bob Estes Alice Bishop Don Marr Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Kit Williams Sheri Metheney Hugh Eamest Donald Bunch Sharon Hoover Loren Shackelford STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 2 ROLL CALL and Approval of the minutes from the July 9, 2001 meeting. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call there were 6 Commissioners present. Estes: Good afternoon. Number two and number three on the agenda tonight has been pulled. If there is any member of the audience who is present and has an interest in those items, they will be heard at a later date. The first item of business is roll call. Sheri, would you please call the roll? There are six of nine present. 7-9-01 PC Meeting minutes Estes: The next item of discussion is the minutes of the July 9, 2001 meeting. Are there any comments, changes or modifications to be made to the minutes? Seeing none, enter the minutes of the July 9, 2001, Planning Commission meeting into the record. • • • Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 3 LSD 01-23.00: Large Scale Development (Lindsey Office Building, pp 174) was submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Lindsey Company for property located north of Joyce Street and south of Stearns Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 5.85 acres with an 82,420 sq. ft. office building proposed. Estes: The next item on the agenda is a large scale development for Lindsey Office Building submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Lindsey Company for property located north of Joyce Street and south of Stearns Road The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 5.85 acres with an 82,420 sq. ft. office building proposed. Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions. Tim, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: We do not. Estes: For those of the members of the audience, let me go through the conditions of approval. The first is, Planning Commission determination of a requested waiver from Section 5.4.3 of the City Drainage Criteria Manual which states, "PLrmanent Lakes with fluctuating volume controls may be used as detention areas provided that the limits of maximum ponding elevations are no closer than 100' horizontally from any building...." The applicant is requesting to allow a permanent lake with fluctuating volume controls within 100 feet of a structure. The applicant is proposing a 72 foot setback, a waiver of 28 feet. Staff is in support of the requested waiver. Number two, Planning Commission determination of required offsite improvements to Stearns Road. Staff is recommending that a 28 foot wide street with curb and gutter on both sides and a sidewalk on the south side be constructed adjacent to this property. The Staff is recommending that both sides of Stearns Road be constructed in lieu of an offsite street assessment to build Vantage Street that was assessed to First Security Bank. Based on acreage, that assessment would he in the amount ofS23,400.00. Number three, Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards including signage. The Planning Commission heard a request to review the compatibility of a six -story building with adjacent development pursuant to Commercial Design Standards and was supported at the June 11, 2001 meeting. However, a full review of Commercial Design Standards and signage is required. Staff is recommending that the applicant be limited to a monument sign. Number four, Planning Commission determination of the need for cross access to the McIlroy Bank parking lot. Number five, Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. Number six, staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for • • • Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 4 grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) 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 City's current requirements. Number seven, sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a six foot sidewalk with a ten foot greenspace along Joyce and Stearns Road. Number eight, Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. Number nine, approval of this project does not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available at the time of construction. Number ten, prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits; b. separate easement plat for this project; c. Project Disk with all final revisions; d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by §158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Is the applicant present? Bates: Yes sir. Estes: Would you tell us your name please? Bates: I'm Geoff Bates with Crafton, Tull & Associates. Estes: Mr. Bates, do you have a presentation that you would like to make to the Commission at this time? Bates: Not really. I'm just here to answer any questions you may have, technical questions Mr. Fugitt is here to answer any questions you may have about materials. Estes: Commissioners, do you have any questions of Mr. Bates regarding this proposed large scale development? Ward: Conklin: Geoff, what's the final on the sign? What are you going to (10 on the monument sign? With regard to the proposed freestanding sign, I would recommend that the Commission allow the applicant to bring forward a proposed freestanding sign, on this site, back to Subdivision Committee meeting. There has been some discussion with regard to a joint identification sign and what the ordinance allows for joint identification • • • Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 5 signs. Talking with the applicant just this evening, I don't think it's appropriate to deal with that issue since we don't have complete information at this time. However, I think the project is ready to go forward tonight and be approved. I would like to delay the sign issue and give that authority to approve the sign at Subdivision Committee if the Commission will agree to that. Thank you. Estes: Any further questions? PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Is there any member of the audience that would like to provide comment, make presentation regarding this proposed large scale development 01-23.00? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none, I'll close the floor to the public and bring the item back to the full Commission for discussion, any further questions of the applicant and motions. Ward: I guess we have two main conditions that we are looking at for variances? Conklin: That's correct, condition number one is in relationship to our stormwater ordinance and the distance from a permanent water feature. Ron Petrie, Staff Engineer, can go over that if you need more. Ward: Ron, is this something we are trying to change for commercial uses compared to residential as far as this variance on setbacks on drainage ponds? Petrie: That's an item that I have discussed with the City Engineer, Jim Beavers, and we will look at changing that. It's our interpretation that was really meant to apply to residential, not necessarily commercial. Conklin: With regard to the issue of the sign, once again taking that back to the Subdivision Committee is the recommendation from staff. Is there another variance in here? Ward: It wasn't a variance, it's an assessment of $23,000. Conklin: That's staff's recommendation that this developer be required to improve both sides of Sterns Street. We did assign some off-site improvement money to First Security Bank, however, the City at this time recommends to get both sides of Sterns Street built back • • • Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 6 MOTION: Ward: Hoffman: Ward: Conklin: Ward: Hoffman: Estes: Bates: Petrie: Fuggitt: Estes: Fuggitt: Estes: to the east in exchange for assessing this developer for Vantage Road With that, I would like to make a motion to approve LSD 01-23.00 for the Lindsey Office Building. I'll second. I want to make a mention of taking the sign back to Subdivision Committee. I just want to make sure that is the consensus of the Commission that the Subdivision Committee will make the final ruling on the sign for this development. That's incorporated in my motion. In my second too. Any other questions or discussion? I have one question Geoff, the detention pond, what are the plans for landscaping and screening, if any? I'm sure it's going to be sodded and a fountain like they have done on similar ponds. I'm not 100% sure of all the landscaping plans. It will have water in it and there is just some additional volume to handle the detention. That's correct, it will be sodded to the edge and with a water feature in it. There has been some discussion in the past regarding security and safety of the water features, is there anything planned in that regard? No sir, not in this case. What we've found is that the side slope of the ponds are not steep enough that if someone were to fall into it that they could not find their way out, like a swimming pool. Of course the other security measure will hopefully be there won't be any children around, it's not a school or multi -family area Hopefully won't have a lot of people playing in that pond. Commissioners, any other questions or comments? We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve LSD 01-23.00 and the motion was seconded by Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 7 Commissioner Hoffman. Sheri, would you call the roll, does the motion pass? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call LSD 01-23.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 6-0-0. • • • Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 8 RZN 01-13.00: Rezoning (Indoor Batting Cages, pp 138) was submitted Kirk Elsass on behalf of HCL Properties, represented by Jim Lindsey for property located south of Zion Road in HARB-CO Subdivision. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 1.4 acres. The request is to rezone to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Estes: Elsass: The next item on the agenda is item number four, a rezoning request RZN 01-13.00 for Indoor Batting Cages, submitted Kirk Elsass on behalf of HCL Properties, represented by Jim Lindsey for property located south of Zion Road in HARB-CO Subdivision. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 1.4 acres. The request is to rezone to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings as indicated in your report. Is the applicant present? Mr. Elsass, do you have any presentation that you would like to make? I really don't. We've got Chuck Calloway here today who is the one that's trying to put in the batting facilities and Jack Parish who is the architect that's designed the building, if you have any questions for them. Basically the building that would be built would be adjacent to the facility of the Key Comer Plaza that's there now that I currently own. If you have any questions, I would be glad to answer them. Estes: Commissioners, do you have any questions of Mr. Elsass? Hoffman: At agenda session there were some Commissioners concerned that the zoning might go forward and, I'm sure that's not the case but, the batting cage might not be built. At agenda session I thought, "Would there be a way we could actually pass the conditional use for this and the rezoning at the same time?" I've done some research since then and what I would like to put forth to the Commission and ask staff about specifically tonight would be, we hear vacation of easements and large scale developments at the same time, we hear conditional uses and large scale developments at the same time, annexations and rezonings at the same time. Could we not approve a conditional use for this use as a general idea with a condition that the large scale development come through at a later date so you don't have to draw anything now and get your rezoning recommendation at the same time and have him come back? That would allay all those concerns, we wouldn't need to worry about assurances or some possibility in the future that the C-1 zoning gets done and the batting cages doesn't happen. By the way, I think that the location of the batting cage is perfect. It sounds like a great thing. I'm just trying to figure out a way to get it done and have the assurances in place that seemingly some of the other Commissioners are worried about. • • • Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 9 Ward: I don't see what's wrong with C-1 in that particular area. You've got shopping centers, athletic centers, apartment complexes and so on anyway. C-1 is pretty limited what you can do. Elsass: Everything there is C-1 up to the apartments. This is just a buffer between the apartments that Mr. Lindsey owns. Ward: It's not C-2. Elsass: It's a C-1 zoning. Hoffman: The intersection has commercial zoning and then it transitions down to R-0 and then your R-2. Usually the way the•nodes go, it's commercial in the corner then residential office and so I was trying to get everything accomplished and keep everybody happy. Conklin: To answer your question with regard to if you place a condition on this site that impact the rezoning, I don't think you can do that. Hoffman: I'm not saying as part of the same, I'm saying it's two different actions, the conditional use is placed on the site conditional upon the approval of the rezoning and conditional on large scale development being presented. Conklin: Are you trying to put a condition on there to say that it will not be zoned C-1? Hoffman: If the zoning doesn't go through. Conklin: If the conditional use doesn't come forward? I'm trying to figure out how you are tying the two together. Hoffman: I'm not. I'm saying we are taking two separate actions on this site and if the rezoning goes through. We are only recommending to the City Council and I feel like it will go through because of the use. There were concerns that it might not be a batting cage for whatever reason. It's not a reflection on you or intended to be. Just to get a better assurance and he doesn't have to draw any plans, we just accept the idea that the batting cages are going to come in. If it doesn't, then the C-1 zoning is void. Conklin: What I believe you are asking for, has the applicant offered voluntary a Bill of Assurance saying that? Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 10 Hoffman: No, I'm not. Conklin: I apologize that I'm not understanding how you are trying to tie the two together. The reason why the conditional use is not before you this evening is, they want to make sure this property can be rezoned to be able to do what they are going to do. Typically, we don't issue a conditional use without some type of detailed drawings knowing exactly where the parking is going to be located, what the building is going to look like, any type of screening that we may have and we try to get a very detailed report on a conditional use. Hoffman: Could we not require that as a large scale development later on so he doesn't have to draw his plans, just to prove the idea for the batting cages? Conklin: It's difficult to make findings required by conditional use because it talks about parking, access, utilities, compatibility and those type of findings you have to make as part of a conditional use. I'm not saying it's never been done here at the Planning Commission. Typically, we try to bring forward conditional uses with enough information, talk about where the dumpsters are going to be located, what the buildings are going to look like, where the buildings are going to be placed on the site and that type of information. Hoffman: The site is certainly large enough, I wasn't really concerned about that. It seems like those kinds of things would be easily drawn at a later date on this plan and just have them go forth as a tandem. Conklin: It's my understanding on a rezoning we can't ask or put any conditions on your recommendation. You have to base your recommendation that, is this site appropriate for C-1 neighborhood commercial use because there is a possibility, in the future, that it may be developed with a use allowed in C-1. That's all we have to consider this evening, whether or not this piece of property that's currently zoned R-0, if it's zoned C-1, is that appropriate between this multi -family development to the west and the commercial development to the east? We have residential office zoning, undeveloped property, to the north. You kind of have to take a look at it. Is it appropriate for those types of C-1 neighborhood commercial uses on that piece of property? That's my understanding of the way Fayetteville handles rezonings and what the law requires us to look at, we can't consider other things that might occur on this site like a conditional use. Hoffman: I think that the way I'm intending to put this is not, it's in two tandem motions just as we've done all these other things that go forward together and I don't really understand • • Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 11 Estes: the objection to it but maybe some other people would want to weight in on it, I'm not sure. Mr. Williams, let me ask you this to perhaps be dispositive to Commissioner Hoffman's question, is it permissible instead of bifurcating the conditional use request and the rezoning request to hear both the conditional use request rezoning request at the same time? The rezoning, if approved, would be advanced to City Council for final approval or must we only hear the rezoning request and then put the applicant to the additional burden of coming back again a second time for the conditional use? In other words, is it permissible to hear them both at the same time so that the applicant doesn't have to make two presentations? Williams. Mr. Chairman, I think I agree with Mr. Conklin, the City Planner, on that. The rezoning has to actually become a reality before the conditional use would be allowed. Although you recommend one way or the other on the rezoning, City Council makes the decision on the rezoning and until the City Council makes a decision on the rezoning I don't think it would be proper for a conditional use to be brought forward. 