Planning Commission

Russellville Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2015 @ 6:00 p.m. The Russellville Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, September 28, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Russellville City Hall Council Chambers. Members Present Chairman Dennis Boyd Jimmy Sims Vice-Chair Doug Skelton Mike Wilkins Secretary Eric Westcott Peggy Stratton Todd Meimerstorf Wendell Miller Council Liaison Bill Eaton Members Absent John Whiteside Also present: Mayor Randy Horton, City Planner David Harris, City Attorney Trey Smith, City Engineer Kurt Jones, City Inspector Brian Holstein, Fire Marshal Richard Setian, Planning Assistant Lequitta Jones, John Newton, Max Lawton, Ruby Kincaid, Patty Gill, Tim Murdoch, Jeff Walchshauser, Jeff Rudder, Bill & Judy Galloway, Steve & Marla Gardner, David Garza/Barrett & Associates, Norman Chronister, Logan Hughes, Attorney John Peel, Sean Ingram/The Courier, Jim Lynch/City Corp and Jeremy D. Keaster. Welcome The First Order of Business was a request to review and approve the July 27, 2015 minutes. Commissioner Skelton made the motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Meimerstorf and passed unanimously. The Second Order of Business was a request to review and approve the large-scale development for First Baptist Church to construct a worship center located at Second & South Glenwood. Submitted by John McMorran of Lewis Architects Engineers on behalf of Russellville First Baptist Church. (DV.15.09.138) Vice-Chairman Skelton moderated Item #2. Chairman Boyd recused himself from any discussion or the vote due to being a member of First Baptist Church. City Planner David Harris said this is a 35,000-square foot building. It will be the new primary worship center with 950 seats. They propose an optional parking lot on the west side of the site that may or may not actually be part of the project. They have adequate existing parking without the new parking lot. The Board of Adjustment granted a setback variance along 2nd Street. Mr. McMorran has been talking to City Engineer Kurt Jones, and Mr. Jones is at a point where he is okay with going ahead with the usual approval contingent on working out any details prior to issuing the building permit such as the sidewalk, green space on Glenwood, and storm water. Mr. John McMorran said he had nothing more to add. Commissioner Wilkins made the motion to approve the proposal as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and passed unanimously. The Third Order of Business was a Public Hearing for a Non-Standard Commercial Building (Zoning Code, Article III 3.20.5), for construction of a new warehouse located at 2011 East Parkway. Submitted by Max Lawton. (MS.15.09.80) City Planner Harris said this is a proposal to construct a warehouse to the rear of the existing primary building. The Zoning Code says any building face that is visible from a public right-of-way is supposed to be finished in materials other than metal siding. This building clearly will be visible from the street, but because it will be over 300 feet away the applicant is asking for relief from the Commercial Design Standards. Mr. Lawton said Mr. Harris described it very accurately. He reminded Commissioners that they had recently granted relief to allow metal siding on an addition to a building on West Parkway (Applied Industrial Technologies at 2505 West Parkway - January 2015). An unidentified Commissioner remarked that in that case the side wall of the existing building was metal, and the addition was going to match that side wall. Mr. Lawton said that the addition was about 80' from the public road. His building will be 300' away. Commissioner Westcott made the motion to approve the request as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sims and passed unanimously. The Fourth Order of Business was a request to close the 20-foot alley; lying west ½ of Lots 7 & 8, the east 50 feet of Lot 6, the east 50 feet of the south 40 feet of Lot 5, and all in Block 6, of Oakland Heights Addition, at 507 East 11th Street. Submitted by Jeremy Keaster. (ST.15.09.78) City Planner Harris said Mr. Keaster owns the land on either side of the portion of the alley that he is requesting the City to vacate. I always suggest we vacate whole blocks for clarity; however, this is another case where many of the property owners have used the alley property as their own for years, with fences, flower beds, utility buildings, etc. located in the right-of-way, which has never been used as an alley. Mr. Harris said he didn’t have any issues with this request and that no input from surrounding neighbors had been received. Mr. Jeremy Keaster said he had visited with the adjacent landowners and the elderly lady on the back side thought the alleyway was already her property. City Planner Harris said notices from the utility companies indicate no objections. 