Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-28 MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, January 28, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN PPL 02-3.00: Preliminary Plat (Sage Meadows, pp 398) Approved Page 6 LSP02-3.00 & 4.00: Lot Splits (Lot 2 CMN Business Park II Phase I, pp 134) Page 9 LSD 02-3.00: Large Scale Development (Party City, pp 134) Page 17 ADM 01-15.00: Administrative Item (Outdoor Lighting) Page 32 ADM 01-36: Administrative Item (Fee in Lieu of Construction of Sidewalk) Page 41 Informational item: Review of 2002 Work Program Page 43 CUP 02-7.00: Conditional Use (Wilson, pp 406) Page 44 LSP 02-8.00: Lot Split (Wilson, pp 406) Page 46 Approved Approved Tabled Tabled No action Approved Approved MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERSABSENT Alice Church Bob Estes Lee Ward Lorel Hoffman Nancy Allen Donald Bunch Loren Shackelford Sharon Hoover Don Marr STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Kit Williams Kim Hesse Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Ron Petrie Hugh Earnest Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 3 Roll call and approval of the minutes from January 14, 2002. Estes: Welcome to the Monday evening, January 28, 2002 meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. The first item of business will be the roll call. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were eight Commissioners present with Commissioner Shackelford arriving at 5:37 p.m. Estes: The next item of business is the approval of the minutes from the January 14, 2002 meeting. Is there any discussion, changes or additions regarding the minutes of the January 14, 2002 meeting? Seeing none, they will be approved. The first two items of business on the agenda listed as old business, item number one, LSD 01-19.10, a large scale development for Hometown Development and item number two, ADM 01-28.00 for Hometown Development have been pulled by the applicant and will not be considered this evening. Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 4 CUP 02-7.00: Conditional Use (Wilson, pp 406) was submitted by William Jenkins of Jenkins Surveying, Inc. on behalf of John Wilson for property located at 1628 and 1630 N. Gregg Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.37 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. Estes: That brings us to item number three on the agenda under new business, CUP 02-7.00 submitted by William Jenkins of Jenkins Surveying, Inc. on behalf of John Wilson for property located at 1628 and 1630 N. Gregg Ave. The property is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.37 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. Is the applicant present? Seeing that the applicant is not present, what is the Commissions' pleasure? Do you wish to consider the item without the applicant present or is there a motion to table until the next regularly scheduled meeting? Hoffman: Could we move it to the end of the agenda? Estes: We can do that, is that a motion? Hoffman: I move to move item number three to the end of the agenda, which would make it, item number eleven. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman to move item number three to the last of the agenda as item number eleven. Is there a second to the motion? Bunch: I'll second. Estes: We have a second. Is there any discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to move item number three to item number eleven on the agenda was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 5 LSP 02-8.00: Lot Split (Wilson, pp 406) was submitted by William Jenkins of Jenkins Surveying, Inc. on behalf of John Wilson for property located at 1628 and 1630 N. Gregg Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.66 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.37 acres and 0.29 acres. Estes: The next item on the agenda is item number four under new business. It is LSP 02-8.00 submitted by William Jenkins of Jenkins Surveying, Inc. on behalf of John Wilson for property located at 1628 and 1630 N. Gregg Avenue. This is the companion lot split to item number three, the conditional use. Is the applicant present? Is there a similar motion? Hoffman: I'll move that we move this to item number 12. Estes: Is there a second? Bunch: I'll second. Estes: Is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: The motion to move item number four, LSP 02-8.00 to item number 12 on the agenda was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote. Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 6 PPL 02-3.00: Preliminary Plat (Sage Meadows, pp 398) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for property located north of Hwy 16 and east of 51s` Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 31 acres with 89 lots proposed. Estes: The next item is item number five under new business. This is a preliminary plat submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for property located north of Hwy 16 and east of 51n Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 31 acres with 89 lots proposed. Is the applicant or applicant's representative present? Heneley: Yes Sir. I am Tom Heneley with Jorgensen & Associates and I'm glad I'm not late this evening. Estes: Do you have a presentation that you would like to make? Heneley: No Sir. Not particularly, other than this is a residential subdivision, which ties into existing or previously approved subdivisions on Hwy. 16, just off Hwy. 16 West. Estes: Mr. Conklin, are there signed conditions of approval? Conklin: Yes. Estes: Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions of approval. 1) Planning Commission determination of improvements to 51st Street. 51st Street is classified as a Local Street on the Master Street Plan. Staff recommends that the east side of 5 l Street be widened to meet local street standards, 14' from centerline with curb and gutter and the west side widened to meet county standards, 10' wide with a 4' gravel shoulder and open ditch. 2) Payment of parks fees in the amount of $40,420.00 (86 lots at $470.00 per lot). 3) All drainage swales, ditches and detention ponds located outside of the street right-of-way shall be maintained by the property owner or property owner's association. 4) Plat Review and Subdivision comments to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 5) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. 6) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 4' sidewalk with a minimum 6' foot greenspace along 51n Street, Ponca Street, Canondale Drive, and Dover Street. 7) If construction does not begin within one calendar year of final approval, preliminary plat Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 7 Marr: Conklin: Hoffman - approval will be void. Is there any member of the audience that would like to provide public comment on this requested preliminary plat? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for questions of the applicant's representative, discussion and motions. I guess the only question that I had, and I was asking Lorel. We are taking fees in lieu of land for park space, what is the closest park for this development? Red Oak Park in Bridgeport subdivision would be the closest park. On that note, how close will it be to the new youth center, the Boys and Girls Club? It is not going to be shown on the area map I don't think. Conklin- I would say a couple of miles. Petrie: About one mile. Estes: Is there any other discussion? Motion: Ward: This is a preliminary plat; I will go ahead and make a motion to approve PPL 02-3.00 for Sage Meadows with all the conditions of approval including all the road improvements on 51st Street, which will be a great improvement out there because it is gravel now. Marr: I'll second that. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve PPL 02-3.00 and a second by Commissioner Marr, is there any discussion? Hoover: I have a question for staff. Didn't we have a discussion about if we were taking fees in lieu of park space that we were going to have a map of where we could see where the nearest park was so we could see the proximity of the subdivision to the park and how everything was working out with our whole Master Parks Plan? Does anyone else remember that? Documentation of where the park is in location with the subdivision? Conklin: It did come up with one of the preliminary plats but we haven't made it a policy. We have a parks layer that we can easily add to our maps and show you where the parks are. It is the Planning Commission that does make the decision on whether or not it is money or land dedication for parks. That is your decision and you should have that in front of you for review. We will start doing that. Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 8 Hoover: Thank you. Marr: Estes: Tim, I think it is important, I appreciate that. Obviously, we look at the recommendation of the Parks Board but it would be helpful to know what they looked at to determine why they made the recommendation that way. Particularly in light of the development we had here about a month ago. There was a complaint that a subdivision was approved without a close proximity to a park. We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Marr to approve PPL 02-3.00, is there any further discussion? Are there any other questions? Renee, would you please let the roll reflect that Commissioner Shackelford is now in attendance and would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 02-3.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote. Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 9 LSP 02-3.00 & 4.00: Lot Splits (Lot 2 CMN Business Park II Phase I, pp 134) were submitted by Chris Rogers of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Hydco, Inc. for property located at the northwest corner of Steele Blvd. and Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 5.57 acres. The request is to split the property into three lots of 3.7703 acres, 0.8131 acres, and 0.9878 acres. Estes: The next item on the agenda is item number six, LSP 02-3.00 and 4.00, lot splits for lot 2 CMN business Park II, Phase I submitted by Chris Rogers of CEI Engineering Associates on behalf of Hydco Inc. for property located at the northwest corner of Steele Blvd. and Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 5.57 acres. The request is to split the property into three lots of 3.7703 acres, 0.8131 acres and 0.9878 acres. The proposed lot splits meet minimum zoning requirements. Additional right of way is needed along Joyce Blvd. In order to comply with the Master Street Plan. Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions of approval. Mr. Conklin, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: Yes. Estes: Those conditions of approval are 1) There shall be no curb cuts from Joyce Blvd. and Steele Blvd. for Lots 2A & 2B. Access to both of these lots will be from curb cuts located on Lot 2C. 2) Sanitary Sewer shall be extended to lot 2A prior to filing the lot split. 3) The future developments on these lots must conform to a unified development theme. The first parcel to develop will set the standard and subsequent development will be required to match. 4) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative and all comments from utility representatives. 5) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. 6) Approval of this lot split does not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available at the time of construction. Is the applicant or the applicant's representative present and if so would you like to make a presentation? Rogers: I'm Chris Rogers with CEI Engineering and no, I don't have any presentation other than what you have discussed. Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on these requested lot splits? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion, motions or questions of the applicant. Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 10 Bunch: Estes: Hoover: Conklin: Hoover: Conklin: Hoover: Conklin: Motion: Marr: Estes: Shackelford: Estes: Hoover: Since this item is closely tied to the next large scale development can we possibly discuss the two items together and then vote on them separately since there was some concern about the design that may impact the footprint of the lots. Hopefully, the design parameters have been changed to meet our standards. It seems like it would be better to discuss the two items simultaneously and then vote separately if that is alright with the other Commissioners. Commissioner Bunch, there are two separate items on the agenda, one being a lot split and one being a large scale development. I think it is appropriate to handle each item as a separate agenda item and either vote it up or down as a separate agenda item. Are there any other comments or discussions? I have a question for staff. Two of the parcels are under an acre, does that mean that the large scale development will not come before the Planning Commission? Will it be done by staff? It would be done administratively by staff. The requirement is anything over an acre. Unless there is a waiver and then it would come to us? Unless you have a condition of approval stating that. Oh, we could do that? We have required some in the past. I was going to move for approval of LSP 02-3 & 4.00 and just make clear in that motion that for me condition three, which says the first parcel being developed will set the standard for this development. Since the properties are less than an acre I am going to make it clear that more of my interest is going to be on the large scale and what that development looks like based on that requirement. I will make a motion for approval of the lot split. We have a motion by Commissioner Marr to approve LSP 02-3.00 and 4.00, is there a second? I'll second. We have a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Can I make an amendment to that motion? Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 11 Estes: Hoover: Allen: Estes: Marr: Estes: Allen: Estes: Shackelford: Hoover: Shackelford: Estes: Shackelford: Conklin: You certainly may. I would like to add a condition that the large scale development for all three parcels must come through the full Planning Commission. I'll second. Does the movement accept that amendment? I would like it voted on separately, I would like the amendment to be voted on because I'm not sure. I would want to hear the reasons of why we would want to do that. Is there a second to Commissioner Hoover's motion to amend? There was, I seconded it. We have a second to Commissioner Hoover's motion to amend, is there any discussion? Mr. Chair, I would like to ask Commissioner Hoover possibly to expand a little on why she thinks that we need to bring these other two back. Given the location and I want to say the controversy of this whole development, CMN Business Park, I am just thinking that it might help staff out if we have it coming back to the full Planning Commission rather than letting them have to struggle with commercial design standards. We struggle with that, but it brings it back to the public process. That is what I would like to see. I don't want to hold it up next to the next item coming up but I am slightly concerned and I want to make sure that we have the opportunity to look at it as a whole. May I ask another question of staff? Yes. Tim, if you could give us some idea of the affect on the developer as far as if this didn't have to come back to Planning Commission as a large scale development verses if it does. What extra steps would the developer have to do as far as other designs, cash out lays, etc. before they brought the other two lots forward? Could you give us some idea of that please? They would be required to do the large scale development, which is the three step process of Plat Review, Subdivision and then Planning Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 12 Commission. They have the fee involved, which is an $800 fee. Ron, would they have stormwater and grading separate fees? Petrie: It would be the same. Conklin- It is a 36 day process from the time the application is submitted to Planning Commission. You have that time frame in there. Any improvements that are required would have to be guaranteed so they may have some expense in a letter of credit or a bond. Those are pretty much the only things that I can think of. Can you think of anything else Ron? Petrie: It really depends on the drainage and grading. They can submit a final grading and drainage. On most of these developments we see preliminary grading and preliminary drainage. That takes time and, of course, money to prepare those items. They do have the option of doing that up front. They just take a chance that somebody will change it and they will have to go in and redo all the numbers. Shackelford: Ok, thank you. Estes: Commissioner Marr? Marr: Another question for Tim. Could you refresh my memory? What other developments less than an acre within the last year have we brought in to go through the large scale development process? Conklin: We had an addition out at Millennium. We saw two or three of those and then we removed that condition once the design theme was established within that subdivision. I can't think of any others. Williams: Mr. Schmitt's was less than an acre. Conklin: That is correct. We did place that on because of the street frontage issue. Ward: Tim, if you were to review one that was less than an acre, lets say another restaurant or something like that on one of these out lots, what steps do you go through to make sure that it meets our commercial design standards as far as materials. We are not always on exactly the same page but we're close usually. Conklin: I refer to the ordinance to make sure that they are complying with the five standards. Since this is a part of an overall development I would expect that the two additional buildings would match the design theme for this Party City large scale development. I would expect the arches, the block color, the bricks to be incorporated into those designs. If they were unwilling to do that I wouldn't approve it. I would require them to go to Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 13 Planning Commission and get approval of their design. I do have that if they are unhappy with what I'm asking. They can also ask that the Commission can hear it. Basically, I would expect that what you see tonight, whatever you approve, that those buildings would incorporate that theme into their own buildings. Hoffman: If the motion to require large scale development would pass, would it be required to go to subdivision? I have a great deal of confidence in our Subdivision Committee. If it were approved at the Subdivision level, that would involve only three Commissioners, but they are generally a represented bunch. How many days would that cut off of the process? Conklin: Hoffman - That is about eight or nine days. This is about thirty days as opposed to how long for an administrative building permit? Conklin- Administrative is probably 2 weeks. Hoffman: So we are taking an additional two weeks. Conklin: Ten to fourteen days. Hoffman: Yes, we do require elevation drawings to be submitted. Conklin: We do require elevations to be submitted. Hyde: She said costs. Rogers: The $800 is the question. We would still have to do an $800 fee? Hyde: She said fees and costs. The additional cost on each one of these lots I would estimate to be somewhere between $8,000 and $10,000 in additional