Planning Commission

October 28, 2013 The Russellville Planning Commission will hold its Regular Meeting on Monday, October 28, 2013, at 5:30 p.m., in the City Hall Council Chambers. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Welcome Visitors 1. A request to review and approve the minutes of the September 23, 2013 Regular Meeting. 2. A Public Hearing requesting to review and a recommendation of approval to the City Council to rezone property presently R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to C-2 (Highway Commercial), for property located on I-40/Mile Marker 83-84, submitted by L & K Investments. (ZO.13.10.174) 3. A Public Hearing requesting to review and a recommendation of approval to the City Council for a Special Use Permit to allow billboards), for property located on I-40/Mile Marker 83-84, submitted by L & K Investments. (SP.13.10.116) 4. A Public Hearing requesting to review and a recommendation of approval to the City Council to rezone property presently R-2 (Medium Density Residential) to M-1 (Light Industrial District) to construct a sawmill and R-2 (Medium Density Residential) to C-2 (Highway Commercial) for commercial use, South Arkansas Avenue between the D&R Railroad, ConAgra Poultry Plant (Rendering Plant) Taylor’s Waste Management, and Cunningham’s property, submitted by Dave Garza of Barrett & Associates on behalf of Luke Duffield. (ZO.13.10.175) 5. A request for approval for a Large-scaled Development for a Hardwood Sawmill for property located on the Duffield Gravel Company property on South Arkansas Avenue between the D&R Railroad, ConAgra Poultry Plant (Rendering Plant) Taylor’s Waste Management, and Cunningham’s property, submitted by Dave Garza of Barrett & Associate on behalf of Tall Timber AR Sawmill/Duffield Gravel Company. (DV.13.10.133) 6. A request by the City Council that the RV Ordinance be sent back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. (MS.13.05.75) 7. Late Agenda Item: A request to review and approve Overland Park to the City of Russellville Preliminary Plat, located between Brookside Addition to the north, Brookview Estates to the east, Camelot along the west, and West 12th Street along the south of the property, submitted by Dave Garza of Barrett & Associates on behalf of Overland Park Developer, LLC. (SD.13.08.266) 1  Russellville Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2013 @ 5:30 p.m. The Russellville Planning Commission met in its regular meeting on Monday, October 28, 2013, at 5:30 p.m. in the Russellville City Hall Council Chambers. Members Present Chairman Dennis Boyd Vice-Chair Nick Patel Secretary Aldona Standridge Jimmy Davenport Richard Perkins Eric Westcott Jimmy Sims Herschell Hargus Mike Wilkins Members Absent None Also present: Council Liaison Richard Harris, City Planner David Harris, City Attorney Trey Smith, Planning Assistant Lequitta A. Jones, Building Official Brian Holstein, Fire Marshall Richard Setian, Jim Lynch/City Corp, Morgan Barrett of Barrett & Associates, Mike & Barbara Cole, Keith Cogswell, Bob Weibler, David Ivy, Margie Enderlin, Jim Lee, Tony Jetton, Ken & Kellie Coker, Whitney Snipes, and Norma Kellner. Chairman Boyd welcomed new member Mike Wilkins to the Planning Commission. The First Order of Business was a request to review and approve the minutes of the September 23, 2013 Regular Meeting. Secretary Standridge made the motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Davenport and passed unanimously. The Second Order of Business was a Public Hearing of a request to review and recommend approval to the City Council to rezone property north of and adjacent to I-40 between mile markers 83 and 84 from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to C-2 (Highway Commercial). Submitted by L & K Investments. (ZO.13.10.174) City Planner Harris stated the subject property is a triangular 3-acre parcel on the north side of I-40. The request is to rezone from R-1 to C-2 with the intent to request a Special Use Permit to erect billboards. Applicants must comply with any Arkansas Highway Transportation Department requirements. The city’s comprehensive plan shows the property as single-family / 4–8 units per acre. Residential uses are already in place on the south side of I-40, but the area appears to be moving toward commercial perhaps because of proximity to the Weir Road/I-40 interchange. Mr. Harris said this property was probably annexed as R-1. Commissioner Wilkins asked if the existing, dilapidated sign on the property would be taken down. Mr. Cogswell said yes. Since this agenda item and the following item were closely connected, both were discussed collectively. Commissioner Perkins made the motion to approve Agenda Items #2 and #3. Commissioner Patel seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. The Third Order of Business was a Public Hearing of a request to review and recommend approval to the City Council for a Special Use Permit to allow billboards on property located on I-40 between mile markers 83 and 84, submitted by L & K Investments. (SP.13.10.116) As documented in the previous agenda item, Commissioner Perkins made the motion to approve Agenda Item #2 and #3 jointly. Commissioner Patel seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. The Fourth Order of Business was a Public Hearing of a request to review and recommend approval to the City Council to rezone property located east of AR7 and south of the D&R Railroad from R-2 (Medium Density Residential) to M-1 (Light Industrial District) and C-2 (Highway Commercial). Submitted by Dave Garza of Barrett & Associates on behalf of Luke Duffield. (ZO.13.10.175) City Planner Harris noted that this was a straightforward request. Mr. Harris said the zoning seems to make perfect sense considering the surrounding zoning and uses. Industrial zoning and uses are presently adjacent to the eastern portion of the subject property, while commercial zoning is predominant on the properties closer to AR7. The D & R Railroad runs beside the property. Mr. Morgan Barrett said the property has held its current zoning since annexation and has not developed. In addition to the proposed sawmill, there are other prospects that are looking at property in the area. After the zoning and the large-scale development, the developer will be required to submit a subdivision plat. There will be an east-west road along the south side of the property that will connect AR7 to Frankfort. Commissioner Wilkins made the motion to approve the request. Commissioner Hargus seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. The Fifth Order of Business was a request for Large Scale Development approval for a Hardwood Sawmill proposed for Duffield Gravel Company property east of AR7 between D&R Railroad, ConAgra Poultry Plant, Taylor’s Waste Management, and Cunningham property. Submitted by Dave Garza of Barrett & Associate on behalf of Tall Timber AR Sawmill/Duffield Gravel Company. (DV.13.10.133) City Planner Harris noted that this, too, was a straightforward request. For Large Scale Development review, the primary questions are whether commissioners are favorable to 20 acres at this location being used for the proposed use, and if they feel the generalized site plan is adequate. Other details and technical issues can be worked out later, primarily by the staff. Mr. Harris said it is hard to imagine a better location for the proposed use. Mr. Morgan Barrett said the investor's desire is to build a hardwood sawmill. This is unlike Bibler Lumber Company. They will not be in competition with existing industry, but will bring new industry to town. Currently, they expect to create about 55 jobs. There are some economic funds that Mr. Jeff Pipkin is working on. Mr. Barrett said he didn’t know if this project hinges on availability of those funds or not. This is a multi-step process, and they need the Large Scale Development approval to apply for funds. Upon approval of the funding, we will be submitting the subdivision plat which will have the detail road design, drainage, etc. 2 City Engineer Oakes said the Public Works staff had looked at it and made a couple of comments and a couple of requests, which I understand are part of the package today. There have been no contested issues so I don’t know if we need to go into any detail or not. We are interested in seeing that we adhere to an adequate street standard, and that requires soil analysis, pavement design, and street lights along the street. Those are the only things that we mentioned that weren’t in the original proposal. Commissioner Perkins made the motion to approve the request as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Patel and passed unanimously. The Sixth Order of Business was a request by the City Council that the RV Ordinance be sent back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. (MS.13.05.75) Chairman Boyd said the commission considered the RV Ordinance meeting before last. The City Council reviewed the draft and posed three issues for the commission to reconsider. Mr. Harris has provided us with the proposed revisions to the ordinance. City Planner Harris said the three issues raised by the council, and his amendments to the original draft in response to the council’s concerns are as follows: 1) The 10-acre maximum site area restriction for RV Parks was removed, but the 2-acre minimum site area requirement was retained, 2) The prohibition against individual meters on the RV campsites was removed, and 3) The maximum length of stay - which was originally 60 days - could be replaced with one of the following alternatives: * Increase the maximum RV Park stay from 60 days to 180 days, or ** Remove the maximum length of stay regulation, and replace with a limit on long-term customers (visiting contractors, etc) to no more than 25% of rentable spaces within an RV Park. Commissioner Perkins suggested that if a camper wanted to stay longer than 180 days they would need to ask for approval. Mr. Harris said the problem with that approach was developing appropriate criteria to review such requests. Commissioner Hargus asked why we were restricting the length of stay. Mr. Harris said the notion behind the restriction is that without a time limit, you basically have a mobile home park with very small lots. Mobile home parks are residential uses, while RV Parks are commercial recreational uses. One is intended for residential use, while the other is intended for short-term stays