Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-05-24 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, May 24, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN VAC 04-1070: (ESTATES AT SALEM HILLS, 206) Forwarded to City Council Consent ADM 04-1068: (JERNIGAN, 524) Approved Consent LSD 04-1052: (KERSHNER BUSINESS CENTRE, 173) Approved Page 3 ADM 04-1063: (LSD EXTENSION FOR DUNCAN APTS., 561)Approved Page 8 ADM 04-1086: (LUSHBAUGH, 484) Approved Page 16 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Alan Ostner Christian Vaught James Graves Sean Trumbo Loren Shackelford Jill Anthes Christine Myres Candy Clark Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Jeremy Pate Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Kit Williams Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas Planning Commission May 24, 2004 Page 2 VAC 04-1070: Vacation (ESTATES AT SALEM HILLS, 206): Submitted by GERALD TOMLINSON for property located at WEST SALEM ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 1.95 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of Right -of -Way. ADM 04-1068: Administrative Item (JERNIGAN, 524): Submitted by JIM JERNIGAN for property located at 604 BLAIR AVENUE. The request is to revise the site plan for the Conditional Use at the subject property. Ostner: Good evening welcome to the May 24, 2004 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Renee, will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were eight Commissioners present with Commissioner Vaught being absent. Ostner: The first item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from the May 10`h meeting. We also have two items on the consent agenda, VAC 04-1070 for the Estates At Salem Hills and ADM 04-1068 for Jernigan. Is there anyone in the audience or on the Commission who would like to speak to these items? You may remove them from the consent agenda, otherwise, a motion will approve all of the items at once. Clark: So moved. Allen: I second. Ostner: Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission May 24, 2004 Page 3 LSD 04-1052: Large Scale Development (KERSHNER BUSINESS CENTRE, 173): Submitted by JAMES KOCH for property located at SE CORNER OF STEELE BLVD & VAN ASCHE DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.49 acres. The request is to approve the development of a 17,747 sq.ft. office building with 42 parking spaces proposed Ostner: The next item is LSD 04-1052 for Kershner Business Center. Can we have the staff report please? Pate: Yes Sir. This Large Scale Development was submitted for property located at the southeast corner of Steele Blvd. and Van Asche Drive, directly north of the Target development. The property is currently zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.49 acres. The applicant is requesting to construct a two story office building consisting of 17,747 sq.ft. approximately at this corner. The development also utilizes 42 parking spaces, which is within the allowable parking ratio. For Professional Office development that ratio is one per 300 sq.ft. Surrounding land use and zoning primarily is vacant with the exception of the Target to the south. Right of way has already been dedicated in this area with the subdivision of this property. This is a lot within the overall CMN Business Park Phase Il. There is a tree preservation area which is deed restricted and was set forth by that Final Plat of CMN Business Park II, Phase 11. There is no allowable removal of trees within that mitigation area. There is one tree that is being removed with this project but it is outside of that area. That is why you see the decrease in canopy. There are several other trees on the site that will actually remain. Nothing has been removed within the deed restricted area. Staff is recommending approval of this Large Scale Development with 10 conditions. First, Planning Commission determination of commercial design standards. Staff does find that the submitted elevations and the materials sample board that you see here do comply with commercial design standards. Item number three, which has been discussed the most at Subdivision Committee and Technical Plat Review, trash enclosure shall be screened on a minimum of three sides with materials that are complimentary to and compatible with the proposed building. Additionally, access to the enclosure shall not be visible from the street. That is a city ordinance. Staff recommends that the enclosure be fully gated on the fourth side with a wrought iron or similar gate to ameliorate the impact of the view from both Van Asche Drive and Steele Blvd. The applicant did look at relocating this dumpster area and I believe he can speak to that if you have questions about that. Item six, additionally, any future proposal for any landscape development, as you see on your plat, within the deed restricted preservation easement will need to go through the Landscape Administrator and then be forwarded to the City Council. I will be happy to answer questions. Planning Commission May 24, 2004 Page 4 Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Koch: Good evening, my name is James Koch with CEI Engineering representing our client's proposed project, the Kershner office on Lot 7C of Steele Crossing. We do have a signed letter of conditions submitted to the city accepting all of the conditions that Jeremy just read to you and with that in mind I guess we respectively request approval of our Large Scale Development. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I'm going to open it up to the public. Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this issue? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. The first question I have is a Subdivision report. Ms. Anthes? Anthes: At Subdivision we found favorably for the project except for one issue. That has to do with the trash enclosure that is located on the street. Even with the screening the Commissioners present thought that that was not an adequate hiding from the right of way for the street. We asked Mr. Koch to look and talk to his client and to the neighboring property owners to see if they could work out a deal to locate the service dumpster on the service alley that runs by the Target Store. Unfortunately, from what we have heard, that was not able to be negotiated in this time frame. Perhaps we should ask him to elaborate further on that. We did ask at Subdivision Committee if that was not feasible to look at alternative locations within their site and I have not seen that on the revised plans. Ostner: Do you have anything to add to that? Koch: Yes, I sure do. We did revise our drawings and we put the dumpster adjacent to the service drive as indicated at Subdivision Committee. Target was unwilling to accept that for fear of future impediments to expansion of their facility and they just didn't want it to be located back there. We decided to keep it as is with the agreement to put an enclosure on the front of it. However, if the dumpster is the only item that is going to prevent this project from moving forward we may look at an alternate location somewhere on our property that would be acceptable and the current ordinance. Anthes: Have you thought about where that location might be? We sort of thought if you couldn't work it out with Target that you would come back to us with an alternative proposal. Koch: The only other "workable" location in my mind would be near that curb cut between Target and our site. Planning Commission May 24, 2004 Page S Anthes: Can you show us on the plan? Koch: Absolutely. Anthes: Dawn, will you refresh our memory and read us the ordinance pertaining to the requirements for screening from roads? Warrick: Sure. It is under the commercial design standards ordinance. It talks about screening for commercial buildings and development, mechanical and utility equipment, trash enclosures and outdoor storage of material and equipment shall be screened if visible from the highway/street right of way or from residential property as set forth below regarding trash enclosures it states trash enclosures shall be screened with access not visible from the street. Anthes: I think that has been our discussion is that the access in each of these locations proposed is definitely visible from the street. Both Van Asche and Steele are sort of major thoroughfares within that subdivision. Ostner: It seems to me part of the issue is the large tree preservation area. Usually office developments have a back door and they don't. They are having to put everything along two frontages. I think we are kind of stuck between which way we want it. Koch: The reason that we don't have our parking behind the building is because it was the intent that this office be able to use that tree preservation area kind of like a backyard if you will. With that immediately abutting the rear of the building of course, that doesn't leave any allowance to put access or utilities back there. We just consolidated it, married it with the tree preservation area and put our parking and drive aisle in the perimeter of the site like that. Shackelford: You've given this proposed reconfiguration of trash but you are still in agreement with the recommended screening including the wrought iron or similar gate? Koch: Absolutely. Anthes: I guess what we are looking at is as proposed, we will either end up with a trash enclosure on Steele or on Van Asche. I would like to hear commissioners comments on which they think would be the least detrimental location. Shackelford: I'll start. I saw this at Subdivision Committee and I took your comments that you made at that point and I was in agreement. Theoretically it would be better for the area off their property but that doesn't sound like an Planning Commission May 24, 2004 Page 6 option at this point. I think the reconfiguration that he is indicating tonight at least gets it somewhat out of view. It is setback on the property and turned at an angle. I think with the right screening it could be something that would be acceptable. We are in a pretty unique situation here, as was pointed out before. There are some pretty unique restrictions to this development area based on the tree preservation. I appreciate what the developer has done to try to protect the overall integrity of the property and I think that the proper screening needs to be applied. I would present the configuration shown here. Ostner: Mr. Koch, is this reconfiguration you sketched for us up here, would that include some kind of landscaping? Koch: Sure. Ostner: I would want to agree with Commissioner Shackelford that I think that is a better solution with the opening, the gates not facing the public. Koch: And it is closer to the rear of the service drive at the existing Target store and all of that being grouped together would be more appropriate. Allen: When we went out there on tour I guess I came away with a six in one and half dozen in the other because there were telephone boxes and equipment in that area already that is rather unattractive and it seems like maybe if you put it in the original site that that would screen both but I won't object to going either way with this. Myres: I'm in favor of leaving it where it was originally with the addition of gates simply because moving it, granted it is closer to the service drive, but it is also in front of the building near the main entrance. Your building fronts right on Steele and I'm not so sure that it is not less intrusive back off of Van Asche even though that probably will eventually become a busier thoroughfare as it is now. I have no objections to keeping it in it's original location, putting gates on it and leaving it at that and leaving the front area of the building alone. Anthes: I just think it's unfortunate we