Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-10 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on February 10, 2003 in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain at 5:30 p.m. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSD 02-30.00: Large Scale Development (Southern View Apartments, pp 519) Page 3 PPL 03-3.00: Preliminary Plat (Salem Meadows, pp 245) Page 8 PPL 03-4.00: Preliminary Plat (Regional Professional Park, pp 251) Page 13 Approved Approved Approved LSD 03-4.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville High School Indoor Sports Facility, pp 522) Approved Page 20 CUP 03-3.00: Conditional Use (Young, pp 610) Approved Page 23 CUP 03-4.00: Conditional Use (Wesley Foundation, pp 483) Approved Page 28 RZN 03-8.00: Rezoning (McKinney, pp 365) Denied Page 34 RZN 03-9.00: Rezoning (Nichols, pp 557/558) Forwarded to City Council Page 41 ADM 03-1.00: Administrative Item (PZD Ordinance) Forwarded to City Council Page 42 Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 2 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Bob Estes Lee Ward Sharon Hoover Don Bunch Alan Ostner Alice Church Loren Shackelford Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin, City Planner Dawn Warrick, Senior Planner Sara Edwards, Associate Planner Matt Casey, Staff Engineer Renee Thomas, Senior Secretary Kit Williams, City Attorney COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Lorel Aviles STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 3 Estes: Welcome to the Monday, February 10, 2003 meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. The first order of business is the roll call. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call there were eight Commissioners present with Commissioner Aviles being absent. LSD 02-30.00: Large Scale Development (Southern View Apartments, pp 519) was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Lindsey Management for property located at the northeast corner of Futrall Drive and Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned RMF -18, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential and contains approximately 19.39 acres with 300 units proposed. Estes: A quorum being present, the next item of business is approval of the minutes from the January 27, 2003 meeting. Are there any changes, additions, modifications or comments regarding the meeting minutes from the January 27, 2003 meeting? Seeing none, they will be approved. The first order of business on our agenda is an item of new business, it is LSD 02-30.00. This is a Large Scale Development for Southern View Apartments submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Lindsey Management for property located at the northeast corner of Futrall Drive and Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned RMF -18, Medium Density Multi - Family Residential and contains approximately 19.32 acres with 300 units proposed. The staff findings are included as part of the information that is contained in your packet. Mr. Conklin, is there any additional information that you have available for the Commission? Conklin: Yes, Ms. Edwards has some additional information. Edwards: I have distributed to you an amended staff report for this item. The condition that changed was number seven was added to require a street be constructed from Stone Street to the north property line. Also, condition number ten was amended to increase the Parks fees to $117,000 due to a new Parks fees ordinance that became affective on February 7th . Estes: Do we have signed conditions of approval? Edwards: Yes we do. Estes: Those conditions of approval for the record are 1) Planning Commission determination of a waiver request from the requirement that all buildings be setback 100 feet from the 100 year flood elevation of the detention pond. The proposal is for a 35 foot setback (65 foot waiver). The buildings will be built two feet above the 100 - year water surface elevation and an iron fence will be placed around the pond. 2) Lighting will be required to be a full cut off light utilizing sodium lighting fixtures. The lighting must be approved by staff prior to installation. 3) All signage shall be Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 4 limited to that allowed under the sign ordinance in a multi family residential district. 4) The final landscape plan will be reviewed and approved by the Landscape Administrator and must include a mixture of hardwood and evergreen trees around the detention pond. 5) Dumpsters will be required to be screened with brick that matches the proposed buildings. 6) A sidewalk shall be extended along the cross access to the commercial property to the south. This is order to provide pedestrian access to the future commercial development. 7) A street shall be constructed from Stone street to the north property line. Standard conditions of approval are: 8) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 9) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for 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. 10) Payment of parks fees in the amount of $117,900 (300 units @ $393) 11) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a six foot sidewalk with a ten foot greenspace along Futrall and a six foot sidewalk with a five foot greenspace along Stone Street. 12) Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 13) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: Grading and drainage permits; Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area; Project Disk with all final revisions; 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; Parks fees paid and/or deed recorded and copy received. Ms. Edwards, are there any additional conditions of approval? Edwards: No there are not. Estes: Is the applicant present? Would you come forward please, state your name and if you have a presentation please provide us with the benefit of that presentation. Kelso: Jerry Kelso with Crafton, Tull & Associates representing the owner, Lindsey Management. This is a project that you guys have seen a few Planning Commission meetings ago. Let me just briefly explain what we changed on that plan verses what you saw the last time. The last time we had a street that came off of Stone and curved up to the north to the north property line. Now we went ahead, after comments from the city and working with them, we have made that Stone Street connection all the way from where Stone Street ends and connects to Futrall Drive, which is a straight shot now and I think you will find that it is a lot better cross access that we have there. In doing that we ended up having to lose one building, which is ok, we can still make it work with that. The other property owner to the north, the Barnes, Mr. Lindsey has talked to them and again, has agreed to go ahead and build that street Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 5 Estes: from Stone on up to their property in addition to what you see there. Those are kind of the changes that took place and I will try to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you very much. Is there any member of the public who would like to comment on the proposed LSD 02-30.00, Southern View Apartments? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for questions of the applicant's representative for discussions, comments and motions. Bunch: In our previously distributed packet findings one of the findings shows that there were no right of ways dedicated, should that be amended to reflect Stone Street and the new street to the Barnes' property, will those have right of ways dedicated? Conklin. Which page are you reading? Bunch: Page 1.1. Conklin: That is correct, there will be rights of way dedicated. Bunch: I just wanted the record to reflect that. Estes: Are there any other comments? Ward: Just for the record, we are requiring all these buildings to be a little bit different, maybe we could have Mr. Kelso or the architect give us a brief display of how they are going to be different and what type of construction materials will be used. Kelso: Fugitt: Kim Fugitt is the architect on this and I think he could probably explain that a little bit better than me. Yes Sir, we have two basic floor plans or footprints but those two basic footprints will have three facades each for a total of six different facades that we have spread out or alternated throughout the project so you will see no two buildings side by side with the same facade. The fourth facade you see there is the apartment club house which is the unit there that faces Futrall. The materials we will use are primarily brick with a hardy board, a stucco board effect, a combination of those two in variations there that you see and the percentages of brick to the hardy board material. Estes: With reference to the Commercial Design Standards, what facades will face I-540? Fugitt: If you will notice your site plan here, the way the Lindsey Apartments are designed there really is no back. You have two fronts and then you have the ends of the building. If you see the top two elevations there, that depicts the end of the building. If you notice on your site plan, buildings two and three, you will see the ends of those buildings from I540, although they are on an angle so you will see part of a front and Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 6 Estes: Fugitt: Estes: Shackelford: part of an end of buildings two and three. The rest of those buildings have a front facade that you will see there on the right side of the board that will be facing I-540. Buildings 25, 24, 23, and 22, will those be different as they face I-540? That is correct. Is there anything else Commissioners? Tim, condition of approval number two addresses the outdoor lighting, just for my clarification would this be in compliance with the proposed lighting ordinance that the City of Fayetteville is reviewing now? Conklin- Yes, it would be in compliance with the outdoor lighting ordinance. Shackelford: Conklin: Shackelford: Estes: MOTION: Ward: Hoover: Estes: Ostner: Estes: Is this going to be something that we see on Large Scale Developments going forward where we address the outdoor lighting? We have been advising through the development review process to discuss outdoor lighting and using cutoff type fixtures, yes. Thank you. Is there any further discussion or any motions? I like this concept with Stone Street being extended all the way down to Futrall much better than the original one that was going to veer off to the north and dead end so I think this is a much better project and a much better plan that is going to create a lot better traffic flow and patterns for everybody. With that, I will go ahead and make a motion that we approve LSD 02-30.00 for Southern View Apartments with all 13 conditions. I will second. We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Hoover. I would like to offer an amendment to the motion to approve the waiver with the pond. Before the amendment is considered let me take care of a housekeeping item. Commissioner Ward, does your motion incorporate the waiver request that is in condition of approval number one? Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 7 Ward: Yes it does. Estes: Commissioner Hoover, does your second incorporate the waiver request in condition of approval number one? Hoover: Yes. Estes: We have a motion and a second and we have a proposed amendment to the motion, would you state your amendment please? Ostner: The amendment is included in the conditions of approval so I think that it has already been taken care of in the motion. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve LSD 02-30.00 and a second by Commissioner Hoover, is there any discussion or comment? When we first heard this I made the first motion to table based upon what I considered to be lack of connectivity and a lack of proper ingress and egress and with what is now before us we have connectivity between Stone and Futrall, I will vote for the motion. I thank you for taking the time to make the necessary changes and modifications to bring it back to us a second time. Is there any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 02-30.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of eight to zero. Thank you very much. Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 8 PPL 03-3.00: Preliminary Plat (Salem Meadows, pp 245) was submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of John Alford of Palmco Properties for property located on North Salem Road, north of Salem Village. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 39.99 acres with 101 lots proposed. Estes: The next item on our agenda is PPL 03-3.00 for Salem Meadows submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering on behalf of John Alford of Palmco Properties for property located on North Salem Road north of Salem Village. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 39.99 acres with 101 lots proposed. The staff findings are included as a part of your packet. There are conditions of approval, Mr. Conklin, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin. Yes. Estes: Those conditions of approval are 1) Access will be limited from Salem and Rupple. A note will be required on the final plat to this effect. 2) Maintenance of wetland area and common space must be provided for in covenants. The parkland shall be excluded from all restrictive covenants. 3) Planning Commission determination of offsite street improvements to Salem Road. Staff is recommending Salem Road widening to include curb & gutter, storm drain and pavement a minimum of 14 feet from center line. 4) Planning Commission determination of an off-site assessment for the future construction of Rupple Road. Staff is recommending an assessment of $144,566.40 or an approved construction bid amount for the construction of Rupple Road along the west of this development. 5) Planning Commission determination of an assessment for the future Rupple Road bridge. Staff is recommending an assessment of $11,429.00 based on projected traffic on the bridge and an estimated cost of the bridge construction. 6) Park boundary signs shall be erected by the developer/surveyor. Parks will supply the signs, channel post, bolts, and screws. 7) All subdivision signs shall be approved by the Planning Commission at time of final plat approval. 8) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 9) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for 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. 10) Payment of parks fees in the amount of $12,690 and park land dedication in the amount of 1.84 acres. 11) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a six foot sidewalk and a minimum of ten feet of green space along Salem Road. All interior streets shall have a four foot sidewalk with a six foot greenspace. 12) Preliminary Plat approval shall be valid for one calendar year. Mr. Conklin, are there any amendments or changes to the conditions of approval? Conklin: No. Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 9 Estes: Is the applicant or the applicant's representative present? If so, please come forward, state your name, and if you have a presentation please provide us with the benefit of your presentation. Gabbard: Mr. Chairman, my name is Leonard Gabbard with Landtech Engineering. I have no formal presentation other than to say thanks to staff for the excellent help and guidance in this project. With that, I will turn it back to the Commission for further comments. Estes: Thank you Mr. Gabbard. Is there any member of the audience that would like to provide public comment on the proposed PPL 03-3.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion, comments, and questions of the applicant. Commissioners? Ward: Tim, on Rupple Road, what is the plan on that as far as the Master Street Plan? Conklin: Rupple Road is classified as a minor arterial road. It is a four lane road designed to carry traffic from one area of town to another. The City of Fayetteville built Rupple Road up to Clabber Creek, just south of Clabber Creek Phase I Subdivision and they will extend it further up the creek. At this time we are looking at bridge assessments and assessments to Rupple Road in the future once it is built. Ward: What happens with this $145,000? Where does that money go and what do we do with it? Conklin: It will go into an escrow account and be held and as this area further develops staff will look at how we fund those street improvements to build the bridge and build Rupple Road through this area. I do understand that the developer who is doing Clabber Creek Phase I is interested in developing additional land north of Clabber Creek in the future and so this whole area will need bridge improvements and road improvements. Ward: Is there any time limit on this money being put in escrow? Conklin: We do have time frames that the money has to be spent. After five years if it is not spent there is a public hearing held at the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission at that time can determine if the improvement will happen in the near future. If not, that can be refunded back to the developer or refunded back to the lot owners. Ward: Thank you. I think that answered all my questions about Rupple Road. Estes: Are there any other questions or comments? Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 10 Bunch: Gabbard: Leonard, could you go over just briefly the designation of the wetlands and how that came to be and the process that you went through for that? I will be glad to Mr. Bunch. EGIS is the company that we contracted with to do a wetlands determination out there. I claim to have no expertise with wetlands and when we saw what we were up against out there we contracted with them and Mr. Manual Barnes and his staff went out and made this determination. We are in the process right now of getting a nationwide permit so that we can start our subdivision work and following that with an individual permit, which will take six to eight months to get. Estes: Mr. Gabbard, do we have signed conditions of approval? Gabbard: Yes you do. Ostner: Mr. Gabbard, on the layout of the subdivision the way the northeast corner lines up with Crystal Drive to make a normal four way intersection, that is a very nice safe way to do things. I am really worried about the southeast ingress and egress. Gabbard: I understand your concerns. The only reason we did not line it up, I will be happy to line it up, I am not going to fight any kind of battle there. Let me tell you why I did not line it up and then you can decide what you want to do. I didn't line it up because that is a parking area. I didn't line it up because if I did and Rupple Road is developed it is a straight shot for a lot of people to use our subdivision road to cut through and it would increase vehicles per day because they would have a line of sight to go through there. Where you have collector streets and local streets that do make four way intersections then by all means let's line them up. If you feel in your best judgment, that this should be lined up then I have no trouble doing so but please take that into consideration. Thank you. Ostner: That is good logic. However, even though it is a park entrance it is also the school bus drop off with moms backing up to drop off kids around the block. I think there will be a lot of traffic there in the mornings and in the evenings if there were a game at the softball complex. That is something that is important to me that I would like to see. Estes: Commissioners, are there any other comments? Ostner: If this change is done Mr. Conklin is this something that staff can take care of that we don't need to handle this again? Conklin: You can approve it with that change and then when you see the Final Plat it will be reflected. We can do it that way. Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 11 MOTION: Ostner: Estes: Allen: Estes: Ward: Bunch: Ostner: Ward: Shackelford: Gabbard: Ostner: Gabbard: Shackelford: Estes: If there is no other discussion, I will make a motion that we approve PPL 03-3.00 with the change that the southeast ingress and egress would line up with the park entrance. We have a motion by Commissioner Ostner with the change, is there a second? I will second. We have a motion by Commissioner Ostner to approve PPL 03-3.00 and we have a second by Commissioner Allen, is there any discussion? It looks to me like that is going to be hard to engineer that again because you are going to have to move everything a long ways over. It looks like it is going to change the whole configuration of that subdivision. How far are we moving that road over? One lot. It would in essence mimic the upper. I see. I understand what we are doing now. That is simple enough. You mentioned that you wouldn't fight it if that is what we wanted to do. Could you give us your personal preference and your reasoning for which way you would want to have that southeast intersection line up please? Let me ask a question back to the Commission. If we move that intersection over we are not talking about moving the south through street. In other words, their line of sight would look as if it dead ended for anybody that might be going from east to west, is that correct? Yes Sir, just the change here at the southeast corner basically to mimic the northeast corner. As I said, I have no problem with that. Thank you. We have a motion by Commissioner Ostner and a second by Commissioner Allen, is there any further discussion, any other comments, or any questions of the applicant's representative? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 03-3.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 12 Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of eight to zero Thank you Mr. Gabbard. Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 13 PPL 03-4.00: Preliminary Plat (Regional Professional Park, pp 251) was submitted by Steve Clark of Clark Consulting on behalf of Investor's Realty, LLC for property located south of Appleby Road and north of Drake Street. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 17.388 acres with 12 lots proposed. Estes: The next item on our agenda is PPL 03-4.00 submitted by Steve Clark of Clark Consulting on behalf of Investor's Realty, LLC for property located south of Appleby Road and north of Drake Street. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 17.388 acres with 12 lots proposed. The staff findings are included as a part of your packet. We have a recommendation by staff of approval subject to certain conditions of approval, Mr. Conklin, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin. No. Estes: Clark: Those conditions of approval are 1) Planning Commission determination of the required street width for Bob Younkin Drive. The applicant has proposed a 28 foot wide street. Staff is recommending a 28 foot wide street with left turning lanes constructed at both intersections. 2) The walking path required by the Bill of Assurance shall be shown on the plat and built or guaranteed prior to final plat approval. 3) The final plat shall contain a statement which reflects the requirement that each lot meet the tree preservation ordinance individually. 4) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 5) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for 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. 6) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot sidewalk and ten foot greenspace along Drake Street, Appleby Road, Bob Younkin Drive, and Bishop Drive. 