1 assume, Mr. Conklin, that a conditional use for a batting cage would not be allowed in an R-0 district, which is what it is currently zoned? Conklin: That is correct. The C-1 zoning is being requested also for the commercial activity within the batting cage, they do plan on having like a pro shop in there and some food service. Williams. Therefore, since the Planning Commission cannot make the final decision on rezoning, it can only make a recommendation to the City Council. I believe it would be premature to make any kind of decision upon conditional use until the property has been rezoned, assuming that's what the City Council will do. Hoffman: That conditional use could not be heard directly after the rezoning hearing, as we do in annexation/rezoning, I don't see any difference? I'm just struggling with why. Conklin: I guess the difference here is you are relying on the conditional use to base your decision on the rezoning and that concerns me, based on what I understand. Your zoning decisions needs to stand alone, "Is it appropriate for C-1 use?". I think I understand why you want to see them together but they can't be tied together. Hoffman: I understand what you are saying but I'm trying to get this done for this applicant. • There is a permitted use in here of gasoline service station and drive-in restaurant in C- • • • Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 12 1, if I'm not mistaken. If that's objectionable to anybody being off the corner, it would seem to me to be a safer proposition to approve the rezoning recommendation and send forward, at the same time to be heard later, the conditional use which gets him to the same spot without having the rezoning, for some reason, possibly turned down. Williams: I will try to differentiate between this and the annexation and rezoning which are heard at the same time. Both of those are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes a decision on both of those. At this point in time, you make the decision on conditional uses, the City Council is not involved. That might change in the future, but right now our whole process is you make a decision there. I think it would be inappropriate to try to make that decision before the underlying decision has to be made whether or not this can be rezoned. 1 don't think it would be appropriate to pass judgement on something that has not in fact been authorized under our ordinances - because you could not allow a conditional use in an R-0 zone. I agree with the City Planner, I do not think you can consider a conditional use the same time you do a rezoning. Hoffman: Thanks. Estes: Are there any other questions, Mr. Elsass? Elsass: You realize that property is adjacent to the La Hacienda restaurant, so you've already got a restaurant with a drive-thru window. The proximity of the two right there, the fact that you've already got established apartments adjacent to that and the C-1 is across the street on the north. I've looked through that, I don't know of any uses that would go in a C-1 zoning that would disturb that property. A C-2 I would understand where you are coming from. Hoffman: I've got R-0 on the north. Elsass: There's C -I across the street with the R-0. The athletic club is there, there is an additional two acres across the street, there is the adjacent property. That property, the way it shows on your map in the City, there is some discrepancies in that in some plats there, there is some R-0 and some C-1 combined there together. Estes: Any other questions Mr. Elsass? PUBLIC COMMENT: • • • Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 13 Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on this requested rezoning? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the full Commission for discussion, questions and motions. Allen: I wondered where the discrepancies are on our maps, can you show us or tell us? Elsass: They aren't on this particular property, they are the piece across the street. There are some areas over there that show some R-0 zoning and some C-1 zoning and it's just - not real clear. I'm sure in the minutes that the Planning Division has, it's got it detailed out according to the plat and the way the colored maps are, there are some areas right at the top that Bob Shoulders is building a facility that is still zoned R-0. I may be mistaken, they may have made some changes from some of the paperwork that I've seen. My point is that all of it, whether it be 250 feet of R-0 and 100 feet of C-1 but that is the zoning over there is R-0 and C-1, if I'm not mistaken. Estes: Commissioners, any other comments, questions, discussion, motions? Bishop: I understand what Commissioner Hoffman is saying and I know we are not supposed to consider the conditional use, if that is acting as a buffer zone, it does make a difference what kind of business goes in there. At this point I would be asking what are the hours of operation for the batting cages going to be and that type of thing. It would help to have all that information before I make my decision about the rezoning. I see where she's coming from. Estes: I don't want to unfairly characterize what Mr. Williams has told us but I think he has opined that is something for us to consider when we consider the conditional use and not when we consider the rezoning, is that correct Mr. Williams? Williams. Yes it is Mr. Chairman. Estes: In other words, when the conditional use comes to us, presuming it does come to us, then we can talk about hours of operation and talk about some of the very important issues that you've addressed. What we have before us this evening is the rezoning request Is that correct Mr. Williams? • • Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 14 Williams. Yes it is. We have to avoid something in the law called contract zoning where you engage in explicit contracts with developers or owners, in order for them to try to get their land rezoned. Mr. Conklin gave you a list of several things you are supposed consider in rezonings and that is what you really need to confine your attention on. 1 understand your other concerns about this and you can certainly think about what can go on in a C-1 and whether it's appropriate for this particular place and that's what you need to make your decision on. We don't have, at this point, any kind of absolute assurance of exactly what's going to happen on this land. Your decision tonight will be whether or not you feel like it's appropriate in this location to rezone this land C-1. MOTION: Marr. I would like to move for approval and recommending to City Council approval, rezoning 01-13.00. I believe it's consistent with our land use planning objectives. Certainly zoning is needed out in this area with the growth that we have and I think it's appropriate at this time. Bishop: I'll second. Hoffman: I'll vote for the rezoning because I strongly believe the applicant is going to follow through with what he says he's going to do. It's a great idea for what you are going to put out there. I have, in the several years of being on the Planning Commission, known that there is a commercial PUD type of zoning ordinance that could be passed and has been passed in several states, I don't know about Arkansas if it's unique in the fact that you can't do that. We do have a residential PUD. In this case a commercial PUD would just be ideal. I've asked the questions several times before, we've never had the benefit of having a City Attorney at our meetings and possibly there were too many other things that were under consideration by the City Council or City Attorney's at that time when 1 tried to make the case for something like this. It would really be helpful if we could try to get something like that put together. I know we are all really busy and it takes a lot to do that but this is one more example of that need that I see. That has been very beneficial in other cities because you can negotiate, not only the rezoning, it's not a contract zoning, it's the total application. I think the staff has worked very well with the applicants in terms of giving them an idea of what our ordinances are about and what to expect and what the general plan shows and so on. Let's consider it for the future. Estes: Any other discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Marr to approve rezoning • request 01-13.00 and a second by Commissioner Bishop, Sheri would you call the roll, • • • Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 15 does the motion pass? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call RZN 01-13.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 6-0-0 and will be sent to City Council. • • • Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 16 Reconsideration of ADM 01-30.00: Administrative Item (Central United Methodist Church, pp 484) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Central United Methodist Church for property located at 346 N. St. Charles. The property is zoned R -O. Residential Office and contains approximately 0.30 acres. The request is to reconsider a proposal for a 31 space parking lot for a church (use unit 4, cultural & recreational facility) in an R. -O district, with a semi- permeable paving system. Estes: The next item of business that we have on our agenda is item number five. This is an administrative item for Central United Methodist Church submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Central United Methodist Church for property located at 346 N. St. Charles. The property is zoned R -O. Residential Office and contains approximately 0 30 acres. The request is to reconsider a proposal for a 31 space parking lot for a church (use unit 4, cultural & recreational facility) in an R -O district, with a semi -permeable paving system. Staff recommends that Planning Commission make a finding that there is evidence of changed conditions or new circumstances which justify reconsideration of conditional use request 01-14.00 based on the use of a semi -permeable paving system, Grasspave2. If the Planning Commission makes a finding to allow reconsideration, staff will place the conditional use and large scale development request on the August 13, 2001, Planning Commission agenda. This is a motion for reconsideration that is based upon the authority of our Ordinance §163.02, Authority, Conditions and Procedures. Disapproval/Reconsideration. "No application for conditional use will be considered by the Planning Commission within 12 months from the date of final disapproval of a proposed conditional use, unless there is evidence of changed conditions or new circumstances which justify reconsideration submitted to the Planning Commission." Commissioners, in order to grant this request for reconsideration, you must make a finding that there is evidence of changed conditions or new circumstances which justify reconsideration. This is not the typical motion for a rehearing that we sometimes hear which must be made in the meeting following the meeting in which there was a disapproval, in that case the motion must be made by one of the members who voted in opposition to the motion. This is a request for reconsideration under the authority of the ordinance which 1 quoted and the motion may be made by any member of the Commission, seconded by any member of the Commission, and requires a majority vote. Before we proceed any further, we have six Commissioners present, are there any recusals? • • • Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 17 Allen: Estes: In the last month or so, I've been reading and hearing an awful lot about recusals, when they are appropriate or not appropriate. In the year that I've been on the Planning Commission, I've recused one other time and that was when there was a rezoning in my neighborhood that would have required a higher density and it was certainly an issue that I cared a great deal about yet I felt it appropriate morally and ethically to recuse. I cannot remember a time when I was not a member of the Central United Methodist Church. There have been times that I've been a member in better standing than other times but 1 don't remember not being a member of the church. To me, it is an ethical and moral conflict but I would like to say that, by no means, my recusal makes someone else's choice invalid, it has to be a real personal decision and my decision is to recuse. That leaves five members of -the Commission who will be voting, a majority is required. The recusal will be counted as an absent. Let me say this, and please listen very carefully, administrative items are normally done by the Commission and public comment is not taken and no presentation by the applicant is made, however, in this case, I am going to make an exception. I am going to allow a presentation by the applicant and 1 am going to allow public comment. Let me please direct your attention to this singular issue, this is a motion for reconsideration of a conditional use. Let's not go back and re -lick the calf. If in the applicants presentation or public comment I find that that's being done, I'm going to say so and ask you to sit down. Please, limit your comments to the motion that is before us, make your comments brief, make them salient to the issue being discussed and sit down and give another person a chance. Don't lick the calf again. With that said, does the applicant have any presentation to be made? Jorgensen: My name is Dave Jorgensen. On behalf of Central United Methodist Church I respectfully bring this forward before the Planning Commission. First of all, I beg your patience in this situation, we really do need more parking. In an attempt to solve the problem, we came up with this idea of putting in a grass parking lot. You may have in your packets color drawings of the parking lot. It's not totally green and it may not be green enough for you, which we could go with a darker color, basically it's been suggested that we convert the asphalt surface to a concrete surface right down the middle 20 foot wide. That would be the main driveway and we would have grass surface each side of that. In addition to that, we have removed all other waiver requests in that we have no more waiver requests about the 15 foot setback on the west side and any other waiver requests we had. We are abiding by all the requirements. We are here to solve a problem the best we can, the best way we know how. We are simply asking, as you mentioned Bob, that the Planning Commission at least consider this at the next Planning Commission meeting, August 13th. This is our • • Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 18 best chance that we thought of getting this parking lot approved. We feel like it happens to fit in with the surrounding neighborhood in the fact that the parking to the south is the Post Office parking and there is also a parking lot to the north which is the law firm and naturally this ties into our parking to the east. We don't feel like we are too far out of character with this proposal. Based on the fact that it is mostly grass and we could add more grass, if you notice, the shaded are that's called "landscape mulch" that's around the perimeter, we could have that grassed also. The only part that we had hard surface is the central area right there that we converted to concrete because we had a lot of concern at the last meeting that the asphalt would generate more heat. We think the concrete would actually help this situation. We now have that change also. The grassed area would be irrigated and hopefully you still have the brochures in your packet that show how this is done and where it's done, we think that would be a real good alternative to the asphalt that we originally had. Here again, the main significant change is the pure and simple fact that we are going to hopefully have an all grass parking lot which is the basis for our request and the fact that we've removed all variance requests on this. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Is there any member of the public who would like to provide public comment on this requested reconsideration of conditional use? If so, please come forward, give us your name, please keep your comments brief, to the point and relevant to this agenda item being discussed, that is, the request for reconsideration, so that everyone has a chance to speak. Marinoni: My name is Paula Marinoni, I'm the founder and President of the Washington County Historic Preservation Association. My family has been a presence on west Lafayette Street for close to 100 years. I have an interest in that area, I see it as being having the opportunity to be beautiful once again. I've been very concerned of what I've seen happen to it, not just since I've returned six years ago, but as I said in my letter to you. Have you had an opportunity to read my letter? Estes: Ms. Marinoni, your letter was made a part of our packet. 1 think it would be appropriate if you provided us with the benefit of your comrnents and not interrogate the Commission members. Marinoni: I didn't want to be redundant. • Estes: Your letter has been provided. I think that two separate letters have been provided • • • Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 19 and made a part of our packet. I cannot speak for the other Commission members but 1 can say that I've read mine. Marinoni: Addressing this particular issue, I would like to remind you that the parking lot issue was voted down and they have come back with this request for reconsideration saying that they think they have addressed most of the concerns. I would like to remind you and I would like to read from the minutes of the last meeting. Chairman Estes, when you started to comment on this you said the same thing that you just said, `Be to the point and relevant to the agenda item being considered so that everyone will have a chance to speak and please do not be repetitious or redundant. By that, I mean, do not repeat what a previous speaker has said." You informed us, you told us not to be repetitious. Everyone here that spoke and signed these petitions are concerned about the proliferation of parking lots in that area and tearing down the historic structures. • That is the issue. By telling us that we could not be redundant and letting people say what their main feelings were, they went off on the tangent issues like the heat that it generates. That is certainly not the main issue and I think the planners know that. Richard Alexander came up and he presented, I knew he was going to present this so I let him present that, in your planning regulations 172.01(e)(2)(b) it says "The Planning Commission shall make a finding based on the size, scale, and location of these activities that the proposed parking lot will not adversely affect the adjacent residential uses or the residential character of the neighborhood." He said "I submit that if you tear down all the houses to make parking, you have adversely affected the residential character of the neighborhood." In your regulations, it states this. I came up and backed him up and I said on condition of approving this, in your packet it says under 3B, "The granting of the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interests." Their finding was that it wouldn't and I said "Who says Tearing down the historic structures in a historic area and turning everything into a leveled area of nothingness is adversely affecting the public interest." There were two petitions that were circulated. One in the Boles/Rollston area, that petition did not mention heat. They were concerned about the historic integrity of the neighborhood and they backed up my proposal which is basically to the church, that they swap some of the parking that's already been approved for this. That's nothing that you could do but they actively put their hand to that. There was also a petition that was circulated on Mount Nord. They spoke against the proliferation of the parking lots in that area. Also, the aesthetic value that this is supposed to address, this should not be an issue whether it's grass or what because in the last meeting that wasn't the main issue. When he came back up here and Don Bunch said "Help me out here." " Why should we approve this?", and he said "Because it's going to be nice looking." "We've made all these efforts to save trees." We didn't really care about that. What we were opposed to and the reason it was • Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 20 voted down was that there is no plan for what's happening in this area and the responsibility to the neighborhood and the integrity of the area. The grass shouldn't make a difference. If they did what they said they were going to do last time, which was voted down, it wouldn't make a difference. That lot is elevated and if it was screened, like they said it would be screened, it wouldn't make any difference if grass was up there. On the sod parking lot, I was involved with the last sod parking lot on Spring Street, in that by coincidence, that property was on my garden tour that year. I was there when it was being put in, I watched them put it in and I thought "I can't see how on earth that's going to work." 1 gave it the benefit of the doubt. We did the t.v. video of it and 1 was saying how wonderful this was. Wouldn't that be wonderful for it to work? But it didn't work, it failed. Tim says it's because of the kind of grass that was used. 1 contend that it was what was underneath it and it's an inappropriate use for it. If someone wants to try to do that, fine, but it's basically designed for stadium parking lots. Like in Kansas City we had a world class turf management manager who was out there with a whole team every day. They don't seem to show that there is any concern for the neighborhood, let alone how that parking is going to be cared for. The sod parking lot on Spring Street failed, there is no grass there and now there is brown gravel covering the whole thing. Aesthetically it shouldn't make a difference. The main thing that I found out in this and I asked Tim "How come if parking in an R-0 zone requires a conditional use, why then in 1995 all the parking that Central United Methodist got approved on Lafayette Street, that has not been built yet, why isn't that a conditional use?" He said, "At that time, was the same time UBC was doing their big new church and all that additional parking." It was probably quite a shock for the neighborhood to see all this parking going in and that's when this was enacted. There has not been a parking lot in this area since then. This is the first time that this has come up. I don't see, as planners and as people who represent the citizens of the City, how you can ignore this when the intent was specifically for thiv area and specifically to protect the historic integrity of this very challenged area. I ask you to vote it down. Thank you. Estes: Is there any other member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested reconsideration of conditional use 01-14.00? Boyett: I'm Jeff Boyett. My family and I own the property directly north of the proposed lot on the eastern side. I'll start by saying 1 hate opposing the church, it's awful to appear in the paper opposing the church, it just happens to be the circumstance in where I live. I note this is Just for reconsideration and I'll be brief. Three points that I got from the last meeting of why it was voted down was, number one, there was no comprehensive plan. You are being asked to consider one parking spot of 31 spaces or however many it is • • Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 21 now, I don't know. I would imagine it would be very hard to make a rational decision when you've got parking that's going to be on an entire block on Lafayette Street, this goes from Highland to St. Charles. The church says that there is no long term parking plans then I have no reason to doubt them at all. However, it's already been approved. The second reason is, have they explored other parking available to them? No one parks on Lafayette Street on Sunday morning, I live there and I know. Washington Elementary School has a parking lot that's empty all weekend long. Those two