Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-07-08 Minutesl� I I MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on July S, 1996 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Allred, Phyllis Johnson, John Harbison, Conrad Odom, Bob Reynolds, Gary Head, John Forney and Gary Tucker MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Sugg STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jerry Rose, LaGayle McCarty, Beth Sandeen, Tim Conklin and Sharon Langley APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 24, 1996 MINUTES The minutes were approved as distributed. Ms. Johnson announced the meeting would be committed to administrative matters - a report from the Landscape Administrator and review of some of the ordinances drafted by the UDO Committee. LANDSCAPING IN UTILITY EASEMENTS - BETH SANDEEN Ms. Sandeen directed the Commissioners' attention to a memo which was a draft of proposed guidelines for tree • planting limitations to be incorporated into the City of Fayetteville Landscape Manual. She advised the Tree & Landscape Committee was still in the process of reviewing the draft. She explained the guidelines were taken directly from other tree ordinances, specifically Little Rock, Rogers and the Tree City U.S.A. model tree ordinance. She pointed out the current tree ordinance did not contain tree planting limitations and, therefore, there was a conflict between the utility needs and city ordinances requiring tree planting. She stated trees and easements were generally incompatible but that did not mean trees could not be planted in easements; but the trees needed to be planted intelligently, not inappropriately. Ms. Johnson noted under "Utilities" in the Tree Planting Limitations, it was not clear whether the measurement was to be taken from the line or the easement. Ms. Sandeen stated the measurement was to be from the line. It was determined the sentence would read "...10 feet of any overhead utility line or within 5 feet of any underground utility line." In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Sandeen stated typically other ordinances had categorized trees as ones that grew wellin the area, were available from local nurseries and small, medium and large in size. She explained it was possible to plant large trees in small areas when provisions were made such as root barriers. She advised there was a great deal of subsurface activity which had to take place in order to prevent roots from interfering with sewer or water lines. Mr. Tucker calculated a large tree would need to be approximately 16 feet from the street (4 feet green space between the curb and sidewalk, 6 -foot wide sidewalk, an additional 6 feet for the tree). He expressed concern there could be no trees in the downtown area along Dickson Street, or the square. • Ms. Sandeen explained the most trees lining streets were in residential areas; however, it was possible to grow beautiful trees in the middle of concrete if subsurface activity had taken place. She advised they needed to include • Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1996 Page 2 provisions for subsurface activity to allow the trees to be planted near a street. Mr. Harbison advised some of Ms. Sandeen's recommendations were inconsistent with the direction in which the UDO Committee was going. He asked that she put her information in ordinance form and forward it to the UDO Committee. Ms. Sandeen pointed out that, if they required the proper subsurface activity, trees could be planted and not cause problems with the roads or utility lines. Alderman Len Schaper advised the Street Committee was working on revisions to the street standards which would allow for greater tree planting areas along the roads. He stated they wanted to require that, whenever possible, sewer lines be placed in the street rather than easements next to the street. He also noted they were considering the possibility of widening the area (on major streets) between the curb and trail to approximately IO feet which would allow the planting of medium or large trees along the major streets. Mr. Harbison advised the UDO Committee had also been discussing placing the sewer lines below the streets. Mr. Schaper suggested some joint meetings between the UDO Committee and the Street Committee. Ms. Johnson expressed her belief utilities underground would be much better, pointing out that, during ice storms, tree limbs often broke utility lines causing outages. She also noted trees which had to be trimmed back due to the location of utility lines were often very ugly. • 0 • Planning Commission Minutes July 8. 1996 Page 3 DESIGN STANDARDS IN COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, INSTITUTIONAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS - U.D.O. COMMITTEE Mr. Harbison advised the UDO Committee had been working on the proposed ordinance since the first of May and this was the second time it had been before the Commission. He noted there had been some significant changes between the first draft reviewed by the Commission and the proposed ordinance being presented. Tim Conklin, Planning Department, advised one of the main differences between the proposed draft and the first draft was the addition of architectural design standards. He explained the standards required a recurring, unifying and identifying architectural theme for developments. He stated the draft would also require architectural design of buildings with proposed guidelines for the Commissioners when reviewing a project. He pointed out the draft also added a requirement for scaled and colored architectural elevation drawings of all buildings, a material sample board and proposed