Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-25 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 25, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ADM 04-1299: (STONEBRIDGE MEADOWS PH. II) Page 3 CUP 04-1224: (JOHNNY WALKER, 529) Page 4 RZN 04-1223: Rezoning (TRACY HOSKINS, 361) Page 6 RZN 04-1221: Rezoning (SCOTT, 255) Page 9 RZN 04-1219: Rezoning (HANCOCK/WILSON, 323) Page 11 RZN 04-1225: Rezoning (CONNER LAW FIRM, 529) Page 13 ANX 04-1212: Annexation (HARPER/BOWEN, 100) Page 15 RZN 04-1213: Rezoning (HARPER/BOWEN, 100) Page 17 PPL 04-1246: Preliminary Plat (LEGACY POINT PHASE IV, 475) Page 18 RZN 04-1243: Rezoning (MEDLEY, 557/596) Page 21 ANX 04-1252: Annexation (NOONCASTER/KELLY, 61): Page 28 RZN 04-1253: Rezoning (NOONCASTER, 61) Page 31 MEMBERS PRESENT Alan Ostner Christian Vaught Sean Trumbo James Graves Nancy Allen Loren Shackelford Christine Myres Candy Clark STAFF PRESENT Dawn Warrick Suzanne Morgan Dawn Warrick Brent O'Neal Kit Williams ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Approved Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council MEMBERS ABSENT Jill Anthes STAFF ABSENT Renee Thomas Jeremy Pate Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 2 Ostner: Good evening. Welcome to the October 25°' meeting of your Planning Commission. Could you call the roll Suzanne? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were eight commissioners present with Commissioner Anthes being absent. Approval of the Minutes Ostner: Thank you. The first item is the approval of the minutes from the October 11`h meeting. Do I have a motion for approval? Shackelford: So moved. Allen: Second. Ostner: I have a motion by Mr. Shackelford and a second by Ms. Allen. Are there any comments about the minutes? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes from the October 11`h meeting was approved. Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 3 ADM 04-1299: Administrative Item (STONEBRIDGE MEADOWS PH. II): The request is to amend the approved PPL 03-17.00 of Stonebridge Meadows Phase II subdivision to create two phases for construction and platting. Osmer: Thank you. The first item on our agenda is the consent agenda. ADM 04- 1299. It's the item for Stonebridge Meadows Phase II. Would anyone in the audience like to have this removed from the consent agenda? Or would any commissioners like it removed? Seeing none, is there a motion for approval of the consent agenda? Clark: So moved. Ostner: A motion by Commissioner Clark. Is there a second? Myers: Second. Ostner: A second by Commissioner Myers. Is there discussion? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the consent agenda was approved 8-0-0. Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 4 CUP 04-1224: Conditional Use (JOHNNY WALKER, 529): Submitted by JOHN M. WALKER for property located at 3548 E HUNTSVILLE ROAD. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 0.51 acres. The request is to approve a multi -family use in an R -O. Residential Office, Zoning District. Ostner: Thank you. Our first item is CUP 04-1224. Conditional Use for Johnny Walker. If we could have the staff report please. Warrick: This Conditional Use request is for property located at 3548 E. Huntsville Road. It is just under one mile east of Dead Horse Mountain Road. The property consists of just over half an acre. It's currently zoned R -O, Residential Office. And the development on the site currently consists of one duplex, a barbershop, and the foundation of a single family home that recently was destroyed by fire. The applicant proposes to construct one duplex on the subject property to replace the single family home that, as I mentioned, was destroyed. On the property, one duplex is permitted by right. Because there is an existing duplex on the property and the applicant is proposing to construct two additional units, that does put them into the category of multi -family, which can be permitted, but only by Conditional Use approval in the R -O zoning district. Which, of course, is what's being requested, a Conditional Use for Use Unit 26, multi -family dwellings within a R -O zoning district. Staff does find that granting the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest. We are looking at solely adding one additional residence to the existing site. There will be no substantial increase in traffic generated by this proposal. There is existing sufficient ingress and egress. Utilities are existing and provided for the property. Additionally, this use is generally compatible with adjacent residential and multi -family uses and has existed in a similar state for many years without complaint. The allowance of an additional unit along with improvement to existing access and screening of the parking will benefit the neighborhood and other properties within the area. Surrounding land uses are primarily residential, both single family, as well as a mobile home park to the west. There is property that is split zoned, C-1 and R -A to the south, across Huntsville road, and the property to the north, while zoned residential, is currently vacant. Staff is recommending approval of CUP 04-1224 subject to nine conditions of approval. The conditions are listed in your staff report, we believe that they do address the findings required by staff and the Planning Commission. No more than two additional dwelling units will be permitted to allow for the applicant's proposal of a duplex. We have addressed issues with regard to parking, solid waste pickup and screening, and there will be a money in lieu of sidewalk construction. A fee of $1,782 is recommended by the Sidewalk Administrator. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Would you like to introduce yourself and give us your presentation? Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 5 Walker: My name's Johnny Walker, I'm a lifelong resident of Fayetteville. Ostner: We'll hear from the public and we'll get back with you. Walker: Okay. Ostner: At this point, I'll open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak to the CUP 04-1224? Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. MOTION: Allen: This looks pretty straight forward, so I will move for approval of CUP 04- 1224 subject to the nine conditions of approval. Clark: Second. Ostner: Thank you, I have a motion for approval from Commissioner Allen, a second from Commissioner Clark. Is there further discussion? Roll Call: Upon completion of the roll call, the motion to approve CUP 04-1224 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 6 RZN 04-1223: Rezoning (TRACY HOSKINS, 361): Submitted by TRACY K. HOSKINS for property located at 1719 N RUPPLE RD. The property is zoned RSF-1, SINGLE FAMILY - 1 UNIT/ACRE and contains approximately 11.73 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is RZN 04-1223 for Tracy Hoskins. If we could have the staff report please. Warrick: I'd first like to mention that this rezoning was tabled at the last Planning Commission meeting on October 11`I' in order to allow for additional public comment this evening. Pending the Planning Commission's recommendation, assuming approval, it will be forwarded to the November 1s` City Council meeting, and that was a change in date. It was originally scheduled for November 2nd. This request is for property located at 1719 N. Rupple Road. 11.73 acres is the size of the subject property, and it's currently zoned RSF-1, Residential single family, one unit per acre. This piece of property was annexed as a part of the City Council's decision to annex all island areas within the City's unincorporated