2 Commissioner Miller made the motion to approve the request as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Skelton and passed unanimously. The Fifth Order of Business was a Public Hearing requesting review and a recommendation of approval to rezone property currently R-E (Residential Estate) to C- 2 (Highway Commercial), located at 108 Birch Street. Submitted by Attorney Tim Murdoch on behalf of Ralph Titsworth. (ZO15.09.186) City Planner Harris said this property is where the North Forty Club sits. The only thing that Residential Estate allows is single-family detached homes on lots of one acre or more. This is in the area of the convention center property. I don’t see any issues at all with positive review of this. The current R-E zoning certainly does not fit. Attorney Murdock said he had no further comments. Commissioner Skelton made the motion to approve the request as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sims and passed unanimously. The Sixth Order of Business was a Public Hearing requesting review and a recommendation of approval to rezone R-0 (Residential Office) property to C-4 (Neighborhood/Quiet Business), located at 1512 West Main Street. Submitted by Attorney John Peel on behalf of PH Investments, Inc. (ZO.15.09.187) City Planner Harris said this is an existing office building that was converted from a real estate office to a medical use. I reviewed the medical use, and made a determination that it could be considered as ‘Office, Medical and Professional’, which is a permitted category of uses in the R-O district. I gave administrative zoning approval for the medical office. At some point after that, I believe the property owners' insurance underwriter raised concerns that the use should have been classified as a clinic rather than an office. Uses in the ‘Clinic, Dental, Medical, or Osteopathic, Chiropodist’ category require a Special Use Permit in the R-O District. The applicant, desiring to clear any cloud over the approval, requested to rezone the property to C-4 where the clinic is a permitted use, rather than request a Special Permit Use in the R-O. The R-O District was created about 20-25 years ago in recognition of the fact that West Main was becoming more and more commercialized, but that people who wanted to remain in the area as homeowners were entitled to some level of protection. The R-O allows some residential uses, and a very limited range of office uses. It also contains language about the structures themselves, but my interpretation of that section is that the language is not direct enough and restrictive enough to be enforceable. It says the R-O is intended to encourage the reuse of existing houses when possible, and to encourage the design of new buildings so that they have a residential 'look.' However, the language does not clearly prescribe that. The only real protection that R-O offers the homeowners who choose to stay in the area is the limitation on the uses that can go in the zone. West Main carries 20,000 plus cars a day. Traffic counts on Phoenix probably climb every single day, particularly since completion of the railroad overpass and the 3 connection to North Arkansas. It is not unreasonable from the applicants' point of view to request this rezoning. The properties adjoin existing C-4 zoning. However, in my opinion, we have a remedy available with the Special Use Permit in the R-O that I believe would clear any cloud on the approval, and do so with less potential negative impacts on the adjoining residences. Attorney John Peel, on behalf of Phil and Heidi Gray, said Phil asked me to express his regrets for not being able to attend. Mr. Peel referred to a map he had handed out showing that in the last 25 years the West Main area has changed in its use and nature considerably. We presently have an island of R-O a block or two long, surrounded entirely on both sides for four or more blocks by C-2 or C-4. This is on West Main Street. When they first came I thought they would want C-2 because it is on a state highway and it is a commercial area. But they said no they wanted C-4. As far as the Grays’ are concerned they are making sure they had these restrictive alternatives by coming down to the Neighborhood Quiet Business on Main Street. As far as the Special Use Permit, that is an option that enables the City Planner's office to straddle that fence between two competing interests. It is, in fact, a burden on the property owner. Phil and Heidi Gray don’t run the Arkansas Heart Hospital, they lease to them and if they decide to build or move two blocks down the road somebody else is going to come in there, and maybe instead of a heart clinic it is going to be a urology clinic or chiropractic clinic. You are going to change uses maybe five times in the next 15 years. Does that mean every time we must come back in here and see if that is possible and take a six month time frame to get an ordinance passed and have a tenant waiting the whole time and every time we want refinancing? There is sufficient burden to the Special Use Permit because you are so limited in your ability to have the alternate uses that the other commercial properties that surrounds you on both sides have. We are not appropriately zoned in R-O. What Planner Harris is asking you to do is shoehorn into something that we are not, just to accommodate the immediate neighbors that are not C-2 and C-4, but still allow all the adjacent C-4 and C-2 to continue. To me, that is spot zoning. Marla Gardner said when you invest in property you invest to make a profit. It is risk versus reward. These property owners took a risk when they invested in that property. They knew it was zoned R-O when they bought the property. The risk is when they try to get another tenant, or when they try to sell the property, which is why they bought the property. Obviously they would not have bought it if they could not see a return on it. If you rezone to C-4, they can sell that property to a laundromat, or for utility equipment storage and repair. I’m talking to