7) Preliminary Plat approval shall be valid for one calendar year. Is the applicant or the applicant's representative present? Would you please come forward, state your name, and provide us with the benefit of any presentation that you may have? My name is Steve Clark and I am representing Investors Realty, LLC. I guess the issue on staff's recommendation for the street width is they were originally looking at this as recommending a 36' street, providing a center turn lane for the entire length. We still believe that that may in fact be the optimum design for the street and we didn't contest that with staff at the time. The only issue is the cost of construction for that section of the street. Obviously, staff and Planning Commission, neither have the authority to commit the city's dollars to street projects so what we propose to do is to go ahead and take this to Council to try to get city participation for that center turn lane for the entire length. If we can get Council approval for that we would like for the developer's requirement to be for the 28' section and then the city pay for the Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 14 Estes: center section for the entire length. If Council chooses not to participate then we agree with staff's recommendation and agree to construct the turn lanes at the two intersections. I guess the caveat there is that if the city participates we would like for the city to participate in the entire length, if the city chooses not to then we agree to construct the turn lanes at the two ends. The second issue is condition of approval number two, relating to the walking paths. The developer agreed to do that as part of the Bill of Assurance. He offered that initially to the property owners and intends to construct those walking paths within the rear setbacks within the tree preservation area. It will be a very limited trail, crushed stone with some type of a granular rubber material on top or something, we don't really have a final design but it was something that was not offered as a compromise to get the zoning. He offered that before any discussion came up. We would prefer not to have to post a guarantee at the time of Final Plat or to have it constructed at the time of Final Plat. The reason is that if we build it before Final Plat then we come in and construct buildings, we are going to be tearing up this trail that is in the limited space that we have. It will be more opportune to construct it after the fact. If we post guarantees on it then again, it ties up his money for some period of time while we are under construction. It is something that he is going to build, it is not something that is a requirement of the city ordinances. We would essentially like to be trusted to construct those. All the rest of them we agree to. Thank you Mr. Clark. Is there any member of the audience that would like to comment on the proposed PPL 03-4.00 for the Regional Professional Park? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for questions of the applicant's representative, discussion, comments and motions. Mr. Conklin, with regard to the 28' wide street or the 36' collector, can you give us some background on how we moved from the collector to the 28' street and can you also comment on what would be the appropriate protocol should we approve this Preliminary Plat with this condition of the 28' street and then the applicant goes to City Council and gets an agreement to cost share, would this come back to us? Conklin: I believe because this is a Preliminary Plat that if you approved it with a recommendation to cost share to make a 36' street a collector street, this could come back as a Final Plat if the City Council agreed to cost share with it as a collector street, a 36' street. If you approve it with that and the City Council doesn't approve the cost share then the Final Plat would come back with a 28' wide street with the applicant improving the intersections to add the turn lanes. Because we can't commit city money at the Planning Commission level, if you believe it is a good idea to widen this street to three lanes with a center turn lane you can make that recommendation and staff would bring that to the street committee and then to City Council. Williams: To bring you up to date, I have already provided a memo to the City Council Street Committee along with a copy of some of the information that staff prepared for this particular informational item tonight and requested that they decide to take action. Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 15 Obviously it would me much cheaper if they want a collector here to build it at the same time that you are building yours I think that is going to be in front of the Street Committee very quickly and so you should have an answer long before the Final Plat would be able to come back to you. I do think that they are going to be looking at this. Estes: Thank you Mr. Williams. Mr. Conklin, what is the reason that staff did not recommend the 36' collector street be built at the applicant's expense? Conklin: We asked the City Attorney to give us his opinion on our ability to require that 36' street. That is in the staff report. Mr. Williams responded back on February 3`d that he did not believe that we could require the 36' wide street because the traffic generation that we were calculating on this development was close to the 4,000 vehicles per day maximum for a local street, but not over. Therefore, a third lane was not justified. Estes: Thank you Mr. Conklin Mr. Clark, with regard to condition of approval number two, the walking path required by the Bill of Assurance and your asking that it not be built prior to Final Plat approval and you are asking that we waive the guarantee if it is not built prior to Final Plat approval and the reason you gave for that is as you footprint the buildings. Do you plan to footprint the building on the walking path? Clark: No Sir. The building will not be within the zone that the walking path will be constructed. When you construct a building at one location and you have a path within a short distance from it just the nature of the construction will frequently disturb the ground enough that it will cause destruction of a path, a sidewalk or a path. It is more cost effective to only build it one time and that is why we would like to wait until the majority of the buildings are in place before we construct that pathway. Estes: Clark: That was my next question. When could we anticipate the walking path being built? Would it be when the last occupancy permit is issued? It would be built prior to that. I can't give a hard line on that or exact definition on when it would be constructed but we would construct segments of it as we complete the buildings and once the building is in place then we will construct portions of the trail or as we get several buildings we would construct some portion of it. If we get all the buildings on the west side built we will have the west side constructed. When we get the buildings on the east side we would construct the east side. Certainly staff could hold the last building permit if we don't have the trail substantially completed prior to us coming in and requesting that last building permit. We don't have a problem with that. Estes: Thank you Mr. Clark. Commissioners, are there any questions or motions? Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 16 Ward: Tim, have we ever done a time frame like 36 months that this trail has to be built whether the buildings are there or not? That way we know for sure. Conklin: That is what staff was attempting to do with the condition of course. There is a Bill of Assurance that Mr. Williams, our City Attorney, put together. It does make the city a third party to enforce it if it doesn't get done. In answer to your question, I can't recall us coming up with a time frame like that. However, there should be some reasonable time frame that the Bill of Assurance was offered, in my opinion I would expect that when the development is being built and is built out and certificates of occupancy are being issued that the trail is also being constructed during that same time. Ward: What kind of money would we be talking about if we were asking for a bond? Conklin: It would depend on the estimated costs of construction. We would review that. Since this is not going to be a concrete sidewalk it is probably not going to be what we typically see which is $3.00 a sq.ft. for concrete. Clark: Just to give you an order of magnitude, if we use $3.00 a sq.ft. we are looking at something less than your standard 6' sidewalk, we are thinking 3' or 4' wide for a little walking path. We have approximately 2,000' for the total length of the development. If you take one down both sides you have got 4,000' at $10.00 a foot so you are talking about $40,000 to construct these sidewalks. That is an order of magnitude. Ward: I would like to ask Kit Williams, our City Attorney, on this Bill of Assurance how is the city involved in making sure that the Bill of Assurance is kept? Williams: As you know, I drafted up a sample Bill of Assurance that I have asked people who want to give us one to follow the form Bill of Assurance that gives the city the right to enforce it. If they would not fulfill the terms of the Bill of Assurance then we would be able to in fact file suit and to attempt to have the court enforce the Bill of Assurance. Obviously, we like to have it done voluntarily and don't want to have to go into court to do it. I am not sure, and you might ask Tim about this, when it comes to bonds, that is when we require improvements I think if an improvement is not finished then we do require that a developer present a bond, is that correct for sidewalks and landscaping and things like that? Conklin: That is correct. We accept a letter of credit, bond, cash, or some type of guarantee. Williams: Is there any provision within the ordinance to waive that bond requirement or letter of credit requirement? Conklin: This is somewhat unique because it is a trail in a commercial development so it really doesn't address this particular improvement. Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 17 Williams: So you wouldn't have any problem then with just requiring them to have this built before they get their last Certificate of Occupancy? What is your comfort level on this? Conklin: We are going to enforce the Bill of Assurance. If it is not built, if we go out there and all the office buildings are built and there is not a trail there I will consult our City Attorney here and we will figure out what appropriate legal action we can take to get it built. Williams: From the timing point of view, I think the applicant here suggested prior to the issuance of the last Certificate of Occupancy. Clark: Or building permit even. Conklin: I think we can work with that. Clark: I assure you these trails or paths will be constructed. You won't have to see us in court to build these. Allen: I would like to ask staff if there have been comments from the neighborhood association regarding their feelings about condition of approval number one verses a collector street. Conklin: We have not heard anything from the neighbors with regard to that issue. Shackelford: Tim, back to the Bill of Assurance. Can we execute a Bill of Assurance that is not secured by a bond or a letter of credit or some sort of agreement without the financial backing? My understanding is the main problem that the applicant has is the expense associated with a bond or a letter of credit. Can we have some sort of written agreement between the applicant and the city and not have the requirement of the letter of credit or bond behind that Bill of Assurance? Conklin: I think staff is comfortable. We have a Bill of Assurance, it is a legal document. Our City Attorney helped draft it so it should be enforceable. For the record, by the time we issue the last building permit we will expect a trail to be built. Shackelford: To the applicant, as long as there is no financial burden to the applicant would you be willing to sign that Bill of Assurance? Williams: We already have a Bill of Assurance and I think the Bill of Assurance itself probably can be enforced as our City Planner has stated. We are going to watch that development and if it doesn't happen then we will take enforcement actions. Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 18 Clark: Shackelford: Estes: Clark: Estes: Clark: Estes: Clark: Estes: Bunch: Williams: I think the biggest difference in what we are asking you to do verses what other guarantees are required is this is a voluntary improvement that we have agreed to do as opposed to a city ordinance required improvement. The city ordinance requires the sidewalks, the city ordinance requires the utilities. Those are the things that you normally have to post a bond in order to get your Certificate of Occupancy prior to completion. This is a voluntary thing although, with the Bill of Assurance it is no longer voluntary but it is not ordinance required. Thank you. Mr. Clark, if I understood your comments correctly and if my notes are correct, your objection to condition of approval number two is that you would like for it to read "The walking path required by the Bill of Assurance shall be shown on the plat and built." That is where you want that sentence to end is that correct? You don't want it to be guaranteed. If the staff would prepare you could even say "and shall be built prior to the last building permit issuance." If you want to hold some guarantee with us or some hammer still over the developer, that could either be Certificate of Occupancy or Building Permit for the final building construction. If I understand Mr. Conklin and Mr. Williams correctly, we have an executed Bill of Assurance, that is a legal document that can be enforced in our Circuit Courts end of sentence. Your problem is that you don't want the phrase "or guaranteed prior to Final Plat approval." You want that sentence to end with the word built. Correct. So it will read "The walking path required by the Bill of Assurance shall be shown on the Final Plat and built." Yes Sir. That would certainly be acceptable to us. Is there any further discussion or any motions? One question for our City Attorney. Should these lots sell individually does the Bill of Assurance run with the land so that whoever the prospective buyers would be would be responsible for the completion of the sidewalk or how would that work? I would probably go after everybody. It does in fact, run with the land so that anybody that would buy it would see that the Bill of Assurance is there and has been filed for record. That is one of the requirements that we also have done with it and of course they would also see the walking path on the plat. Yes, it does run with the land and we could go after future buyers as well as the developer. I think since the Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 19 MOTION: Ward: developer was the one that offered this Bill of Assurance he would be the primary person I would seek to make sure it gets built. I will make a motion that we approve PPL 03-4.00 for the Regional Professional Park and concerning condition number one that the issue of the 36' street with the middle turn lane, that we recommend that this be forwarded to the City Council Street Committee. Williams: They will be looking at this at their next meeting. Ward: And that we recommend, I would like to see the middle turn lane put in out there to be honest about it. Also, with condition number two to be worded "The walking path required by the Bill of Assurance shall be shown on the plat and built." With those eight conditions of approval I would recommend approval. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward. Shackelford: I will second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Shackelford, is there any discussion? Ostner: Yes. On the issue of the 28' wide street, I appreciate Commissioner Ward thinks the center turn lane would be beneficial, I do not. If traffic can flow freely with two lanes and the 28' wide street and the turn lanes at the intersections I believe it would be a safer street if it were narrower. It is not my decision to make obviously the Council and the Street Committee is going to make that decision but I think it warrants some investigation as to safety. That is my comment. Estes: Because these minutes will be provided to our Street Committee and then to our City Council, let me say this. Bob Younkin Drive is going to provide connectivity between Appleby and Drake with the opening of the new hospital and with the medical park developing as we anticipate it will develop, it is going to be a very important collector street and I think it is absolutely essential that it be built as a 36' collector street and I would strongly recommend and encourage both our Street Committee and our City Council to cost share with this developer because that is going to be the most cost effective way for the city to provide connectivity between Drake and Appleby end of sentence, no questions asked. Are there any other comments? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 03-4.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of eight to zero. Thank you Mr. Clark. Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 20 LSD 03-4.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville High School Indoor Sports Facility, pp 522) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of theFayetteville High School for property located at 908 S. California Blvd. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional and contains approximately 2.10 acres with a 24,500 square foot indoor sports facility proposed. Estes: The next item on our agenda is LSD 03-4.00 for the Fayetteville High School Indoor Sports Facility as submitted by Mr. Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of the Fayetteville High School for property located at 908 S. Califomia Blvd. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional and contains approximately 2.10 acres with a 24,500 sq.ft. indoor sports facility proposed. Staff findings are included as a part of your packet. Staff recommends approval subject to conditions of approval. Mr. Conklin, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin- Yes. Estes: Those conditions of approval are 1) Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver of Commercial Design Standards. The applicant is proposing metal sidewalls which are prohibited. Staff is in support of this request due to the topography of the site in relation to California Boulevard and the appearance of other structures on site which is similar to the proposed building. Standard conditions of approval are: 2)Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 3) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for 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. 4) Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 5) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: Grading and drainage permits; Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area; Project Disk with all final revisions; Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City 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 or applicant's representative present? Brackett: My name is Chris Brackett, I am with Jorgensen & Associates. I am here representing the Fayetteville Public Schools on this. In essence what this is is an addition to the existing sports facility on the east campus of the Fayetteville High School. It will be an indoor practice facility along with some coach's offices and locker rooms in a portion of the building. These locker rooms will serve baseball, track and field, softball, and those areas. The existing facilities and the existing field house will primarily be for football. The other sports will be moved out of that facility into this facility and I will be happy to answer any questions you might have. Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 21 Estes: Thank you Chris. Is there any member of the public here to provide comment on this requested Large Scale Development? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for questions of Chris, discussion, or comments. Ward: Chris, since we have an elevation there why don't you kind of describe what we are looking at and how that is going to blend in. Brackett: I will let the architect answer that one. McNeill: My name is Hannah McNeill and I am representing Mobley Architects. The exterior of the building is very similar, in your packet we showed you pictures of the existing field house in which it is a very similar two story structure from one side, one story from the main entrance and that is how we are treating this building. We propose to use split faced block that is similar to what is at that facility. On this one we are planning to use two colors of metal. The green for a deeper fit fascia to give it a little bit more depth because the building is 35' from the eave height, from the bottom floor to the eave height and then a lighter metal panel. The elevations in your packets are more current than this one. This was an original presentation drawing for the high school early on. We have added some canopies to it and at the very front we have added some little towers, little gate entrances to mimic the existing Harmon Field gate entrances with the pyramid roofs. Estes: Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments? Allen: I was just curious about the use of the metal sidewalls. Brackett: Basically our plan on this is this structure will not be seen from any public right of way, which in essence is how I understand the commercial design standards. This structure will be shielded from the right of ways, one from the youth center building and then the football stadium and then the distance between this structure and the high school, which has a street running in front of it. The only public that will be seeing this is anyone actually visiting the campus itself, it won't be seen from the public right of way so that is one reason that we are asking for the waiver. Church: Just along those same lines, is the reason for the metal to save money in the construction? Why do we usually not allow metal sidewalls is that because the appearance of them? Brackett: I can't speak to the city's reasoning behind that. This will fairly match what is existing on the site also. Along with it being more cost effective. McNeill: It is extremely more cost effective. Brackett: It is also in keeping with what is already out there on site. Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 22 Estes: Commissioner Church, does that answer your question? Church: Yes, thank you. Estes: Are there any other questions? Is there any further discussion or motions? Allen: Just one more thing on the sidewalls, I just wonder if they are safe. Brackett: This doesn't have right of way frontage. There are sidewalks that will be constructed around it to give access to the ingress and egress of the building but the sidewalks along the high school are already built and I know there is a sidewalk along California Street but there is no street right of way for us to install a sidewalk on. Allen: Thank you. MOTION: Shackelford: I will make a motion that we approve LSD 03-4.00 based on all staff findings. I am also in support of the requested waiver for the commercial design standards for the metal sidewalls. I am familiar with this location. Due to the topography it is low and I don't think it is going to be viewed from any other areas. I think it is a good use of our waiver system so I would support it with that approval. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford to approve LSD 03-4.00 with the requested waiver of the Commercial Design Standards, is there a second? Bunch: I will second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there any discussion? Ostner: Forgive me for losing track of where we were at. I do have a problem with the metal sidewall. It is plainly visible from California to the western edge of the Youth Center. There is a 200' area between the Youth Center that this tall building is visible. At first when I read your request for a variance I thought it was for the green fascia, it is 4' tall on the other buildings and that seems to fit but to increase the problem in doing an entire level out of metal, that is not done on any other building other than the field house. The field house is what I would call a split level, one story on the high side and two story on the low side and that technique is used there. My opinion is that if we are going to have Commercial Design Standards and not allow metal sidewalls that this is visible from the right of way. Not only from California but from up at the corner of Harmon and it is not exactly the corner, as you approach the entrance to the pool and I think it would look better if it didn't have the metal sidewalls. Forgive me for not speaking up before the motion. I would wish that we could approve this Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 23 without the metal sidewalls. I think it is more fair. I would offer an amendment to the motion if it would be accepted. Estes: Make your amendment and I will call for the movement and the second. Ostner: I would like to offer an amendment to the LSD 03-4.00 to allow its passage except for the metal sidewalls, I don't know how else to describe it except for the brown metal sidewalls, the green soffit is fine. Estes: Commissioner Shackelford is the movement. Commissioner Shackelford, do you accept the amendment? Shackelford: I don't want to be confrontational by any stretch of the imagination but I think it is a little harsh to say that we don't allow the metal sidewalls. That is the reason that we have a waiver system for this specific case in which it makes sense to a specific project. I am going to stick to my original motion based on the topography of this location. I am comfortable with the waiver that the applicant is requesting at this point. Estes: The movement, Commissioner Shackelford, does not accept the amendment and for that reason I will not call for the second, Commissioner Bunch. We will vote on the motion and it will be voted either up or down and of course, if it is voted down, you will be privileged to make another motion. In support of the motion let me say this. I have used that facility or the area of that facility off and on for probably 35 or 40 years and what is out there now is a great improvement over what was out there 35 or 40 years ago. I say that because my comments really aren't that objective. There are other structures out there which have the metal siding. Commissioner Ostner, I understand what you are saying. In all preference if we could go back 15 years or so it would be preferable not to have the metal siding out there but we didn't have the Commercial Design Standards 15 or 20 years ago. It is compatible with what is out there. I agree with you entirely that it is visible from California Blvd., I don't see how you can miss it but again, it is such an improvement over what we have seen out there in the past 35 or 40 years and it is compatible with the other existing structures that are on site and I am going to vote for Commissioner Shackelford's motion. Is there any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-4.