related to vacations, travel and such. Mr. Harris continued by pointing out that mobile home parks and RV parks are not the same, and in fact are not very similar from a land-use or zoning standpoint. The limitation on the length of stay is so we don’t have people move into RV parks and stay for years. We are talking about 30 units per acre for an RV park. For conventional multi-family uses the highest density we allow is 24 units per acre. We inspect everything under the sun when someone builds a multi-family building, but with an RV park you are essentially saying we should allow an even higher density even though basically anything that rolls in off the highway might be in the RV Parks. The main thing is we do not want an RV park to essentially become a mobile home park, but with 1,200sf lots instead of the 4,000sf lots we require for mobile home parks. This is the reason for the 25% maximum on long term campers; so it could be self policing by the operators. Mr. Harris said we really should have some sort of standard. 3 Commissioner Perkins said he was not in favor of the 25% limitation. If someone wants to stay more than 180 days, they should ask for permission. Mr. Wilkins said there needs to be a method for when they come in and apply for a permit to do so. City Planner Harris said you are still basically saying that the City should allow a campground - which is intended to be recreational, for vacation type uses temporary in nature - to allow campers to live there indefinitely. Commissioner Perkins made the motion for a 180 day limit, and if someone wants to stay longer they come in and ask for a permit and provide a reason. Commissioner Wilkins said 25% of the units in the RV park could be long term. We shouldn’t allow RV parks to become de facto trailer parks. If we pass something that requires a permit after 180 days, then there has to be some thought process behind how that extension decision will be made, otherwise you are going to put a city employee in a difficult position where arbitrary judgments may result. Commissioner Standridge asked who would police these people to find out if they have been there 180 days vs. 179 or 181 days. Mr. Harris said codes like this one are generally enforced primarily on a complaint basis. The City has one code official. There is no way under the sun he is ever going to have time to drive through the RV Parks to look for length-of-stay violators. It will only be enforced on complaints. Alderman Harris said in discussions he had with council members, most indicated agreement with the need for a limited stay, but they would like provisions for longer stays when there were extenuating circumstances. Alderman Harris said he did not think it would be difficult to come up with some criteria that could be used to make that determination. Commissioner Perkins said he was holding to his motion to approve the RV Park ordinance with a maximum stay of 180 days, with extensions possible by permit. Commissioner Patel seconded. Mr. David Ivy, owner of an RV Park on Bradley Cove Road just outside the city limits, addressed some of the comments regarding length of stay. He said he had a combination of people stay in his park daily, weekly, or monthly. He said if it wasn’t for long term renters he might not be able to pay his bills. The people that stay long term are the ones that get you through the low times when you might not make it otherwise. In the RV park business you have peak times and lows. Mr. Ivy said he understands the objectives. Mr. Ivy said he has one renter that has been there 1 ½ years, one that just came in and said he was going to be here about 9 month with ConAgra, and other contractors that said they are bringing rigs in and will be here 6 – 8 months. They don’t always know how long they will be in Russellville. They may get here with ANO thinking they are going to work a six-week outage and wind up staying nine months. Also a long-term person will police the park. Mr. Ivy said he understands wanting to put a time limit, but he is opposed to it. Mr. Ivy referred to Section H 3.23.5 Park Development Standards H. Awning/Skirting/etc – There shall be no removal of wheels or hitches (except as necessary for emergency repair), installation of skirting, or erection of any awnings, porches, carports, etc; unless they are clearly temporary in nature. He said this is part of his park standards. When campers check-in they receive a sheet and it is similar to that, but if there were an issue that is the meat of what you need. Commissioner Westcott asked Mr. Ivy what percentage of his renters were long-term renters. Mr. Ivy said it varies according to the season. He said that is the point he was trying to make. The RV park business it is hard to predict, but right now the long-term to short-term breakdown might be about 60/40, mostly because we have a two-year ConAgra project going on. I still have people staying with me from the incident at ANO. Commissioner Westcott asked if 180 days does not fit your situation, and the 25% of rentable spaces for long-term stays may not fit your situation, but a limit based on percentage might be more workable for your situation. Mr. Ivy said the only way I know how to answer your