Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-04-13 MinutesPlanning Commission April 13, 2009 Page I of 16 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on April 13, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville, Arkansas. MINUTES: March 23, 2009 Page 3 ACTION TAKEN Approved ADM 09- 3250: (RUSKIN HEIGHTS SIDEWALK AND CURB FINISH VARIANCE) Page 4 Tabled LSP 09-3225: (MURPHY OIL USA, INC., 440) Approved Page 5 LSD 09-3226: (MURPHY OIL USA, INC., 440) Approved Page 5 CUP 09-3244: (BETTY WARD / HAMESTRING RD., 395) Approved Page 14 ADM 09-3249: (UDC AMENDMENT: SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING REGULATIONS) Page 15 Forwarded ADM 09-3235: (UDC AMENDMENT: ANIMAL BOARDING) Forwarded Page 16 Planning Commission April 13, 2009 Page 2 of 16 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Lois Bryant Matthew Cabe Jeremy Kennedy Andy Lack Christine Myres Sean Trumbo Porter Winston STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Dara Sanders CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT James Graves STAFF ABSENT Matt Casey 5:30 PM - Planning Commission Chair Sean Trumbo called the meeting to order. Commissioner Trumbo requested for all cell phones to be turned off, and informed the audience that listening devices were available. Upon roll call, all members were present with the exception of Commissioner Graves. Consent. Planning Commission April 13, 2009 Page 3 of 16 Approval of the minutes from the March 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. No public comment was received. Motion• Commissioner Winston made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission April 13, 2009 Page 4 of 16 Old Business: ADM 09-3250: (RUSKIN HEIGHTS SIDEWALK AND CURB FINISH VARIANCE): Submitted by Ruskin Heights, LLC for the Ruskin Heights R-PZD located on the south side of Mission Boulevard, west of Crossover Road. The request is for a variance of the minimum street design standards to permit a smooth, exposed aggregate finish for the curb, gutter, and sidewalk, when the standards require a broom finish. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE TABLED TO THE APRIL 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Lack made a motion to table the request to the April 27, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission April 13, 2009 Page 5 of 16 LSP 09-3225: Lot Split (MURPHY OIL USA, INC., 440): Submitted by CEI ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 3189 WEDINGTON DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.37 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 1.07 and 0.30 acres. LSD 09-3226: Large Scale Development (MURPHY OIL USA, INC., 440): Submitted by CEI ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 3189 WEDINGTON DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.37 acres. The request is for a 1,200 s.f. fueling station with associated structures. Andrew Garner, gave the staff report for both the Lot Split and the Large Scale Development, describing the requests for both. Staff recommends approval of both items with conditions for each a listed in the staff report. There are a number of variances being requested and the main topic of discussion is the applicant's request for variance for a curb cut onto Wedington. The applicant proposes a full access in off of Wedington and a right -out only, staff recommends a right -in, right -out only onto Wedington. Brent Massey, CEI Engineering, stated that a 1,200 square foot convenience store is proposed on the site. The site is currently a car wash. They are reducing impervious surface, adding greenspace and trees. As staff has mentioned previously, most of the issue is around the access on to and off of Wedington, a very highly trafficked area. I wanted to go through a couple of items with you as it relates to the staff report. We do understand the traffic implications out there. Our site is obviously an accessory use to vehicular traffic. In this situation, we are asking for a variance for access into the site. We have tried to comply with the Overlay District's request for controlled access. We have approached IHOP to the east for shared access, and we are in negotiation with them, providing them with additional spaces that we would be taking if this goes, and trying to provide a point of access that is the safest possible that we have to work with. We cannot solve all the traffic issues on Wedington, we understand that. I think staff would agree that our site is not going to solve those issues one way or another. What we'd like to be able to do is talk about some of the issues that are out there. In the police reports we've studied, we pulled reports from the intersections of Colorado along Wedington all the way to Shiloh, for a total of 89 traffic incidents from January 2006 to December 2008, a three-year period. Of those traffic incidents, 9 of those involved left turns from Wedington off of Wedington into private drives or on to City streets. That's 9 out of 89 involving lefts off of Wedington into another place. Our traffic report has recommended eliminating the left turn onto Wedington, which we all agree is a conflicting movement with Tahoe — we've eliminated that. However, when