Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-07-12 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, July 12, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN VAC 04-1119: (PETRINO LOT 5 PINE VALLEY, 363) Forwarded Consent PPL 04-1117:(ALLEN SUBDIVISION, 140) Approved Consent Dover. Kohl & Partners Downtown Master Plan Informational Duncan Associates Impact Fees for Fire, Police and Streets Informational ADM 04-1139: Administrative Item (DORADO, 557) Approved Page 14 ADM 04-1147: Administrative Item (LANDERS, 248/249) Denied Page 16 LSP 04-1113: Lot Split (ALI MOUBAREK, 323 Approved Page 19 ANX 04-1071: Annexation (JONES, 569) Forwarded Page 25 RZN 04-1072: Rezoning (JONES, 569) Forwarded Page 25 ANX 04-1073: Annexation (AMES TRUST, 569) Forwarded Page 30 RZN 04-1074: Rezoning (AMES TRUST, 569) Forwarded Page 30 Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 2 Alan Ostner Sean Trumbo Christian Vaught James Graves Loren Shackelford Christine Myres Candy Clark Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Kit Williams Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT Jill Anthes STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 3 Ostner: Welcome to the July 12, 2004 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were seven Commissioners present with Commissioner Anthes being absent and Commissioner Myres arriving at 5:35 p.m. Approval of Minutes Ostner: The first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from the June 281h meeting. Do I have a motion for approval? Shackelford: So moved. Clark: Second. Ostner: Is there discussion? Call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of the roll call the minutes were approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries VAC 04-1119: Vacation (PETRINO LOT 5 PINE VALLEY, 363): Submitted by BUCKLEY BLEW for property located at LOT 5 IN PINE VALLEY SUBDIVISION. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0. 10 acres. The request is to approve the vacation of a portion of a platted easement within Lots 5A and 513 of the Pine Valley Subdivision. PPL 04-1117: Preliminary Plat (ALLEN SUBDIVISION, 140): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at 4111 OLD WIRE ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 9.50 acres. The request is to approve a preliminary plat for a subdivision containing 3 single-family lots of 5.40, 2.72 and 1.38 acres respectively. Ostner: The next item on the agenda is the consent agenda. There are two items on consent, VAC 04-1119 for Perrino Lot 5 of Pine Valley and the second item is PPL 04-1117 for the Allen Subdivision. If anyone would like to speak to these items we can remove them from the consent agenda. Otherwise, I will hear a motion for approval. Shackelford: I will make a motion to approve the consent agenda. Myres: Second. Ostner: Is there discussion? Renee? Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 4 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of seven to zero. Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 5 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: Downtown Master Plan Ostner: The next item on our agenda is an administrative item for the Downtown Master Plan. Can we have the presentation from staff? Conklin: My name is Tim Conklin, Community Planning & Engineering Services Director. This evening I would like to go over a brief power point presentation with you on the Downtown Master Plan. As you are aware, in January we had a very successful public participation process. Unlike other types of planning processes that we go through, we used a charette type event to gain public input into the Downtown Master Plan. We invited everybody to the Town Center to do a hands on all day work session. It was very successful. We had 19 tables participating and actually sharing their ideas and visions of the community. We wanted the citizens, instead of coming up to the podium and expressing their views to you or the city council, to actually show on a base map of the downtown area what they like about the downtown, what their concerns were with the downtown. The purpose of collecting this information was to work along side a consultant to help develop an overall vision for the downtown Fayetteville area. After that Saturday's event at the Nadine Baum Studios we were open 12 hours a day for citizens to come down to work alongside the consultants to actually help develop this vision. We had groups stop by. After that Saturday's events prior to opening up we had people waiting outside to participate in the process. Participation was great. We had an opening reception with approximately 100 people. We had an open house with over 100 people show up and approximately 250 people showed up at the work in progress meeting at the end of the week Thursday. There are six fundamental strategies within our Downtown Master Plan. Those are creating a superbly walkable environment. There are recommendations and action steps that the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission and City Council will need to take implement each of these policies. With regard to walk ability, looking at how we build out sidewalks, how to make our streets safer for pedestrians, encouraging downtown living. Understanding how parking plays a roll within our downtown area. Managing our parking instead of requiring parking lots for each individual development built within our downtown, coordinating efforts between developers and the city and different organizations to help develop additional structured parking within our downtown area. Smart rules, what we are talking about there is going back, looking into our existing zoning and development regulations, the same regulations that we have downtown we also have out by the mall area. The downtown is unique and historic and with many of our existing development regulations would require variances and waivers just to build traditional type developments in our downtown. What are proposed in our smart rules we have four zoning districts that have been proposed in a cultural and entertainment overlay district. Also creating special places through Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 6 good urban design, good design standards and guidelines for citizens, developers and the Commission and city council to use in order to create special places within our downtown. The last fundamental strategy is to create an experience based economy. That includes promoting the downtown area as a cultural and entertainment type district. Creating an area that when you come downtown it is not just to go one restaurant but to actually experience an overall sense of place and the historic nature of our downtown. Keep in mind that the overall vision that the community has developed is larger than the City of Fayetteville. It is going to require us working with the developers, the neighborhood associations, the business owners within the downtown area to actually implement this plan. We are trying to use this comprehensive vision for the downtown to make sure that we can coordinate all of the different actions that the city takes or a developer or a neighborhood, so 50 years from now we can achieve our vision for this community. Within the plan it talks about immediate projects, projects within our generation and long term projects. Keep in mind that this is not a plan that can be implemented within one to five years but over a long period of time to actually achieve a vision within our downtown area. Once again, taking the community citizen input which is in the left lower hand corner of the slide, having the consultants take those ideas and further refine those into a planned view and then actually visualizing what change can look like. How do we make our streets walkable? how do we tame traffic on our major roadways? How do we create buildings that promote good urban design that fit within our downtown area? Once again, this is a different type of process of taking the community's input, translating that into an overall vision for the community. Everybody is aware that Fayetteville does have a great downtown. I think we have one of the best downtowns in Northwest Arkansas. It is about how do we add to what we already have. How do we put our traditional city back together? How do we use our urban design guidelines and standards so 50 years from now we coordinate the different projects that you see as a Planning Commission and approve that it actually fits into an overall vision within the community. Some of the major tasks that staff will be bringing forward to this Commission and the City Council after the plan is adopted is looking at a new set of zoning and development regulations. Once again, we intend to work with the design community and the citizens and the neighborhoods as we bring forward those regulations. It is very exciting trying to bring back regulations that actually promote good, traditional urban design within our downtown. We are looking at how do we fund these type of pedestrian improvements, street improvements, parking within the downtown through tax increment financing. Formation of a business improvement district. Something that was brought up by many of the 19 groups was the one way street system within the downtown area. There was a lot of dislike for the existing one way street system. We are looking at converting the one way streets back to two way streets. Then, once again, how do we manage our parking? Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 7 Parking continues to be an issue every time we have new development within our downtown and that is going to be challenging to tackle. Without managing our parking and figuring out how to coordinate our parking instead of one developer or one project at a time. It is going to be difficult to implement the overall vision of our downtown area. That concludes the presentation of the downtown master plan. We are looking at the Planning Commission offering your comments back to us by the I 91 and then putting this on your Planning Commission agenda for the 26`h. I plan on adding this to the City Council agenda August 17`h for adoption of the downtown master plan. Along with that, I will have a schedule of what we would like to try to accomplish within the first year of implementation for the downtown master plan. Thank you very much. Ostner: At this point we can take public comment if anyone here would like to speak to this issue. Seeing no public comment, I will close it to the public and bring it to the Commission for discussion. Allen: I guess I have some questions and some thoughts. Who could possibly be in opposition to this aesthetically beautiful vision of Fayetteville? As I read things in the paper about the proposal there are some things that I wonder and one of those being that there is always talk at looking at the big picture of looking south, north, east and west and having wonderful views from all directions. Which makes me wonder about particularly the south. I would feel that it would be very presumptuous of us as Planners to tasidly determine where the lower socioeconomic people live. I don't want that to be something that is orchestrated in this plan. Clark: Mr. Conklin, will there be other public hearings to let other people who can't make it to a 5:30 Planning Commission voice their input to this process or just Planning Commission and Council access? Conklin: We will have this back on your agenda on the 26`h for adoption. At that time there will be an opportunity. The City Council meetings will also have an opportunity for the public to give their input on the plan. Overall, this has been one of the most successful planning process type public input that I've been involved with in having the hands on workshops and having the open design center and very intense design type visual presentation. It has been very positive up to this point with 91% of the people in the exit survey stating that they thought that the plan was on track. It has been very positive. Clark: Where can citizens obtain copies of the full report if they want to access it? Conklin: The report is on the website. We also have copies and CDs available in the Planning Division office. As you can tell from these 12 slides, it is Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 8 very visual and graphic and it has a lot of color in it. I encourage people to, if they need a copy in color to pick up a CD. If you want it in color that is probably the easiest way to access this plan. Ostner: What is that website again? Conklin: accessfayetteville.org. If you look under the homepage under downtown master plan there is a link that will bring you to the final draft of the downtown master plan. Clark: I asked that question simply because I would really hope that the citizens would become involved and look at the final plan and give us their feedback. I'm afraid of the hindsight syndrome where we enthusiastically pass this, the Council passes it and when we start enacting it then people come forward and say but we should have. This is the but we should have phase. If you have issues, if you have questions, if you love it, if you don't love it then we need to hear that. We don't need to be making our choices and our decisions in a vacuum. This is a public policy and I would encourage the public to exercise their right and tell us what they think. You have given them the opportunity to do so. Vaught: I know we have seen proposed development regulations. This comment phase is just on the plan, not the development regulations that you are looking for right now? Conklin: Part of the scope of work was to redraft the zoning regulations within our downtown. I wanted Dover, Kohl & Partners to take this vision, this illustrative type plan of what the community could look like, where infill is appropriate, take our current regulations, look at those and redraft our development code. It is a draft. Their scope was not to take it through final adoption. When this plan is adopted staff will set up a procedure to get those ordinances through the process to Planning Commission and Council. I do intend a lot of discussion and debate with regard to some of the changes within the zoning code. It is a lot different going back to traditional type downtown development instead of your suburban type 8,000 sq.ft. lot, single family detached home on a 70' wide lot. Looking back at more of a historic development pattern downtown of a 40' to 50' lot in some areas with a minimum lot area of maybe 4,000 sq.ft. or maybe even in the core it talks about no density limitations and row house type development in certain areas. We will have some discussion and debate as we implement the overall vision through our regulations. Ostner: Commissioners, is there any further discussion? One of the comments that I wanted to make is that the downtown currently does serve a portion of our affordable housing needs. There is a big issue right now going on with affordable housing and it is something that this body is not dealing Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 9 with at the moment but I would hope that it would become a part of this discussion because we certainly don't want to, as Commissioner Allen mentioned, make this the type of project that would displace the affordable housing. I haven't read it completely and fully and I'm glad that we aren't voting on it tonight. That is something that concerns me that I would look forward to knowing more about. Since we are not making any formal action should we move to table this administrative item? Warrick: This was just informational and we can move onto the next item on your agenda. Conklin: I just wanted to take this opportunity to present the six fundamental strategies and kind of give you an overview of the final draft of the downtown master plan and then at your next meeting hopefully the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to adopt it and will forward it to Council and then have the City Council hopefully adopt it also. Trumbo: When you say adopt the plan are we talking the entire plan, zoning regulations and everything? You are talking about a three to five year period right? Conklin: I'm talking about the policies within the downtown master plan. I'm not talking about adopting the new architectural design guidelines and standards or code. I would like to sit down with the community, design community and professionals, and work through those. This is something new for the City of Fayetteville in looking at the type of form based code. We are looking at urban design and urban form. I think it is going to take a few months to work through that and get that adopted. I really don't want to tie those together because I think there is a lot of great policy within the actual downtown master plan that we can move forward with and then take those action steps that are recommended in the plan and implement those. That is the basic format of the downtown master plan. It sets out what the vision is for this community and then it sets out within each chapter specific steps that the City of Fayetteville will need to take to implement the plan. One of those is to adopt a new set of development standards. Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 10 Administrative Item: Duncan Associates Impact Fees for Fire, Police and Streets Ostner: If there is no further discussion we will move onto the next item, the administrative item from Duncan Associates, the impact fees for fire, police and streets. Conklin: I did want to take this opportunity to share with you the impact fee study that has been commissioned by the City Council. We do have the draft report which was handed out to the Commission a couple of weeks ago. As everybody is aware, our city is growing rapidly. Last December the City Council did pass a resolution directing staff to go forward and study roads, fire and police. We hired Duncan Associates to complete that study. Typically we have been funding our capital improvements through sales tax pay as you go. The City Council, two years ago, adopted impact fees for water and wastewater to help new development pay it's proportionate share for infrastructure impacts on the system. I do have a chart that shows the maximum impact fees that could be assessed by ordinance based on this study. For roads for a single family dwelling $1,954, Fire $208, Police $223 for a total of $2,385. There will be some decisions that will have to be made by the City Council with regard to adoption of these fees and whether or not they adopt them by the City Council by ordinance or whether or not it needs to go to the vote of the people. That is something that the City Attorney will work with the Council on. The other major policy issue will be with regard to the road impact fee. The figure that is on the screen right now includes right of way costs within that calculation. What I'm referring to if you look at the study right now developers when they have a development that has a master street plan adjacent to or within their development they are required to dedicate that right of way. It may be a collector street of 70' or it may be a principal arterial of 110'. If right of way costs are included developers that have master street plan streets within their development or adjacent to would have to be given credit. Whether or not the city goes forward and wants to continue to implement our master street plan without having to give credit we would have to reduce the fees by approximately 43%. That would be a major policy issue for the City Council to consider. I do plan on bringing this forward to the Council in August and from there will keep the Planning Commission informed of where this goes. If you do look at the study there are a lot of calculations that talk about credits for existing sales tax that we do collect for capital improvements within the city. Calculations for a functional population for the police department, the demand on police services based on land use. You can look at those calculations within that. Also, looking at how you calculate fire impact fees with the cost of new fire station construction. Keep in mind, these numbers come from a series of tables and calculations within the impact fee study. It is more than just a couple of pages. If you have Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page I1 any questions you can get those to me and I can get those to the consultant if I can't answer those. Thank you very much. Ostner: At this point we will open it up to the public. If anyone would like to comment on this item for impact fees we will hear your concerns. Herron: I'm Renee Herron, I'm with Pine Valley subdivision and I realize that we are regressing to number one but I also understood that you would like to hear the public's opinion about things. This one was ran through. I know that there were four people here from our neighborhood that wanted to speak up and ask a few questions about it. It is not that we are wanting to oppose it. We just want the information because we take pride in our neighborhood. First of all my question would be when was the public input? When could the public speak on this? Was it this time today or was there another meeting? Ostner: Are you talking about the impact fees? Herron: No, I'm talking about number one because we didn't get to speak. Ostner: Number one was on the consent agenda and I called for that a good while ago and we are on a different topic now. I'm sorry. Herron: My question is was this discussed like at a different meeting? That's all I want to know. Ostner: We discussed it at our agenda setting session and it was placed on the consent agenda. Warrick: A vacation is an item that comes directly to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's action is a recommendation to the City Council. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. We can get you the dates for that if you want to contact our office in the morning or leave us your information. Herron: I would just like information about how he is going to go about it because I would like to know that it is done correctly. That's all. Warrick: We will be glad to do that. If you want to give us your contact information we will give you a call and discuss it. Herron: Suzanne has all of my information, phone numbers, emails, everything. We had no signs up in the yard. There is a piece of paper floating around but we happened to start picking up trash out of the lot that it is on and it is laying on the ground. That's the only way that we found out about it today. I just wanted to ask about that. Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 12 Ostner: Thank you. The item we are on is the impact fees. Is there any discussion by the Commission? Trumbo: Impact fees, while at this stage I won't go too deep. It is a very complicated issue assigning fees to development that will be passed on to the end user. There are issues that need to be looked at involving affordable housing, like you mentioned earlier, these will affect that. We will have to think about how it affects the master plan with the zoning districts and things such as that. Those are my comments now but they will continue later. Vaught: On the way that they are calculated, I know a large portion of this deals with the horizon and also the state funding and all of that stuff looks like it went into the calculations. How often would we revise those fees? Conklin: Our consultant recommends every three years that we look at a fee and revise it. That is a good point. It does include all of the funding sources that go into these capital improvements right now to make sure that the fees are being paid and we are not double charging the development. Once again, sales tax to state funding, turn back money all goes into those calculations. Clark: Mr. Conklin, on the road impact fee methodology which is going to be the preferred choice of the City of Fayetteville? The improvements driven or the consumption based? Conklin: It is the consumption based approach that we are going with. The report talks about the advantages and disadvantages. Consumption based is the easiest way to administer. We are basically looking at the ratio of vehicle lane miles of roadway we have, the number of vehicles we have on our roadways and trying to keep that ratio even through this impact fee. That is the method that this study calculated the impact fee on. Clark: What type of recalculations does using that methodology recommend? You just told Christian that we would look at them every three years. Since that type of methodology usually historically underestimates does that mean that we will look at those fees more frequently? Conklin: With regard to the estimation it is looking at actual project costs within Fayetteville. If project costs significantly go up we would want to look at it sooner. Construction costs to actually build a mile of roadway. Once again, we are looking at historic costs. You are correct. It is a very complicated approach to the impact fee but the overall benefit is once you set that fee you are not tied to a specific list of roadway projects that the fee has to be expended on. If you do an improvements based method and Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 13 you collect the fee, you have a longer list of improvements and estimated costs out in the future. We collect the fee from new development and you don't actually build that development then you will have legal issues with regard to refunding those fees back or partial refunds of those fees. Clark: In terms of the police fees I'm looking through this and I'm not sure of the time line, was animal control put under the police department before this was done or after? I see the shelter listed as an asset but I'm not seeing the animal control officers broken out or their call ratio broken out. Is that included in these numbers or did it happen after? Conklin: The first question you asked was was it before or after animal control was brought under Police. I believe the study was commissioned after animal control was under police. I will have to look with regard to calls for service whether or not that is included. You are correct that the animal shelter information was provided to our consultant. I can take a look at that. Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 14 ADM 04-1139: Administrative Item (DORADO, 557): Submitted by David Cummings for property located at east of the Lowe's on Hwy. 62, on Finger Road. The property is zoned C-PZD, Commercial Planned Zoning District, and contains approximately 27.669 acres. The request is to extend the expiration date of the C-PZD for Lowe's for a 12 month period to construct the approved additional retail space as an in-line shopping center on the subject property. Ostner: Is there further comment? We will move on to the next item. The next item on our agenda is ADM 04-1139 for Dorado. Pate: This property is located east of the Lowe's on Hwy. 62 and Finger Road. The property is zoned C-PZD, Commercial Planned Zoning District and contains approximately 27.669 acres. The approval for the Lowe's Planned Zoning District occurred June 3, 2003 by the City Council. Of course a PZD has to go through the Planning Commission and the City Council. An ordinance takes affect after that initial approval and so July 3`a was essentially the deadline for the applicant to get a building permit for that property. The actual Large Scale Development Plan in the Planned Zoning District included both the Lowe's, which of course is constructed and a separate shopping center retail with approximately 54,000 sq.ft. of retail additional which has not been constructed at this time. It also included a 2.05 acre detention pond which has been constructed and 4.59 acres of tree preservation which has been preserved and platted as such. The developer has extended utilities, a required street connection as part of this development, and completed much of the grading and drainage for the remaining undeveloped retail lots for this property east of Lowe's. Discussion in recent weeks regarding the status of this construction with the applicant revealed the upcoming deadline and the applicant did submit this request prior to that deadline. The applicant is not able to secure building permits at this time for the retail center and thus, requests an extension to develop the remaining 54,000 sq.ft. shopping center. Our ordinances, as noted on page 3.3, do allow for extensions of Planned Zoning District development and staff is recommending approval of the extension until July 3, 2005 which would allow the standard one year extension if the Planning Commission approves to do so. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Would you come forward and introduce yourself? Mills: I'm Lance Mills with Ozark Civil Engineering out of Bentonville, Arkansas and I'm representing Dorado Development. David Cummings with Dorado Development couldn't be present tonight due to prior engagements. As noted by Jeremy the Lowe's portion of the property has been constructed with all of the public improvements, utilities, storm sewer, water and sewer have all been brought into this development for Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 15 this site layout. The hurdle that they have come across is that the major anchor A here has backed out and he has to secure another anchor for that. Therefore, he is respectfully requesting an extension to the building permit deadline. I might add that staff has been great through the Lowe's process and through everything we've had to do. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to the public. If anyone would like to comment to this issue please step forward. Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. MOTION: Clark: I recommend approval of ADM 04-1139. Allen: Second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 04-1139 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of eight to zero. Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 16 ADM 04-1147: Administrative Item (LANDERS, 248/249): Submitted by Bryan Smith of Black, Corley & Owens on behalf of Landers Auto Park for property located at 1352 W. Showroom Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 42.82 acres. The request is to allow a waiver of Commercial Design Standards & Design Overlay District requirements to allow a chain link perimeter fence around the subject property. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is ADM 04-1147 for Landers. If we could have a staff report please. Pate: This property is the Landers Auto Park property located on Showroom Drive off of Hwy. 112. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 42.82 acres. The property has been before you in several instances, at least three different Large Scale Developments. The majority of the property is also located within the Design Overlay District. The property is surrounded on three sides by public rights of way with the northern boundary being the exception. The current construction on the site includes the Hummer dealership and associated parking area for display of cars. That is the last time that this Commission saw this particular property. Tonight the applicant's request however, is to allow a perimeter chain link fence in front of a commercial structure and also in the Design Overlay District. Essentially, this is a perimeter fence for security around the entire property with the exception to the north it would not actually follow the property line but cut through some of the tree preservation area in that location. The proposed fence is to be 6' in height constructed of a black vinyl coated metal chain link which you should have photographs of a typical section of that as well as a site plan. This request constitutes a waiver of the city's Commercial Design Standards as well as a waiver request from the Design Overlay District requirements which are under the authority of the Planning Commission. I have included both of those requirements. If you will look on page 4.3 item D8 includes the optional fencing allowed within the Design Overlay District. All fencing shall be constructed of wood, masonry or natural looking materials. It also includes a wrought iron fencing. If other types of fencing are necessary for security purposes they must be screened with another view obscuring natural or natural looking fencing material as well. I've included the ordinance for commercial design standards regarding fencing within the C-2 district for a commercial structure which mentions chain link specifically. Chain link fence is prohibited if closer to the street than the front of the building. Based on these findings, staff is not in favor of this request. We recommend denial of this administrative request. The Design Overlay District and Commercial Design Standards are very specific with regard to the type of fencing allowed. This subject property is located at a very visible and key intersection in the City of Fayetteville leading into the City of Fayetteville from the north. The results of having a chain link fence in Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 17 front of a commercial structure in this location is undesirable and does not comport with the purposes stated in the city's adopted Commercial Design Standards nor does it meet the criteria set forth in the Design Overlay District. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? Smith: My name is Bryan Smith, I'm with Black, Corley and Owens Architects. We have been asked by the dealership to investigate putting a perimeter fence around the property. I understand in talking with the civil engineer that there would be issues and a waiver would be required for this installation. You may have the drawing already that shows the site plan. Basically, the entire portion of this site is in the Design Overlay District. The back section, which is adjacent to the wetland area and along this I- 540 north is a pretty hidden area and not as visible of an area. Along the front along I-540 here and along Hwy. 112 it is visible. There are issues right here with the elevations just driving by there the grades slope off at such a steep angle you are actually looking past where the fence is going to be located along that area. Again, the photographs show that the dealership is committed to maintaining a nice appearance with their landscaping and they are concerned about having something that is going to be unsightly and a detriment to their customers. They do have the same concerns with your Design Overlay District and your Commercial Design Standards. The overall size of the property you are talking about is 8300 linear fence that would be basically of wrought iron nature so that is why we are asking for your consideration of this matter. Ostner: Thank you. At this time I will open it to the public. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this issue? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Vaught: Staff, currently they could put the chain link fence on the one side of the property that does not face the right of way, correct? Warrick: In the area that is outside of the Overlay District and behind the structure. Vaught: Ok. So really what we are talking about is a waiver for the other 3 '/z sides. Warrick: That is correct. MOTION: Allen: Just as two weeks ago we had this situation with the dog and now we have it with the cars, I see that there were options for the folks who had the dog Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 18 and I think there are options for the people with the cars so I move for denial of ADM 04-1147. Myres: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Renee, could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to deny ADM 04-1147 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of eight to zero. Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 19 LSP 04-1113: Lot Split (Ali Moubarek, pp 323): Submitted by Ali Moubarek for property located at 2300 Salem Road The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, Four Units Per Acre and contains approximately 2.40 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 1.163 and 1.234 acres. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is LSP 04-1113 for Ali Mourabek? Pate: Typically Lot Splits are heard at the Subdivision Committee level. The applicant is requesting a waiver tonight. Therefore, the Subdivision Committee did elect to send this item onto the full Planning Commission. This property is located at 2300 Salem Road and is zoned RSF-4 and contains approximately 2.40 acres. The applicant requests approval of a Lot Split for the subject 2.4 acre tract into two tracts of 1.146 and 1.217 acres in order to obtain a bank loan for construction of a new home on the northern lot. There is a public water line existing along Salem Road and the issue tonight is primarily to do with the sewer. Currently there is an existing home served by an individual septic system. A public sewer line does not currently exist in front of the proposed lots. By city ordinance a subdivider of land within the city limits is required to connect each lot with public sewer where public sanitary sewer is reasonably accessible. A public sewer line does exist approximately 180' to the south along Mt. Comfort Road. Per city ordinance, staff recommends a public sewer main extension to serve each of these proposed lots prior to filing of the Lot Split. The applicant is requesting a waiver from this requirement from the Planning Commission. Staff is recommending approval of LSP 04-1113 with five conditions of approval. The first of which is Planning Commission's determination of the waiver request. Items two and three are plat comments, four and five are standard conditions of approval. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and tell us about your issue. Mourabek: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to come here and present my view. My name is Ali Mourabek. I have lived in Fayetteville for the last 25 years. This is my last effort to build a home for myself and for my family. I bought this 2.4 acres in order to build a home. I am not planning on subdividing it or splitting the lot. It is going to be all my front yard and my backyard. There is another home on the property that is going to be used by my family and by my old parents who will hopefully join me and I will take care of them. The reason we are talking about a Lot Split is for a financial reason. I need to build security for myself so that in the future I don't have to sell this property when the interest rates go up. The only way I can build that second home is if I get a fixed mortgage for 30 years to allow me to know what my payment will be. If I don't split the lot according to the bank, that will throw me into a commercial loan application which will balloon every year and if in 10 years interest rates Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 20 go up to 12% I will not be able to afford to make that payment and will have to sale the house and get out of there. That is my request. The reason I am here and in this property is because a couple years earlier I bought another piece of property to build a home for myself. In this chamber here you discussed this issue and you allowed a person to build six unit apartments next door to me to rezone that property. Part of me at that point went along with the people who rejected that rezoning. Then the other part of me after looking at the hardship of the people who owned that property and how much money he would be losing I went with those people who voted for it and I walked away from that property and I absorbed the loss because of the hardship that that person would take. I was not planning to use that as an excuse but I found myself in that spot. Extending the sewer line 57' across Mount Comfort, going under that, going another 180' to cross the property of our neighbor, going another 229' to get to the second lot and going another 200' to get parallel to where my house will be would be about 500' of sewer line. I got some estimates and it is prohibitive. There is no way I can do it and still build a house. I may be able to put a mobile home in there but not a house. My final thing that I would like to say is I would love to build a home in there and put a septic tank and be in harmony with the 10 or 15 houses that are already existing in there that have a septic tank. If in the future a sewer line comes in we will all join in and join that line. Thank you very much. Ostner: Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this issue? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Shackelford: I would like to kind of add my input here. As staff mentioned previously, Lot Splits of this nature are typically approved at the Subdivision level. Myself, Commissioner Trumbo and Commissioner Anthes were serving on the Subdivision Committee when this came before us last week. This is a pretty unique situation in that we have got an individual who by right could build this house with a septic on this property based on the size and the current zoning of it. It falls in line with the uses up and down that particular road and the houses that currently exist there. The difficulty is that as he stated, based on financing options and the requirement to have separate legal descriptions for the houses is what pushed him into the Lot Split. The only issue we had with this lot split was the waste water side of it. Matt had some different ways to read the ordinance, and I will let him speak to that as well. Between Commissioner Trumbo and Anthes and myself we felt that there was a justification to let the Committee hear this on the basis of a hardship based on particularly that fact. If he wanted to keep this on one legal description then by right he could build his house with a septic and e would never have to look at this opportunity. Just simply for the fact of some financing opportunity that he needs a separate legal description is what has caused this problem. The only issue coming Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 21 out of Subdivision Committee was this specific instance and the three of us found that there was significant, we felt, at least significant underlying factors that might justify a hardship