combined are more than 31 spots that the church is looking for. The third thing and the most important thing is that it adversely affects the neighborhood. A parking lot going into any house could not do anything but adversely affect the neighborhood. Just by going to a grass lot, to butcher an old saying, "a parking lot by any other means is still a parking lot." It could be gravel, dirt, grass or anything, it's still a parking lot going into our neighborhood and just by changing it to grass is not enough of a change for it to go up for reconsideration. Rolston: I'm Linda Rolston. I'm a new employee in the downtown area. Anyone that is in the area Monday through Friday knows how much fun it is finding a place to park at different times of the day, especially Farmer's Market day. I've seen it as an experience in creativity. I've done a lot of walking in the past month or so. I've gotten involved a little bit more with the Downtown Dickson Enhancement Program, as you all may know, that is going to blend Dickson, along with Central Methodist, blend it up to the square, which is an incredible creative project. I really see before us an exercise in creativity. As we've heard comments about parking availability, I know there seems to be more of an abundance even on the weekends versus during the week, like in the square area which does get very congested. I'm positive that's what the church really desires, is really what's best for everyone concerned, not just for the church and for their members to experience the extra parking but really what's best for the whole community. 1 really believe that's at the heart of it all, we are trying to reach that balance together. I personally feel and some of us believe that the balance that's truly the best for all is not the parking lot, be it asphalt or greenpave 2. I just wanted to share that. Someone has mentioned that they want to solve the problem the best way we know how. I think together that's where we are going. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Does anyone else wish to provide public comment on this requested reconsideration? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the applicant for comments and rebuttal. • Jorgensen: I would like to clarify for the record, it's not 31 spaces, now it's 29. We have reduced Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 22 the amount of spaces to 29. Estes: Mr. Kincaid is indicating that he wishes to take the rebuttal period, I believe. Kincaid: I'm currently the Chairman of the Board of Trustees at Central United Methodist Church. I just want to take a few minutes to give rebuttal. I will keep my remarks brief. It seems to me that the very nature of what we are here about is reconsideration. We are here because other avenues are not acceptable to the church, we want to work with the City, with the Planning Commission. We've been involved with the Dickson Street Enhancement Project, we've been involved with the commitment to stay in downtown. We are trying to do our part to make that work. We've cast around for a better solution. The very nature of reconsideration means you are considering something again. Necessarily it is a parking lot or it wouldn't be a reconsideration. If it were otherwise, I ask the City Attorney to stop me short if I'm wrong, it would be an application for something else, a mobile home or something of that sort. In essence, even though it is still a parking lot, the question is are there changed conditions? We didn't know about this process when we first came to you for the conditional use. Since then we've discovered that it is a viable option and has been done by other churches across the country. We do think it is a changed condition. It creates a grassed area that can double as a natural area when it's not being used for parking. It addresses one of the concerns, the heat generated by asphalt in specific terms. It's very different in terms of what is proposed and what was proposed. We ask you, in essence, to reconsider and that's all we do today. We would like the opportunity to produce more graphic evidence of the merit of this and the success of it as a means for solving this problem. I'm not going to attempt to deal with the questions raised about Lafayette because that's not what is involved here. The issue is, given that you are reconsidering that application for a parking lot which went before, are there conditions that are changed? You've heard that we've withdrawn requests for other aspects of it, in addition reduced the spaces, changed the very nature of it to a grassed area. 1 submit that that represents a very substantial change of conditions or new circumstances that would warrant your taking another look at this. That's what we ask you to do tonight. I agree with Ms. Rolston, it is a question of balance. It always is in a community like this, we have all kinds of pressures to take care of but taking care of people who want to try to attend a church and have reasonable proximity to it, to access it, is a part of that balance. Even Ms. Marinoni, in her original letter to the Commission described this particular parcel as a better place for parking. It should be obvious that we are searching for solutions to that. We would really like to try this technique because it may help in other things that we do, if it's workable. We think it will be based on the studies we've done. We ask you to give us a chance to Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 23 demonstrate that to you. You've got another chance to look at it if you grant the reconsideration and we would respectfully ask that you do that. Thank you. Estes: I will now bring the item back to the Commission for comments, discussions, questions of the applicant and motions. Conklin: I did receive a letter today from 108 Boles Street, would you like me to read that into the record? I did pass it out to each Commissioner this evening. Estes: There was material that was here when we arrived at 5:30 p.m. Commissioners, any other discussion? Hoffman: At the agenda session I went on record saying that I would most likely vote against the parking lot, should it come back to Planning Commission because I do still believe it is a parking lot even though the material was changed. I was on a family vacation in Savannah, Georgia, when the last meeting took place and did not vote but I did study the minutes and I visited the site. Although I feel reluctant, I'm not going to make a motion either way but it just seems to me that it's part of the democratic process if somebody has come up with another method or idea for the parking lot that they deserve a hearing. I just wanted to be very clear with everybody at the agenda session and I think I was because I read about it later, how I was feeling about that. I will just confine my discussion to the rehearing in that I'm always in favor of giving everybody the most say and being as fair as possible in that regard. I'll leave my comments regarding the parking lot material and the proposed paving for later, should it come back to us. Estes: Let me say this, I will vote against any motion for reconsideration and the reason is this, the conditional use request was for a parking lot. It was for a conditional use (Use Unit 4) in an R-0 district. I voted for that conditional use request. I voted in the majority in number but the minority, in affect because it required five affirmative votes. I voted for the conditional use that we are now being asked to reconsider but 1 cannot vote for reconsideration and the reason is, what was before us then was a request for a parking lot and what is before us now is a request to reconsider a parking lot. Under the ordinance we must make an affirmative finding that number one, there is evidence of changed circumstances or new circumstances which justify reconsideration. I see that we considered a parking lot and that it was not approved by five affirmative votes. I see that we are now being asked to reconsider a parking lot. 1 see no difference. It was a conditional use for a parking lot then and it's a conditional use for a parking lot now. I will tell you in pains me greatly to have to vote against this because I voted for • • • Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 24 the conditional use request. Kincaid: Maybe it would be good, f haven't talked to the City Attorney about that issue but just saying because it asked for a parking lot