you as a citizen of Russellville. I probably have a different perspective because I moved here. I travel a lot with business. I see both perspectives because I have property as well. I see the financial need, but also see the City of Russellville and we need to be proud of our City. That is a very small section of Russellville. When people come to town on business, I show them that section of town. I’m opposed to the C-4. Attorney Steve Gardner asked City Planner Harris his opinion as to whether the current zone was suitable for both of those businesses. Mr. Harris said if their concern is that the uses should be classified as 'clinics' rather than 'offices', then they are justified in pursuing some change. My point was that in my view the special permit in the R-O 4 would accomplish that. The R-O even allows 'hospital' as a Special Permit Use. If R-O allows a hospital it is hard to see how a clinic would be on shaky ground. Mr. Gardner asked Mr. Harris whether the code allowed R-O to have offices, medical, and professional. Is that not what’s in your report? Mr. Harris said that is how they were reviewed by me and given an administrative approval. Later, their underwriter had some concerns. I don’t have any issues with that. My only point is that they can address those concerns with a less intrusive remedy by securing a Special Use Permit rather than rezoning. Mr. Gardner said the neighbors (Gardners, Galloways, and Whites) had no objections whatsoever to a Special Use Permit. City Planner Harris said my opinion is based on what I think the circumstances and Code call for, rather than the opinions of anyone on either side of the issue. Dr. Bill Galloway said he had done a lot of surgery and operated as a clinic there for a long time. We had the same insurance underwriter for almost the entire time. We have contacted him and asked if there had ever been an issue in his insurance underwriting career that has to do with this issue. He assured me that he had never heard of such a thing. Mr. Galloway said he’s opposed to any zoning change. Commissioner Wilkins asked Mr. Harris to explain to this group the difference of R-O and C-4, because in R-O it clearly states the district is intended to provide conversion of older residential structures to office use. Area regulations for the R-O District shall conform to the area requirements for the C-4 Neighborhood. Then if you go to the C-4 Neighborhood 2.12.1, This district can also serve as a buffer between higher intensity commercial districts and residential districts. Mr. Harris said there is a hierarchy. If you start at the top you have C-2 Highway Commercial which is the broadest and allows the most different uses. The C-4 is Neighborhood/Quiet Commercial, which reduces the permitted uses list quite a bit. The next step down is the R-O Residential Office, and then you get to the purely residential zones. You would ideally have some sort of a step down rather than two very different zones crashing into each other. What I think they meant was for the R-O to serve as a transition between C-4 and a purely residential zone. Commissioner Wilkins asked Mr. Harris if some of this R-O property was originally zoned C-4. Mr. Harris said “yes.” Mr. Harris said, again, I think the R-O was an effort to provide some measure of protection to the residential uses, but that did not unduly limit conversion of the properties to office uses, even though it did not completely open the door for just any sort of commercial use. It was an attempt to find a balance between the rights of somebody who wants to have an office use, and those residents who hoped that it would retain some characteristics of a residential neighborhood. Commissioner Wilkins said doesn’t it state that the C-4 zone intended to do that? Mr. Harris said transitions can occur anywhere in the hierarchy of uses. You would not want M-2 Heavy Manufacturing next to C-4. M-2, our most intensive uses category, and the one most likely to be incompatible with residential, is at one end of the hierarchy, and the R-E Residential Estate is at the other end. Buffering could happen anywhere within that hierarchy. Commissioner Wilkins 5 said we have R-O property already butting up to C-4 so what is the difference. Planner Harris said different zones have to meet each other at some point. R-O to C-4 is about as close as you can get. R-O to C-2 would be a much bigger jump between two zones. Commissioner Wilkins said he is requesting rezoning to C-4, and immediately north of it is C-4, immediately to the northwest it is C-4, and less than one- half block away is C-2. Mr. Harris said “yes.” Mr. Harris pointed out that the area of R-O was not, in his opinion, spot zoning. Commissioner Stratton said the way I understand it, this all came up because of insurance underwriters, is that correct? Attorney Peel said not entirely. Commissioner Stratton said Dr. Galloway has been operating under an R-O zone for a number of years. It seems we are asking for this because we are concerned about what is going to happen to the pocketbooks of the property owners in the future, more than we’re talking about what is happening today. A Special Use would allow them to operate a medical clinic in this location, but would tie their hands when they got ready to sell it at a later date. Attorney Peel said that is correct. Attorney Peel said the City should not have permitted it in the first place. It is a gray, poorly written Code section where