you look at the side arrow view to the left, you can see that our exit, part of the issue is dealing with the conflicting left turn movements. We are trying to spread those out. We don't disagree with staff on the idea of controlled access, but we believe by spreading those movements out, there is not a conflict of our left turn into our site, meaning a west -bound traveler making a left off of Wedington into our site. If you have a westbound traveler making a left into our site, the conflicting movement with Tahoe in the center turn lane that is emphasized in the staff s report, there's a left into Tahoe, and absolutely we're trying to eliminate those left - turn conflicts. But by having access here, we've put more of our traffic in before it gets to a conflict. By the same token, if you eliminate left access into our site, you actually push those Planning Commission April 13, 2009 Page 6 of 16 into that conflict space. Those people now are traveling in the same left turn in stacking area to make a left onto Marvin that these people are trying to come out. So, we believe we're separating that out and making a positive improvement in the traffic. It was noted that there's 2,600 vehicles added per day by our proposed gas station. Just to clarify that, there are 2,600 vehicles per day, of those, 90% are considered pass -by traffic. That also is in the traffic report, which means that about 260 cars are added to the traffic on Wedington. Traffic calculations, a traffic engineer can talk about that further but essentially you are adding 260 vehicles per day to the Wedington traffic. We believe that in this scenario we are trying to make the best of both worlds. We believe that by separating those left -turn movements and having more of that traffic flow in to our drive as opposed to stacking it and waiting to make a left onto Marvin reduces the conflicts. We do have our traffic engineer here as well as representatives from Murphy Oil, we'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. No public comment was received. Commissioner Trumbo asked if there were any comments on the lot split? Commissioner Myres stated she had no comments on the lot split and will be supporting it. Commissioner Zant that it seems like common sense that when a separate owner probably for that car wash would evolve, so it makes sense to do that. Motion: Commissioner Lack made a motion to approve LSP 09-3225 with the conditions of approval listed in the staff report. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Trumbo stated the Planning Commission would now move on to discussing the Large Scale Development. Is the traffic engineer here? John Eschelman, manager of Tulsa Office of Traffic Engineer Consultants, stated he was available for questions. Commissioner Trumbo stated that after reading his report, he believed he concluded that the best option was the second scenario, is that correct? Eschelman stated it was correct, it is the scenario does not allow exiting left turns. Commissioner Trumbo asked if he is in support of the left off of Wedington into the property. Eschelman stated he was. Commissioner Zant stated that his concern was that fuel trucks entering into the site have been asked to turn down Shiloh and come through a multi -family residential area, and then turn north on Marvin again and then into the site. Do you have any comments on that? Planning Commission April 13, 2009 Page 7 of 16 Eschleman stated he did not address that in the report because he didn't think that option would be on the table. We had anticipated that the trucks would enter westbound through this proposed driveway, left turn off of Wedington, circulate through the site, come back on Marvin and make a right turn to go back to the highway. I was trying to avoid sending the truck through a multi- family neighborhood. Commissioner Zant stated that he hoped we would avoid that. We may ask staff later what their feeling on that is. I had assumed there were discussions in our staff report that the fuel trucks could access the site at Marvin and make the turn at Marvin and then into the site. Eschleman stated that that maybe is another option, but it wasn't the one recommended in the staff report. Commissioner Cabe stated that one of the things that came up in the staff report was that any access onto or off of Marvin would require the truck to take up the whole width of the street. I would think anything to avoid putting that truck on Marvin would be something we should head towards. Another thing was spreading out the use of the center lane out between the left end into the proposed drive from Marvin to the east would avoid that head-on situation you would have if you didn't have a left turn there. That's probably also something we should work towards. Commissioner Lack asked about the reduction of left -turn conflicts from Tahoe and Marvin and by use of funneling the vehicle trips that are coming to this establishment in before they would address that conflict. Would it be the City Engineer? Glenn Newman stated that the traffic study presented indicates that if you split the load at those two points then you would reduce the potential conflicting movements entering Tahoe and Marvin. That's