question is this - if I had 20 spaces and I decided to make 5 of those long term spaces and my overnight business is real good so I’m renting out those other 15 spaces and suddenly the overnight business dies, but I have 5 or 6 4 more people come in and say I would like to stay for 3 months. Well, I will have only 5 long term spaces, so it costs me money and it restricts my business. And it restricts the other 5 people that I cannot rent to. Commissioner Wilkins said it sounded like Mr. Ivy was saying he wanted an unlimited length of stay, and that it would create havoc if the City establishes standards for an RV Park versus a Mobile Home Park. Mr. Ivy said no. Mr. Perkins said I don’t have a problem with you issuing the permit and calling the City and telling them you have issued it and if they want to check it they can, but you have complied. Commissioner Perkins again made the motion to recommend approval of the ordinance with a maximum stay limitation of 180 days with park operators handling the permits for extensions with the City having the right to check the permits if they so desire. Commissioner Patel seconded the motion and it passed on a 5-3 vote (Patel, Sims, Hargus, Davenport, Perkins voting for the motion; Westcott, Wilkins, and Standridge voting against the motion). Chairman Boyd reminded those present that commission action was just a recommendation that would be passed on for the City Council’s consideration. The Seventh Order of Business (Late Agenda Item) was a request to review and approve the preliminary plat for Overland Park addition to the City of Russellville, for an 82-lot residential subdivision located between Brookside Addition to the north, Brookview Estates to the east, Camelot along the west, and West 12th Street along the south. Submitted by Dave Garza of Barrett & Associates on behalf of Overland Park Developer, LLC. (SD.13.08.266) Planner Harris said this item was considered and acted on in September by the commission with five members present. A motion to approve the preliminary plat subject to making the street connection to Camelot and replacing surface drainage with an underground system failed on a 2-2 vote. The application was appealed to the City Council. The council referred this item back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration with more members present. City Planner Harris said consideration should be given to opening the connection with Camelot Drive at the NW corner of Overland Park. While the proposed two ingress/egress routes could handle the expected additional traffic volume created by 82 residences, a well-connected street system provides alternative route choices and reduces the potential for certain streets to handle inordinately high traffic volumes simply because there are no other routing options available. Higher connectivity reduces travel times and distances, and generally results in more efficient municipal service delivery and enhanced emergency access. However, this tract is virtually the last large underdeveloped acreage north of 12th Street/Sequoyah and east of Inglewood. While the proposed layout does not show an east-west connection, it will offer a new north-south connection between South Durant and 12th Street. Long- standing, widely-accepted planning principles hold that connections such as the one in question are beneficial, but considering that most all the surrounding residential area and its supporting street system are already developed, whether or not this connection is made will not radically alter traffic circulation or conditions in the area. All the other aspects of the plat appear to be in compliance with the City of Russellville’s Land Subdivision & Development Code (LSDC) other than the City Engineer’s Comments: 1) connect the stub at Camelot Drive to Overland Circle, 2) replace the ditch along the north property line with an urban underground system. Mr. Morgan Barrett stated that the applicants were asking for approval of the plat as submitted, just as at the previous two meetings. 5 City Engineer Oakes said the 2020 Comprehensive Development Plan says “continue to extend the grid-pattern street network to interconnect streets throughout the City”. The Russellville Master Street Plan says “new developments will adhere to a grid-street pattern to encourage the interconnection of streets throughout the city.” The LSDC says “to propose among other things the proposed street layout should be property integrated with the street system in the area adjoining the subdivision.” Mr. Oakes said there is a stub street from Camelot neighborhood that can easily be connected to this neighborhood. Mr. Oakes pointed out that the City had a contract with the developer of Camelot 30 years ago to connect that stub and we need to fulfill the terms of that contract now. Commissioner Perkins said with the proposed layout, residents on Durant will get all the traffic and they will not be happy. Opening the Camelot connection would split the traffic and ease the problem a little bit. Mr. Perkins said I would not want to live on South Durant and have 40 or 50 more cars in front of my house, whereas on Camelot you may only have 20. Mr. Perkins said it is reasonable to split the traffic and