everybody has to make a subjective determination which may change with a new planner. Chairman Boyd asked if the underwriter would be satisfied if the City granted a Special Use Permit to operate the clinic under R-O zoning. Attorney Peel said there is current insurance in effect. Whether when they price it with new insurance companies they will reject it, I don’t know. The current insurance is probably not going to reject it. City Planner Harris said protection of the character of the neighborhood from incompatible uses was a primary reason for creating R-O in the first place. If the zoning is changed to C-4, there would be 50 additional uses the owners could more easily gain approval for on these properties. Going from R-O to C-4 results in 12 Special Permit Uses becoming Permitted Uses; 15 Not Permitted Uses becoming Special Permit Uses; and 23 Not Permitted Uses becoming Permitted Uses. Mr. Peel voices concerns about having to come to the commission in the future to ask for approval of different uses, but that is exactly the protection the R-O was created to provide. Commissioner Wilkins said it states in the Special Use Permits: Certain uses may or may not be appropriately located within various districts throughout the City due to their unusual or unique characteristics of operation and external effects. Given their unusual character, special consideration must be given each application so as to provide for such reasonable conditions and protective restrictions as are deemed necessary to protect the character and integrity of the area in which uses are proposed to be located. The uses listed Table of Permitted Uses as “special permit uses” are so classified because they more intensely dominate the area in which they are located than do other uses permitted in the district. Is that not a medical corridor and medical area out there? Is that area not dominated by medical uses? City Planner Harris said that was generally true for the larger surrounding area, but that in the area right around the subject properties, that is not the case. Mr. Wilkins said everything north of it is medical, everything half a block away to the west is medical, and everything across the street is medical. Mr. Harris said across which street? Mr. Wilkins said diagonally across Main Street there is medical. It is a medical corridor, so is a Special Use Permit even appropriate in this? Commissioner Skelton said the buildings are there. I think it could be done by a Special Use Permit or could be done by C-4 zoning or R-O zoning. We have to ask ourselves which zone 6 provides for the best orderly planning for this major thoroughfare. Chairman Boyd said I believe that is certainly part of the question. I think the commission is also charged with protecting residents who live in that area; that is the other part that we need to consider. If we can arrive at a remedy to accommodate both parties, that is the way to go. Commissioner Wilkins asked Chairman Boyd what was being protected? Chairman Boyd said from encroachment of commercial development. I recognize that West Main has turned into a commercial corridor, but I believe there is still a desire to maintain its historic nature and character to the extent practical. Commissioner Meimerstorf said it seems like the Special Use Permit is allowable. When you drive down West Main you look at an area of town that is obviously developed with historical residential structures. Whether or not they continue to be used as residential property is beside the point, I guess. It gets to a point where things change down the street and you see different properties. I guess from my own standpoint I don’t know that I would want some of these other uses to be allowed in there and not just from the traffic standpoint, but from signage standpoint. What is allowed in those areas without any sort of ability to limit those people to say you can’t put a flashing sign up there, or you can’t put a 30-foot tall neon sign up there? I think you have to kind of respect the integrity of the area not just look at it because of what it is today. I feel like if that property wasn’t purchased and leased to someone as a clinic, it would have been leased to someone else in that area. It’s not just because it is a clinic now that you should zone it to be a clinic. It wasn’t built for a clinic. It was built for something else. The Special Use Permit should be permissible instead of doing what we have done across the street over across from the hospital where it looks like a quill on Mr. Peel’s map with a C-4 and R-O and R-O and R-2. It was just a quick and easy thing to do to put different zones in different spots. I don’t particularly like that version. I prefer to do the Special Use Permit. Commissioner Stratton said she was looking at a list the Planner provided. In R-O, there are 25 different Special Permit Uses. Mr. Peel is right. They would have to come back to be approved. The uses go from adult daycare to church nursery, florist shop, health spa, interior decorating shop. R-O does not seem to be very limiting. Commissioner Wilkins said the question is residential versus commercial building, and it clearly states here, as well as in our 2020 Plan, how you permit offices in residential zones that do not distract from the residential character of the neighborhood. I’m not sure what we are protecting other than the homeowners who just don’t want to walk out and see anything they don’t like. Commissioner Meimerstorf