landscaping. Mr. Conklin pointed out the variance section had been modified and now listed the conditions which would have to be met for a variance. He also noted a severability clause had been added. . Ms. Johnson advised the Commission needed to make comments regarding any areas they believed might be problematic but did not believe they needed to take any action at this meeting. Mr. Conklin stated the Committee was looking for guidance from the other Commissioners. He advised they would need to wait until at least the August 12 Commission meeting before taking action on the proposed ordinance. • Mr. Harbison explained they believed the changes between the first draft and the proposed draft were significant and renotification had been required. Mr. Conklin advised the Legal Department had requested additional time to work on the proposed ordinance. Jerry Rose, City Attorney, advised his job was to tell the Commission what, if any, legal risks were inherent in what they were proposing to do. He stated the architectural design standards were different because they were getting out of the realm of measurable and quantifiable objective standards and going over to more subjective, less quantifiable standards. He expressed two concerns: (1) there was not specific case law under Arkansas law which said aesthetics was enough support an ordinance. He went on to say there was case law which allowed aesthetics to be a factor to be considered. He further stated case law was moot on using aesthetics as the only factor. He pointed out that, in order for the Commission to be innovative, they risked possible challenges and he wanted them to be aware of the risk. He explained his second concern related to the Richardson case. He reminded the Commission the Richardson case found the only association the Planning Commission had with a subdivision was if the subdivision met a checklist; that they had no discretion as a Commission and the City Council had no discretion once the standards were set. He explained it was more difficult to have a checklist with architectural design standards. He pointed out architectural design standards were built on an idea of discretion and more subjective considerations. He informed the Commission LaGayle McCarty would discuss with them how his office would like the draft written. He explained he wanted to write it in a fashion that would give them the best chance to withstand any possible legal challenge. He asked the Commission if the proposed draft was what they wanted. He stated he had talked with Alderman Williams regarding his original idea on design standards and Mr. Williams had said his intent was to take the very best standards in the overlay district. Mr. Harbison agreed the standards needed to have "teeth" so it was not solely discretionary. • In response to a question from Mr. Harbison, Mr. Rose explained any challenge would be based on whether the City • Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1996 Page 4 of Fayetteville had the power to impose the design standards. He went on to say he believed the City had the power to regulate but it was a matter of what power the City was using to do what they wanted to do. Mr. Harbison agreed there was no case law stating aesthetics alone was enough of a factor; however, he pointed out there was also no case law stating aesthetics alone was not enough of a factor. Mr. Rose agreed. He advised he did not believe the court would rule a taking had occurred. Mr. Harbison also noted the committee had been working on the draft at the same time Alderman Williams had been talking about commercial design standards. He pointed out they were moving on parallel tracks and it had been suggested they incorporate Alderman Williams' work. Mr. Rose stated the Ordinance Review Committee had made a list of five or six items which they wanted advanced quickly; that list had included Alderman Williams' commercial overlay ordinance. He advised he had considered separating the two ordinances if Alderman Williams wanted his ordinance passed quickly. Ms. Johnson stated the Commission needed to determine whether the contents of the Architectural Design Standards were essentially what they wanted and, if so, staff would do the best drafting job possible. She went on to say that, if the Commission did not want the design standards as set out, there was no reason for staff to draft an additional ordinance. Mr. Tucker explained the design standards followed logically from the Glenwood Shopping Center review. He stated it had been the UDO Committee's belief the Commission was moving toward trying to get cohesive items and • establishing broader design review for large scale developments. Mr. Odom expressed his belief the Cozart development (Glenwood Shopping Center) illustrated the Commission's desire to have uniformity within developments. He explained the committee had originally looked at very specific, objective design standards and had found that would make everything look the same. He stated all the UDO Committee wanted was to encourage good, uniform growth which would enhance the beauty of Fayetteville. He further explained that, by use of general guidelines rather than specific standards, they were allowing flexibility of design. Mr. Harbison stated their intent was to recommend a fairly general, flexible approach to the design standards rather than numerical, quanifiable standards. He explained they had not wanted to impose the views of one group as to what Fayetteville should look like. He went on to say the problem, from the legal stand point, was that the proposed ordinance was fairly general. Ms. Johnson paraphrased the proposed guidelines: when different land uses