one of the scenarios in the traffic report, and that's absolutely correct. The other point of discussion on that is the access management policy which was to provide separation and limit to access, so on that point, a 250 ft. separation is what the requirement is and they are approximately 200 ft. away at this location. So, there are two situations and they are a trade-off. We have the access between Tahoe and Marvin, which they've explained, and their preference is to split that load. The other point is you're putting another turning movement in front of someone at another driveway within the 250 ft., which is approximately 200 ft., so that's the reason on that. Commissioner Lack stated he understands that logic. The one access point might be a little more dangerous or less dangerous than the other. Newman stated that he wasn't sure which was more or less dangerous, the traffic engineer has his recommendation that splitting the load to two points within 200 ft. is the preferred method, and our policy is to minimize those access points, because theoretically you could have two more driveways in that area and split it two more times, so that's part of the access management that we need to weigh in there. I think the other pertinent point of discussion is that brought up by Commissioner Zant is the access of the fuel truck. That was one of the key determinations to move to this direction is if the Planning Commission agrees that that is a viable access point Planning Commission April 13, 2009 Page 8 of 16 through Marvin then the situation we can continue to discuss. If you disagree with that access point, then to facilitate access to their site and egress based on scenarios, the only viable one I believe is accessing from Wedington the circulation patterns that were submitted from the applicant, accessing on Marvin and trying to circulate the site and exiting, I don't believe was possible for them. I just wanted to put the logic out there of what we're looking at in those two points, we have the access off Wedington but also the truck route to make the site accessible. Commissioner Lack stated that there was the issue as well that that secondary route does travel the less -traveled neighborhood roads through a multi -family development. What is your feeling on that? Newman stated that based on discussion with the City Traffic Division, there was no reasoning that we could not utilize that roadway. Just driving through it personally, the access to the development that's there currently is not directly backing on to the street. There are internal parking lots for the apartments in the area, so we do not see an inherent danger in people backing out with the loading of this truck. To my knowledge, there is no provision to prevent the public street being utilized for that item. Commissioner Lack agreed that it is a public street and there would be no rule to prevent that, just whether that is a preferable route, whether the other mitigating factors deem that a preferable route or not. Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director, stated that if we were looking at delivery trucks three or four times a day, that would significantly increase the volume of traffic, it would be something we would ask for public input and make sure the neighbors understand what impact that is, but I don't anticipate this being a high traffic type of use for this one site. To the point earlier about splitting curb cuts, if you split it into four curb cuts it reduces the danger of each one of those substantially. The biggest concern from staff s perspective is if you're headed south on Tahoe from Harp's and trying to exit left or go east towards the Interstate, it produces one more turning movement that you have to look out for, so someone queuing to go into this development is queuing that turn lane, and someone who is turning left down Tahoe who has looked right and left and now is also waiting for someone in the turn lane — there's no eye contact there. The option to align drives and streets is out of the question, unfortunately. If we could eliminate all the left turn movements here, that would fix that the problem but that's not possible here. So, we're trying to recommend the safest alternative we feel we can recommend. Eschleman stated he would like to clarify the reason why he made the recommendation he did. Figure 12 in the report illustrates the conflict between Marvin and Tahoe. We don't want to give the impression that we're against access control or access management, I understand the principles of it very well and I agree with it. If Tahoe didn't exist, or if it lined up with Marvin, then we wouldn't be having this discussion because I would definitely agree the best place for left turns to occur would be at Marvin, but that isn't what we have. We have an awkward offset here. Access management in my opinion should be looking at both sides of the street, not just our side of the street and the spacing on our side, but it means to look at what's across from us. And what we've got here is a situation where there are left turns going onto Tahoe Place, and we know that those are going to increase because that new shopping center is far from being filled Planning