consideration. That is why we brought it forward to you tonight. Thanks. Vaught: At agenda it was brought up that there is potential for access from the east. Has that been explored any further by the applicant or the city? Isn't there a subdivision directly to the east? Casey: There is a parcel of land in between this Lot Split and that development that is currently under construction. The most direct access is currently along Salem to the south to Mt. Comfort. Shackelford: Matt, I know that you have given us one reading regarding the ordinance and that might have possibly changed. Can you update us on that? Casey: The information I had at Subdivision Committee, I had a document from the Arkansas State Health Department but upon further reading that applied only to sewer services and it said that anything within 300' of accessible sewer was required to be on public sewer. Our current development regulations require any subdivision of land to have public sewer available to each lot when the public sewer is accessible. Our policy has been anything within 300' we require a public main extension. They do have access along Salem Road. The right of way of Salem Road to Mt. Comfort where the sewer line is located. According to the Lot Split it is approximately 200' from the southwest property corner of this development. That would be consistent with what we have required other Lot Splits to do. We see these almost every Subdivision Committee meeting. A lot of them require either water or sewer extensions. Staff just wants to be consistent with our recommendations. Shackelford: That measurement that you talked about brings it to the corner of the first lot, is that correct? Casey: That is correct. Shackelford: Then there is the distance to the proposed lot and then the structure would be added onto that is that correct? Casey: Yes. They would have to extend it as shown approximately 200' to the property and then an additional 230' to serve the newly created lot to the north. Shackelford: Sir, you mentioned that you have got some estimates on what it would cost to boar under Mt. Comfort and bring it up, can you share with us what that estimate is? Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 22 Mourabek: It is somewhere between $30,000 and $40,000. Shackelford: Thank you. Shackelford: Obviously, from my comments, I concur with the decision to bring it from the Subdivision level to this level. I think that there is justification for a hardship consideration. I try to go by common sense. If you look at the fact that he could build this house, if he didn't need to split the legal description, with a septic system. You look at the fact that every other house that has been there any period of time up and down this road has a septic system in place. I fully anticipate that Mr. Mourabek on both of these houses, when the sanitary was extended that they would join into that. I don't see that there is a lot more impact than is already in place with this. I think that that price to bring that line across the highway and down there is an undue hardship when you are talking about building a house that if it wasn't for the need of a piece of paper he wouldn't have to do. I would make a motion to approve LSP 04-1113 voting in favor of the applicant's request for a waiver for the requirement to extend sewer to this property. Vaught: I will second. With the explanation that I know that we have seen a similar request for a water line in the past. I think this site does differ greatly and the costs will differ as well. The one that we talked about at agenda was a Lot Split in the middle of a neighborhood with poor road access and poor water main access but it was in a developed part of town and a single family lot neighborhood with no access. It was also not as prohibitive in the cost and $30,000 to $40,000 for a Lot Split I think definitely defines the term unreasonable. Ostner: Thank you Commissioner Vaught. Williams: I might also mention just from a constitutional point of view that what you would be requesting with this is to have him build a city sewer main, a main that would be city property. Therefore, that is an exaction. Often times that is quite appropriate to be done. In this particular case with the construction of a single house, it might be beyond the rough proportionality of the impact to say that is going to cost you $40,000 to build a city sewer main. I think that you should consider the constitutionality of this and the rough proportionality of the impact of his single house upon our city sewer system. Ostner: Before we vote I do have a question from staff. Can Mr. Mourabek build a home without installing sewer as the codes exist today without a waiver? Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 23 Warrick: Yes he can but unless the Planning Commission approves the requested waiver he cannot split the property. We can issue a building permit for this property. It is in the zoning district that would allow for a second principal structure on a lot of record given the fact that there is enough land area and frontage that in the future that lot could be split out. We have a provision in our ordinance to do that. The Lot Split is the question and under our design regulations with regard to infrastructure a Lot Split could not be approved with the extension of public services unless the Planning Commission chose to do otherwise. Ostner: Thank you. That's really my hang up on this issue is that I don't see our codes prohibiting him build a home or that home having sewage. Our codes are prohibiting him from doing a Lot Split. Those are two very different things. He is approaching us for a Lot Split for a financing opportunity that I am not sure is really our area. Our area is to consider developments and this man could develop as is without a Lot Split. That is where I'm hanging up. He gains a Lot Split and he gains his financing opportunity if we grant this waiver but I'm not sure where the waiver fits into the development code as much as into the fairness code of, or not even fairness, but just simple personal opportunity for banking. I suppose I will be voting against this motion with the waiver. Shackelford: Just for clarification for the record because I am the one that used the word fair. I sometimes over simplify things but for the record, I do think that this justifies the undue hardship option that applicants have where they can appeal certain ordinances based on undue hardship that is financial and as our City Attorney stated, I also think that you would have a hard time justifying it with rough proportionality. I think that the expense is too much for the impact that this development would have on our city, which is another reason that we have looked at these types of waivers in he past. For the record, I probably shouldn't have said fair, I should've stated more legal reasons but those are the reasons that I'm in favor of this. Not to argue with you but to clear up the record. Ostner: I understand that. Is there further discussion? Would you call the roll Renee? Trumbo: Can we get a repeat of the motion again? Shackelford: I made a motion to approve LSP 04-1113 finding in favor of the applicant's request for a waiver of the requirement to extend city sanitary sewer to this property. Clark: You want to remove condition one and go with the other four conditions? Shackelford: That sounds good. Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 24 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 04-1113 was approved by a vote of 7-1-0 with Commissioner Ostner voting no. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of seven to one. Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 25 ANX 04-1071: Annexation (Jones, 569): Submitted by Mel Milholland for property located at 1341 Roberts Road and east of Stonebridge Meadows. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 5.66 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 04-1072: Rezoning (Jones, 569): Submitted by Mel Milholland for property located at 1341 Roberts Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 5.66 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property from R -A, Residential Agricultural, to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is ANX 04-1071 for Jones. If we could have the staff report Ms. Morgan? Morgan: This property contains approximately 5.66 acres of vacant land located south of Huntsville Road and west of Roberts Road. The property is adjacent to the city to the west where it abuts the Stonebridge Meadows subdivision Phase I. The applicant is requesting to annex into the City of Fayetteville. Surrounding land use and zoning includes single family residential in the city limits zoned RSF-4 as well as Planning area to the north, south and east, which is developed as single family residential as well as large tracts of undeveloped land. Staff finds that the requested annexation will not create an island of unincorporated property. The city limits do extend further east and south of this subject property in this vicinity. The area does not consist of defined subdivisions or neighborhoods, however, future development plans may include the extension of a subdivision to the west. Current conditions result in a response time of eight to nine minutes for fire protection from Fire Station #5. The property does have access to water and sewer to the west. Staff has received comments from the Police Department reporting that current levels of service will not be compromised and that coverage in this area can be provided. Additionally, staff has received comments from a former property owner with regard to concerns of on site drainage. The site's conditions will be best addressed through the application of the city's storm water grading and drainage regulations. Staff does recommend approval of the proposed annexation. Future changes or additional development to this site will be regulated by the city for allowing more uniform and consistent development patterns. In conjunction with this annexation request is a rezoning request, RZN 04-1072. The applicant's intent is to develop a single family residential subdivision and is requesting a rezoning from R -A to RSF-4 should the preceding annexation request be approved. The General Plan 2020 designates this site as residential and staff finds that rezoning this property to RSF-4 is compatible with surrounding land uses in this area. Property to the west, as mentioned, is within the city and zoned RSF-4 developed at approximately 2.05 and 2.6 units per acre. The proposed RSF-4 Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 26 designation will allow a maximum of 22 dwelling units for this site. Staff is recommending approval of the requested rezoning based on these findings. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? Would you introduce yourself and give us your presentation? Milholland: I'm Melvin Milholland with Milholland Engineering & Surveying. We are the engineers on behalf of our client, Mr. Clinton McDonald. We have worked very hard with the city trying to get this to this point. Of course, there are two tracts back to back here tonight for the annexation and rezoning so there will be continuity between the existing subdivision to the west and Roberts Road to the east on access and utilities. We feel that city staff did a good job at reviewing this and concur with all of their comments. I would like to say that we feel that this is in consistency with the General Plan 2020 that you have with the city and with the guiding policies for annexation and also rezoning. The residential homes there will be nice homes that will actually be compatible with what is being built to the west and south of it in that area. On behalf of my client, I respectfully request you approve both the annexations and rezonings. Thank you. Ostner: Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this issue from the public? Wilson: My name is Luella Wilson, I live at 4050 Goff Farm Road. I have five acres which lies to the south of this property. This particular property has a water problem. When it rains it floods and it floods the neighbors next door, which are the Mahans. On the south of my house I have a water problem also. I have a pond and sometimes my pond overflows and comes up in my yard. My concern is if they change the terrain of this property because they are going to have to fill it in or do something with it because right now it is just too low, where do I stand? Does that mean that I'm going to get dumped on with this water? I don't know. I'm really concerned about that. I'm not opposed at all to the annexation or to changing the rezoning. I don't care about that. I was interested in how many houses. I just heard that there are going to be 22 houses there. That's a bunch. Then they were talking about the price of these houses. Another concern for me is traffic. Mr. Meadows who owns Stonebridge Golf Course, is planning on putting 175 houses just on the other side of Goff Farm Road. Everybody has to get out on Hwy. 16. We can't get out there now. There is no traffic signal out there. So you are going to put 22 houses here and 175 over there. When I came to the meeting when Mr. Meadows was up here requesting his plan I asked at that point if our road would be widened and they said no. If you come out there and look that road is so you can hardly pass. Now they have dump trucks coming out there and when I try to get out I can hardly pass on that road. I don't Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 27 know. I just need to have some of these questions answered. The biggest thing is the water problem. Thank you for listening to me. Ostner: Is there anyone else who would like to comment on the Jones annexation? Milholland: I would just like to respond to the two things that the lady just presented. Her concerns are to do with detention. As you all know, we have a very adequate detention ordinance that we must comply with as engineers. I don't know if she knows that or not. We will design a detention pond to not allow more water to leave than what's leaving already. Wilson: I don't want the terrain to change to where the water comes towards me. Now it goes north and it goes to the neighbors. Milholland: As far as the traffic, this will be connectivity between Roberts Road and the other subdivision that you all have previously approved to be stubbed out into this property. That will assist some with the traffic patterns there. That will spread the traffic out across the subdivision. Thank you. Ostner: Would anyone else like to speak to this issue? I'm going to close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Mr. Milholland touched on the first question I wanted to ask of staff or to at least ask for clarity about drainage on projects. Warrick: If this property is developed as a project within the city limits of Fayetteville our grading, drainage and storm water ordinances will apply. We do have regulations that require development to detain water on site in order that the post development flows offsite do not exceed the predevelopment flows. Which means that the situation after the development has been installed is no worse than the existing conditions. We try to improve on those situations where possible but the ordinances require that it is not made worse by the development. That is a standard in our ordinances that would be applied should this property be developed in the city. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Warrick. The second question I wanted to ask is about the traffic. There is an issue getting out onto Hwy. 16. How might that be alleviated? What are some solutions there? Warrick: At certain times of the day there are issues with getting out on almost any roadway. Hwy. 16 is carrying more and more traffic and it is a state highway. Until intersections meet specific warrants for which the municipal uniform traffic control device standards, which is a standardized set of criteria by which it is determined by the Highway Department or other entities when a certain intersection has reached a capacity that it merits the installation of signals. Until those warrants are met the Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 28 installation of a signal is not something that the Highway Department would grant approval of Typically those warrants are not met until there is more than sufficient traffic in that location. There are certain numbers that they apply to that. It is not a "Gee, it seems really heavy today" situation. They actually do counts and they study the intersection. Our Transportation Division does communicate with the Highway Department with regard to key intersections and intersections that they feel need to be studied for the installation of signals. Things that we can do at this level more applicably we can take care of are things like Mr. Milholland mentioned, the connectivity