engineering. Just the cost of those dozen color plotted renderings was $600. The civil drawings had to be produced, 37 copies, there is a lot of extra engineering that has gone into these parcels. Hoffman: But it is my understanding that it is something that staff would've reviewed anyway. Lets make sure we're clear on this point. Would you have asked for these same level of drawings? Conklin: Yes. Basically if it is not coming through the Planning Commission we don't have the 37 copies and we would not ask for 12 color elevation drawings and the large one. We would get maybe a couple. One for the file, and permit it administratively. I would agree that it does make it easier on staff to have nine Commissioners to look at the ordinance and Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 14 Estes: determine if it does comply with commercial design standards. We do have staff here and it is our job to enforce that ordinance. It says anything less than an acre doesn't have to go through the large scale development process. I would be concerned to make sure that whatever goes out there does match this design theme and being on a corner lot that we don't have backs of buildings facing to the east or south on lot 2B especially. Tim, the request is to split into three lots. One lot is going to be 3.7 acres and the other two lots are going to be less than one acre. Does that mean that on the two lots that are less than an acre there would be no LSD requirement? Conklin: There would be no large scale development requirement. Estes: But on the lot with 3.7 acres it would be a requirement, is that correct? Conklin: That is the one that is on this agenda, that is correct. Estes: That is the one that we are going to look at next. Conklin: I just wanted to make sure, probably most people realize this. Just because it doesn't go through large scale development, all of our regulations still do apply. Commercial design standards, underground utilities, parking lot landscaping, it is a matter of administrative review and approval verses Planning Commission review and approval. Ward: I guess that if something didn't meet one of our five commercial design standards you would then say "I can't approve this but you might get it through the Planning Commission." Is that what your next step would be? Conklin: Yes. If people disagree with me I always give them the opportunity to over rule me at a higher level. Marr: I think that is my concern. If we are concerned about the development of it then we should make sure that the one that we approve tonight is reflective of what we would like to see in this particular area. The fact that this should set the standard of what we expect in this particular development area for the city staff to go by. If the applicant is not happy then they would obviously have the opportunity to bring it back to us. I want to be cautious. I certainly understand your concern. I understood it on the first drawings I looked at on this project. I want to be cautious of requiring under acre projects to come through and to be fair in our rational and reason of why we do that for all applicants. I was sitting here thinking that there were other developments that have been less than that. That we would certainly let be approved at other levels. The Pack Rat is one of them on the corner of Gregg and Sunbridge I think. The most I would be Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 15 Estes: willing to support would be looking at it at Subdivision but I think that we already have a process in which we would be able to handle it. I will vote against the motion to amend. The reason is that I think it is important that there be consistency that when an applicant comes before this Commission that they know what to expect. To require an LSD on something less than an acre is not something that we routinely do. Having said that, I am certainly going to, on the next item, hold the applicant to strict compliance with commercial design standards because it is the first project and it does set the unified development theme. I do mean strict compliance. Hoffman: I will too vote against the amendment for two reasons. I think it important that we send the message that we are certainly concerned with this particular retail area. However, we appreciate the business and would like to encourage it whenever possible. I rely heavily on staff. I think we have a great staff that certainly has the ability to fairly enforce the ordinances including the commercial design standards. Estes: Is there any other discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Hoover and a second by Commissioner Allen to amend the primary motion. That amendment is to require a large scale development for each of the three lots as a condition of approval. Is there any further discussion? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to amend Commissioner Marr's motion fails by a vote of 7-2-0 with Commissioners Hoover and Allen voting in favor. Estes: The motion fails by a vote of seven to two. The primary motion is a motion by Commissioner Marr with a second by Commissioner Shackelford to approve LSP 03 and 04, is there any discussion? Hoffman: I do have a question for staff about the location and size of the easements on the east side of the lot. I will be discussing some landscaping. We do have a 50' setback and utility easement shown along Steele Blvd. is a 50' utility easement necessary or could that be further delineated from there? We were talking about some berms. I realize that I am kind of messing this up. The reason that I'm asking about this large easement is that if there are additional plantings that may be required on the next item on the east side of the lot along Steele Blvd. towards the back of the building. Normally we have trouble locating landscaping and plantings within utility easements because of the proximity of water and sewer lines. Conklin: That 50' utility easement was part of CMN II, Phase I so that is a final plat that was recorded. That is an existing easement that is showing up. Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 16 Hoffman: Are there pipes on it? Petrie: Just speaking for the city, there is sanitary sewer. Our only request would be to plant trees 10' from the sewer line. Hoffman. Ok, so we would have a good 40' to play with. Petrie: Right. The shrubs would be fine but the trees we would like to keep 10' away. Hoffman: Ok, so you don't see any conflict with having plantings in that easement? Petrie: Not that I know of. I can't really speak for all of the other utility companies but they generally do not comment on that. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and a second by Commissioner Shackelford to approve LSP 02-3.00 and 4.00, is there any other discussion? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 02-3.00 and 4.00 Was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a vote of nine to zero. Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 17 LSD 02-3.00: Large Scale Development (Party City, pp 134) was submitted by Chris Rogers of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Hydco, Inc. for property located at the northwest corner of Steele Blvd. and Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 5.57 acres with 33,250 sq.ft. of retail space proposed. Estes: The next item on the agenda is LSD 02-3.00, a large scale development for Party City submitted by Chris Rogers of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Hydco, Inc. for property located at the northwest corner of Steele Blvd. and Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 5.57 acres with 33,250 sq.ft. of retail space proposed. Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions of approval. Are there signed conditions of approval? Conklin. Yes. Estes: Condition of approval 1) Planning Commission determination of compliance with commercial design standards including signage. The building has been redesigned since Subdivision Committee. Additional features have been added to the east side in order to make the facade. The back has been done with split face block. Staff is requesting the Commission discuss what may be visible from Steele Blvd. and make a recommendation as to any additional color needed on the rear of the building. 2) Parking lot lighting shall utilize sodium light fixtures or energy equivalent and shall not exceed 35' in height. 3) The design of this building must be reviewed and approved by the architectural review committee of CMN to determine compliance with restrictive covenants. 4) All trees removed in the public right of way shall be replaced with trees of similar size and quality. 5) In accordance with final plat requirements of CMN Business Park Phase I, each individual tract builder shall employ an environmental specialist to ensure the spirit and letter of the 404 permit of the Corp. of Engineers will be complied in the development of the lot. 6) Plat Review and Subdivision comments, to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative and all comments from utility representatives. 7) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. 8) Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 9) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: Grading and drainage permits, separate easement plat, a project disk with all final revisions and completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the city. Is the applicant or applicant's representative present and if so do you have a presentation that you would like to make at this time? Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 18 Hyde: Barry Hyde, Hydco, Inc. What I can do is address each change that we have made since the Subdivision Committee meeting in the same order that they were presented, or that the staff made comments. Items 2A through 2H. The first item was the arched features on both ends. The south facade is on the two ends. Both ends of the south facade, the south facade is the front elevation of the building and we changed the square rise in the periphet on the two ends to arched to be more similar to what is on the Party City store and to increase the height of them. Allen: Would it be feasible for you to go to the map and point those out as you talk about them? Hyde: Yes. Understand the match line between the two elevations. This building actually goes out here. This popup in the periphet was raised in height and changed from a straight square type elevation to a radius to be similar to Party City. The same thing has been done on the far east side, that was at the request of the Planning Division. The canopy along the front elevation is extended to the east facade. We worked with our architect and back and forth with the staff over the last two weeks or week and a half and designed the east facade, I don't know if you can see this down here. The canopy has been introduced in between these two brick pilasters and we have also introduced this arched feature on the east facade along with the stress joints or relief joints in dryvit. As you can see there was a window added to the east facade. That specifically references this window. We've added this window and we have also, in working with staff, doubled this window. Item 2d, Columns shall be continued around the north facade. The north facade is the service alley or the rear of the building. We have duplicated on the corners, we have rolled the brick right around. We have rolled this brick from the corner pilaster. The pilasters that were on the front elevation are now mirrored on the back of the building. Ward: On the north elevation, is that split faced block? Hyde: On the north elevation, what you are seeing that is kind of a gray color, it's a 8"x16" block called feather light. This is a material sample. Ward: Ok. Hyde: The red that you are seeing is this brick. Hoover: What is on the north facade? Hyde: The rear of the building? Hoover: Yes. Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 19 Hyde: What you are seeing is a taupe color in this plot is a split faced block. Ward: Does it go all the way to the top? Hyde: Yes Sir. We have removed all dryvit from the rear of the building. We may paint, we want the split faced block pilasters to match the brick color. 2E, Light fixtures as presently columned along the south facade, being the front, shall be added to the columns on all four facades. On the east and west we brought the same pattern with a horizontal H in. On the two center pilasters we introduced this round decorative lighting. On the rear of the building we have more of a security concern. We are using the security lighting in the same location of the pilaster to kind of duplicate that pattern. It is important back there that that is well lit. Item 2F, you asked that canopies be added above the doorways, that is the back of the building. After a lot of work with the staff, the architect and the proposed management of the center, they have been steadfast that we not do that. They are always in the way for UPS and trucks. They are a constant maintenance problem and a headache. They would also only be 7' tall. Ward: On the front, south elevation we have a color band which is going to be the awnings. Is there a way to put a color band or maybe use that red brick to give it a color band above those doors to articulate that more? Along that north elevation, do you see what I'm talking about? Hyde: To continue that feature. Ward: Even on the west elevation you've got the red horizontal and that would be easy to do with the red brick or maybe just color. Hyde: I don't think that would be a big cost issue. I would try to discuss that with the architect. I'm not an architect so I'm cautious in saying yes that we will definitely add that band. I'm very respectful of his experience. If he thinks we can pick that color up on the rear then I would not be opposed to that, I would be all for it. Ward: Ok, fantastic. What about landscaping back there? What are you going to do on that north? Hyde: To be honest with you, landscaping has already been prepared and is with Ms. Hesse. I would have to look at it, I certainly don't have it memorized. I think that we are in compliance all the way through. There has been a lot of discussion about seeing that north elevation. On this corner of the property, which would be the east corner, we do have a grouping of trees that would be required. I don't recall the specific trees that are there but they would screen that part of the building from where you would see it. Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 20 There are also nine trees that parallel. The building is only 70' deep so we are pretty heavily landscaped. We still have the landscaping requirement other than that 50'. Item 2G, Doors on the south facade shall be painted to match the dryvit on that facade. We will paint the doors to match the overall color of that masonry that they are referring to. A parapet on the rear of the building shall be constructed in order to screen all roof mounted utility equipment. This parapet shall be at minimum the height of the tallest equipment on the roof. That didn't require any action, it was already there. The Architectural Review Committee of CMN, CMN determines compliance with restrictive covenants. We believe we are in compliance with all those restrictive covenants. Item four, all trees removed in the public right-of-way shall be replaced with trees of similar size and quality. Some of the trees out there by the driveway between the sidewalk and the curb are going to be dislocated or relocated due to those curbcuts. We will certainly replace those or whatever seems appropriate. Estes: Does that conclude your presentation? Hyde: Yes Sir. Estes: Is there any member of the audience that would like to comment on this requested large scale development? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussions, motions or questions of the applicant. I have a question. On the south elevation, is the glass reflective? Hyde: No Sir. Do you mean that one on the side that you see? Estes: Is it reflective glass? Hyde: No Sir, it is clear glass. Estes: I share Commissioner Ward's comments about banding on the north elevation above the doors. Do I understand that that is acceptable and can be done in order to help that wall surface? Hyde: Yes it is acceptable. As far as the details of that band, I would certainly like to refer to the architect as far as what size, what color and up and down. As a cost issue, I don't see that as being a big issue for us there. Estes: Are there any questions? Hoffman: I have a couple of comments with regard to the commercial design standards. If I understood Commissioner Ward, you were asking to have that horizontal band be in brick? Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 21 Ward: I think that would make it look a lot classier and much more durable than just painting it on there. I have noticed that a lot of the buildings that we have done, I was out at JC Penny's on Sunday and noticed that they had the split faced block and then the red brick color band, it really was very attractive. It gives it a classy look. Hyde: On the rear of the building that 4' band back there? Ward: Hyde: It is actually the entrance to the back of the building but it is very attractive. I can tell from the north end that this is going to be more visible than what I originally thought. This north elevation, the other elevations as far as I'm concerned, look great. This north elevation, because of the way it sits on the property and the way the contour of the elevations is going to be a lot more visible than what I previously thought it was going to be. That is why we are trying to dress it up more than what it would be if it was going to be totally out of view, it wouldn't make any difference. I assume, from everybody that I've talked to, it is going to have a lot of visibility for a while. That is what we are trying to address and without any wild cost overruns. We are not wanting it to look like the front of the building but something that is attractive. It is a long unarticulated wall if you don't watch out. Well, it is not totally unarticulated. Let me point out that each one of these pilasters projects off the other face board 6". Also, at Party City there is a 5' step in the building. The two wings are 70' deep. Party City store is 105' deep. Party City sticks out the back five foot further than the two wings and on the front it sticks out 25' further than the two wings. Probably, that is most easily seen right here. This is the wing from here to here where Party City sticks out, this is where it sticks out in back. We do have some break and some articulation there but it is kind of hard to see when you are looking at a flat drawing. Hoffman: In regard to the comment about the horizontal banding, I think the applicant had indicated that he might be considering painting the pilasters on the back of the building and I would just offer that it might be a suggestion for you to consider using the same material for the horizontal band that you do the pilasters just for the sake of continuity. My second suggestion has to do with landscaping and I eluded to that in the lot split. I think you can berm up, and I realize that this is going to be a change to your civil drawings, you could berm up or extend out and move some dirt in such a way at the northeast corner at the property that you would be able to plant more trees that would be evergreens and that that is something