I don’t see an option but to connect to Camelot. Mr. Oakes said he agrees with Mr. Perkins. Mr. Oakes said we need to connect our streets for all the people in Russellville, not just a few. Mr. Oakes said “share the traffic - get it disbursed.” Commissioner Wilkins asked Mr. Oakes if a traffic-study was done before the detention pond, which severed possible connections at two stub-outs, was built. Did that project come before the Planning Commission before those roads were cut off? Mr. Oakes said the detention facility had not come before the commission. Mr. Wilkins asked why the City should hold a developer to a different set of standards than what the City operates under. Mr. Oakes said the detention pond was an administrative decision, and that the facility would be beneficial to citizens. The detention basin will provide flood relief and damage relief to a number of our citizens. It is before us as something good for the citizens and neighborhoods and the only person that does not want to do it is the developer. We made a decision that we have an opportunity to build a detention basin that will cut the flows of 25-year events in half. That will result in two downstream bridges that are currently half-size being rendered adequate. We made the decision that the detention facility would be beneficial, even though it will reduce connectivity. Commissioner Wilkins asked Mr. Oakes to confirm that the administrative decision was not brought before the Planning Commission. Mr. Oakes said that is right. Mr. Wilkins said so you are saying the City can arbitrarily sever a street it they determine that it’s good, but you want to hold a private developer to the street plan you yourself chose based on your interpretation of what is good. Mr. Oakes said based on the administration’s interpretation and the City Council’s interpretation of what is good - yes sir. Mr. Oakes said sometimes we have to make difficult choices. There have been drainage issues in regard to a tail ditch that came off Camelot. At some point in the past it was diverted to run north and back to the east along existing property lines. The idea in this development is to leave that drainage back there on the backyards of this neighborhood. We contend it would be a better development if that drainage was picked up in that street connection. If we can get water and put it underground, it will be out of sight and out mind for the people that live there. It is possible to pick up the drainage from the Brookside development. We have an interest in trying to maintain natural drainage ways when it makes sense to do. On urban lots of this size, surface drainage through the backyards has a pretty good chance of someday becoming a maintenance headache for the City of Russellville. 6 Mr. Wilkins said the detention facility appears to be an open flow swale. In a heavy rain event the detention pond, once it is full, will dump its contents onto Waco. Mr. Oakes said that is right, but that is where the water is going now, and the basin will cut flows in half. If you get a rain that is bigger than the 25-year storm you have to have somewhere for water to go and water goes downhill. Mr. Wilkins said he wasn’t sure underground culverts are sufficient for the drainage. Mr. Wilkins asked what size culverts were being installed. Mr. Oakes said I am not designing it and we haven’t designed it. Mr. Oakes said that is the process; if you approve the development we will go through a design process. We will receive plans from the developer, his engineer and we will review them. Chairman Boyd asked City Planner Harris if the zoning code requires underground urban drainage in areas other than in rights-of-way. Mr. Harris said the zoning code did not include such a requirement. Mr. Perkins said the commission approves the plat and the City Engineer approves the drainage plan. City Planner Harris said drainage and those kinds of technical issues are generally shifted to staff responsibility. I think in the past you’ve passed things with a sort of catch-all conditional phase about technical questions being subject to staff approval. Commissioner Perkins asked if the commission had the authority to mandate how drainage would be handled, or is that mandated for the City Engineer to report to the City Council. Dumping the plat approval back to the Planning Commission should not have happened. City Planner Harris said the plat was sent back because only 5 Commissioners were present the night it was originally reviewed. Mr. Perkins recommended that the City Council worry about it and then do the normal procedure. He also recommended that the City mandate that the Camelot extension be installed. He said applicants have already agreed to put curb and gutter along 12th Street and the City will put in the sidewalk and hopefully extend it over to the roundabout. Commissioner Perkins moved for approval of the preliminary plat subject to Camelot being extended and leaving the drainage up to the City Engineer and City Council. Commissioner Westcott seconded the motion. Chairman Boyd opened the floor for public comment. Margie Enderlin lives on South Durant and stated her concerns about additional traffic if the Camelot connection is not made. She said we need to consider all the families that live on Durant over the concerns of the one developer. She said she was in favor of connecting with Camelot. Mike Cole lives on South Durant and is concerned about additional traffic as well as the condition of Durant. He stated that it is in pretty poor shape and will deteriorate quickly. Mr. Cole asked that the traffic be diverted. The existing drainage in the neighborhood in proximity is carried by the streets. It would make sense to me that you continue that with the drainage in this new subdivision, I don’t understand why you would do something different. He said he wanted the connection to Camelot. Mr. Cole wanted to know who the Overland Park developers are. Mr. Tony Jetton said he was the sole owner. 