with the subdivision that is existing that has been developed to the west. Every time that you can provide people options there is more disbursement of traffic. By providing connectivity between neighborhoods these individuals will have the option of not accessing Goff Farm Road or Roberts Road to get to Hwy. 16. They can travel through the existing Phase I of Stonebridge Meadows. That is one thing that we want to see happen and that is a policy within the city's General Plan is to provide connectivity between developments. One of the key reasons for that is, just as I mentioned, that disbursement of traffic. Ostner: Thank you. Shackelford: It has been touched on a couple of times but I'm a little unclear. This property, it looks like there is other property zoned into the city between this property and east to Roberts Road. Will there be access to Roberts Road from this development? Warrick: If this development and the next one are brought into the city together. The next project is the bottom of the "U. Shackelford: Ok. Ostner: We are discussing these together, the annexation and rezoning. We are going to vote on them separately as we are legally obliged to do. MOTION: Clark: I'm inclined to agree with both the annexation and rezoning for both of these tracts of land. It seems to me that by bringing it into the city and subjecting it to city zoning regulations we could actually have a hope of improving some of the drainage issues out there and improving some of the traffic issues. If we don't annex it then it could continue to grow but without these types of zoning regulations, which I think are positive. I'm going to move that we approve ANX 04-1071. Shackelford: I will concur and second. Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 29 Ostner: Is there further discussion? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 04-1071 by the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of eight to zero. Ostner: The tandem item is RZN 04-1072 for Jones. We've already had a staff report. Is there anyone in the public who would like to speak to this issue? It is the same parcel of land we are considering rezoning to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre. Seeing no public comment, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Mr. Milholland, if you would like you can offer more comment at this point. Milholland: Only if the Commission has questions. MOTION: Clark: I will recommend approval of RZN 04-1072. Myres: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-1072 by the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 30 ANX 04-1073: Annexation (Ames Trust, 569): Submitted by Me] Milholland for property located on the west side of Roberts Road south of Hwy. 16 East. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 1.97 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 04-1074: Rezoning (Ames Trust, 569): Submitted by Mel Milholland for property located on the west side of Roberts Road, south of Hwy. 16 East. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 1.97 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property from R -A, Residential Agricultural, to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: The next item is a tandem item, ANX 04-1073 for Ames Trust. We will have a presentation of the annexation and rezoning. Morgan: This subject property is located east of the property that we just heard for Jones. It contains approximately 1.97 acres and is currently vacant. Itis located south of Huntsville Road and west of Roberts Road. The applicant is requesting to annex into the City of Fayetteville. The requested annexation will create an extension of the city boundary to Roberts Road and will not result in the creation of an island or a peninsula of substantial area. Current conditions result in a fire response time of 7 to 8 minutes from Fire Station #5. The Police Department has reported that current levels of service will not be compromised and water and sewer are available to the west. Staff is in support of this annexation request. Additionally, the applicant is requesting to rezone this property from R -A to RSF-4 should the previous annexation request be approved. The General Plan 2020 designates this site as residential and rezoning the property to RSF-4 is compatible with the surrounding land uses in this area. The proposed RSF-4 designation will allow the development of seven dwelling units. Staff is recommending in favor of this rezoning request. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? Milholland: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I'm Mel Milholland with Milholland Engineering. I didn't mean to confuse anyone earlier. These tracts are side by side with the previous one. We call it Jones/Ames and it will provide connectivity between the existing subdivision to the west and Roberts Road to the east. This is in concurrence with the 2020 Plan and I feel like it would be an advantage for the city with the types of homes that are planned. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to the public, would anyone like to speak to this issue, ANX 04-1073 for Ames Trust? Seeing no public comment, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 31 Myres: I'm in favor of granting both of these requests, I think partly because this is the piece of property that will allow connectivity between Roberts Road and the parcel that we just approved. I also wanted to ask a question. There have been comments frequently about impact down the road of some of the things that we have been approving. Am I correct that when a Preliminary Plat is proposed that the issues that some people have raised about exactly how the land is going to be developed and drainage and all of those sorts of things will again be addressed so that whatever is developed does meet the city standards and regulations? Warrick: Absolutely. That would be the next step in the process. First the property needs to be in the city. It needs to have the proper zoning designation on it for a development proposal and then the applicant would contract with an engineer to have the site engineered and designed. The Planning Commission is required to review those, staff as well, to ensure compliance with city ordinances to review for on and offsite improvement requirements and to discuss the specific issues that we really need to understand when we are looking at a project that is engineered and on the ground. What is approved at the time of Preliminary Plat is what is installed. You are absolutely right and there is a process to get to that point. It is important also to note that the adjoining property owners who were notified that there was a request being made to annex and zone these two tracts of land will also be notified when there is a request for a Preliminary Plat approval. We will continue to log those comments and continue to discuss. We have had those comments with regard to the bowl shape and sogginess of this site in our files for several weeks because the residents have taken it upon themselves to contact our office and participate, which is absolutely what we need. They are there, they understand the sites and we can drive by them and look at plans all day long but we haven't seen them in action. That is when the rubber will hit the road and we will start implementing those comments into our recommendations and the review of the development project. MOTION: Clark: Cross apply everything I said in the previous two items and I will move for approval of ANX 04-1073. Myres: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 04-1073 by the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 32 Ostner: The tandem item is RZN 04-1074 for Ames Trust, rezoning of 1.97 acres to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre. We have heard a presentation already. Would the public like to speak to this issue? Seeing none, I will close it to the public. Mr. Milholland, would you like to comment further? Milholland: Only if there are questions of the Commission. Ostner: I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for comments or motions. MOTION: Shackelford: I will make a motion that we recommend RZN 04-1074 to the City Council for approval. Clark: Second. Ostner: I have a motion and a second, is there further discussion? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-1074 by the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Announcements Meeting adjourned: 6:57 p.m.