said I don’t see protecting one individual property owner. That property (1512 W Main) does resemble a residence, and so does Dr. Galloway’s property right next to it. So does the house between the two properties that are the subjects of the rezoning requests. The Special Use Permit provides for this. Just because you can’t get insurance on something doesn’t change things globally. I think the Special Permit does protect the property owners from additional uses going in that may not be compatible. Commissioner Skelton asked if amending the permitted uses for R-O to allow a medical clinic would satisfy the underwriters concerns, and also be acceptable to the homeowners. If it would, then that would be a good fix. 7 Chairman Boyd asked City Attorney Trey Smith if the petitioner's request for rezoning could be revised to the change Commissioner Skelton advocates, or would they have to apply for that change on a new application. City Attorney Trey Smith said the Planning Commission could propose a change to the Zoning Code for the City Council to consider. Commissioner Skelton said I am not for a Special Use. Commissioner Skelton made the motion to approve the C-4, which was seconded by Commissioner Westcott. Matt White said I have friends on both side. We have no problem in what is being built there right now. Commissioner Stratton hit the nail on the head. We are worried about the future, not today. We like it there today. Mr. Skelton, you had a very good idea to change the list of permitted uses in R-O. That would be a remedy. Chairman Boyd called for a vote on the motion to rezone from R-O to C-4. The motion failed on a roll call vote with 4 voting in favor (Skelton, Westcott, Sims, Miller) and 2 opposed (Stratton, Meimerstorf). The motion failed for the lack of reaching the required five numbers of votes. Commissioner Wilkins did not vote. (See Item #7: Attorney John Peel pulled this item to go with the R-O modification). The Seventh Order of Business was a Public Hearing requesting review and a recommendation of approval to rezone property currently R-O (Residential Office) to C- 4 (Neighborhood/Quiet Business), located at 1500 West Main Street. Submitted by Attorney John Peel on behalf of Marina Shores LLP. (ZO.15.09.188) Mr. Harris said this request is very similar to the previous item, other than the fact that this building is still under construction. Attorney Peel said he had nothing to add. Commissioner Skelton reasserted his opinion that amending the Permitted Uses Table to include clinics as a Permitted Use in R-O would address the applicant's problems without creating any potential negative impacts for the neighboring residents. Attorney Peel said if that is the direction you intend to take, we will withdraw this application and re-file if we need to. Chairman Boyd asked City Attorney Smith if that was an acceptable procedure. City Attorney Trey Smith said “yes.” Commissioner Skelton moved to amend the Permitted Use Table for the R-O zone to include Medical and Surgery Clinics. Commissioner Meimerstorf seconded the motion. Chairman Boyd said we are voting to amend the Zoning Code Table of Permitted Uses to add “Medical Clinic” as a Permitted Use in the R-O district. Commissioner Skelton said I am asking that this be presented to the City Council meeting at its next meeting. 8 Commissioner Wilkins said if that is what is submitted to cover this particular piece of property, and yes I do have a financial interest in it, would it not be appropriate to put not only clinic but surgical hospital because it has an out-patient surgical facility in it? Commissioner Skelton restated his motion to amend the R-O Permitted Uses to include “Medical and Surgical Clinic.” Commissioner Miller seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. The Eighth Order of Business was a Public Hearing requesting review and recommendation of approval to rezone property currently R-3 (Medium/High Density Residential) to C-2 (Highway Commercial), located at the corner of North Phoenix and West Parkway. Submitted by Jeff Walchshauser on behalf Fellowship Bible Church. (ZO.15.09.189) City Planner Harris said he didn’t have any problems with this request to rezone to C-2. Mr. Jeff Walchshauser said he did not have any additional comments. Commissioner Stratton made the motion to approve the C-2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and passed unanimously. The Ninth Order of Business was a Public Hearing requesting review and recommendation of approval to rezone property currently C-2 (Highway Commercial) to C-4 (Neighborhood/Quiet Business), located at 4600 – 4700 West Main Street. Submitted by Dave Garza on behalf of Freddie Rood. (ZO.15.09.191) City Planner Harris said C-4 actually makes sense than the current C-2. Surrounding land is C-4, and the C-4 is more compatible with R-3 than is C-2. Ms. Ruby Kincaid asked if C-4 is for apartment buildings. Mr. Harris said C-4 allows duplexes, but no bigger multi-family residential uses. Ms. Kincaid she is against C-4 because it will reduce value of the surrounding properties. Mrs. Patty Gill said her concern was whether the applicant was going to build half a dozen more two-story apartment complexes. She said rezoning to C-4 would devalue her property because if more two-story units are built, then no one would want to buy that property because you would have to shut your windows or people upstairs could look directly down into your house. Commissioner Westcott made the motion to approve the request to rezone to C-4. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Skelton and passed on a roll call vote with 6 voting in favor (Skelton, Westcott, Sims, Wilkins, Meimerstorf, and Stratton) and 1 opposed (Miller). The Tenth Order of Business (Agenda Item # 11) was a Public Hearing requesting review and recommendation of approval to rezone property currently M-2 (Heavy 9 Industrial) to C-2 (Highway Commercial), located at 1800 West “C” Place. Submitted by Ron Hughes (ZO.15.09.190) Planner Harris said this property is zoned M-2, which has a 25-foot setback on all sides. Mr. Hughes wants to add to a building that already is out of compliance with setbacks, and has decided to rezone to C-2 rather than ask the Board of Adjustment (BOA) for what would be very significant variances. He doesn’t have a unique circumstance, other than that the building was erected too close to the property line, which is a self-created problem. Property to the east and south is zoned C-2, and currently in use as parking lots associated with the hospital. Rezoning to C-2 will create a more reliable buffer between the hospital parking lots and more intensive uses like Mr. Murdock's portable toilet business. If the C-2 zoning is approved, it would limit what uses could occupy the property should Mr. Hughes leave. If you approve one request, you must approve both. If you rezone to C-2 then the contractor’s office becomes a Special Permit Use. If you rezone without granting the SP, then you will have created a non-conformity, which you are not allowed to do. I recommend we discuss the issues together, though they require separate votes. Commissioner Wilkins asked when the building was built. Mr. Hughes said in 2005. Mr. Wilkins asked how zoning requirements were disregarded. Liaison Eaton said I guess no one knew it was being built. Commissioner Miller asked if a building permit had been issued. Mr. Hughes said “yes.” Commissioner Skelton asked how much the building was out of compliance. Mr. Hughes said about it is 20 feet from the line on the west side. The east side is 30 feet from the line exactly. The proposed addition would be on the east end. Commissioner Wilkins said "the building is out of conformity, so we are being asked to rezone it and then issue a Special Use Permit for them to do something in the new zone that they are not allowed when we rezone it?" Commissioner Westcott said "Mr. Hughes is out of compliance with a building built eleven years ago that he wants to add to, but found out was zoned wrong. He is asking us to rezone to C-2 to match surrounding C-2 property. Then he needs a Special Use Permit to operate his construction office." Commissioner Skelton asked how much the building would be extended. Mr. Hughes said we have requested zero lot line, which is the purpose of asking for rezoning. City Planner Harris said Mr. Hughes' proposed addition would require a variance of almost 25 feet. If he went to the BOA they would likely determine that his setback problem was self-created, and not a unique circumstance of the property. To approve the requested variances, the BOA would have to completely ignore the directives given them by the Zoning Code as to circumstances where variances should be approved. The only way he can add on is to rezone to C-2 so that he can built right to the property line. Commissioner Westcott made the motion to approve the C-2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Meimerstorf and passed unanimously 10 The Eleventh Order of Business was a Public Hearing requesting review and a recommendation of approval for a Special Use Permit to operate a construction office/building in a C-2 (Highway Commercial), located at 1800 West “C” Place. Submitted by Ron Hughes. (SP.15.09.134) No discussion on this item since it was addressed in the city planner’s staff report for the previous agenda item. Commissioner Miller made the motion to approve the Special Use Permit. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Westcott and passed unanimously. The Twelfth Order of Business was a request for approval for Bartlett One Minor Subdivision, located on Quarry Road. Submitted by Dave Garza on behalf of Russell and Mary K. Bartlett. (SD.15.09.296) a. Requesting a waiver from Section 9.1.G.8 (Pipe-Stem-Lots) of 318.3 feet. Mr. Dave Garza requested that this item be tabled for 30 days at the request of the petitioner. Commissioner Westcott made the motion to approve the request to table. Commissioner Miller seconded the motion and passed unanimously. Note: As Chairman Boyd was adjourning the meeting, Building Official Holstein came forward to address the commission. Mr. Holstein said he was concerned that some of the questions and comments during the discussion of Mr. Hughes' requests (agenda items 10 & 11) implied that errors may have been made regarding the permitting of Mr. Hughes' building at the time of its 2008 construction. Mr. Holstein had in his possession a document folder. He said the file showed that he had initially denied the building permit, and that Mr. Hughes had then gone before the BOA and been granted a five-foot variance, after which the building permit was issued. A subsequent review of BOA files for 2008 by Planning Department staff revealed no evidence of Mr. Hughes applying to, or appearing before, the Board of Adjustment. Meeting Adjourned. ___________________________________________________ Chairman Dennis Boyd 11