properties completely surrounded by the City limits. That action took place in July of this year. Surrounding properties are zoned RSF-4 and RSF-1 and are developed or have been approved for development with single family homes. Bridgeport Subdivision Phase VII is currently under construction to the north and will provide a street stub out into this property along the north boundary. The applicant does propose to rezone the property to a RSF-4 designation. The site currently, as I mentioned, has access to the soon too be constructed New Bridge Road. The property does have access to an eight inch water main, as well as an eight inch sewer line, both through the Bridgeport area. The future land use plan does designate this area as residential. From the service providers, the Fire Department reports that response time from Fire Station 7 is approximately three minutes and the Police Department reports that this rezoning will not substantially alter the population density, and therefore, will not undesirably increase the load on Police services. The proposed rezoning is consistent with land use planning, objectives, principles, and policies. As I mentioned, this area is designated residential on the future land use map. The proposed zoning is justified in order to allow for similar density and lot configuration to those single family neighborhoods that are currently located southwest and north of the subject property. With those findings, staff is recommending in favor of the requested rezoning. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Hoskins: I'm Tracy Hoskins, the developer. If you've got any questions, I'm here to answer your questions for you. Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 7 Ostner: Thank you. At this point, I'll open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak about this RZN 04-1223? Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. MOTION: Shackelford: As you view this property, RSF-4, which is the requested rezoning, seems to be in line with what's being developed around it I think that it makes a lot of sense so I'm going to make a motion that we recommend approval and forward to City Council RZN 04-1223. Ostner: Thank you, I have a motion for approval. Allen: I'll second. Ostner: I have a second by Commissioner Allen. I have one question. We all received these packets from a concerned citizen who's not adjacent to this project, but he's nearby. The Bell's Chapel. They're very concerned about drainage, and I wanted to try to address that. It's not really applicable at the rezoning stage, but this land does drain into that direction. Warrick: And of course, the rezoning is the first step in the process of development, and the applicant, should the rezoning be approved, would be able to then process a Preliminary Plat, or Planned Zoning District, if they chose to take that route, in order to gain approval to develop the property. And we expect that. We expect to see a proposal for a single family subdivision in the future. We've been doing a little research and engineering is going to be able to address this a little bit more completely. The various phases Bridgeport -we're at Phase VII right now. We believe that they began somewhere around 1994-1995, there have been changes in this City's policies, as well as ordinances with regard to grading and drainage and storm -water management. Some of those changes went into effect around 1997-1998, which will certainly apply to any phase of the development that has happened from that time forward, and any development on the subject property. That does include the requirement for on-site detention, which was something that was instituted as a policy around 1997-1998. I'll allow Brent to elaborate on that any further. O'Neal: At this time, the Engineering Division is investigating some drainage issues in conjunction with the Parks Department in Red Oak Park. Any other issues have not been brought to the Engineering Division's attention. And we are right now investigating those problems within the park itself, but I don't believe it goes any further than the park boundaries. It very likely will expand just for the fact that staff wasn't provided the Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 8 information that you got although I have made copies, and have made copies of that information available to the City Engineer and whomever on his staff he's going to assign to address that. So it's not something that we will ignore or just pass off if this rezoning continues throughout the process, it's something that the staff will continue to look at and see if there's any issue that we have the ability to mitigate or resolve. Ostner: Great. Thank you very much. We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion about this rezoning? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-1223 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 9 RZN 04-1221: Rezoning (SCOTT, 255): Submitted by ED & PATRICIA SCOTT for property located at 3196 Skillern Road. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 2.01 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, four units per acre. Ostner: The next item is RZN 04-1221 for Scott. Warrick: This rezoning is for property located at 3196 Skillern Road. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 2.01 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, four units per acre. The applicant would like to enhance their development. It's a single family home, they would like to provide a covered parking area, as well as an entrance into their backyard in the form of a pergola type structure. And the setback requirements in the R -A zoning district are 20 foot on the sides, 35 feet in both the front and rear. That's substantially larger of a setback than the RSF-4 district would require, which would be 8 foot side setbacks. This particular property is in an area that immediately adjoins RSF-4 zoning to the west and it is north of the entrance to the Brookbury subdivision which is also zoned RSF-4. It is, we believe that the proposed zoning, which is designated residential in the future land use map, the proposed zoning is consistent with the surrounding areas. It's consistent and appropriate for the existing site. As I mentioned, this would not be a spot zoning as it is adjacent, contiguous with additional area of property that's currently within RSF -4 zoning district. And for those reasons and the findings stated in your report, staff is recommending approval of the Rezoning of this property. All the surrounding land uses are single-family residential under two different zoning designations, as I mentioned, RSF-4 and R -A, Residential Agricultural. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? If you'd like to step forward and introduce yourself, give us your presentation. Scott: Hi there, ladies and gentleman. I'm Ed Scott, and we've checked with all the neighbors, and they're very pleased, they don't see anything detrimental to our proposal. I think the ladies like to call it a pergola; I would call it a drive-through carport. So, anyway, so much for definitions. I'll be glad to address any questions. Ostner: Thank you. At this point, I'll open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak to this issue, the rezoning of RZN 04-1221. Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 10 MOTION: Clark: Call it a pergola, call it a drive-through carport, I'm going to move that we approve RZN 04-1221. Ostner: Thank you, I have a motion. Shackelford: Now that I know what a pergola is, I'll second. Ostner: A second from Commissioner Shackelford. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll Suzanne? Roll Call: Upon completion of the roll call, the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-1221 by the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 11 RZN 04-1219: Rezoning (HANCOCKIWILSON, 323): Submitted by PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC for property located at 2389 SALEM ROAD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL AND RSF-1, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY - 1 UNIT PER ACRE, and contains approximately 14.94 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single- family, 4 units per acre. Osmer: Our next item is a rezoning again, RZN 04-1219, Rezoning for Hancock and Wilson. Warrick: This property is generally located at 2389 Salem Road. As you can see on the map information towards the back, this property spans between Rupple Road and Salem Road. For context, it is south of the Salem Heights development, which has been approved for Preliminary Plat. That Salem Heights development is south of Salem Village. Salem Village is south of Salem Meadows. So basically working from south to north, you would be looking at the subject property, Salem Heights, Salem Village, Salem Meadows. And I mention that because the three developments to the north are single family residential in zoning as well as land use. Property to the west does contain the Holt Middle School, as well as the Clabber Creek single family development. This subject property contains just under 15 acres. This property, at least a portion of this property was brought into the City limits through the annexation of islands action by the City Council back in July. And the applicant is now requesting to rezone the subject property to RSF-4. The property is designated residential on the future land use map. As I mentioned, surrounding properties are primarily single family in nature. All are currently zoned RSF-4, RSF-1, or R -A, Residential Agricultural with regard to the surrounding properties. There is access to water, the site does have the ability to provide access to sanitary sewer. Response time for fire is between four and five minutes. The Police report that this rezoning would not substantially alter the population density, thereby increasing the land on police services, and I think I mentioned that the property is designated residential on the general plan. We believe that this zoning designation is consistent with land use planning policies as well as surrounding developments. The developments that I mentioned as far as Clabber Creek and Salem Heights, surrounding approved subdivisions, they are also zoned RSF-4, however, the densities that are being developed on those properties range between 2.5 to 2.9 units per acre, which we see is relatively consistent once you install the necessary infrastructure, streets, detention, and other Tree Preservation and areas that are just un -developable. Based on the findings and the staff reports, staff is recommending in favor of this rezoning from RSF-1 and R -A to RSF-4. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 12 Scott: Yes, my name is Brian Scott, I'm with Project Design Consultants. I'm representing the Wilsons. And if you have any questions, I'd be glad to take them. Ostner: Thank you. At this point, I'll open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak about this RZN 04-1219. Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. My first question is for engineering staff. We have a memo in our packet pertaining to a bridge assessment. If you'd like to elaborate about that. O'Neal: This parcel is in the bridge assessment area for the Rupple Road Bridge. And the memo is just reflecting what percentage of trips should be assessed to that bridge. Ostner: Thank you. That's my only comment. MOTION: Shackelford: As I look at this, I agree with staff's comments and finding of fact, I think that this is in line with the 2020 plan, so I'm going to make a motion that we forward with request for approval RZN 04-1219. Ostner: Thank you, I have a motion. Do I have a second? Trumbo: Second. Ostner: A motion by Mr. Shackelford, a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call, the motion to approve RZN 04-1219 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 13 RZN 04-1225: Rezoning (CONNER LAW FIRM, 529): Submitted by ROBERT JEFF CONNER for property located at 3398 E HUNTSVILLE ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.78 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to R -O, Residential Office. Ostner: Our next item is a rezoning. RZN 04-1225 for the Conner Law Firm. Warrick: This is a rezoning request for property located at 3398 E. Huntsville Road. Property contained approximately .78 acres, and the request is to rezone the property from RSF-4 to R -O, Residential Office. The subject property is located north of Huntsville and east of Crossover. It currently is developed as a single family residential unit. It does have adjacent single family dwellings to the south and to the west. There's a manufactured home park containing approximately 62 units, located north and east of the subject property. And that mobile home park is zoned RMF -24. The applicant proposes to improve the existing single family dwelling and to convert it for use as a law office. The general plan does designate this property as residential. We are recommending approval of the requested rezoning to R -O, because we feel that while it is not a solely residential zoning district, it does permit residences and it is an appropriate transitional type zone between the multi -family zoning and the manufactured home park and the single family residential uses that are on the other side of the subject property. This is also a piece of property on Huntsville Road. That's a very heavily traveled street. It's a state highway, and it's not as desirable as it once was for establishing a single family residence with direct access to Huntsville Road. So therefore we feel like a small, professional office that would generate fairly low traffic would be an appropriate conversion for this particular structure. We do feel that is compatible for the reasons that I've stated, and for the reasons based on staff's findings we are recommending in favor of this rezoning to Residential Office. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? If you'd like to introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Conner: Yes, I'm Jeff Conner. I don't have a formal presentation for you, but I would point out that Item #2 on the agenda is trying to be converted from Residential Office to RSF-4. That property is located immediately to the east of my property. We're separated by the mobile home park that they've talked about. So, I think we might add balance to the neighborhood by swapping our properties. Ostner: Thank you, at this point, I'll open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak to this RZN 04-1225? Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for comments. Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 14 MOTION: Clark: Based on the information that's in our packet regarding what Mr. Conner's intent is to do with this very unique building, I think it sounds like an asset to the area, so I will move that we approve the RZN 04-1225. Allen: I second. Ostner: Thank you, I have a motion by Commissioner Clark and a second by Commissioner Allen. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, the motion to approve RZN 04-1225 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 15 ANX 04-1212: Annexation (HARPER/BOWEN, 100): Submitted by MICHELE, A HARRINGTON for property located at 5512 GEORGE ANDERSON ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 2.68 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Ostner: The next item is ANX 04-1212, an annexation for Harper/Bowen. Warrick: This request, and I'll go ahead and address the companion request which is the next item on your agenda, this request is to annex a small piece of property that is basically cut out of the Copper Creek developments at the northeast portion of the city. The subject property contains 2.68 acres. It is surrounded by Fayetteville on the north, south, and the west, and adjoins George Anderson Road on the east. The applicant does propose to annex the property into the city and to develop similarly to the approved subdivisions that are being installed in the area around it, which are all zoned RSF-4 for the development of single family residential units. Staff does find that this meets the City's Annexation Policy. It does create an appropriate boundary and provides for inclusion into this neighborhood. A small piece of property that had been left out for whatever reason in the past. For those reasons, we are recommending the annexation as well as the companion rezoning to RSF-4, which is a compatible zoning district to this surrounding areas. Ostner: Shackelford: Warrick: Ostner: MOTION: Shackelford: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Is the applicant here for the Harper/Bowen annexation? We'll proceed. I think they were here at the first meeting and just did not come back. It was tabled of course at the first meeting. I would add that we're moving through the agenda fairly quickly, and Miss Harrington typically watches to see when her items are coming up, so she may be here later, but she was at the meeting representing the applicants two weeks ago, and I've spoken with her, and she will be at the meeting with the City Council November 1st Okay. Great. At this point, I'll open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak to this issue of the ANX 04-1212. Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Comments and motions? It may not be an isle and or a peninsula, but it's awful close. If you look at it in proximity to the Fayetteville City limits, I think it makes sense for annexation. Based on the fact that anything we do regarding the annexation or rezoning will have to be ratified or actually approved by Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 16 City Council, I think I'm comfortable making a motion to recommend approval at this point even thought the applicant's not here. And anybody else might want to speak for or against this will have another venue at City Council. So, a very long explanation, I'm going to make a motion that we recommend approval of ANX 04-1212. Ostner: Thank you. I have a motion for approval. Do I have a second? Myers: Second. Ostner: Second by Commissioner Myers. Is there further discussion? Suzanne? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, the motion to recommend approval of ANX 04-1212 by the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 17 RZN 04-1213: Rezoning (HARPERBOWEN, 100): Submitted by MICHELE, A HARRINGTON for property located at 5512 GEORGE ANDERSON ROAD. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural, and contains approximately 2.68 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: A tandem item is RZN 04-1213. We've already heard a staff report. The applicant is not present. Would the public like to speak to this issue of RZN 04-1213 for the same piece of property? I think our applicant has arrived. We've already approved the annexation and we're on to the rezoning. Harrington: I apologize for being late. If you have any questions on the rezoning, it's going to be the same as everything around it. Ask me if you have any questions. Ostner: Okay. Do we have a motion and a second? I'd love a motion and a second. MOTION: Shackelford: Mr. Chair. Again I'm in agreement of staff findings of fact on this. I know this property, I live in this area, and I'm totally in support of RSF-4 zoning, I think it's a match with what's already there and what the 2020 Plan recommends. So I'm going to make a motion that we forward to City Council with a recommendation for approval RZN 04-1213. Ostner: Thank you, I have a motion for approval. Is there a second? Clark: Second. Ostner: Second by Commissioner Clark. Is there further discussion? Suzanne? Roll Call: Upon completion of the roll call, the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-1213 by the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 18 PPL 04-1246: Preliminary Plat (LEGACY POINT PHASE IV, 475): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at DOUBLE SPRINGS RD AND LEGACY POINTE PH. I -III AND S OF OWL CREEK. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 29.29 acres. The request is to approve the Preliminary Plat of Phase IV of the subdivision with 77 single family lots proposed. Ostner: Thank you. The next item is PPL 04-1246 for Legacy Point Phase IV. Warrick: The subject property contains 29.29 acres. The request is for approval of a preliminary plat to create a subdivision with 79 lots, 77 single family homes to be constructed. The subject property was annexed into the City and zoned RSF-4 on August 17, 2004. This proposal was forwarded to the Subdivision Committee and recommended to the Planning Commission for approval by the Subcommittee on October 15, 2004. This property adjoins the other existing phases of the Legacy Point subdivision. Those phases are to the west, and slightly to the north of the subject tract. One important piece of infrastructure to note is that Persimmon Street, classified a collector on the City's Master Street Plan, does cut through this site, east to west providing connectivity from the existing Legacy developments to future developments that we believe will be coming in fairly soon to the east. This is a fairly straightforward subdivision. There were no existing trees on the site, therefore there's no report with regard to Tree Preservation. The applicant is dedicating excess parkland; a total of approximately 4.6 acres for this particular development for the 77 single family lots, 1.85 acres is the required dedication. The excess parkland will be banked for this developer to use for future projects within this quadrant of the city. That is permitted by ordinance. Standard conditions of approval address the infrastructure that will be installed; interior streets are a standard 50 foot right-of-way, 28 foot streets, with sidewalks on both sides. Street lights and signage will be consistent with subdivision regulations, and I mentioned parkland dedication. All other conditions are standard conditions of approval for a residential subdivision, and with those conditions, staff does recommend approval of this Preliminary Plat. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant here? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Hafemann: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Garrett Hafemann with Jorgensen and Associates. I'm here with Mr. Charlie Sloan, representing this project. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. Ostner: Thank you. At this point, I'll open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak about this PPL 04-1246? Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 19 Shackelford: Question to staff, and I'm embarrassed to ask this because I'm on Subdivision Committee, but I don't remember specifically why this wasn't approved at Subdivision Committee and it had to come before full Planning Commission. Warrick: It's a Preliminary Plat. It requires full Planning Commission approval. Shackelford: Okay. Even though there's no determinations of fact or anything like that? Warrick: What you're determining is compliance with the subdivision regulations and staff believes that with the conditions that we've recommended that it does comply. Shackelford: Okay, thank you very much. Clark: I have a question also, either for staff or the applicant. Where is the park dedication area on the Preliminary Plat? Garrett: The park area is up adjacent to the park area for the Legacy Point Phase I subdivision area. It's not shown on here, but it would be to the northwest of this subject tract. It's actually further off on the western side of the Phase I and Phase II of the Legacy Point subdivision, which you can see adjoins this one on the left side. Clark: We don't have all of the phases? Warrick: It's an off-site dedication. Clark: Yeah, I saw that, but I didn't understand it. Warrick: It's an off-site dedication along Owl Creek, which is contiguous with the previous dedications for this project. The Parks division feels that this linear park along the creek will be an appropriate area to do that. Clark: Sounds like a great idea, I just wanted to know exactly where it was on this map, it just didn't do it for me. That's my only question. Ostner: That looks to be contiguous with the other parkland, with the other phases. Warrick: That's correct. Ostner: Okay, it's right adjacent. Great. Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 20 MOTION: Clark: I will move approval of PPL 04-1246 with conditions as stated. Ostner: Thank you. I have a motion for approval by Commissioner Clark. Trumbo: Second. Ostner: Second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon completion of the roll, the motion to approve PPL 04-1246 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 21 RZN 04-1243: Rezoning (MEDLEY, 557/596): Submitted by RONALD DEAN MEDLEY for property located at 3507 W 6TH STREET. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 1.03 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Ostner: Our next item is a rezoning, RZN 04-1243, rezoning for Medley. Warrick: The subject property is located at 3507 W. 6th Street. It contains approximately 1.03 acres. The property is currently zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural. The development on the site currently is a single family home. Most of the property behind the home consists of a vacant field. The entirety of the property is located within the 100 year flood plain. This site is just west of, it's not adjacent to, but it's slightly west of the property that contains Lowe's, and that was zoned C-PZD for the Lowe's Development and the associated outbuildings and other lots that were a part of that Preliminary Plat project. The property is bordered to the west by vacant as well as occupied commercial structures as well as an automobile salvage yard. That is an existing non -conforming use within the C-2 district. A portion of the property is zoned R -A, that's the adjacent property, with the majority being C-2. Many of the surrounding properties contain existing nonconformities. Through the years we tried to do a little bit of history to understand how the various zonings have been applied to properties surrounding this. We believe that many of the developments or many of the structures preexisted our 1970 zoning ordinances. There was a large rezoning request. Several different districts requested for property located adjacent to this in 1987; however, that property really hasn't developed under the zoning districts that were applied at that point in time. The applicant does propose to rezone the subject property to C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial in order to facilitate future sale and potential development of the property. The site currently has access to 6` street. It does have access to public water, however, it does not have access to sanitary sewer, that would have to be extended to provide for any future development on the site. Fire response time is between two and three minutes, and the report from the Police Depai lment states that the requested rezoning would not substantially alter population density, therefore would not undesirably increase the load on public services. The land use plan, or future land use plan, does designate this site as mixed use. Staff feels that rezoning the property to a C-2 designation would not be consistent with the City's adopted future land use plan. I think that the finding that staff feels is the most relevant with regard to our recommendation is the first finding, which you're required to make, and that is a determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principals, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. And within that finding, staff believes that the future land use plan identifies this area as mixed use to allow the mixing of uses and integration of design through the planning Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 22 process. Additionally, that same chapter, 9.14 states, "In the past, strip development in the areas along heavily traveled, generally state highways, has been the common pattern. If Fayetteville is to retain its identity as a unique place, strip development should be discouraged." For that reason and for the reason of compatibility and being able to ensure that we have the best understanding of how this property would develop, staff is not in favor of the requested rezoning to C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Medley: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Dean Medley. And I'd like to explain why I'd like to rezone this property. My mother is in an assisted care living facility. It costs $350.00 above her medical expenses to take care of her. Now you're interested in why the Planning Commission says I can't rezone this property. I need to get as much out of this property as I can to take care of her care. That's one of the biggest reasons that I'm rezoning this property. Now I don't know if that fits in with the Planning Commission's plans or anything else, but I understand that there are limitations and you worry about the use of this property. Well when I sell this property, I talked to a realtor, and he said that I can stipulate what kind of a person buys that. That the Planning Commission will only accept this and the Planning Commission will only accept that. I'd like to know from the Planning Commission, if they're going to turn this down, I want to know what they will accept in there. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Medley. At this point, I'll open it up to the public for any comments concerning this RZN 04-1243. Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Trumbo: Question for Dawn, what would you be in favor of rezoning this to? Warrick: I thought you'd ask that question. Obviously we think that the C-2 zoning is too intense a designation and it is a zoning district that would basically encourage the type of strip development that the Council and the City, the citizens have identified as undesirable. We do have an R -O zoning district, which is Residential Office, it is specifically a mixed use district, which would allow for professional offices as well as single family or duplex developments. That would very likely be a more appropriate designation. In a perfect world, we'd love to look at this piece of property with the adjacent properties and have some sort of comprehensive understanding of what collectively we could do on that grouping of properties. That's not what we're looking at and I know that Mr. Medley doesn't have the ability to bring forward his property as well as his neighbors and everything along the lines for us to review. I think the Residential Office district, if we were going to make a recommendation Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 23 for the City Council, would be an appropriate starting point. They certainly are going to be the ones making the policy decision to determine if it fits with their vision of this part of the City. C-2 would be as I mentioned, a very intense district, and it's not something that is easy to deal with when you're looking at a property that's wholly within the 100 - year flood plain. A development of professional offices or residences would likely be easier to regulate in an R -O district with the situation of flood plain on the site. I guess what I'm saying in a very long winded way is R -O would probably be an appropriate district. Trumbo: Thank you. Medley: You know the R -O might be acceptable with me. I'm not trying to create problems for the City at all. No problems at all. If they'll just hear me out. If we're talking about an R -O, I'd like to have a variance where if someone like, would the Planning Commission be opposed to something like McDonald's or would they opposed to something like Wendy's or maybe, I have a friend that's got a restaurant, would you be opposed to something like that? If they're talking R -O, could you have R -O with a variance? Thank you. Warrick: The Residential Office district would allow for a sit down restaurant, not a drive-through, only by Conditional Use approval by the Planning Commission. The R -O district does not allow for Use Unit 18, which is restaurants that allow for drive-through, so many of the fast food chains that were mentioned would not be something that we could approve even under a conditional use condition, however, if it was a more eat -in restaurant without the drive through facility, that's something that the Planning Commission could consider, but it would have to come to you as a Conditional Use and you'd have to be able to consider, I believe one of the primary things that you're going to have to be looking at, or that we will be collectively looking at in the future, is access. The access to this site will be very important and what we're trying to regulate is 6th Street not becoming College Avenue, which is what everyone points to and says, we're not really willing to do that again because we feel that there are too many problems inherent in that type of development. So access management is probably one of the key points that we'll have to look at for any type of development on the property, but as far as land use, you can't grant a variance on zoning, but you can look at Conditional Uses that are specified as the types of specific uses that you can request under any particular zoning district. An R -O would allow for an eating place that does not have a drive-through. Ostner: Thank you. Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 24 Vaught: Question for staff. Just because I don't have it in front of me. A C-1, what's the difference between an R -O and a C-1? Warrick: Vaught: C-1 allows much more shopping, retail type activities, it would also allow for drive-through restaurants I believe. What I'm debating is it's an acre site, so no matter what, it's going to be fairly limited on what goes on there. You know, I do think that C-2 for such a small site might be a little intense, but I'm debating between the difference of C-1 and R -O. As far as being appropriate, granted, I mean, it's an acre in the middle of a C-2 island. Warrick: I would just want to add that the C-1 zoning district is designated neighborhood commercial. It is primarily to provide convenience goods, personal service type items, and as I mentioned it does allow for neighborhood shopping, which is most of your retail type establishments. Gas stations and drive-through restaurants are also included in that grouping. Shackelford: I'm kind of going down the same road as Commissioner Vaught. I've said many times tonight, I'm in agreement with City staff and their findings, I'm not so sure that I wholeheartedly agree with these tonight. As you drive out to this property, it's very much, in my opinion, a commercial field on the site. You look at some of the adjoining properties, it's almost an industrial field with the salvage yard and some other properties that are very close in proximity to this property. You look at the map on 10.17, there's C-2 directly across the street from this property to the north, there's C-2, back to the east, you know I'm not so sure that this corridor isn't a significantly different corridor than it was when the land use plan was put together with the improvements of the Lowe's and the other things out there and the traffic counts that we're seeing. I understand the design and the desire for mixed use, I'm just thinking that this property's going to struggle developing as a mixed use piece of property. And on top of that, you throw into the mix that it's entirety is within the 100 year flood plain, which I think is going to further limit the desire, or even the ability, to develop this as an R -O zoning, with a residential house, duplex, or some sort of nice professional office. I don't know that those types of uses, from many different stand points are going to flow very well in a flood plain area. This is one that I've struggled with, I've looked at, and I understand where the staff is coming from on the specific findings of fact, although I understand that they're following the land use plan that was put in place, my common sense is that this is a commercial piece of property. And it makes sense to consider it with that zoning, so that's my comments at this point. Ostner: Thank you. Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 25 Vaught: I have one further question for staff. C-1 to C-2, what does it now allow, C-1 versus the C-2? Warrick: The C-2 district, beyond the uses permitted in C-1, opens up commercial recreation land use, adult live entertainments, liquor stores, trades and services. Trades and services is a pretty wide open land use or use unit, and it basically includes, automobile sales and service, truck sales, used car lots, boats and accessories, and a wide variety of service type uses. So those are the uses that in addition to those permitted in C-1 would expand the ability for development in C-2. Ostner: I'd just like to throw in my opinion here. When we were on tour, I quizzed you pretty thoroughly about this because I didn't quite understand your standpoint either. Because I would agree with Commissioner Shackelford, there is a commercial field. It's apparent that there aren't going to be homes built on this spot. But what Ms. Warrick explained to me, is it's almost an issue of scale. And as she referred to, this gentleman does not have the ability to get with all of his neighbors and get a 20 acre PZD together, just to get his project rezoned. But with a larger development, there would be, instead of 12 curb cuts, 1. And that makes a big difference between creating a College Avenue or creating something more organized. Still commercial, it's still all developed, with a commercial field, but it happens in a different pattern. I'm inclined to vote with staff, that this zoning, with this scale, with this barely 1.03 acres, is not, does not go with our plans to try to stop strip development. So, that's what I have to