weren't able to work out a deal with Target. Ostner: It sounds like we're all in agreement. Does anyone want to make a motion? Shackelford: I will make a motion to approve LSD 04-1052 with the specific findings in favor of Commercial Design Standards. Staff, are you comfortable with negotiating with the developer on the location of the dumpster? Planning Commission May 24, 2004 Page 7 Warrick: If the consensus of the Planning Commission is either/or, that's fine. We will be glad to ensure that either/or is installed. Obviously, what is on the plan is something that we know and we can compare to a permit application. I think that it would be easier for us to understand what the direction of the Panning Commission is. This is a pretty important project and I wouldn't want anyone to come back and later say this is a major change. I would prefer to have a decision. Shackelford: Do we want it as proposed or as indicated on the drawing that we have in front of us? Allen: I would vote for it the way it is on the original drawing. Graves: I would do the same. I think with Steele being sort of a cut from the interstate to another main thoroughfare it probably is going to be a heavier traffic area than Van Asche and it seems to me that you probably want to screen it off more from the heavier traffic area. I don't think it makes enough of a difference otherwise in keeping it away from the front of the building is probably a good consideration. MOTION: Shackelford: I am going to make a motion to approve LSD 04-1052 with the specific finding in favor of commercial design standards and all other nine conditions as stated in our packets. Trumbo: Second. Ostner: There is a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there any further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 04-1052 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission May 24, 2004 Page 8 ADM 04-1063: Administrative Item (LSD EXTENSION FOR DUNCAN APTS., 561): Submitted by MANDY BUNCH for property located at DUNCAN AVENUE, S OF 6TH STREET. The request is to extend the approval of LSD 03-13.00. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is ADM 04-1063 for a Large Scale Development extension for Duncan Apartments. Mr. Pate? Pate: The applicant is requesting to extend LSD 03-13.00 for Duncan Avenue Apartments for one year to expire on May 27, 2005. This is the maximum allowance of time you can extend a Large Scale Development, and is typically the one we recommend. It is a lot easier to keep track of for staff because we know the approval date. This Large Scale Development approval was granted by the Planning Commission with an 8-0-0 vote on May 27, 2003 with the condition of approval that it would be valid for one calendar year. The approval is for a multi -family apartment development west of Duncan Avenue and north of 12`" Street. The development includes 36 units and three buildings with a total of 60 bedrooms. Additionally, 0.466 acres has been dedicated to the city for park land. A building permit has been requested and several items that are required to grant a building permit have been obtained. However, not all of those, as outlined in the applicant's letter. I will let the applicant go over some of those issues with you if you would like. The applicant has requested this extension in order to allow permitted development without having to take it back through the Large Scale Development process. Several conditions of approval, as I mentioned, including a property line adjustment, easement plat, Board of Adjustment approval for a Variance. Those have been accomplished however, not all of the items have been. Based on the current status of the project the applicant finds it necessary to request additional time in order to complete the required conditions. Staff is recommending approval of an extension until May 27, 2005. After that date, by ordinance, the Large Scale Development would be required to be resubmitted in total for Planning Commission approval in accordance with all development regulations at that time. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Would you introduce yourself and give us your presentation? Bunch: Good evening, I am Mandy Bunch with EB Landworks. I am here representing Mr. James Mathias in this extension request. Jeremy has covered most of the highlights. This project has met a lot of neighborhood opposition and Mr. Mathias has done a very good job of compromising with the neighborhood. The original submittal was for 48 units and we have gone down to 36 with the park land dedication. There have been some other things that have been required. Let me step back and talk about some of the things that have taken us some extra time that would Planning Commission May 24, 2004 Page 9 have not normally been required. When we went in to do the park land dedication plat and to adjust the property lines we actually found that the necessary frontage for our lot was not available since the park land is directly on Duncan Avenue, which is where our frontage is so we had to get a variance for that to begin with. We also have been ongoing with this project with the Corp. of Engineers. There is .29 acres of wetlands that has been delineated and this delineation has been concurred with the Corp. and we have prepared a mitigation plan to meet the criteria and that has been approved as well. That process took quite a bit also. We did not get that final approval until September, 2003 so we are already pretty far into our approval period. At that time we started to work on final designs and we also had been coordinating with some sewer contractors because we also were required to update some old 6" sewer lines by a pipe bursting method there in the neighborhood. We were looking at this option to strictly keep from cutting up the street and tearing up the entire world down there in crossing the creek. We had a little