Commission April 13, 2009 Page 9 of 16 yet, and there are a few existing left turns on Marvin. In the PM peak hour there are projected to be 54 left turns into the site, if we move all of those to Marvin with the increase that Tahoe will experience as the shopping center fills up, we have a very short two-way left turn lane, and when this is full and someone wants to use that space, they stop in the lane that they're in, and people get rear ended since people on a five -lane street don't expect people in front of them to stop. So, that's the reason. I know there can be a difference of opinion here about whether we can split the left turns. Strictly speaking, access management would say no, concentrate the left turns there and then have no driveways or right-in/right-out between. But concentrating the left turns here, in our opinion, creates a worse hazard than allowing Murphy's left turns to occur before they reach Marvin. Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated that if Marvin is authorized for all kinds of traffic, including the truck traffic as Planning staff has suggested, then certainly they could turn left there and I don't think that we could mandate that the trucks take the circuitous route that has been suggested by Planning through the residential area and back up to Marvin. Of course, there are different truck drivers, they might not know exactly where to go despite requests from the gas station owner to try and take this circuitous route. So, I don't think we have any right as a City to tell the trucks not to go on Marvin except in one direction, and so even though there might be another possibly safer route through the residential agree and back up, I don't think that could be required of the truck drivers, and so there could be, if there was no left turn directly into the site, they could end up turning at Marvin which would then be at conflict with the Tahoe turners. Commissioner Kennedy asked if the applicant could refresh us on the rules about what the truck can or cannot do, pulling the hose underneath the truck, backing up, and other things mentioned during the Subdivision Committee meeting. Massey stated that part of the constraints of the site is that the fuel truck, by EPA regulation, is not to pull the hose underneath the truck, so it does create an issue where we need to offload our fuel on the passenger side of the vehicle. So, everything we do, the diagram you saw in your package, has the transport truck delivering the fuel in a clockwise direction in order to get in the site, to be situated on the left-hand side of the tank area, and off load to the right, can't drag the hose under, they are prohibited from backing up — full fuel tankers are prohibited from backing up, obviously an unsafe situation. So that's part of the interior constraints that we have of trying to keep the tanker, regardless of the traffic conflicts internal to our site, just to get our tanker in, offload the fuel it needs to offload to keep our business running. Commissioner Zant stated that he has seen them in sites anywhere from 6AM to midnight, so it's a long day access that they have, there are no constraints on doing that. Massey stated that we do try to work with our distribution folks, some of those are independent, and Murphy Oil does not necessarily employ the drivers or the fuel distribution. In some of those instances, we ask for specific times of day, we try to avoid peak hours for the City's and the driver's benefit, but also for the end user's benefit as well. So we're trying to get our trucks in at non peak hours also. Commissioner Myres stated she was concerned about the traffic on Wedington in general. The Planning Commission April 13, 2009 Page 10 of 16 center lane is sometimes like bumper cars. It's a wonder there aren't more head-on collisions. I don't object to a right-in/right-out exit on Wedington, but what I'm concerned about is a tanker truck that close to three lights at that intersection with possible stacking behind it and having to cross two lanes of traffic only. I agree with the City Attorney that we can't tell the truck how to enter the site other than preventing it from entering directly off of Wedington. I have a real problem with left hand turns that close together, granted it's almost 200 feet, but I'm not in favor at all of having a left -in directly off of Wedington for anybody, so I can't support anything other than a right -in and a right -out at that driveway location. I'm completely in favor of staff's recommendations for the other conditions of approval 2, 3, 4, and 5. But if we propose something other than what staff's recommended I won't be able to support this. Commissioner Honchell asked if staff has witnessed a tanker truck trying to turn off of I-540, and merging into the center lane and trying to turn left onto Shiloh? Because during peak hours, along with what you were saying along with delivery times, if you can't really anticipate the times those trucks are coming through, those lanes of traffic, say if they hit at 4:30, 5:00, you're doing really good to take a southbound exit off of 540 and try to get over into the turning lane to exit Shiloh in a passenger car, let alone a tanker truck. It would