that could be coordinated with the Engineering Depaitment here and with the Landscape Administrator, Ms. Hesse. You have met the requirements for the parking lot ordinance and we certainly appreciate that but landscaping goes a long way to just hide the back of a building and I Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 22 Hyde: think we have used that successfully in other projects and I would like to see if you would be interested in entertaining that idea as well. You kind of hit me with two things. One is using the same materials on the pilasters as well as the horizontal banding. It seems like a good idea to me and I'm not trying to be evasive, what I am trying to do is leave that to my design professional to figure out how we introduce it. Maybe what I can say is that I certainly agree to introducing some kind of horizontal element to maybe keep that consistency of that awning that comes across the front. How we do it and how it is proportioned and how it is colored, whether we maintain a different color between that awning and that brick work on the front, I'm not really qualified to make. I can tell you that we will address that and we will do that and I believe the end product will be a good job in doing that. Hoffman: Just my comments on the building, those were just meant to say that I would not be in favor of painting the pilasters. Hyde: I don't think we will have to. Hoffman: Certainly, there should be some other material available. The second part of the question was just that a few more trees seemingly would not add a great deal of impact to the cost of the project and would go a long way towards screening the rear of the building. Hyde: The way that the property is platted, our property does not go up that hill. Rogers: The rear property line is right off the back of the curb. We have squeezed quite a few utilities in that area. As you come down that hill, a berm wouldn't be doing you any good on the backside of the building. We talked about putting some trees in at one time but with so many utilities running through there it may be, I don't think the utility companies were too favorable for that. On the east side, there was discussion about adding a berm on the far east side. Hoffman: That is what I'm talking about, the northeast side. Rogers: Ok, on the northeast corner, we can do something along Steele. We still have the same problem on the north property line with that slope coming down. Also, keep in mind that we have a dumpster with the screening wall around it too in that northeast corner. Hoffman: You have behind your property line, you don't begin to drop off for some 10'. Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 23 Rogers: Right, we could come in from the east side and add something there to put that landscaping on top of the berm to make it even better. There is not a utility through there. The sewer line is out closer to the street in that 50' easement you were referring to earlier. Allen: Estes: My nay saying on the Committee seems to get me nowhere other than to live with my own conscious but this is a highly visible area. A box by any other name is still a box. As far as I'm concerned, I see this as a box. I feel like while you have made some strides there is a long way to go. Commissioner Ward has, in my opinion, expressed some valid concerns. I would like if possible, to have some definition on what we are going to do with the north elevation. As it sits now it is two unarticulated wall surfaces. That concerns me. We've talked about some suggestions. Commissioner Ward has expressed his concerns. I find them to be legitimate concerns. What are we going to do with the north elevation? Hyde: What are we going to do with it? Estes: Yes. Before I can vote yes on this large scale development we have got to do something with that north elevation. Hyde: We will introduce a horizontal element in similar color and dimension as the awning. You are really putting me on the spot here. I just don't want to back my architect into the corner. I have to go back and face him. We will introduce a horizontal element in similar color and dimension as what we've done on the front with the awning, kind of cutting off above the glass there. Again, I really need to refer to my architect on how he ranges that. I am confident and I'm willing to say that we will do that. I'm hesitant to say just this material or just this dimension. I promise you I will screw up. Estes: If I understand correctly, it will not be an awning extending out because of the service vehicles and delivery vehicles. It will be some sort of a band, is that correct? Hyde: Yes Sir. Marr: I think one of the things, at least for me, I am looking for something that is just painted or something that is additional material that actually from a material perspective makes a band. I'm not interested in looking at something that is purely from a painted standpoint. I guess when we are talking about how to define the north elevation item, I have heard two or three different things and I keep hearing from the applicant more of "I'll get with my architect and we'll get a band across there." I thought we Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 24 were looking for something that was materially different to create a band and I guess that is more of what I'm looking for in the development. Estes: I concur and agree. A painted stripe is not going to articulate that wall surface. Hyde: We are looking at a change in face or something to be popped up or brick? Marr: I think just a textural difference. Hyde: What about soldier courses put in there? Hoffman: Again, with our wonderful staff, don't you think we could set out some general parameters for horizontal banding and I'm going to throw the pilasters in there for good measure and say that I would like them to be the similar material and that would give you some latitude to work with brick or split face block that is in a different color or pattern or something like that with your architect. I don't think it will be boxing him or her in. I am going to stand fast on the landscaping too. I really think that is important at that corner. I'm not a landscape professional either, I'm not able to say "Well, you need to plant twelve more trees." If this is moved on and passed to include additional conditions of approval that would outline some design parameters that they could work within that would give them some options but still meet the intent of our commercial design standards, that would be with additional landscaping and horizontal and vertical interest on the back of the building. Can you handle that? Conklin: I would like clarification because the elevation you are looking at tonight, the north elevation, they are showing the columns made out of split faced block, either it is going to be an interval color of block or it is going to be painted extended out about 4" from the base of the wall. I've heard that we want a different material like brick. If they are brick, I need to know if they are brick and if you're talking about allowing smooth face block in the banding. I've seen some, I think Target is actually doing some of this, Chris Rogers is here from CEI Design, he was the civil engineer for Target. They used some courses of smooth faced block and then they paint to help articulate the wall surface. If that is acceptable, I just want to make sure. If it is brick, be clear and say it has to be brick along the entire back of the building. If not, yes, staff can work with them on looking at different block materials. Smooth faced block, I've seen the smaller square type smooth faced block provide some definition used on some buildings. If that is acceptable, staff can certainly handle that. Hoover: Mr. Chair, can I make a comment? Estes: Yes Commissioner Hoover. Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 25 Hoover: It looks like what everyone is speaking of is some three dimensional element, not something that is just flat which would help to articulate this flat area. Let me go back to the awnings, would everyone be in agreement with the awnings? Looking at elevations, those awnings are higher than 7', those front doors are 7' so I would say that the awning is about 10' or something. The awning could be raised up higher in the back if they are concerned about running into it. Would that be something more palpable to the Commission? If the awnings continued on the back, that would definitely be a three dimensional element and I think in addition to, I'm going to say in addition to, this extra brick work that is also stair stepping in or out, trying to create some articulation. Ward: Estes: Marr: I just think that anything that creates a band, whether it is an awning or the brick or the smooth face block or something that would change and give it some articulation is all that is really needed. Awnings might require a lot more maintenance and upkeep in the future. I don't know that part. It is hard for me to redesign and use materials but the project is so much nicer than what came to us originally. I am very satisfied with the three elevations. I think they look great. Like I said, if the back of the building face was pretty much hidden it would've been fine like it originally came to us. I really do feel like it needs some kind of band there. I would love to see a brick placed in between a split faced block or two and really make it a beautiful band but the awnings might be an option to put up higher or like we talked about the smooth face block. Commissioner Hoover, to be responsive to your question, it is my opinion that to satisfy the commercial design standards, a three dimensional horizontal banding to articulate the wall surface is necessary. I am not an architect, I'm