time involved in that as well. We did get the Corp.'s final approval in September of last year. Sometime along October or November, as I'm sure Melissa is going to tell you later, the Tree and Trails Taskforce approached Mr. Mathias to actually purchase the project. He was agreeable to that as long as he could break even with the money that he had invested in the property. By the end of February the appraisal had come back and it was less than what he had even originally paid for the property. At this time I know that the neighborhood has efforts to build up more cash basis to assist with that possibility. At this point Mr. Mathias told me to go ahead and pursue with getting permit drawings done. We have done that. We have approval from the Health Department. We have our easement plat done. We have the Property Line Adjustment. That has been in Planning for a while. As soon as that is signed off on we can do the parkland dedication deed preparation. Other than that, the only outstanding items are the building permit issue. We are probably about a month away from being final. This date came up so we get to come back and let you guys hopefully approve this extension. I'm here to answer any questions that you may have. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this issue? Creole: Hi, I'm Jennifer Creole. I'm here on behalf of the Town Branch Neighborhood Association. I think a lot of you guys remember that we are still very opposed to the development. It is not in keeping with the neighborhood. James Mathias wasn't so willing to work with the Tree and Trail Taskforce from other members that were present at the meeting. I feel like they have had plenty of time. There is still concrete there that hasn't been cleaned up. There hasn't been much work done from our perspective. Planning Commission May 24, 2004 Page 10 Ostner: Is there anyone else who would like to talk about this issue? Terry: My name is Melissa Terry. I live at 101 N. Locust Street. I have been working with the neighborhood association through my position with Audubon Arkansas. We are working on a project on the west fork of the White River watershed which extends from Winslow to Fayetteville. This neighborhood is actually in the west fork of the White River drainage. It extends from the College branch creek which is coming down from the University. I will say that Mr. Mathias has been pretty flexible in considering our options, we have just hit a few roadblocks that we have been unable to overcome with support from key people when we needed them so we are just kind of stuck as far as the Tree and Trails Taskforce option. I will say that the upper basin above this parcel, it is a small parcel but it is serving a really important function for this neighborhood. The University's whole campus is draining into this watershed. When it rains, the sewer main lids blew off today. I know that they are hoping to upgrade that. This parcel works as a sponge for this neighborhood. I would just like for you all to consider, I know that they have compromised eight units smaller than the original proposal, but when it comes back to you should you grant the extension, I would like for you to consider the option of reducing the size more if that is possible. We had the soil and water conservation district out there today looking at the hydric soil and the wetland features and looking at some of the issues that happened with our last big flooding. Unfortunately for Mr. Mathias, he has inherited a project that is basically a product of poor watershed planning. That is not his fault but at some point I think it has to change to include whole drainage systems so that it doesn't all keep going downstream to the last greenspace property owner who wants to make a change on their property and is hitting the same kind of roadblocks. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Terry. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this issue? I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for questions. Trumbo: Staff, as far as the sewer issue Ms. Terry mentioned, can you address that as far as what her concerns were there? Warrick: It has to do with drainage and the watershed and the function of this property with the small patch of wetlands on it and how it interacts with the overall system in this particular area. The project was reviewed with regard to application of the city's grading and drainage ordinances and it was approved unanimously by the Planning Commission in May, 2003. If the Commission wishes to revisit that then your action tonight would be to deny the request for extension. If you believe that the project should be ascended then your action would be to vote in favor of it. The reviews from our Engineering staff did indicate that this project was in Planning Commission May 24, 2004 Page I1 compliance. Of course, after the preliminary documentation is provided to the Planning Commission, at the time of Large Scale Development in this case, there are other things that have to happen. Ms. Bunch mentioned some of those things in going through reviews and approvals for permitting. I was told by our Staff Engineer today that the grading and drainage has been approved and they could break ground if they wish to. There are some other items that they need to secure in order to get all of their permits that are required under this code section done in the time frame allotted. Again, if the Planning Commission wishes to review and revisit the project as it was approved then your action would be to deny the extension. This is solely a request to either extend the project time frame or not to. Ostner: For the benefit of most of us, I was in attendance the night we approved this. It was complicated, it was not an easy decision. I believe we have removed an entire building from the first time that I saw it. It is a dense development that is different