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of eight to zero. Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 24 CUP 03-3.00: Conditional Use (Young, pp 610) was submitted by Chris Young for property located at 5635 E. Huntsville Road. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 2.5 acres. The request is for a Plant Nursery (Use Unit 2) in a C-1 district. Estes: The next item on our agenda is a Conditional Use submitted by Chris Young for property located at 5635 E. Huntsville Road. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 2.5 acres. The request is for a plant nursery, Use Unit 2, in a C-1 district. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use subject to the following conditions. Mr. Conklin, do we have signed conditions? Conklin: No. Estes: Those conditions are 1) Planning Commission approval of a large scale development for the proposed project. The following items (and others) will be addressed during the large scale development review process: a. Installation of paved driveway and parking to accommodate patrons and delivery traffic. A minimum of five parking spaces are required for the 1,216 sq.ft. proposed office. Additional spaces may be required based on expanded use areas for outdoor display of materials and greenhouse operations. b. Establish the required parking in accordance with UDO Chapter 172 — Parking and Loading and §166.14 (Commercial Design Standards). c. All ground mounted utilities and refuse storage areas shall be adequately screened from the public right of way with a wood board fence or appropriate vegetative screen. d. Compliance with commercial design standards requirements. 2) Sign permit shall be obtained for any proposed signage. 3) No outdoor lighting shall be installed as per written description of project. 4) The applicant shall obtain all required building permits necessary for any improvements required to make the office adequate for commercial use. This shall include compliance with all ADA requirements for the proposed development. 5) Installation of a Portland cement concrete driveway and a 6' wide sidewalk along the front of the property adjacent to Huntsville Road in accordance with the City's adopted Master Street Plan. 6) Compliance with Building Safety Division and Fire Department inspection requirements. Mr. Conklin, are there any additional recommended conditions of approval? Conklin: No. Estes: Is the applicant or the applicant's representative present? If so, would you come forward, say your name please, and provide us with the benefit of your presentation. Morrison: My name is Merle Morrison, I am representing the partners in this new business. We are actually an old business. My wife and I have been growing plants in Madison County for 20 years and at this location have been plant selling for the last five years. I mentioned this because I wanted to point out that we are not proposing to change any business activities at this site. We applied for a sign permit and with the application for the sign permit we discovered that this process had been started by the Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 25 original owner and we apparently are reaping the benefits of what he didn't do. It is a unique piece of property. It is not quite half in the city, a little more than half out of the city. It is 460' deep and 200' of those are inside the city. We are located out at the edge of town almost to Elkins so we are in a pretty informal area of town doing an informal type of business. We need a lot of space to display our products and usually your codes and your requirements are determined by how much space a product takes. In this case we can't get by with a small amount of space to display our plants which we can't stack more than one deep usually. I am feeling kind of like when I pull up to the truck stop with my one ton truck and all the big rigs are around me after hearing all these street designs and buildings. We are not proposing to build anything or change anything other than what is on the surface of the ground. We are going to put down plants on the surface of the ground. When we applied for the sign, which we wanted to put in the city limits and we discovered why the original owner but the sign in the county. We are in a unique position that we could put the sign in the county. I don't know if that is a relief from any of this stuff because being from Madison County, I am really trying to come up to speed here in Fayetteville. We have two problems with the conditions. One is with the hard surface driveway. We had plans on surfacing the driveway but not with a nonporous surface, not with cement. There are several reasons for that. It doesn't show on our sketch that to the east is a business that has a completely concreted over parking lot. It is a convenience store with a car wash. Right next to that solid concrete acre are two old oak trees. To put a nonporous driveway would more than 3/4 surround these old oak trees with nonporous surface. We don't want to do it because of the trees. The second reason is it has been something taught of me that hard surfaces promote quick runoff. We had plans on having a semi -porous surface. Actually, we were planning on using the recycled asphalt bits bought from the city and spreading those and rolling those and hopefully get it pretty smooth in the summer. We might not be able to get it real smooth when it is this cold but once the asphalt smoothes out we should have a semi -porous surface that will allow the ground to breathe, the water to get through, and it will promote the safety and convenience of the customers. There was one finding that we didn't have a developed parking area and that is because we haven't got to that stage of actually designating the parking area. On the sketch it is shown and labeled and what is existing now is a well developed gravel driveway all the way through there. It is very well developed with all kinds of layers to it. We ask for relief from having to have a non -porous concrete surface on the driveway. Also, I would like to ask the question. In the proposal for the driveway, are we only talking about what is in the city limits? Estes: Mr. Conklin, can you be responsive to that question please? Conklin: Yes. Our ordinances with regard to paved parking only pertain to the city limits. Morrison: We will have more than half of our driveway and parking area that will be this other surface anyway. The other relief we ask is about the 6' sidewalk. In this area of town there are no sidewalks. This is along Hwy. 16. There is almost no pedestrian traffic Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 26 through that area. I understand about the plans for getting sidewalks all over town and it makes good sense. Except when there is just a section of sidewalk floating in nowhere. It would connect across the front of our property a convenience store to the driveway of a church. Also, I am not sure about the setback from the highway where the sidewalks should go but one of the prime trees on our property is a pine tree that looks to be right in the way of where a sidewalk would be installed. I don't know the codes so I don't know where exactly the sidewalk would be placed. We like the idea of having a sidewalk. It just doesn't make a lot of sense in the present configuration of the neighborhood. I could suggest that as soon as there are more sidewalks we will put this one in too. The benefits that would be derived from having a sidewalk there would be minimal for the pedestrian traffic and the aesthetics would be just minimal for improving that area. Those are the two areas of exception that we wanted to make to the conditions. That is basically our presentation. Morrison: My name is Lisa Morrison. I am one of the four partners in this venture. The two oak trees that Merle mentioned have been looked at by the University and they are estimated to be 200 to 250 years old. It is important to us to preserve these trees and we honestly believe solid concrete all around them will kill them. That would be where the driveway is. As far as the sidewalk goes, another prominent tree on the place is a large pine tree and it is most probably in the way of the sidewalk and it would have to be taken down to put up a sidewalk so both of those suggestions we are having problems with. That is what we would like a variance on. Estes: Ward: Thank you. Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested Conditional Use? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussions, comments, motions, and questions of the applicant. I understand your concerns about the driveway. I am pretty familiar with that property out there. I would probably give a waiver for the pavement of the driveway but on the sidewalk, that is a major highway and we are trying to put sidewalks all up and down our major highways. We do allow movement of the sidewalk, it doesn't have to be straight. A lot of times we move them around trees or other things that we need to get around so we don't damage things. My situation is in order to kind of keep this thing going is that I do want the sidewalk. The waiver for the driveway will be at the consensus of the Commission. Morrison: Is there a chance that that part of Hwy. 16 East is going to be a four lane in the next five years or ten years? Conklin: Five years no. Ten years probably not. I am not going to go any further. Estes: Are there any other questions of the applicant? Is there any discussion or any motions? MOTION: Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 27 MOTION: Ward: In order to keep things moving, I will go ahead and make a motion that we do approve CUP 03-3.00 and that we would grant a waiver where they would not pave the driveway and I do feel like the type of material that you are going to use, and I have looked at the driveway that is already out there, it is a nice driveway already with some other material on top of it but that the waiver of the sidewalk would not be granted that all of the other conditions would be recommended. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve CUP 03-3.00 granting a waiver of the installation of the paved drive way and parking lot is there a second? Ostner: I will give the second to Commissioner Ostner. Bunch: In granting the waiver for the paved parking and driveway what type of material, is it as the applicant proposed? What type are your recommending for the waiver? Ward: He has already mentioned that he might use the stuff that he is buying from the city. Would you assure us that that is what you are going to use? Those are really unique oak trees out there, I've looked at them many times I think that will more than hold its own. Ostner: Those asphalt filings from the city are terrific stuff. They pack really hard and they do breathe, it is good material. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Ostner, is there any discussion or any comments? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 03-3.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of eight to zero. Thank you. Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 28 CUP 03-4.00: Conditional Use (Wesley Foundation, pp 483) was submitted by Roger Boskus of Miller, Boskus, Lack Architects on behalf of Greg Taylor of the Wesley Foundation for property located at 730 W. Maple Street. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential and contains approximately 0.71 acres. The request is for a religious facility (Use Unit 4) in a R-3 district. A shared parking agreement for 145 spaces is also requested for this project. Estes: The next item on the agenda is CUP 03-4.00 for the Wesley Foundation submitted by Roger Boskus of Miller, Boskus, Lack Architects on behalf of Greg Taylor of the Wesley Foundation for property located at 730 W. Maple Street. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential and contains approximately 0.71 acres. The request is for a religious facility, a Use Unit 4 in an R-3 District. A shared parking agreement for 145 spaces is also requested for this project. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use subject to certain conditions of approval. Mr. Conklin, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: Yes. Estes: Those conditions of approval are 1) Board of Adjustment approval of setback variances needed for the project as shown on the submitted site plans. The project is scheduled for a public hearing before the Board of Adjustment Monday, March 3, 2003. 2) Planning Commission approval of shared parking agreement for 145 parking spaces to be shared with the University of Arkansas as shown on the attached site plan and proposed in the associated shared parking agreement. 3) Remove and replace broken and unsafe sections of existing sidewalk along both Leverett Ave. and Maple Street at the time of development. 4) Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards requirements. Project shall be built as shown on the elevations and site plan provided with this conditional use application. 5) All refuse areas shall be screened and accessible to solid waste vehicles. 6) Any new utility connections necessary to serve the development shall be located underground. 7) All signage shall comply with the City's sign ordinance and Commercial Design Standards regulations. Are there any additional conditions of approval Mr. Conklin? Conklin: No. Estes: With reference to condition of approval number two, Planning Commission approval of a shared parking agreement for 145 parking spaces, Mr. Williams, would this require a separate vote by the Commission? Williams: I think that would probably be the best way to handle it. Estes: Should that be the first item of consideration under this Conditional Use? Williams: I would go with the first. Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 29 Estes: For the safe of economy let's do this. If the applicant will give us the benefit of a presentation on the Conditional Use request and then we will take up by separate motion the approval of the shared parking agreement and then should that motion pass we will take up the remainder of the Conditional Use request. Would you say your name please and provide us with the benefit of your presentation. Boskus: My name is Roger Boskus. I am with Miller, Boskus, Lack Architects and Blair Johannsen is here also representing the Wesley Foundation. I will give you a quick overview. I am going to show you a few slides of the existing facilities on the site and talk about the vision that the Wesley Foundation has for the project and then show you our proposed design solution for the project. The project is located on the corner of Maple and Leverett Street. It is a unique piece of property in the city in that it is completely surrounded by the University of Arkansas on all four sides. That is a shot of the existing student center that is there now. There is a photograph of the property looking down Maple Street. There is a historically significant building on the site. The chapel of the cross was designed by architect Warren C. Graves, which we feel is a very important piece of architecture in our community which needs to be preserved. A major portion of the solution here revolves around us preserving that very important piece of architecture yet accommodating the Wesley Foundation with a facility that is large enough to accommodate the needs that they have and be able to reach out to the students on campus. This is just another view from the same area. That is a view looking up Maple Street more towards the chapel of the cross. Our scheme is taking out the existing office building which is in the back here which is inadequate for the needs of the Wesley Foundation. I will talk a little bit about their vision. They want to create a facility that is inviting and is better connected to the students and this facility that they have now is walled up. There are no windows that look out. It is a very uninviting facility that doesn't invite students to come inside and see what is happening in there and it is not very open expressing what is going on and that is communicating the word of God out to the student body. Also, as part of their vision they want to create a fun place where students want to be. They want to create an interactive environment so that students when they are walking by can see what is going on in the facility and can walk right into this facility and have a good time and they can spread the word. They need a new 600 seat worship center, a new recreation room which has foosball tables, pool tables, ping pong tables, etc., a place for fun activities. A coffee bar is an important element as part of this scheme that we have come up with and we have kind of added this to the program through the discussions and then additional office space for their staff, which we are replacing as part of the project solution. This is the proposed site plan for the project. You can see that the new facilities are located here in the light cream color. This is the existing chapel of the cross. We have Maple Street and then Leverett Street. This slide shows the shared parking that we are sharing with the University of Arkansas. An important issue to address with the parking is that we are in a largely pedestrian environment. The students that attend this facility are on campus already. They are just walking from somewhere on campus and their destination is this facility. It is not like we have a lot of people driving across town like you would on Sunday to go to Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 30 services to get to this facility but should we have people driving to this facility, the University has signed an agreement with us that we can share these parking spaces. We are also providing enough day to day parking underneath the facility. We have 16 parking spaces located in the basement of the facility. I wanted to talk to you for just a second about our response to the site. A 600 seat worship center is a pretty large box that we need to delicately place into this site and we have the chapel of the cross right here that we didn't want to dominate so we chose to pull back the facade of the new facility and we wanted to just wrap the Leverett Street and Maple Street sides of the facility with lower scale elements that bring the scale down to a more pedestrian friendly environment. We have brought it down from 16' to 20'. We have got some low canopies also that are down to the 12' level. The large box of the space, which is right here is the worship center. This is a 600 seat worship center, it is 24' tall and it is down in the lowest part of the site. The site slopes dramatically from this corner back to this corner. We have set this down to what we call the hole behind the chapel so its visual impact is minimal. We have wrapped it with the other amenities I was talking about, the recreation room, the coffee bar, which we have located on the corner so you can see it from the bus stop if you want to walk right across from the bus stop to drop in here and get a cup of coffee. We have got a living area and then an outdoor amphitheater with grass surface and then we have got a paved patio area with a stairway that leads from the downhill side and this is a sidewalk that leads you to that patio as well. The building floor elevation, there is about 20' of fall across the site so the building floor elevation comes in off of Leverett Street at 410' and then there is a 10' change in elevation here and we are parking underneath the worship center so that is how we are providing our required day to day parking and not conflicting with the University. This is the second floor plan that shows some office space that is above. We have got it open for the fun places below. That is the lowest level which shows the parking situation under the building. This is the south elevation of the facility looking from Maple Street. You can see the chapel of the cross and it's relationship. We have got a largely glass facade and brick. We have got some delicate wood and steel canopies that come out from the building so those are adding to our scale of the building and also adding some light control to the building. This is the Leverett Street elevation, that is actually the grade change coming down to that intersection at Leverett and Maple. We just responded to that in the elevation of the building. Again, the visual connection was very important for us. The amount of glass in the front of the building to see what is happening inside that coffee shop or see what is happening inside the facility and be inviting and want people to come in. This is back to a shot of how it is now and that is about the same angle of how it will be when it is complete. That is another shot from straight across the street if you are standing on campus on the other side of Maple Street. That is looking down Maple Street and then a little closer study of the entrance canopy off of Leverett Street. That is looking into the coffee shop from the outside and that is looking into the living room and that is the amphitheater area that I was talking about a minute ago. This is a quick three dimensional fly around to give you an idea of the entire project. I would like to ask that the Planning Commission grant our request for a Conditional Use Permit and I Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 31 would also like to ask you to consider endorsing our request for the setback variances, which is another important part of this process. The scale of the building and the need to preserve the chapel of the cross has pushed us out to the edges of the property. We are responding we feel very strongly to a pedestrian environment and we are maintaining an important edge along Maple Street and Leverett Street. We are not doing anything that I feel has a negative impact. I do feel that pulling back into the required setbacks would have a negative impact on the owner's program and so therefore, we are requesting those variances. Estes: Thank you. Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on this requested CUP 03-4.00? Johannsen: I am Blair Johannsen, I am the current President for the board of the Wesley Foundation. I am just here to answer any questions you might have about the program on behalf of Greg Taylor who is out of town. Estes: Is there any other member of the audience that would like to provide comment on this requested Conditional Use? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussions, questions of the applicant, motions. Bunch: I have a question for the applicant. You have done a very good job of making this pedestrian friendly but since it is in more of an alternative transportation area where we have regular bus traffic and people walking have you considered making it bicycle friendly also by putting in some bicycle racks for the people who use bicycles? Boskus: Not until you just mentioned it but that is something that 1 will definitely look into. Bunch: Staff, with 161 parking spaces, how many would that normally be with our bicycle rack requirement? Conklin: I will have to look at that ordinance. They will be required to put some bicycle parking racks in, I'm not sure how many Estes: MOTION: Ward: Are there any other comments? Let me first call for consideration of condition of approval for the shared parking agreement as found in your materials page 6.24 signed by all necessary parties. Is there any discussion or any motions regarding the shared parking agreement? I will go ahead and make a motion that we do approve the shared parking agreement for the 145 parking spaces as we have a shared parking agreement signed by the University of Arkansas on February 4, 2003. Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 32 Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve the shared parking agreement, is there a second? Shackelford: I will second. Also, for public record, one of the reasons that we are in support of this, at least myself, is the unique setting for this building and the fact that this is a pedestrian concentrated area of town. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Shackelford to approve the shared parking agreement. Is there any discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve the shared parking agreement between the University of Arkansas and the Wesley Foundation was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of eight to zero. Is there any discussion, comments or motions regarding the accompanying CUP 03-4.00? MOTION: Ward: Estes: Hoover: I will second. Estes: I will make a motion that we approve CUP 03-4.00 with the six remaining conditions and also that we would urge the approval of the Board of Adjustment for the setback variances for the reasons that were given tonight. We have a motion by Commissioner Ward, is there a second? Shackelford: Conklin: Shackelford: Bunch: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve CUP 03-4.00 and a second by Commissioner Hoover, is there any further discussion? Tim, do we need to address the bicycle rack? You said that there was an ordinance in place that this would fall under, does that need to be addressed as a condition of approval? No. Staff will review this site plan administratively since it is under an acre so you are not actually approving the actual development, that will go through an internal process. To answer your questions, we do have an ordinance for bicycle racks and they will be required to put six bicycle racks Each rack holds two bicycles so that is 12 bicycles. Thank you. Tim, will this be handled administratively as far as the actual nuts and bolts of the development? Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 33 Conklin. Yes. Bunch: I am assuming that the ADA questions will be addressed at that time also? Conklin: Yes. Shackelford: Do we need to make specific findings for commercial design standards as part of this motion and second? Williams: I don't think so I think you can just say Conditional Use as stated. Shackelford: Thank you. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Hoover to approve CUP 03-4.00 is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 03-4.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes unanimously by a vote of eight to zero. Thank you very much. Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 34 RZN 03-8.00: Rezoning (McKinney, pp 365) was submitted by Nathan McKinney for property located at 1631 Deane Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.9 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Estes: The next item on the agenda is RZN 03-8.00 submitted by Nathan McKinney for property located at 1631 Deane Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.9 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning based on the findings that are included as a part of your packet. Is the applicant present? If you have a presentation would you please come forward and provide us with the benefit of your presentation? McKinney: My name is Nathan McKinney and I have no formal presentation for you in addition to what you obviously have received in your packet. There is a little story and extenuating circumstances behind this request and I would be happy to repeat that if it would be a benefit to this Commission. Estes: Thank you Mr. McKinney. Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide comment on RZN 03-8.00? If so, would you please come forward, say your name, and provide us with the benefit of your comments. Richards: My name is Joyce Richards and I have property that is probably a block and a half down the fence line from Mr. McKinney's property. As I understand it, this is a rezoning request for which no specific development plan has been submitted and who knows what changes may occur before the development actually takes place. It seems that the most prudent course of action would be to wait and see a concrete proposal, not to offer a blank check for an unknown with no specifics and no assurances. I would ask you to follow the advice of your Planning office and deny this request and perhaps sometime in the future you will have an opportunity to consider whether a rezoning should take place at that time and whether that rezoning would uphold the neighborhoods that surround it because things do have a way of changing. Estes: Thank you Joyce. Bryant: City Staff and Planning Commissioners, my name is Rebecca Bryant. I am an adjacent property owner. I believe you have quite a detailed note from me about my opinions and thoughts about this request. I am just here to show you that I care, that I do have financial interests at stake and I would hope that you take my concerns about the quality of life into consideration as well for the neighborhood as a whole and as a fabric. Since this would be a request for a spot rezoning and Lewis Street has been the traditional boundary between high density and low density residential in the area. Thank you. Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 35 Estes: Ward: Conklin: Thank you Rebecca. Is there anyone else who would like to provide us with the benefit of your comments regarding this requested rezoning? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussions, comments, questions of Mr. McKinney and motions. Tim, will you give us a little rundown of how this came about? I read the materials a couple of days ago but I would like to be refreshed. Sure. Back around 1995 the city took a 1970 zoning map and digitized that map in order to put it onto a computer and to view it on a computer. At that time there was a mistake made in a region of that map that involved multiple properties and it was shown as R-1.5 instead of the R-1. This mistake was discovered just over a year ago when staff researched to find the ordinance that changed a particular piece of property to the R-1.5. It was at that time that we discovered that that was incorrectly shown on the map. The map was changed. Mr. McKinney stopped by the office and noticed that it was changed and we are here today with a situation where what was shown on the map for several years actually was incorrect and there was no ordinance. It was a drafting error. Staff is attempting to make sure the map is 100% correct and we will be bringing forward a map fairly soon to the City Council. Estes: Does that answer your question? Ward: Yes. I guess this has happened more than once where people have looked at a map of the city and looked at the zoning and bought the property with the idea that it was zoned something different than what it really was, how have we handled those in the past? Conklin: The only one I am aware of is a property on Garland and Hendrix that was a nonconforming use of the property for many years. City staff did recommend that rezoning. We ended up with a very detailed Bill of Assurance with regard to what can be built on the property and how it is going to look. That is the only one that I can recall. Ward: If we table this tonight and ask for the applicant to come in with some kind of a Planned Zoning District that we kind of get the full blown project looked at it would be something that I definitely would consider, especially since the applicant definitely bought the property with the idea that it was zoned something and now it has changed in the middle of the stream. What is your thought on that? Conklin: That is what staff was recommending. Staff was trying to avoid the process that we went through previously where we ended up with 75% brick and porches and different things on the structure by the time it was all said and done. However, I don't think the applicant, Mr. McKinney has any immediate plans to develop the property. He has stated that to staff. Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 36 Estes: Is there any further discussion? McKinney: Mr. Chairman, may I make one further statement? Estes: No Mr. McKinney, it is closed to you and closed to public comment and is now before the Commission. When we look at any item that comes before us my thinking is that we need clear and convincing evidence to support findings of fact in opposition to staff's recommendation and I do not find it here. What I do see is what is sometimes called spot zoning or speculative zoning. If the property is rezoned to R- 1.5 Mr. McKinney, this comment is not directed towards you at all, if it is rezoned you are free to sell the property to someone else and they may do whatever they please with it within that zoning designation. That is one reason that we have the Planned Zoning District provision now so that as these matters come before us on a rezoning we can see specifically what is being done and most importantly is that your neighbors can see what is happening. Right now we have a request for what I would characterize as speculative zoning or spot zoning and I do not see any clear and convincing evidence to support a finding of fact in opposition to staff s recommendation and I would not support the rezoning. Let me do this. Let me call three times for a motion. Is there a motion? Shackelford: I would like to ask a question of our City Attorney. Situations like this have always troubled me. I think the argument could be made that property value is affected by zoning of said property. This applicant basically purchased this property after reviewing the zoning and relying on an admitted error or omission of a city employee of the specific zoning. In your opinion does the applicant have any legal recourse against the city for any error or omission of specific zoning that may have been relayed to him by a city employee? Williams: I think not. This is the same situation that happened on Garland on that property, I think my opinion at that point was that the city is protected by sobrum immunity for mistakes like this. It would make even admitted mistakes where the map was not done properly. That is not the final decision. In fact, as you remember in the Garland case, eventually that property was rezoned. It had a very extensive Bill of Assurance attached to it, as the City Planner told us. From a legal point of view I don't think we are in very serious trouble here. It is certainly something that was a very unfortunate mistake and it is up to you all to decide what you want to do at this point. Shackelford: It is an unfortunate mistake and that is why I would like to see some sort of compromise reached to where the applicant and the neighbors could come to some sort of agreement over the future development of this property. It has been mentioned here a couple of times that it is a spot rezoning. Tim, if there was a development on this property that would need a R-1.5 zoning would you support rezoning it for a specific development? Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 37 Conklin: We have two methods that we can look at with regard to potentially changing the land use. The first method, R-1 allows for a Conditional Use for a duplex. This lot is fairly large, the possibilities would be there to add additional units. The second one is our Planned Zoning District, which allows development review and zoning to go through the same process and deal with issues of compatibility and how to mitigate any adverse impacts to adjoining neighbors. It depends on the project and what is being proposed. I really can't answer your question at this time. We set that up almost as a performance based type zoning where we can look at how to mitigate adverse impacts with regard to zoning and land use. Shackelford: With that being said, I guess what I am trying to do is just to state that my preference would be that we worked towards some sort of compromise on this situation. This is an unfortunate incident. This incident did occur due to an error made by a city employee and in that situation I would like to see city staff and this board work with the applicant in any way possible to find some sort of compromise and solution to this. Bunch: A question of procedure. If this is categorically denied at this level is it a year before it can come up again since this is a rezoning request? Conklin: Yes if they reapply for the same zoning request they can't come back for a year. If they apply for something different they can petition the Commission. It also can be appealed to City Council. Bunch: If it fails for lack of a motion what would be the situation then? Would that come under the same one year restriction or would it just be like a tabling? Williams: I feel that before you have no action on this that really you should ask the applicant because he does have the right to appeal an adverse decision to the City Council but if you make no decision then you have put him in limbo so I think it would only be fair to ask Mr. McKinney if he wants to move forward, if he would rather have it tabled. He is the applicant here and I think we need to get his input on what his plans are. Even if you vote eight zero against this here he might want to take it up to the City Council on appeal. On the other hand, maybe he would like more time. I think we need to get an input from him Mr. Chairman. Bunch: I would like to question the applicant. Now that you have had the opportunity to hear the discussion, what is the nature of your request at this time? McKinney: I would be thrilled to see compromises but at this point, as I have indicated earlier, I have no plans or designs to develop the property in the next several years. I have made several decisions regarding the property based on the fact that it was zoned R- 1.5 according to the city staff and the map, which I inquired of them on several occasions. Not just one, but on several. I want to be a good neighbor and I want the neighbors to ultimately be very proud of any future development but I would develop Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 38 the property. I just don't know. There has been a diminished value between the time that I bought the property and for five years hence when it was zoned R-1.5 according to God and everybody and today. The other thing that is quite bothersome is not only did I not trust that map but I inquired of the city staff and was told repeatedly that is the zoning and then when I discovered the change, I discovered the change. There was no word and no letter whatsoever that the zoning map had been changed and I just ask for everybody on this Commission to be cognizant and mindful of that but I certainly would seek any compromise that could be proposed and that is the kind of approach I would take to this. Estes: Commissioner Bunch, is that responsive to your questions? Bunch: Somewhat. Also, Mr. McKinney, you had wished earlier to make another comment after discussion was closed. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to give you the chance to make that comment. McKinney: That was it. The map was wrong and I didn't trust it so I asked the City Planner at that time to clarify that for me and I was told in very short and terse language that the map was right and not to question it and then I discovered that the map had been changed. No one informed me that it had been changed. In effect, diminishing the value of my property, at least in my mind. In all due respect, could it have been monkied up anymore? I don't know how. That is as troublesome as anything. Bunch: Mr. McKinney, do you feel that if you were to bring this back through in the future since you have no plans at this time, utilizing the new tool that we have available, the Planned Zoning District, do you think that that might restore some of the value of this property and give you an opportunity to develop it a little more fully than an R-1 zoning? McKinney: It certainly could and there is no total loss of course but I am not sure that I am going to be the one that carries anything through here. I may choose to sell the property at some future date. Your planning staff told me that right there are a certain number of units in R-1.5 and a considerably restricted number of units allowed in R-1 and that is just a diminished value, it just is. I respect the position you are in. I ask that you, as Commissioner Shackelford has suggested, offer some alternatives. I would certainly be willing to consider them. Bunch: That concludes my questions. Estes: Thank you Mr. McKinney. Ward: I don't think that we will ever make this thing fair for what Mr. McKinney has had happen here. I am very sympathetic to his case because I have seen this happen more than once. I think all I can offer is as a Commission we can say we will be sympathetic if you bring a project to us showing exactly what it is going to be, how Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 39 Estes: McKinney: Estes: McKinney: Estes: Shackelford: Estes: many units, etc. Without that at this point I don't think any of us are willing to, I don't know what we could compromise anyway. It is zoned R-1, we do have the Planned Zoning Districts now. We would be very sympathetic for you if you brought some project to us and let us look at it and take it from there. I think that would restore any value that you possibly could have in your mind that is lost. My feeling is I would like to just table this and go on down the road. Mr. McKinney, let me just say this. The specific item that you brought to us is a rezoning request. As your Planning Commission you have asked us to act on that request. We can not sit here and negotiate a compromise with you regarding any aspect of the future use of this property. You have asked us to act on the rezoning request. You can pull it, we can table it, if there is a motion we can vote it up or down. If we vote it up then you have got the relief that you came here for. If we vote it down you can appeal it. As your chair I want to be sure that you understand your options at this point. I have said I would call for a motion three times and I have called for a motion once and there was no motion and I will call twice again and if there is no motion it will fail for lack of a motion. Mr. Chairman, I submitted this request on the advice of Kit and I still don't understand what will happen if it is tabled. Typically when an item is tabled it is tabled for a time certain and then it is brought back to us. The issue I see with tabling it is that you have told us that you have no immediate plans for the property. You have also told us that you may sell the property. And I may not. That is exactly right and I think that is my point. I feel like I have suffered a diminished value in the property regardless of the ultimate use today. In the future some of that may be restored but the advice that the City Attorney gave me is that memories are short and it is best to go ahead and proceed now while everybody understands the situation and I think that was good advice. While the words that you all are using are very reassuring, how many of you all are going to be around? I may not be either. Let me go ahead and call for a motion twice more. Is there a motion? Is there a motion? I am also confused on the difference of an item dying from a lack of motion as compared to a denial. If there is not a motion then the requested rezoning will fail for lack of a motion. The applicant could bring this identical request back but this applicant must wait one year before doing so. If this applicant wanted to bring back a different request regarding this specific piece of property the applicant could do that tomorrow but the applicant Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 40 will be precluded from bringing this identical request back within one year if it fails for lack of a motion. Williams: Can I ask our City Planner, is it your understanding Tim if there is no motion and so it fails for a lack of motion would Mr. McKinney then have a right to appeal to the City Council even though there has been no actual action taken by the Planning Commission? Conklin: I would assume that that means it fails, as our chair has stated in the record and that he has a right to appeal to City Council. That would be my interpretation. Williams: Thank you. Estes: RZN 03-8.00 fails for lack of a motion. Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 41 RZN 03-9.00: Rezoning (Nichols, pp 557/558) was submitted by Richard L. Miller, attorney, on behalf of Dodi Nichols for property located at 2800 Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned A- 1, Agricultural and contains approximately 1.88 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Estes: The next item on the agenda is RZN 03-9.00 submitted by Mr. Richard L. Miller, attorney, on behalf of Dodi Nichols for property located at 2800 Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 1.88 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as a part of your materials. Is the applicant or applicant's representative present? Miller: I am Richard Miller, I am an attorney for Dodi Nichols and I have brought this petition to seek to rezone the property from A-1 to R-1. Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this rezoning request? Seeing no one in the audience, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion, comments, questions of Mr. Miller, and motions. Shackelford: I will make a motion that we approve RZN 03-9.00 based on staffs comments and recommendation. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford to approve RZN 03-9.00 is there a second? Church: I will second it. Estes: Is there any discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Church to approve RZN 03-9.00. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve RZN 03-9.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of eight to zero. Planning Commission February 10, 2003 Page 42 ADM 03-100• Administrative Item (PZD Ordinance) To amend the Unified Development Ordinance to allow Use Unit 13, Eating Places as an allowable use in a Residential Planned Zoning District. Estes: The remaining item on our agenda is ADM 03-1.00 to amend the Unified Development Ordinance to allow Use Unit 13, Eating Places, as an allowable use in a Residential Planned Zoning District. Mr. Conklin, do you have any comments or can you tell us why this is before us and tell us what your recommendation is? Conklin: Mr. Chair and members of the Commission, as we began to implement our Planned Zoning District it was brought to our attention that in a Residential Planned Zoning District that we failed to include Use Unit 13 as a permitted use. We have an opportunity to bring forward a master planned mixed use development with the primary use being residential and this is something that staff is in support of, which would allow restaurants to be a permitted use by right. Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this administrative item? Seeing no one in the audience I will bring it back to the Commission. MOTION: Allen: I move for approval of ADM 03-1.00. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Allen, is there a second? Bunch: Second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Bunch. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ADM 03-1.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote with a recommendation that the City Council approve the proposed amendment which includes restaurants as a use by right in the R-PZD. Mr. Conklin, are there any announcements? Conklin: I have no announcements. Ward: I think all of us would like to wish our Chair, Lorel Aviles, Happy Birthday today. That is the reason that she is not chairing our committee tonight although Commissioner Estes did an awesome job. Estes: We will stand adjourned until our next regularly scheduled meeting.