be to the City's benefit to witness that type of traffic coming through the intersection, because I don't see the reality of that kind of traffic coming off that ramp at any kind of peak time. The only other question I had, was bringing that traffic through onto Shiloh, has the City entered into any kind of talks with the State as far as getting Shiloh to where it's a two-way road again, at least possibly from the off - ramp at Exit 62 back up to 64 to get some utility back out of that road? That road is very rarely traveled and I think if we could get two-way traffic, that would really alleviate problems we'd see with developments like this. We've got buses at that intersection now and tanker trucks coming down the road and other developments that are even further west onto Wedington that we really need to anticipate. Pate stated that we have entered into discussions over the last several years at least preliminarily about looking at two-way traffic along that and never really got a favorable response. I think a lot of it is cost -prohibitive and the intersection alignment would have to change. The latest study that looked at long-term improvements at the interchange still 15-20 years out did not propose to look at two-way traffic returning to this area as it used to be. Commissioner Honchell stated that you're looking at these numbers of how many collisions you've had and the potential that you could route out to Shiloh and try to bring the traffic back around to the light on the back side as opposed to bringing everything out on Wedington would be the only thing I'd be curious about. Pate stated that the only thing he's seen recently is that the new bus station does now come off of Shiloh to pull around behind their building. Williams stated that he was on the City Council when it was changed from two-way to one-way, and the City Council opposed it but the Highway Department did it anyway. So it's not like it's been something we've pushed for, even though they did it because the intersection of the off - ramps and Shiloh was even worse then, and that's why they did it. Planning Commission April 13, 2009 Page 11 of 16 Commissioner Winston asked if there are any other plans to signalize any of the intersections along Wedington around Marvin, Tahoe or Betty Jo? Pate stated that they're all too close to meet today's standards for signalization. The next one will be Salem, about 900 feet to the west. Commissioner Winston stated that he thinks there are three good reasons to allow the left -in off of Wedington, and those are splitting the left turn and the stacking in between makes a lot of sense to me. Keeping the trucks out of the residential area is the other not -so -major one. Commissioner Honchell's point about taking a tanker truck coming down off 540, getting across the lanes to Shiloh and coming in that back side, I can just see that shutting down the whole area for some time. Commissioner Trumbo stated that he sees that point and will agree with Commissioner Honchell, but he believes that those lights open up all green coming off of 540 headed east on Wedington, so there is a brief window, but I don't know if 6-8 cars, or a tanker truck can get through. But there are three fueling stations there on Wedington and we do have tanker trucks coming off of 540 onto Wedington. Does anyone know if any of these accidents involve a tanker truck? Massey stated that there were 89 accidents on Wedington between Colorado and Shiloh, and only one of those involved an 18 -wheeler, and it was not a tanker. So, only one involved a full- size vehicle. Commissioner Trumbo stated that he would agree with Commissioner Winston that it makes more sense in this location to split the left turn into the site in my opinion, living out there as I do and seeing what's going on. I think the quicker cars can get in and get off Wedington the better. And I see more issues if we force them to go all the way to Marvin to take a left and come in, so I would be in favor of the traffic engineer's report and going in that direction. I'm also in favor of all of staffs other recommendations other than that one. Commissioner Lack stated that he would also echo that sentiment. We take access management seriously and we've learned over the years some of the benefits of it. It's definitely a positive direction for the City and I'm glad we're adhering to that and upholding the ordinance seriously as well. But I do see the mitigating factors in this project that would warrant the modification from the ordinance. The splitting of the left hands in this case is a great a benefit. I am leery of the idea of routing fuel tankers through residential areas, so that would definitely weigh in to the idea as well. But the stacking area and the separation of the left in this particular case, I find myself in agreement with the applicant's traffic engineer who is certainly well versed and well educated to make those recommendations. I would support that determination as well as the other conditions of approval. Motion: Commissioner Lack made a motion to approve LSD 09-3226 with the stated conditions of approval, in addition to condition #1 Access Management Policies to allow the left -turn in but Planning