were next door to each other, the Commission would look at compatibility based on scale, form, materials, and color. She asked if the Commission was in favor of that proposed standard. Mr. Forney asked if, on large scale developments, the standard would be applied at Subdivision Committee level or full Planning Commission level. He asked if this would only apply to large scale developments and, if not, how it would apply to other projects. Mr. Harbison stated the standard would apply to large scale developments and also developments that did not go through the large scale process but just got a building permit. He further advised that, with respect to large scale developments, the review would happen at Subdivision Committee; with respect to building permit applications, the review would happen at staff level. • In response to a question from Mr. Forney, Mr. Harbison stated the process would be a normal large scale • Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1996 Page 5 development with an added obligation. Mr. Allred asked that the proposed ordinance be clearer regarding those developments which would not go through large scale development process. He also asked if the standards would apply to remodels. Mr. Harbison advised the standards would apply to both new development and expansion of existing development. Ms. Johnson suggested the word `renovation" rather than "expansion' be used if they wanted the standards to apply to remodels. Mr. Head expressed concern that ordinance -type language had not been used. Mr. Harbison agreed the ordinance was general but went on to say the ordinance had been drafted from various ordinances obtained from other cities throughout the country. He explained the committee had discussed design standards via conference calls with the planners in those cities. In response to a question from Mr. Head, Mr. Conklin advised copies of the proposed ordinance had been delivered to the Chamber. He explained the UDO Committee reviewed commercial development within the city and took photographs of desirable commercial development; they then reviewed the photos and discussed the desirable features via a conference call with a planner in another city that had architectural design standards. He stated the result of the photos and the telephone call was they could not come up with a standard for a certain roof or window, etc. to be used and, therefore, they tried to have general standards which allowed flexibility. • In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Harbison stated they had not taken photographs of developments they found unattractive. He noted that, in his opinion, there was quite a few attractive developments within the City. He further stated each committee member had different opinions regarding which developments were attractive and that was why the standards were very general. He explained the focus would not be on requiring specific designs but would be on weeding out undesirable items. Mr. Odom stated design standards were often already set up within the new developments. He explained they had been seeing great plans but wanted to be assured the developer would build those plans. He stated he believed the ordinance would allow the Commission to work with the developer and, at the same time, gave the Commission assurance that what was being presented was what would be built. Ms. Johnson reviewed each section and asked if the Commissioners were in agreement with each. She read section e "...building and new developments should be similar in size to other buildings in the neighborhood". Mr. Allred asked if a 20,000 square foot building could be constructed adjacent to a 100,000 square foot building in an industrial zone. Mr. Harbison pointed out the ordinance said "should" not "shall"; that the ordinance was not mandatory. Ms. Johnson advised she had some concerns with section a "The appropriateness of the architecture will be evaluated in the context of its surroundings..." and section b "New buildings in historical areas should reflect and contribute to the established character..." She requested the Commission give the subcommittee some guidance. Mr. Forney advised he did not have any particular concerns but, as the only registered architect on the Commission, he would have to say he would prefer no design standards. He explained that, when working with design standards, sometimes the project was worse than if there had been no standards. He went on to say that, as a Planning • Commissioner, he believed the effort was good. He stated he particularly appreciated the "should" rather than "shall". He expressed his concern that it would all be in the application of the ordinance and how the Commission • Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1996 Page 6 would interpret it over time. Ms. Johnson expressed her belief the Commission would not see a marked change in the types of developments they had been reviewing; that 90 to 98% of the projects would have been approved under the proposed ordinance. Ms. Little stated she believed that approximately 90% of those developments reviewed by the Commission would have met the ordinance's criteria. She advised she believed the most important change was currently the Commission had not been seeing the building design, only the building footprint. She pointed out most developers wanted to do a good job, a quality job and a project that would last. Mr. Harbison stated he believed the ordinance would provide a minimum, a vehicle for discussing the design of projects. Mr. Allred expressed concern the developers would not know what was expected of them since the ordinance was so general. Mr. Harbison agreed the developers