again it can't be reconsidered. I'm saying we couldn't have a reconsideration if we didn't ask for a parking lot again. I would yield and say that's a legal question and it would be appropriate for somebody to rule on it that can say whether or not you can have reconsideration if you didn't consider a parking lot. The issue has to be whether it changed conditions. Estes: Let me respond to that if I may? No, it's not a question of law, it's a question of fact. We are mandated by ordinance to make a specific finding of fact to vote for the motion for reconsideration. That specific finding of fact which must be made is "Evidence of changed circumstances or new circumstances which justify reconsideration". A conditional use is just that, it is a use subject to certain conditions. Most often what is seen is, in the reported literature as example, a conditional use to place a mobile home in an R-0 or R-1. If that was denied by lack of five affirmative votes and it came back to us as a request to place a duplex instead of a mobile home, I think that would satisfy the finding of fact that we must make. We are not mandated to make any findings of law. We are mandated to make specific findings of fact. I see we had a conditional use request for a parking lot and I see that we have a conditional use request for a parking lot right now. I'm dust one of five but if there is a motion made, so far there has not been a motion made, I cannot vote for the motion for reconsideration for those reasons, although I did vote for a conditional use request. Let me also say this, this concerns me. There is a substantial concern that I have that each time we look at a conditional use that the applicant comes back later, under this ordinance §163.02 and asks for reconsideration after having modified their request a little bit. If it's a request to put a mobile home in an R-0 and the second time it's a request to put a mobile home in an R-0, I'm not going to vote for it. If it's a request for a parking lot the first time and it's a request for the parking lot the second time, I'm not going to vote for it. I'm just one. 1 sometimes sit up here and feel like, perhaps like a director of a cemetery must feel, he has a whole lot of people under him and nobody pays any attention to anything he says. Maybe that will be the case in this circumstance. Mr. Kincaid, we have closed the floor and it is now before the full Commission. Hoffman: I would suggest that usually you talk about the number of votes needed for something to pass. We've got five people sitting up here right now and we know you are not going to vote for it, you've made that perfectly clear, wouldn't it be appropriate to talk about allowing the applicant to withdraw this request? If we do deny this, nothing comes back for another year, am I right in that? This was an administrative item on a • • Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 25 conditional use and if it gets denied, there is no way it's corning back, regardless if you pave it in gold bricks? Estes: As a conditional use request it would not come back for one year. As the applicant can see, there are five members of the Commission present, four are absent. Williams: Since this is a simple motion, it only requires the majority of the voting members. It would still require 3 affirmative votes to pass, 3 negative votes to fail. Estes: Certainly, to be responsive to what you said Commissioner Hoffman, the applicant can pull it at any time prior to the vote. Kincaid: My understanding that in essence, the way you are interpreting the ordinance is that in any circumstance if you carne back for a reconsideration and it's still a parking lot or still a mobile home, that you could not, that precluded finding changed conditions or changed circumstances, that's the ruling of the Chair? Estes: No, that was not the ruling of the Chair at all. I was attempting to communicate and articulate two things: one, I wanted you to know how I would vote because you've got five Commissioners up here and you are kind of short. Nine is a full Commission. I wanted to you to know, number one, how I was going to vote and; number two, I felt like that because 1 had voted in favor of the conditional use that, having informed you how I was going to vote, deserved some explanation. I'm not opining or making a ruling. Marr: Could you talk about prior reconsiderations and give me some examples where we would have considered the same use within a request? Are you aware of any? Conklin: I'm not aware of any. I don't remember bringing anything back to you for a reconsideration? Hoffman: Lake Hills Church came back. They just changed their design scheme a bunch, it was still a church. Was that not one of them? Conklin: Lake Hills Church came back because they changed what they were doing. It started out as a rezoning and then added a daycare towards the end that required them to come back. • Hoffman: That wasn't a conditional use though? • • • Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 26 Conklin: That was a conditional use. Staff required them to come back before the Commission to have their additional uses approved as a conditional use. Kincaid: It would just help us to know if there cannot be a change in condition, it is still a parking lot, that's all. It would help us to know. We understood that staff recommended it so that it could be regarded as qualifying as an issue with changed conditions. The mere fact that it was a parking lot still would not prevent that. It seems to me that staff would not have recommended it. I don't want to misstate the Chairman but I just want to be sure we understand. If we have misunderstood that we can come back and show a change in conditions about that parking lot, if in fact being a parking lot renders it impossible to show a change in conditions. If that answers the question that there aren't changes in condition, we need to know that so we know how to proceed. Ward: Marr: First of all, I think in order for our churches to continue to be growing and dynamic, we've got to provide more parking lots, there's no doubt about that. We already have very concise parking lot landscaping regulations and I think they are very good. I'm not sure that doing this is any better than what we already have. I don't really think this is an answer. We've got, what I think, are very excellent landscaping regulations for our parking lots. I really feel strongly that the churches in our historic area are what makes our historic area a very neat place to live and work. I don't think the value of properties have gone up dramatically enough to where we they are talking about parking decks. Churches can't afford to put parking decks in with what the price of property is now. That's just my thinking on it. I would have a hard time with the administrative item. I think the church needs more parking, you can't grow without parking. People just won't go to that church if there is not convenient parking. All of our churches on the downtown historic area are facing similar problems. They have such a positive impact on our lives and that's what makes our area such a neat place to live. That's one reason people want to come here from other places is because of our strong religions and all of our good churches. Thereagain, I'm not sure that this is enough of a change that I can vote for it either. I voted against this proposal the first time because of the impact it made on the residential character of the neighborhood, the compatibility of adjacent residential property and more importantly, understanding the total planning of the site relative to parking because I do believe that we have prior approval of parking. When I look at a conditional use being done, I'm also considering the availability of what is already approved. When I look at this request, it is still a parking lot to me. 1 cannot think of one situation where we have reconsidered the same use, that I'm aware of, on my three years of the Commission. When you come back in a year, I won't be here, you'll have • • • Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 27 a better shot. The other thing is that those items that made me vote my particular way is we've spoken to at all on why they would change in term of a master plan. I did hear some more data this time about the compatibility with the parking lot surrounding it but 1 still think there are residential areas that touch it. 1 also heard