from the neighborhood. My opinion on administrative items is that we need to decide whether something has happened between the approval and now that makes a difference. I don't think it is our place to go back and rejudge ourselves. I believe we passed it once and if it is passed it is passed. If there are issues that have happened between a year ago and now I think those are relevant. Clark: I'm hearing on the one hand there is going to be massive drainage issues and on the other hand the city has already approved it. What is the issue with the city's evaluation of drainage? Who do I ask that to? Ms. Terry? Terry: I certainly wouldn't want to disagree with the city. I think that their onsite drainage is probably correct. My thinking of how it impacts the neighborhood is where the water exits that property is under the street and straight towards another property owner's home into a culvert and the creek. I am saying while the onsite drainage is probably correct by the Corp. Onsite drainage can be engineered in any way that you choose but how it affects the existing system for the existing property owners and the current neighborhood uses that's what I'm talking about. Clark: Dawn, do our engineers look at that trickle down theory so to speak? Warrick: There is a requirement that the post development condition is not worse than the predevelopment condition. Each development does not necessarily have the ability to ameliorate problems that are inherent to the property. We can ensure, through application of our ordinances, that the velocity of the runoff after the project is constructed is no greater than what it is today. That is in place in our regulations. That has been reviewed with regard to this project. Many times you will see property owners/developers utilize a detention pond so that the runoff or the Planning Commission May 24, 2004 Page 12 drainage is detained on the site for a longer period of time so that it can be let off slowly. That mitigates the development being there as opposed to the Greenfield. Bunch: If I may address that. Dawn is correct with the ordinance requirement. Also on this site, the soils that have been discussed, that is the majority of where we are saving the wetlands. We are saving over half of the wetland area that was there to act as that sponge so to speak. There are several soil classifications within that basin that fall under the same criteria that Ms. Terry is addressing. I also want to just focus a little bit here in that the watershed to the drain that she is speaking of that is directly south of our property is contributed to by well over 58 acres. Mr. Mathias' development is 2 y2 total and it was shrunk to 2 with the parkland dedication. The immediate area to the west that contributes directly to that drainage is Pinnacle Foods which is Industrial and it is enormous in size and continues to grow. Also to address the house downstream. We did do an analysis of the culvert that is under Duncan and it was adequate and found that we did not have to contribute to upgrading that in any way and that house also I believe was built in the floodplain and possibly the floodway. We have looked at that area in detail because that is also around the same route we are having to approve the sewer. That is one of the reasons that this project has taken so long is that there are big problems in the watershed. We have always agreed with that. Mr. Mathias' right to do what he needs to do on his property are to meet the city criteria and that is what we have done. We have got several permits on this project. There has been a great deal of effort, whether anyone has seen that or not. I hate that Matt is gone because we have done through this entire process with Engineering. There has been a great deal of effort on our part and we have met all of the criteria. The discharge is less than it was before. There is over 220' of separation from the street to the first building. That is because of the parkland dedication. The density allowed by ordinance I believe is 24 units per acre and we are at 60% of that particular site density. I think that we have made several efforts to minimize and mitigate the situation with the neighborhood and have gone through a great deal of effort of trying to meet the ordinances and get our permits and trying to get the nuts and bolts of what it takes to make one of these projects happen accomplished. I'm here for any other questions. I am, by the way, the engineer of record. Shackelford: Mr. Chair, I am going to agree with some of your earlier comments. I think that we need to approve this extension as well. If you look at this project it was approved 8-0-0. The Planning Commission in good faith, took all of the information and made the decision that they thought was the best decision at the time. There were a lot of things that quite honestly, we encouraged developers to do that happened on this property. They met with the neighbors. They met with opposing sides. They even Planning Commission May 24, 2004 Page 13 slowed down to get an appraisal to give them an opportunity to see if a purchase could be negotiated. I think these are all things that we encourage developers to do and I'm going to struggle with us penalizing the developer for taking the time in doing that and then saying "Oops, I'm sorry the clock expired." I think we are going to discourage developers in the future from doing what we ask them to do in those rolls. This was a very complicated decision and there was a lot of input into it but we did get a unanimous decision from the city's Planning Commission at that time. We reduced this thing 12 units and 21 parking places from where it went to Subdivision. I think the developer did everything right, everything that he could to mitigate concerns and opposition to this deal. I think that he went above and beyond and I am going to struggle with punishing