would not know what was expected at first but, once they knew how the ordinance was to operate, there would be no problems. He advised the committee and legal staff were continuing to work on the language within the ordinance. Ms. McCarty explained most of the language came from a land development guidance system for planned use development in Colorado. She stated the Commission needed to know if they wanted guidelines or standards; the proposed ordinance was guidelines. She advised standards would be more specific. • Mr. Harbison advised they had purposely set forth guidelines, not standards. Mr. Odom agreed and stated that was the purpose of the committee. Ms. Johnson stated the heading in Section D needed to be changed to guidelines rather than standards. Ms. McCarty stated there could be standards which were not so specific that everything would look alike but would give standards for the Commission to review when looking at a project. She went on to say the Commission could ask the developers to submit the items listed in the proposed ordinance but, if there were no requirements they had nothing to enforce. Mr. Head suggested they could separate the two, making a guidelines section and a standards section for any requirements. He requested the ordinance be more specific so there would be less individual interpretation. He also expressed dislike for the requirement that wall planes could not run in one continuous direction for more than 50 feet without a significant offset. He pointed out there were many buildings within the city that would not meet that requirement and gave Old Main as an example. Mr. Harbison explained the committee had written the section on the length of building walls because they noticed from the photographs that buildings with shorter walls or significant offsets in long walls were more attractive. Mr. Head stated he did not believe that section would work. He added he had no problems with the remainder of the ordinance as long as it was just guidelines. 40 • Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1996 Page 7 Ms. Johnson expressed concern regarding prohibition of chain link fences in C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, and R -O and stated she believed the chain link fence around the V.A. Hospital was not unattractive. She pointed out the fence allowed visibility to the grounds and the roses, adding she could not imagine a more attractive way to fence the V.A. grounds. She also advised she did not believe metal was inherently ugly looking (referring to the section on building material composition). She slated she would oppose 6.a.(I). Mr. Head stated the newer metal buildings could be very attractive, that there were many newer type metals for building on the market than there had been 10 - 15 years ago. Mr. Harbison stated the metal buildings which were attractive were the ones with offsets, some color, some architectural design features. Ms. Johnson advised she was more comfortable with design standard guidelines than the flat prohibitions which seemed to be arbitrary. Mr. Conklin stated it was his understanding that if the proposed ordinance was a guideline, developers would not have to meet those guidelines. Mr. Harbison pointed out the proposed ordinance stated the Planning Commission had to approve which implied the Planning Commission could disapprove. He went on to say the proposed ordinance set out guidelines which did not require strict standards. • Mr. Odom explained the intent of the Committee was not to enforce their tastes on anyone but to (I) require some form or design come forward to the Planning Commission, and (2), when the design was approve, the developer be held accountable to the design. Mr. Allred pointed out the staff did not have the discretion the Planning Commission had when allowing building permits for projects which did not go before the Planning Commission. He asked how staff would enforce the guidelines. Mr. Conklin stated his question was whether guidelines were enforceable. Mr. Allred asked if the staff had the authority to deny a building permit because the building did not meet the architectural design guidelines. Mr. Harbison stated he did not know. Mr. Rose stated staff did have the authority but, if the standards were so vague that someone reading the standards did not know what they needed to submit to comply, the city would be in trouble. Mr. Harbison asked if there was power under the enabling act for staff to deny a building permit if the building did not meet the architectural design guidelines. Mr. Odom advised he believed that, if the building permit was denied by staff, there should be some type of automatic appeal process to the full Planning Commission. Mr. Rose stated that could be written into the proposed ordinance. He advised his concern was that a developer • would come to the Commission with a plan that might arguably be compatible with the neighborhood but ugly to the Planning Commission. He pointed out they were getting into an area they had never been in before. He gave an C- • Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1996 Page 8 example of a developer showing a plan to the Commission, the Commission approving the plan, and then the developer overspending his budget and not completing the project in some minor way (such as not installing pillars in front of a building). He stated that, as long as the developer met the city checklist for building and construction, the developer was legal. Mr. Odom stated the UDO Committee wanted to send the message that architectural integrity was just as important as the electrical code or the plumbing code. Mr. Harbison stated the UDO Committee had