say. Vaught: My two cents, my gut is I understand that, and I wholeheartedly believe it, but we're dealing with an acre in the middle of all this C-2. More than likely, if we wanted to really control the development in this area, it being a C-2 and being able to combine some of the areas around it for a possibly a larger development would make more sense to me than having a little island that's forced to develop by itself. Ideally, if this would come back as a PZD or something where we could see an overall plan for the area but we don't have that luxury in this case. So we're looking at a one acre tract in the middle of a large ocean of commercials. Granted, some of it's undeveloped, and we would love to see it come through as a whole. So I'm more inclined to make it a zoning that could be combined with some areas around it, and be incorporated, because more than likely, this one acre will be, need to be, due to its terrain and location, so that's where I'm torn. I don't know if I feel R -O is necessarily the proper zoning for this single piece of property. I just don't know if I believe R -O for this tiny one acre tract is going to accomplish our desires for the overall area, but I also understand you've got to start somewhere. It's one of those that it's Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 26 difficult, but I'm more inclined to rezone it for some sort of commercial use than leave it as an R -O, or to make it an R -O. Ostner: Those are good points, I would want to continue that dialogue because I agree. I'm not relishing the fact that he's somewhat suffering at the expense of the overall plan. But once this one acre is rezoned, with that zoning goes development rights. And the buyer does not have to coordinate with anyone. And that's where small parcels are given their development rights just like College Avenue. So that I completely understand. Vaught: And that's why I'm leaning towards C-1 to further limit some of those service and trade type of developments I think that come along with those development rights. Even though it is surrounded by C-2, and it's next door to several service trades. Ostner: I guess I'm really talking more curb cuts than anything else. Vaught: No matter what we zone it, this one piece of property would get a curb cut. Ostner: Not necessarily, not at all. Vaught: Not unless it's combined with others. If this is rezoned anything, then they come through for development and they have to have access. Ostner: Unless they're coordinating with a large development. Vaught: Unless they're coordinating, but an R -O coordinating with a C-2 is what would be an interesting coordination. Clark: Maybe this is inappropriate, but tonight we are just deciding whether a C- 2 is appropriate for this piece of land, correct? It seems, and I'm concerned by the same thing that both of you have discussed. I think that C-2 is way too intense, I'm going to agree with staff on that. There are options. R -O might not work, C-1 seems like a very workable thing. Regardless, I think that that can be worked out between Mr. Medley and the staff. So I'm just going to blaze ahead and move that we reject RZN 04-1243 as a C-2. It can come back. Warrick: Before you vote, I'd just like to add that it is within your purview, the Planning Commission can approve, modify or disapprove a rezoning that is before you. So you do have the ability to consider either R -O or C-1 or whatever other district you feel might be appropriate for this particular site as a recommendation to the City Council. It's my opinion that it would be appropriate for you to do that so that Mr. Medley doesn't have to start this process again in order to get a recommendation. Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 27 Clark: Okay, that's a new rule; I didn't know we could do that. Warrick: You do have that ability. Ostner: We do it all the time. Commissioner Shackelford's good at it. Would you like to amend your motion? Clark: C-1 okay with you. Why not, we'll take a time out. Medley: First of all, I'd like to thank all of you. You're considerate, and I'm willing to work with you all. If we could amend it to C-1, that's fine, like I say, I'm willing to work with you. MOTION: Clark: C -1's okay, then I will amend my motion, to move we approve RZN 04- 1243 as a C-1 zoning. Myres: I'll second. Ostner: I have a motion for approval for a C-1 zoning on Item 04-1243. Motion was from Commissioner Clark, a second from Commissioner Myres. I'm going to vote against this. I believe C-1 is too intense for this piece of property. Is there further discussion? Call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-1243 to the City Council with a recommendation for C-1 zoning was approved by a vote of 7-1-0 with Commissioner Ostner voting no. Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 28 ANX 04-1252: Annexation (NOONCASTER/KELLY, 61): Submitted by RAYMOND SMITH for property located at S OF ALBRIGHT ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and City of Springdale and contains approximately 14.53 acres. The request is to annex the subject into the City of Fayetteville. Ostner: Thank you. Our next item is ANX 04-1252 for Nooncaster and Kelly. Warrick: This request is to annex the subject property which contains approximately 14.53 acres. This action would basically comprise of not only an annexation but also a detachment of 4.66 acres from Springdale. This is similar to an action that we took not long ago for property located immediately east of the subject property, which was also a simultaneously annexed and detached piece of property. This is a grouping of five different tracts of land with two property owners, so neighbors did get together and decide to bring this request forward collectively. Portions of the property, as I mentioned, are located within the Fayetteville Planning area and about five acres is located within the City of Springdale. The applicant's representative will be going through the process of obtaining a formal resolution from the Springdale City Council approving their detachment from that community. The site does front Albright Road, it's at the far northeastern portion of the City of Fayetteville. It is north of property also owned by the Nooncasters, which was recently approved as a Preliminary Plat for a development called Pembridge. The property will have access to both water and sewer through that development to the south once it is constructed. The property is approximately four acres from Fire Station number 4, resulting in a response time of 11-13 minutes. That's pretty consistent with the times for these single family subdivisions near the far northeast corner of the City. Police Department states that the requested rezoning would not substantially alter population density, or create appreciable increase in traffic or congestion. They do note, however, that while individually each of these annexations and rezonings will not substantially alter the population and density, the sum total presented over the years has had an impact on the demand for Police services and has caused increases in traffic congestion. So their analysis is expanded to kind of give an overview of what through the years has impacted their service provisions. This property is designated on the general plan as residential. We believe that the annexation of this property will create an appropriate boundary and extend the City of Fayetteville limits north to Albright Road, which is consistent, as I mentioned, with the action that we've taken recently. The property is adjacent to the City limits on the east, west, and