him on a time line when he took the time and energy to do that. I would encourage this sitting Planning Commission, I know there are several of us different than heard this, to stick by the original 8-0-0 vote and approve the extension under an administrative item instead of going back and completely underwriting or re -looking at a Large Scale Development that was approved by a unanimous decision. Allen: I remember anguishing over the project a year ago and would agree with Commissioners Shackelford and Ostner about going back and redoing things. However, I do think your comment about have things changed is relevant. I would like to know from the neighbors or from anyone who might be able to help us, to know whether anything has changed within the last year. Is there information that we need to factor into this? Creole: When all the rain comes we are under water. We need that hydric soil. Ostner: Excuse me, Ms. Creole, I'm sorry. We need to keep our discussions with staff and the developer. Our changes that are relevant are changes to the code. Creole: Excuse me, I thought she was asking me. Ostner: She was mistaken. We have to keep a degree of decorum. The changes would be with our code, with our rules under which this was approved a year ago. Warrick: The city has not modified the grading and drainage regulations in the past year. Ostner: I think that is really how we are hamstrung. If we want to look like this as a Large Scale Development, this is nothing. I had a packet of 30 or 40 pages a year ago. There were all kinds of letters from the neighbors that we were considering. There were all kinds of meetings. I went to several Planning Commission May 24, 2004 Page 14 myself. There was all kinds of back and forth. I don't think we have the information in front of us to even revisit that issue right now. Clark: Is this property typically under water? Bunch: There is actually no floodway or flood zone established within the ditch that is directly behind the property that it drains to. It is my understanding, and this would be the situation with any hydric soils, which we have agreed that there are hydric soils. We are mitigating our disturbance of those. Hydric soils generally do hold water. There is also a lot of johns berg silt loom in that area that encompasses probably the entire area that has a greater propensity to hold water rather than let it sheet flow. However, it is not under water. They have got huge flooding problems in that area. It is totally related to the entire Town Branch Creek. I know one of the neighbors, Mr. Shepherd, has formally made a request to the Corp. of Engineers to do a study. This is a huge regional problem and we are not the cause of it. Clark: I grant everything that the veterans of the Commission had to say. As a new person, I'm always reluctant to just go with the flow so to speak. I must say, I've heard nothing tonight and maybe because this is kind of an afterthought and not a lot of people are here, I haven't heard anything tonight that would make me reconsider voting for this quite honestly. It seems like there is a horrible drainage situation in that area but I don't see any evidence that has been presented to me that this is going to exasperate the situation. It does sound like this developer has gone to some extent to try to meet some of the needs and concerns of the neighborhood. I will be voting for this. Anthes: I recall, as Commissioner Allen does, this was quite a lengthy meeting and we had a lot of discussion because there are neighbors here that have some extremely bad water conditions. From what I recall from the meetings, there are possibly several homes in the area that are built within the floodplain and floodway that do experience a lot of problems with flooding. However, in a lot of debate and discussion at that meeting, what I can recall was that the Planning Commission made a determination that this particular project could not be held liable for those troubles because the problem is much, much bigger than this 2 acre tract can even make any effort to ameliorate. If we were looking at our ordinances and what we were hearing from Engineering is that as long as they were doing their part to retain the water within their project boundaries and not worsen the problem, that we were obliged by ordinance to approve the project. That is why I feel like even though it is a struggle and I hate to say this to the neighbors that are having problems, I don't see that I have a way to oppose the extension. Planning Commission May 24, 2004 Page 15 Williams: I just would like to direct the Commission's attention to the actual test that you are supposed to be applying on this. The applicant has the burden to show good cause why the task could not reasonably be completed within the normal year. It is not whether you like the project or anything else. It is have they sat on their hands and not done anything or have they actually taken many affirmative steps and because of the complexity of the situation and other factors have they not been able to complete the task within a year. The original reason that this section was placed within the Unified Development Code was sometimes there would be an approval and then nothing would happen and then years later somebody would want to go ahead and build the project. We wanted to avoid that and the City Council agreed. It came from the Planning staff up to the City Council to try to get this done. Your test is has the applicant showed you that they have actually diligently been working on this project and because of factors they haven't been able to complete their tasks to get this completed rather than whether or not this very difficult project was right or not in the first place. MOTION: Shackelford: Based on that and my comments from earlier, I think that this is something that we need to support. I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve ADM 04-1063 based on those comments. Graves: Second. Ostner: I have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Graves. Is there any further discussion? Before we vote I would like to just share that I understand that the neighborhood is not in favor of this. I want you to know that I am in the same boat that you are. I live in a neighborhood that is zoned way through the roof and there is something around the corner that might happen similar to this and none of us want it. Zoning is the issue, zoning is the key. I recommend looking at zoning changes. There was a downzone a year or two ago near the downtown and many residents benefited from that. That is a long, bureaucratic process but I believe that is the key. Are there any other questions? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 04-1063 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission May 24, 2004 Page 16 ADM 04-1086: Administrative Item (LUSHBAUGH, 484) was submitted by Brad Lushbaugh for property located at 418 W. Meadow, the northeast corner of Meadow St. and West Ave. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office. The request is to approve the use of two on -street parking spaces to serve intermittent parking demands of the subject property as provided in § 172.06(D) of the Unified Development Code. Ostner: Our next item is ADM 04-1086 for Lushbaugh. Can we have the staff report please? Warrick: The subject property contains a residential structure. It is located at the northeast corner of Meadow and West Street. The property contains a single bedroom apartment in the basement and the applicant is proposing to renovate and move his law office into the first floor of this structure. Assessment records indicate that the structure contains approximately 1,922 sq.ft. of total living area. That includes the basement, the main floor and the second floor attic type space. In calculating a parking requirement, which is the subject of this request, staff determined that it would be appropriate to look at the entire square footage that is assigned or available to this property with the eventual possibility that it all be used for the office use that the applicant is proposing to apply to the structure. Therefore, by calculating 1,922 sq.ft. at an office use which is one parking space per 300 sq.ft., staff determined that the requirements for parking would be 7 spaces. There is an allowance within the Unified Development Code to reduce parking requirements by right 30% which would then require a minimum number in the range to be 5 parking spaces to satisfy the needs for this development. 3 parking spaces do exist on the site with access to one being located off of West Avenue in a driveway and access to the other two in a driveway off of Meadow. Therefore, the applicant is now coming to the Planning Commission requesting that two on street parking spaces be allowed to be applied for their demands, their needs for those additional two spaces. There is a code section within the parking lot ordinance, Chapter 172 of the Unified Development Code that states Intermittent Parking. Uses which generate only intermittent demand for parking may count available on street parking within 600 feet of the building as part of the required parking subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. That is why this applicant is here today with this Administrative item. Staff believes that this use will generate only an intermittent need for parking and that the parking available on Meadow should accommodate those two additional necessary spaces to further ameliorate this condition there is available municipal parking immediately adjacent to this site to the north in the city's parking lot located at the corner of Spring and West Streets. Staff is recommending in favor of this request and we believe that in addition to meeting the criteria necessary to make this finding in favor, we are also at a point where we are reviewing the final draft of the downtown master plan that has been submitted to the city, we believe that this request is also consistent with the directive and Planning Commission May 24, 2004 Page 17 proposals that are contained within that plan. I have included some excerpts of that for you in your staff report. With those findings staff is recommending in favor of this administrative request. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Warrick. Is the applicant present? Hooker: My name is Morgan Hooker and I'm here representing Mr. Lushbaugh. There is not really much to say. It is an old property downtown that would be well suited for an attorneys office. It has got a very small basement apartment currently that will probably be eventually used for file storage and those types of things. There is really not much to say but I will answer any questions that you may have. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone who would like to comment on this issue? I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. MOTION: Allen: We drove by this property on our agenda tour. I see nothing problematic about this so I would like to move for approval of ADM 05-1068. Clark: Second. Ostner: There is a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Clark. Is there any further discussion? Shackelford: I'm just glad to see somebody ask for less parking instead of more. Ostner: The comment that I wanted to share that this is in the downtown area and I believe if the downtown master plan were approved that we wouldn't be seeing it. It pretty much complies fully not only with the parking rules but with the spirit of a living unit and an office unit being combined. I think that is a great example. Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 04-1086 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Ostner: Are there any announcements? We are adjourned. Meeting adjourned: 6:24 p.m.