discussed some type of post -approval when a developer had to change the approved plans. Mr. Tucker advised he believed it was important for everyone to remember design standards had been tried successfully in other cities throughout the country. He expressed his belief the general public wanted to know what a project would look like when completed. He went on to say that, at the present time, the Planning Commission did not have an opportunity to answer that question for the public but, with the adoption of the proposed ordinance, everyone would know how the project would look. He also pointed out there was room for creativity by the developers. Mr. Rose stated he was on firmer legal ground if the Commission could give him their reason for doing something other than they did not like the way the project looked. Alderman Cyrus Young asked if the term "land use" in Section D.2.a. referred to the actual use or the zoning of the property. • Mr. Harbison advised the wording would be changed in the proposed ordinance. Alderman Len Schaper stated it appeared there were two different approaches in the same document. He pointed out one was proscriptive (chain link fence or metal buildings). He advised the standards that seemed to work in other areas were ones similar to the ones shown as Architectural Design Standards. He further stated the real test of those types of standards came in the administration. He suggested a possible checklist for the developers to follow. Mr. Harbison explained cities which used the process described by Alderman Schaper were cities where development occurred almost exclusively through P.U.D.'s. ' Alderman Schaper advised visual guidelines were very effective and suggested the committee take pictures of buildings that would not have passed under the proposed ordinance. He explained that, if there was a visual collection showing items that would be approved and items that would not be approved, there would be concrete information about the guidelines. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Conklin advised the term "caliper" was the same as diameter. He explained nurseries used the term caliper rather than diameter. Mr. Harbison noted the landscaping section would have to be rewritten in order to make Ms. Sandeen's memo consistent with the proposed ordinance. Alderman Miller pointed out the overlay district ordinance called for trees that were 1'/z inches diameter at DBH (4'/z feet). He also agreed with Alderman Schaper regarding use of the visual collection. Mr. Odom stated he was more concerned with uniformity and conformity than what a building looked like. • Ms. Johnson expressed concern that, by focusing on conformity, they would disallow innovative architecture. • Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1996 Page 9 Mr. Forney explained that, when a building was not uniform with adjacent existing buildings, the developer would just have to argue for the merits of the inconsistency. Mr. Allred suggested referring the ordinance back to the UDO committee for re-evaluation after hearing the Commission's comments. Pat Tobin asked why the ordinance was necessary if most of the buildings in Fayetteville met the guidelines. He expressed his belief the proposed ordinance was unnecessary and stated the public was looking for less government, not more. He contended additional legislation cost the taxpayers more money. Tom McKinney, representing the Ozark Sierra Club, advised he had not had an opportunity to review the proposed ordinance but stated he believed the ordinance would have a positive affect on the City of Fayetteville. He agreed the chain link fence at the V. A. Hospital was attractive but noted usually chain link fencing allowed the public to look into the back of buildings atjunk. He also suggested some type of native vegetation guideline be included in the landscaping portion of the ordinance. Alderman Daniels pointed out there was a design standard in place through the Neighborhood Commercial ordinance. She asked staff to compare the Neighborhood Commercial standards with the proposed ordinance. Ms. Little stated they were the same in that both ordinances required drawings and material sample board to be presented but the Neighborhood Commercial ordinance limited the size of the structure and limited the appearance of the structure so that it would look like a residential structure. She also noted the Neighborhood Commercial ordinance required special approval by the Planning Commission. . Mr. Rose stated he and Ms. McCarty could draft a revised architectural review standard ordinance. He also advised he would contact Alderman Williams regarding proceeding with a limited design standard if he thought his proposal needed to move quicker than the UDO Committee's draft. Mr. Harbison advised he would prefer to keep the standards all in one package. He further stated the Commission needed to determine whether they wanted to keep the general guidelines or to have very quantifible, stringent guidelines. Ms. McCarty stated she could have a draft prepared the following week. 40 )13? • Planning Commission Minutes July 8. 