7 Norma Kellner lives in Camelot and she said she understands why they want to open this stub to Camelot and the stub to Durant. She said her concern is that this big subdivision in this big field has been thrown out here with very little thought process going into how it’s affecting all the neighborhoods and how the drainage is being affected. We are getting tremendous amounts of drainage from Skyline that comes down Camelot, Lancelot, and it goes into that field where all the houses will be built. The drainage has to go somewhere; the water is not going to evaporate. The water is either going to back-up into our lots or it’s going to back-up into the new lots. Camelot or Durant do not need the additional traffic. Morgan Barrett said drainage will be better for adjacent properties. Mr. Barrett asked that the commission not recognize the motion and find it to be improper. He stated that he did not know where regulatory authority lay for modification of the submittal and the requirement to make the connection to Camelot. There was discussion about the Comprehensive Plan and Master Street Plan. The Master Street Plan delineates which streets are required to be built. Chairman Boyd referred Mr. Barrett’s motion question to City Attorney Trey Smith. Mr. Smith said he believed the motion could be made as modified by Mr. Perkins. Ultimately, it’s whatever is going to be approved. Chairman Boyd asked Mr. Smith if the motion indeed was in order. Mr. Smith said he believed it to be. Mr. Barrett said I think the question is if it is a proper motion. Anyone can make a motion, but the question is whether the motion, as made, is proper and whether it is within this body’s regulatory authority to do so. I don’t believe it is. If you can cite a specific regulation that gives this body that authority, I would like it included in the motion. Commissioner Perkins noted that City Attorney Smith said it was a proper motion. Chairman Boyd asked Mr. Smith if this was a proper motion. Mr. Barrett asked what parliamentary procedures the commission has adopted. Chairman Boyd said we use Robert’s Rules of Order. Mr. Smith said I believe in the absence of authority “Roberts” is recognized by the Common Law as applicable in this case. With that being said, I believe what Mr. Perkins has done is made a main motion which is to adopt with a condition, which I believe is permissible under the general parliamentary laws that the State recognizes in the absence of a specific adopted procedure. Morgan Barrett said he did not necessarily agree with Mr. Smith's opinion, and asked for an amendment to Mr. Perkins' motion to approve the plat as submitted. Chairman Boyd asked Commissioner Perkins to restate his motion. Mr. Perkins said his motion was to give preliminary approval to the plat subject to extending the Camelot stub, with drainage issues left to be settled by the council. That motion was seconded by Commissioner Westcott. Commissioner Wilkins moved to amend Mr. Perkins' motion by removing the Camelot connection condition and approving the plat as submitted. That motion was seconded by Commissioner Standridge. City Attorney Smith said Commissioner Wilkins' motion to amend the original motion should be voted on first. Once the vote is taken on Mr. Wilkins' amendment motion, the outcome will determine the form of the second vote. If the amendment fails, then the second vote is to 8 approve or disapprove Mr. Perkins' original motion. If the amendment passes, then the second vote is on the amended motion with the Camelot connection condition removed. Chairman Boyd asked for a roll call vote on the amended motion, which was to approve the plat as submitted (with no connection to Camelot). The amended motion failed with four votes in favor, and five votes against: Patel - no Sims - yes Hargus - no Westcott - no Wilkins - yes Davenport - yes Perkins - no Standridge - yes Boyd - no Chairman Boyd then asked for a roll call vote on the original motion, which was to approve the Preliminary Plat with the provision of the connection to Camelot as an added condition. The chairman asked for a roll call vote on the original motion. The original motion passed unanimously: Patel - yes Sims - yes Hargus - yes Westcott - yes Wilkins - yes Davenport - yes Perkins - yes Standridge - yes Chairman Boyd pointed out that the commission’s decision could be appealed to the City Council. Meeting Adjourned. ________________________________________ Chairman Dennis Boyd 9