through Ms. Marinoni's comments that the Mount Nord District supported not doing this and I wanted to speak specifically to that because I'm a Mount Nord resident. I live at #2 Mount Nord and I haven't talked to a single person on my street. If I felt there was a conflict of interest I would certainly recuse from it, simply because I have a lot of friends that go to that church and want them to have their parking. I live catty -corner and look from my porch at a parking lot at Washington School every Sunday morning. Parking doesn't affect me in the same manner than someone else. 1 have to do what I think is best in my role in planning and that is, I've listened to the feedback, I've talked both pros and cons in support of this and I still think the same issue stands. The other thing is that I'm not all that opposed to conditional uses and the change that the City Council is requesting because I think that they are elected and if someone isn't happy with us, since we are appointed, they ought to have that option. I only do what's best and maybe the next person on this seat will find it another way but that's how I feel. Hoffman: I can't emphasize enough how important I think this is. It may not be a change in use of the parking lot. I'm not speaking to my objections to this because I will get to them, if this comes, at another time. I think that when you read our ordinance, if there is a change in the circumstance and evidence of changed conditions, we've got grass paving versus asphalt paving, I don't see any new circumstances. That's an "or" in between but we owe it to them to at least listen to them. I really wish I could come out and give all my comments I have regarding the neighborhood and the impact on the neighborhood and the warranty issues that I see with the paving but that's not what we are here to talk about tonight. I just think the people, if they have made a substantial change, this is a substantial change in the pavement of the parking lot, should be able to bring it back and discuss it in an open forum and not wait a year I'm one of five. Bishop: 1 would just like to hear from staff why this came to us, why you feel like this was enough of a significant change to bring it to us? Is it just because we are going to a different material, the grasspave, that you feel like it's enough of a change? Conklin: That's correct. This is a product that typically isn't used for parking lots in Fayetteville. The idea here was to try to make the site softer, more natural looking, decrease the pavement on the site. Once again, the Planning Commission has to make the finding whether or not there are changed conditions or new circumstances which justify the reconsideration. When they did talk to staff and the Landscape Administrator about • • • Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 28 Estes: this, this was a way to possibly reduce stormwater runoff, also when they increased the landscaping along the front, no longer requiring the variances and reducing it by two parking spaces, we thought there was enough change in conditions here for the Planning Commission to take a look at the conditional use request again. That's how we looked at it. Once again, this is something we don't typically see here at the Planning Commission. I think each Commissioner is going to have to decide what is evidence of changed conditions and new circumstances to grant a reconsideration of the conditional use that was denied. 1 think everyone is going to have to evaluate the situation and how it's changed from what was proposed before and make that decision tonight as to whether or not to go forward and hear the large scale development and conditional use. Thank you Mr. Conklin. Any other discussion, comments, motions? The Chair will call three times for a motion. Is there a motion? Is there a motion? Is there a motion? The request for reconsideration fails for lack of a motion. • • • Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 29 ADM 01-31.00: Administrative Item (Copper Creek, pp 100) was submitted by Brian Moore of ESI on behalf of Gary Brandon Enterprises for property located east of Highway 265 and north of Zion Road. The request is for a waiver from Section 3-3 of the City Minimum Street Standards to allow Copper Creek Drive to have a street grade more than four percent (4%) at it's intersection with Zion Road. Estes: The next item on our agenda is item number six, administrative item 01-31.00 Copper Creek Subdivision submitted by Brian Moore of ESI on behalf of Gary Brandon Enterprises for property located east of Highway 265 and north of Zion Road. The request is for a waiver from Section 3-3 of the City Minimum Street Standards to allow Copper Creek Drive to have a street grade more than four percent (4%) at it's intersection with Zion Road. Staff recommends approval of the waiver request. Is the applicant present? Would you come forward and tell us your name please and provide us with the benefit of your presentation. Moore: I'm Brian Moore with Engineering Services in Springdale. This came about when we were doing the plans for the project, after we had submitted for preliminary plat and been approved. The connection to Zion Road, due to the existing topography, was just a little too much cut in that area so we are asking for the variance for that reason. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Thank you Mr. Moore. Is there any member of the audience who wishes to provide public comment on this requested administrative item? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: MOTION: Marr. Allen: Hoffman: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Commission for discussion, motions, questions. I'll move for approval of administrative item 01-31.00. I'll second. I have a question for Mr. Petrie. It looks like we've got a l0% slope and then looking at our materials of the comparable slopes and other streets; the one most notable that comes most closely to this is Sunset which is a 10.5 degree slope, it's pretty steep. Are we willing to put ourselves into this kind of position? Is the City at liability for allowing • • • Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 30 Petrie: Hoffman: Estes: Petrie: Estes: this? First let me point out that 10.5 percent on Sunset Drive is an average. What you see and what you notice is the actual maximum slope which is 20 percent. It's hard to use that as a guide. That's the whole average on the whole street section. You've answered my question. Thanks. Mr. Petrie, as part of our materials there was a sight distance analysis done with you present and you used an 85 percentile speed limit of 25 miles an hour, what happens if we don't approve this administrative item? What is the consequence, result or what is the applicant trying to avoid? The main thing that we are trying to avoid is having to put a large, probably about a 10 foot high retaining wall adjacent to this proposed park. That will be accepted when the final plat is accepted. That's the other alternative. Commissioners, any other questions? We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and second by Commissioner Allen to approve administrative item 01-31.00, any further discussion, comments, questions? Does the motion pass? Would you call the roll Sheri? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call AD 01-31.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 6-0-0. Estes: Is there any other business to come before the Commission? Conklin: There is no other business. Estes: Any announcements? Conklin: I don't have any announcements. Estes: We are adjourned until our next regularly called meeting. Thank you. 7-23-01 PC Mtg. ROLL CALL 7-9-01 PC meeting minutes LSD 01-23 00 Lindsey Office Building, pp 174 MOTION Ward SECOND Hoffman D. Bunch Absent Absent B. Estes Present Y L. Hoffman Present Y S. Hoover Absent Absent N. Allen Present Y D. Marr Present Y A. Bishop Present Y Shackelford Absent Absent L. Ward Present Y 6 present 3 absent ACTION Approved Approved VOTE 6-0-0 • • 7-23-01 PC Mtg. RZN 01-13 00 Indoor Batting Cages, pp 138 ADM 01-30.00 Reconsideration - Central United Methodist Church, pp 484 ADM 01-31.00 Copper Creek, pp 100 MOTION Marr No motion made Marr SECOND Bishop Allen D. Bunch Absent Absent B. Estes Y Y L. Hoffman Y Y S. Hoover Absent Absent N. Allen Y Y D. Marr y y A. Bishop Y Y Shackelford Absent Absent L. Ward y Y ACTION Approved Failed Approved VOTE 6-0-0 6-0-0