south. For those reasons, we believe that this annexation is appropriate. I will note that you received this evening a faxed letter from adjoining property owners who were not able to attend. They do not object to the annexation, however they feel that the companion request for rezoning of a portion of this property to the RSF-4 zoning district is too dense and they believe that one home per acre as Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 29 opposed to four is more appropriate with the surrounding developments. Just with that, I'll kind of caveat that into the request, the companion request, for rezoning, that is to rezone 11.76 acres of the property and for it to be zoned RSF-4, Residential single family four units per acre for the purpose of a future single family subdivision, an extension of the Pembridge developments to the north of this property which is north of the already approved Preliminary Plat. Staff does believe that this is consistent with the surrounding developments and surrounding zoning. We believe that the zoning of this property to RSF-4 will allow for a more uniform consistent development pattern. Surrounding properties are basically all single family zoned single family on large lots within the City limits of Springdale, and the single family zoning district. As I mentioned, the Pembridge subdivision an approved Preliminary Plat zoned RSF-4 to the south. To the east, a portion of Copper Creek subdivision under construction, zoned RSF-4, I think that's actually to the west, and then on the other side of the property, a vacant field zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural. With the findings that I've stated and the information in your reports, staff is in favor of both the annexation and the requested rezoning. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Smith: Yes, my name is Raymond Smith, and I have with me here Mr. John Nooncaster who I submitted this application for on his behalf and also the Kellys. As Dawn Warrick explained there, this property is to the north of a property that's currently being developed by Mr. Nooncaster and it includes 4.66 acres that actually has been in the City of Springdale, and we have already had a resolution passed by the City of Springdale that if Fayetteville will annex this into Fayetteville that they will have a hearing and approve it. And so that's where we stand right now. If the City of Fayetteville approves the ordinance on this then we will go back to Springdale and obtain their approval also on this. Are there any other questions I can answer on this? Ostner: We'll get back with you. Thank you. At this point, I'll open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak about this ANX 04-1252. Nooncaster: My name is John Nooncaster. My wife and I and along with the Kelly's own this property and if you have any questions I'll be glad to answer them for you. Ostner: Thank you. I want to make sure anyone from the public that wants to speak about this has a chance. Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission on the subject of annexation. Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 30 MOTION: Shackelford: We saw one a lot like this earlier this evening. It's not quite a peninsula, it's not quite an island, but it is contiguous with City limits. Currently, I think it makes sense to recommend annexation to City Council so I'm going to make a motion we recommend ANX 04-1252. Clark: I'll second. Ostner: Thank you, I have a motion by Mr. Shackelford, a second by Commissioner Clark. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, the motion to approve ANX 04-1252 was approve by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 31 RZN 04-1253: Rezoning (NOONCASTER, 61): Submitted by RAYMOND SMITH for property located at S OF ALBRIGHT ROAD. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural, and contains approximately 11.76 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: The tandem item is a RZN 04-1253, we've already had the staff report. Would the applicant like to share any information? Smith: I believe the information that Dawn Warrick has given you in that this surrounding area there is zoned RSF-4 and it would be completely consistent with those adjoining areas there that are already being developed and we feel that this is very appropriate. Osmer: Thank you. At this point I'll open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak about this rezoning? Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for motions. Myers: My only concern about the density that's proposed for this property is the impact on Albright Road, but I did read in the information that we were given that those street improvements would take place once a Preliminary Plat was proposed. Warrick: Right. We will have to look at all of the surround roads, and this particular piece of property, unique to the other developments that we've seen around here accesses or has the potential to access Albright Road. While Albright Road is within the city limits of Springdale for the most part, the Planning Commission does have the ability to consider off-site improvements based on the impact of a development within the City of Fayetteville. We will be taking that into consideration and making recommendations to you with regard to improvements on Albright Road based on traffic that will be able to access Albright Road should this property develop, because that will then provide an outlet for not only the Pembridge development, but also Stonewood and Copper Creek and all the various phases of those developments, so while right now those drivers can skirt around the developments if they want to drive on George Anderson, which is a gravel road and then come across on Albright, that's an opportunity, this would be a more improved street connection, and it will very likely be more utilized. Certainly a consideration. MOTION: Clark: It seems to me that this RSF-4 is consistent with what lies around this piece of property, and I would point out to the neighbors who are concerned by what the e-mail indicates that RSF-4's the maximum density that will be allowed, doesn't necessarily mean the builder's will develop with four houses per acre. But regardless, input is still available to any Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 32 Ostner: Shackelford: Ostner: surrounding land owner as this goes through the development process. So there's still avenues to express discontent, if needed. I think the improvement to Albright Road would be an asset to the area, so I'm going to move that we approve RZN 04-1253. Thank you; I have a motion for approval. I'll second. I would like to say for the record that I agree with what Commissioner Myers said. We, as a Planning Commission over the last two or three years have heard a lot of development to the south and west of this property. One thing we consistently hear is the need for additional ingress and egress and I know a lot of folks in this area have looked forward to having an access point to Albright Road. So I think connectivity's going to be something that we look for when this property develops as well as these off-site improvements to make Albright Road as a safe intersection. But I do think that the zoning is in line, I just want to make those comments for the record. Thank you; I have a motion by Commissioner Clark, a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call, the motion to approve RZN 04-1253 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Osmer: Thank you. Are there any announcements? Announcements Adjourned: 6:50 p.m.