Commission April 13, 2009 Page 12 of 16 not allow the left -turn out, condition #2 to allow the 30 -foot parking lot drives, condition #3 to allow the parking spaces along the eastern property line, condition #4 to allow the Commercial Design Standards, #5 the determination for street improvements and the other stated conditions of approval. Commissioner Zant seconded the motion. Commissioner Kennedy asked to clarify that we are removing condition of approval 1B. Commissioner Trumbo stated that from what Mr. Williams has said, we can't enforce the "shall" here, so should we put a "should?" Williams stated that condition 1B should just be removed, since we can't really control that. Commissioner Trumbo asked if it would be okay to leave "should?" The reason I would want it in there is that's what we want these folks telling their drivers to do, although we can't enforce it. Williams stated that you could say you recommend to them, and that's our requirement. Motion: Commissioner Lack amended his motion to strike subsection B. Commissioner Zant amended his second. Commissioner Winston asked how the restriction on left turns out onto Wedington would be enforced. Signage? Spikes in the road? Massey stated that from the site plan, you'll notice we have a traffic control aisle that separates the outbound movement. We've got painting on the pavement as well as a right -only sign indicated on the plan. The dimension of the in -bound, I believe, is 18 feet. It would be obvious if you were going against the signage and striping there. It would be a blatant violation. We all know there are people who are going to do it whether there's a raised concrete island in the middle of it or not. We've seen people do it and we are expecting that it could happen. But we are signing it and providing a raised concrete traffic island per AHTD standards. Commissioner Winston asked what kind of signage we can require. Massey stated that currently we have a "right only," and we could add that as a "no left." Or we could add a "do not enter" sign. Commissioner Trumbo asked if the motioner would like to add that condition to the motion. Commissioner Lack stated he would like to add a subsection replacing (B) with a "do not enter"/"no left turn" sign at the southern portion of the entrance. Commissioner Zant seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-1-0, with Commissioner Planning Commission April 13, 2009 Page 13 of 16 Myres voting no. Planning Commission April 13, 2009 Page 14 of 16 CUP 09-3244: (BETTY WARD / HAMESTRING RD., 395): Submitted by WILLIAM JENKINS for property located at 1048 HAMESTRING ROAD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 25.75 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, described the request, recommending approval with conditions as listed in the staff report. William Jenkins, applicant, stated he represented the Wards. No public comment was received. Commissioner Myres asked if the applicant has had a chance to look at the conditions of approval and if he is in agreement with them. Jenkins stated that he has. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to approve the request with the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission April 13, 2009 Page 15 of 16 ADM 09-3249: (UDC AMENDMENT: SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING REGULATIONS): The request is to amend Chapter 164, Supplementary Zoning Regulations of the Unified Development Code to include setback and height regulations for accessory structures. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing the request to permit reduced setbacks for accessory structures, recommending forwarding to City Council with a recommendation of approval. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Zant state that the Board of Adjustment would be happy to see this proposal and made a motion to forward the request to City Council with a recommendation of approval. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Commissioner Cabe stated that it looks like staff and the Board of Adjustment have really done their homework and he appreciates that they are trying to tighten things up and make things run a little smoother, and he fully supports the amendment. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission April 13, 2009 Page 16 of 16 ADM 09-3235: (UDC AMENDMENT:ANIMAL BOARDING): The request is to amend Chapters 151, 161, and 162 of the Unified Development Code in order to classify and define animal daycare, animal boarding, and kennels, and to permit these uses in certain situations in commercial, industrial, and residential -agricultural zoning districts. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report, discussing the proposed ordinance changes regarding animal daycare, animal boarding, and kennels. Staff recommends forwarding this item to City Council with a recommendation of approval. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Cabe discussed that he appreciated staff maintaining and clarifying our codes, and made a motion to forward the request to City Council with a recommendation of approval. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. All business being concluded, the meeting was adjourned at 6:38 PM.