1996 Page 10 AN ORDINANCE REGARDING SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR PARKING LOTS The next item was the draft of an ordinance amending Chapter 160: Zoning, Subchapter: Supplementary district regulations, Section 160.117(G)(2): Property lines adjoining street right-of-way, of the code of Fayetteville, to provide for certain landscaping and screening requirements in parking lots containing five (5) or more spaces; and to amend Section 160.117 (17)(2)(d)(2), to delete the exemption for interior landscaping for parking lots 30 feet or less in width. Mr. Conklin advised the proposed ordinance amended the standards for landscaping in parking lots for both residential and commercial areas. He explained the UDO Committee had decided they would like to see parking lots screened with a 30 -inch high view obscuring wall, berm, vegetation or combination and have a 10 -fool landscaped area in front of parking lots. He stated the proposed ordinance would change the current parking lot standards since presently there were two different standards: one for residential and one for commercial. Ms. Johnson asked if the proposed ordinance would affect the overlay ordinance. Mr. Conklin stated the overlay district standards were more restrictive. Ms. Johnson asked if the trees would be smaller since they would be in parking lots. She noted the ordinance did not call for a size of tree. Mr. Conklin explained the trees were required to be planted in the landscaped area in the front of the parking lot, adjoining street right-of-way. He noted the tree size would be at the discretion of the developer. • Ms. Little pointed out the 1'h inch DBH had been changed to 2 -inch caliber measured at 6 inches above the ground based on the recommendation of the Landscape Administrator. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Conklin stated masonry did include brick. Alderman Schaper asked if the plant material was deciduous or evergreen. He pointed out a lot of plant material did not have leaves for approximately 5 months a year. Ms. Johnson stated the ordinance did not limit the type of plant material. Ms. Little stated the Committee had discussed limiting the material to evergreens but had decided that would also exclude some of the flowering shrubs. Mr. Odom advised they wanted public input from the people the proposed ordinance would affect. 0 Planning Commission Minutes • July 8, 1996 Page 11 AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING ALL UTILITY FACILITIES TO BE LOCATED UNDERGROUND The next item was a proposed ordinance amending Chapter 160: Zoning, of the Code of Fayetteville, to add subchapter: Underground Utilities, to require all utility facilities, including but not limited to gas, electric power, telephone, and CATV cables, to be located underground throughout the development. Mr. Conklin explained the UDO Committee desired to have utility facilities placed underground when new development occurred. He pointed out the design overlay district required utilities be placed underground if they were not located at the back of the property. He noted the ordinance did apply to both residential and non-residential development. He stated the committee had met with the utility representatives to review some technical concerns. He pointed out there was an exemption section that, if it was not feasible to place the facilities underground, the Planning Commission could grant a waiver. Ms. Johnson asked if there were any other cities in the state which had this type of requirement. Mr. Conklin stated the City of Maumlle had a similar ordinance. Mr. Allred pointed out the ordinance required the connections to be installed to the street property line and noted the electrical boxes and gas meters, etc. would all be in the front lawns. He stated he did not believe that was what the Commission wanted. Mr. Conklin agreed with Mr. Allred and suggested taking the word "street" out of the first sentence in Section 2. He went on to say the intent was the connection be provided to the platted lot so there was the ability to tie onto the line. • Tom McKinney, Sierra Club representative, stated he believed the ordinance was very good. He pointed out there would be less power outages in bad weather if the lines were underground. He stated he was in favor of the ordinance. Floyd Hornaday, SWEPCO, appeared before the Commission and advised the majority of the facilities they had recently installed had been underground. He explained it was an option provided to the developer. He stated the option was filed with the Public Service Commission and advised that, if the option were removed, there could be a conflict as to who would bear the expense. He further stated he had met with the UDO Committee and some of the issues had been discussed. Mr. Harbison stated he did not recall discussing the option with the Public Service Commission. Mr. Hornaday stated under SWEPCO's terms and conditions they gave the option of overhead or buried service to the customer. He explained that, if they chose the overhead service, poles and wires were installed to the point of connection to the building; but, if they chose the underground service, SWEPCO placed the cable underground. He went on to say that, in order to recover some of their increased investment for underground service, the developer was asked to pay for trenching costs. He explained that, with an ordinance requiring the facilities to be placed underground, the option would be removed to the developer and the cost of the trenching would be the developer's responsibility. E • Planning Commission Minutes July 8. 1996 Page 12 OTHER BUSINESS: AVAILABLE PUBLICATIONS ON PLANNING TOPICS Ms. Little referred to the attachment on the agenda listing books available in the Planning Office and publications which Planning would be willing to order which related to further study on planning topics. Mr. Reynolds requested "Saving Face: How Corporate Franchise Design Can Respect Community Identity". Ms. Little announced this was Commissioner Head's last meeting. She advised there would be a reception on July 18 at 3:30 p.m. for both Commissioner Head and the new Planning Commissioner Lorel Hoffman. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. 0 L r,