a lawyer. You are the architect. I don't know how that can be done. Awnings have maintenance issues, we have been told that they have issues with service vehicles and delivery vehicles but to be responsive to your question, as I understand it, what I'm looking for is a three dimensional horizontal banding to articulate those two wall surfaces. Also Sharon, I think that at the Subdivision Committee meeting we had discussions and did actually recommend that the awnings continued around that was one of the ideas we gave the developer. I don't really feel like, and I said this at the Subdivision Committee meeting obviously it was my first time so I'm learning a lot by it, that it is our job to design their building. I think it is our job to tell them what the requirements of the ordinance are and that it is their job to come back with some solutions that help to do that. That is my concern about sitting here today throwing out ideas. As I look at it and say if I look at this project I would not vote for it. I would not vote for it because I think that the north elevation, based on our agenda tour on Thursday, is much more visible than we Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 26 originally felt. I think that looking diagonally across the back north property line that you will be able to see this wall. I think that Commissioner Hoffman's idea of some type of berm on the furthest northeastern corner that could be planted to create a planted barrier is an excellent idea. That is something that I would certainly be interested in. I like the awnings, I supported it at Subdivision so obviously, I would support it tonight but again, I think it is their job to do that. I don't think we ought to be here being Planning Architects, it is certainly not my discipline. I am looking at an unpaved concrete precision, block wall and box like structure. I think that the north elevation poses some challenges to us. I will agree, I think this is a great improvement over the first drawing I saw, so I don't want to take anything away from the work that has been done on it. That is the piece that I'm uncomfortable with on it. Allen: I would agree with that. As it is it is not acceptable from my point of view. I don't feel like we are in a position to make a decision about how that should be changed. Estes: I have a question regarding the monument sign. If I understood the comments earlier, there is no dryvit on the building, is that correct? Hyde: On the rear elevation. Estes: Is there dryvit on the monument sign? Hyde: Yes there is. Hoover: I have a question for staff. To be consistent with all developers, do we usually allow a dumpster up next to a street? I don't remember. Conklin: We have as long as they are screened. Hoover: In the situation where you are going to be able to see in the dumpster, I'm assuming it is not screened from the top. It is screened on the top? Hyde: There is not a roof over it but it is screened. Hoover: That is what I'm asking. I'm saying in this instance when you are up at a higher elevation, you are going to be able to see into the dumpster as you are coming down the street. I was just curious if this was the only location that this dumpster could go. I noticed that there was another one. I didn't know, do we usually have two dumpsters on a project of this size? Conklin: The Solid Waste Division does receive these plats. I have not spoken with them to determine whether or not there was a recommendation from our Solid Waste Division. With regard to can you see down the dumpster, you Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 27 may be able to. You probably may be able to see the top of the building. Just like Wal-Mart Supercenter and Best Buy and TJ Maxx when you are up on Mall Ave. It is difficult when we live in a town that has a lot of topography. I did like what I heard from Commissioner Hoffman about the possibility of a berm. I do think that would help tremendously up front. That would help the screening location of that dumpster. Does it have to be exactly right there? Probably not. I am not sure where you can move it where you are probably not going to be able to see it coming down from Mall Ave. They are so high up in that location. Hoover: The one at the west location I thought would probably not be seen. I was just curious, did you need two dumpsters? Hyde: Yes. Hoover: You do need two for the size project. Estes: Is there any other discussion or motions? Hyde: If I could make a final comment? Estes: Yes. Hyde: What we can do on the back of the building and because it seems to be a problem trying to figure out what to do. I would make a statement to you tonight that we would use a contrasting split faced block, probably the same color as the brick out of smoke, to create that band, whether it projects or we turn it into a soldier course, in other words they are laid on the end to present a difference in texture and in surface. To present an offset in the surface as well. I would ask you that you please remember as developers, we've got to make this thing work. In today's times that is more and more of a challenge on every project and certainly when you are dealing with the service yard, the rear of the building. I know that we aesthetically have to try to make it look reasonable and not be an eyesore. I think that the comments made at Subdivision, I think we've responded honestly and with our very best effort to each one of those. I would respectfully request that you vote affirmatively for this project. Bunch: One question, is this going to be all constructed at one time or will it be in phases? Hyde: The plan is to construct the project in one sequence. Bunch: One sequence, I know some of the others in this general vicinity were presented to us as one large development and then it wound up being in phases and we had walls that we had not had an opportunity to address. Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 28 Hyde: There has not even been any discussion to phase this project. Motion: Hoffman. I would like to make a motion to approve LSD 02-3.00, subject to all of the written conditions of approval with the following specific findings regarding the commercial design standards. The developer and architect will coordinate with the city staff to add a contrasting material horizontal band along the north elevation of the building that will be of the same material as the pilasters along the north side of the building and that the monument sign not be primarily made of dryvit, that it also be of a brick or split faced block construction. I believe that most of our signs in the area are not dryvit so I would like to continue that theme. Hyde: Can I explain that elevation? Hoffman. I'm in the middle of making a motion to approve your project. That would be two items, the horizontal banding, the pilasters, the signage not being primarily of dryvit and that a berm be added along the northeast comer of the property and that all of these conditions be coordinated with the staff. If the staff and the developer are unable to reach an agreement regarding the materials and design that this go ahead and come back to the Planning Commission at a later date for those items, that is my motion. Estes: Commissioner Hoffman, is it permissible for your motion regarding the horizontal banding to include a requirement of three dimensional horizontal banding to articulate the north wall surfaces? Hoffman: That is fine. Marr: I will second. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and a second by Commissioner Marr to approve LSD 02-3.00 with the three additional conditions of approval, is there any discussion? Bunch: I believe when the first additional condition was mentioned that it required the same material and horizontal element as in the pilasters, would you entertain an amendment to make it a similar material or a material to create the contrast and that way we would not be in the design process and would not be limiting the architect in how he achieves the three dimensional contrasting horizontal element? Rather than requiring the exact same material as in the pilasters. Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 29 Hoffman: Hoover: Hoffman: Bunch: Hoffman: Bunch: Estes: Shackelford: Estes: Before I answer that, can I ask Sharon? I was thinking that the horizontal banding and the pilasters being of the same material would be a good idea or a good thing, in your professional opinion, is that too limiting? Just be aware that they could come up dryvit if they are not specified. I would like to just keep it as is then. I can materially support your motion with that exception because I feel that that is too limiting and that we can get the desired intent without specifying that it be the exact same material. That does limit the professional capabilities of the architect and it is limiting in the design and puts us in the position of being designers. I think that we can express that we want a horizontal element of a similar material that would give a three dimensional effect and some contrasting or colors without specifying that it be the exact same material. Should they desire to use the exact same material then that would be great. I hear what you are saying but I'm worried that it is going to be real desperate looking. If they can do it along the front then I am not sure why they can't do it along the back. I am not inclined to change my motion. Ok, in that case I would like to move for an amendment to alter the motion from being the exact same material to a similar material to give the architect more latitude. We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch to amend the primary motion to provide like or similar materials for the three dimensional horizontal banding to articulate the north wall surface, is there a second? I'll second. We have a second by Commissioner Shackelford, is there any discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch and a second by Commissioner Shackelford to amend the primary motion to provide for like or similar materials, is there any discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to amend failed by a vote of 6- 3-0 with Commissioners Bunch, Shackelford and Ward voting in favor. Estes: The motion to amend fails by a vote of six to three. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and a second by Commissioner Marr to approve LSD 02-3.00 with the three additional Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 30 conditions of approval is there any other discussion or any other motions to amend? Hoffman: Mr. Chair, I interrupted the applicant and I'm sorry. I was just trying to keep my train of thought and I'm sorry. If you have something else to say on this before we vote then I would like to hear it. Hyde: I didn't realize that I hadn't explained the sign. The base of the sign is split face masonry. The two square targets so to speak, are brick and split face masonry. Only the sign banner itself is dryvit. Does that help any? Hoffman. It does. I am just looking at the predominance of the sign face itself being dryvit even though the base is masonry so I was putting in my motion to eliminate the dryvit. Hyde: It would actually probably be masonry anyway and we would apply dryvit over the masonry to present that sign better. We don't object to that change. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Estes: Commissioner Hoover, did you have a comment? Hoover: I just wanted to make a comment. Reading through these conditions, it is my understanding that whatever the theme is of this particular development is also going to show up in the out parcel one and two and I just want to make sure that everybody is aware of that. We are going to see this over and over again. Also, I just want to make the applicant aware, that on out parcel one and two I personally will not be considering that those have any rear building area since those will be free standing pads, they are in the round. All this discussion that we've had about the north elevation, I just want you to be aware that when those two come in that north elevation I am assuming is going to look like the south elevation. Hyde: I would too. Conklin: For the record, we will be looking for a wrap around architectural design on those parcels. Hyde: I can certainly respect that and that makes wonderful sense to me. It is just hard for me to get past the back of the building. Hoover: I think what comes to us often is people call it the back of the building when really it is viewed from a street and for me, I don't see many rears of buildings. A lot of these buildings are in the round. Suddenly when the Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 31 next building is built next to it is going to be the side of the building, it is no longer the rear when something is build adjacent to it. I think thinking of it as the rear is a misconception. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and a second by Commissioner Marr. Tim, did you have a comment? Conklin: I just want to make sure that I understand. The split face block that is on this north elevation, I think that it is important that it is an interval color block and not paint. Especially if we are doing the banding, I think it looks better. Look at Best Buy and when McDonald's came in they matched that block. The material looks better, I think it helps articulate the building better verses just using the same type of block and then using paint to articulate that. Hyde: That is our first choice. We don't want to paint it every five years. Hoffman: Ok, I think that was understood that there would be no paint on the banding. Thank you. Hyde: That is why I talked about using a split face and then rolling it vertical and projecting it out. I am confident that we can work out something well. Interval color is certainly my first choice. Hoffman: Thank you for working with us at this stage on it. I kind of feel like we are doing a little bit of micromanaging here but it will get you on down the road. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and a second by Commissioner Marr to approve LSD 02-3.00 is there any further discussion or any other questions of the applicant? Any comments? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 02-3.00 was approved by a vote of 8-1-0 with Commissioner Allen voting against it. Estes: The motion passes by a vote of eight to one. Thank you. Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 32 ADM 01-15.00: Administrative Item (Outdoor Lighting) was submitted by the Planning Commission Subcommittee on Outdoor Lighting to adopt an ordinance that minimizes the impact of outdoor lighting on adjacent properties and improves nighttime visibility. Estes: The next item on the agenda is an administrative item, Outdoor Lighting. This is to adopt an ordinance that minimizes the impact of outdoor lighting on adjacent properties and improves night time vision. The Planning Staff has received complaints about outdoor lighting located within several new developments in Fayetteville that has prompted the Planning Commission to consider adopting an outdoor lighting ordinance. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, which has been provided to you in your materials, for adoption by the City Council. Tim, do you have any comments or remarks that you would like to make? Conklin: I have a suggestion. That is before we go to those administrative items, if you would like to hear the request for items three and four. It is up to the Commission, of course, the applicant is here. Estes: We had a motion, which was called and voted on to move those to the last items on the agenda. We will go ahead and take the items on the agenda as they have been placed by the vote of the Commission. Conklin: Sure. Estes: Do you have any comments regarding ADM 01-15.00? Conklin: Yes. This is a proposed outdoor lighting ordinance for the City of Fayetteville. The subcommittee has met for many months to develop this ordinance. A lot of research has gone into this ordinance basically requiring partially shielding or fully shielding outdoor lighting, based on the type of outdoor lighting that is proposed. It does have some controls with regard to the type of lighting that is allowed. Anything up to 20 watts there is no shielding, partially shielding or fully shielding required. Anything up to a 60 watt or 1,000 lumens, partially shielding is required. This means that you have an opaque top or solid top on top of the light. You can have some translucent sides, the light can shine through and then anything over a 60 watt has to be fully shielded which basically is on all four sides and the top is completely shielded and directed downward. It does establish some measurements, quantitated measurements for the amount of light that can be at a residential property line. That is a one and a half foot candle. That is measured at three feet above grade. It does involve testing with a light meter. The fixture height has been established and it does have a formula three plus distance divided by three to the nearest property line for residential property. It sets the maximum height at 35'. That is the same as the overlay district. It also establishes that any Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 33 lighting for buildings not be taller than the buildings that they are lighting. Special use lighting includes some standards for gasoline stations or service station vehicle canopies, that is shall not create glare offsite. That can be accomplished by recessing the fixture within the canopy or indirect lighting that bounces back to the ground, not directly up in the atmosphere. Outdoor recreation facilities, there is a time limitation up to 11:00 p.m. except during events that extend beyond that that start earlier. Modifications or waivers from that can be approved by the City Planner. For flagpoles and monuments, upward lighting is allowed for governmental flags only. Any other type of monuments that are lit, a narrow cone of light shall be used. The rest are some requirements for information that has to be provided with the application to insure compliance with this ordinance. Basically, most new development is already complying with this ordinance. All Wal-Mart Supercenters and Neighborhood Markets that are built already do fully shielded lighting. Most new development that installs lighting in their parking lots is fully shielded. What we are trying to prohibit in this community is someone going out, buying a floodlight and lighting up an entire lot and beyond the lot into residential neighborhoods. Those are the areas that we have had complaints about at the Planning Division. We are trying to come up with some minimal standards to insure that we have lighting that is fully or partially shielded and directed downwards. As we move towards mixing land uses closer together with non-residential and residential that we have some standards for the amount of light that can go beyond the site into someone's backyard. Once again, the subcommittee has worked very hard on this ordinance. It does not go as far as some ordinances across the United States but it does establish a minimum standard for outdoor lighting control in the City of Fayetteville. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to answer them. Estes: Thank you Tim. Tim, under the applicability portion of the proposed ordinance, is an exemption for single or two family dwellings. We have received some comments, particularly an email comment this afternoon from a constituent. What is the reasoning or thinking for excluding single or two family dwellings from the requirement of the proposed ordinance? Conklin: Once again, we were primarily trying to target those areas where we have had some problems in the past. That is on commercial properties, parking lots, probably to look at why we would exempt single family, similar to the reasons for the tree ordinance we exempt single family. We try not to create those regulations that would impact a single family or duplex residential use. There may be occasion where the ordinance would be beneficial but in this case we are really trying to address the main issue and that is outdoor lighting of parking lots, display areas where people in this community have gone out and bought floodlights to completely light the entire area and then the light trespasses onto other people's property. That is the main reason why those are exempted. Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 34 Estes: Thank you Tim. Is there any discussion or any comments regarding this administrative item? Hoffman: I would just like to add a couple of things just by way of information for the Commission and the other committee members that are here, you can go ahead and jump in at anytime. We did look at this with a definite eye toward little or no economic impact or lengthening of the development process. This is mainly about which way we aim the lights. If we aim them down they are not going to give us the problems of glare and light trespass and so forth. We did follow and have industry input. The IESNA, which is the Illuminating Engineering Society, standards are referenced in this ordinance and we will be following those. These are industry standards, the height of the poles and so forth are pretty much standard across the country. I was impressed with the fact that Wal-Mart is already putting these types of lights in. I had not known that before we drafted the ordinance. With regard to the one complaint that we received, and I believe we have only received one complaint from a resident regarding another residential property. That bas to do with a security light. Many people choose to put those domed security lights on their property for security purposes. I read in this letter that the resident is appealing to SWEPCO to put a different kind of light in on her neighbor's fixture. We had SWEPCO and Ozarks Electric involved in our meetings too. They simply do not stock the shielded security lights. That is another reason we left that out, the one and two family dwellings. It is just not feasible to have everybody take down their security lights. Also, we have exempted existing buildings and existing properties. With that being said, if there is anything that anybody else would like to add. Estes: Commissioner Allen, did you have a comment? Allen: Just to make sure that the public understood and that 1 do, that this is not a retroactive thing that we are talking about future development. Hoffman: This is just new development, right. Conklin: Most new development already is complying with this ordinance. Hoffman: I want to say, she is not here tonight, but that Shelly Rushing put in a great deal of research time on the ordinance. She compared other cities of similar size and populations and came up with a lot of good ideas for us and when we took our nighttime tour and looked at all of the existing developments that we could, with the varying degrees of compliance and non-compliance. It was then that we came up with the 1.5 candles at 3' above the ground, which is the least stringent of any of the ordinances that we looked at. We just simply felt that that was not going to be a problem. Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 35 Estes: Commissioner Shackelford? Shackelford: I too, served on this subcommittee and want to thank Tim and his staff and commend them for the work that they did. It was a joint effort and I really appreciate all that they did. Tim, one question I did have for you. One thing that we talked about in the meeting was obviously, outdoor lights are used for security reasons and my concern is that there might be some exceptional situation somewhere where there might be a need for a waiver or consideration of a waiver of this for security reasons. Could you walk us through what sort of terms of appeal would be open for someone that wanted to ask for a waiver of this ordinance? Would it come back to the Planning Commission? What would that process be? Conklin- I am not sure if we have put in a formal appeal process of this ordinance. Hoffman: There is, it is on page 8.7 under substitution. Conklin: Ok. It states "Should any outdoor light fixture or type of light source therein be changed after the permit has been issued a change request must be submitted to the City Planner for approval together with adequate information to ensure compliance with this code which must be received prior to substitution." I am not sure if that exactly addresses what you are looking at. We looked at what is allowed in other communities. You should be able to adequately light your property or business and comply with the ordinance. It was interesting when the woman came up from Little Rock and talked about how Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, is already using fully cut off, fully shielded lights to light their parking lots and light around their buildings and still provide adequate security lighting. I can certainly get with our City Attorney's office and find out if we put a provision in there specifically allowing for a variance if that is something that you as a Commission would like to see. We did not see any applications where you could not comply with this ordinance and not be able to light your area adequately. Shackelford: My concern is that it is used so much in security. Particularly around commercial buildings and that sort of thing. One of the things that you said tonight that really stuck with me is that even on the ordinances that you make decisions on you always give an applicant the opportunity to appeal your decision. I would like to see that as a part of that ordinance as well. Hoffman: I agree. Do our bylaws, under the UDO can't the decision of the City Planner be appealed to the Planning Commission or do we have to put it in the ordinance itself? Conklin: Only in specific instances, and they are listed. Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 36 Hoffman: Well then we probably need to just put it in this ordinance. Conklin: That is not in here. The substitution part really doesn't talk about that. That is something that our City Attorney wanted to make sure on our tree ordinance that there was a specific variance procedure and amended the ordinance last year right when he came into his position. That is something that we certainly can add into this ordinance. Estes: Mr. Williams, you have been in the process of crafting a proposed ordinance that would provide a right of appeal to any person aggrieved by any administrative or administraerial action or any city function, would that provide the relief that Commissioner Shackelford is commenting on? Williams: It is possible. The variance I think is a little bit different in that the variance would just be saying "In this particular case for security reasons I need this"; as opposed to "This is more money than I should have to pay." I think probably the variance suggested here might be something that you would want to consider. Estes: Thank you Mr. Williams. Commissioner Shackelford, did you have a comment? Shackelford: I just wanted to reiterate, I am not trying to be difficult on this. Obviously, in my profession, being banking, we think about security a lot around ATM machines and that sort of thing. I just don't want to be in a situation to where a developer felt that they were having to take on additional liability if someone was to get hurt and could show that this ordinance or the lack of lighting in that situation had something to do with it. I would like to see some sort of appeal process for a variance that could be specifically spelled out as a part of this ordinance. Marr: I agree with that. Estes: Mr. Williams, would it be permissible for this proposed ordinance to go forward to the City Council and for you to craft a paragraph providing for a variance provision and that if the requested variance is denied then there is an appeal to the full Commission? Williams: Mr. Chairman, we can do that and we might actually even want to put a provision within our variance chapter as opposed to putting it within this particular ordinance. I will talk with our City Planner and see what we can come up with but I am sure that we can accomplish that. Estes: Is there any other discussion or motions? Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 37 Conklin: I was just going to explain why in our variance section that you see all the different items listed. When we compiled the Unified Development Ordinance each ordinance had an individual variance section, typically with it, when the UDO was put together all of those were moved into one section. You have appeals to the Board of Adjustments, appeals to the City Planner, appeals to the Planning Commission and they are all listed individually. We have not gone back and looked at how to streamline that. I am all in favor of looking at that and seeing how we can accomplish that without having to list every single item. Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on ADM 01-15? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for motions or discussion. Hoffinan: We did talk about bank security lighting and we had some people come in that had some data, I don't remember which meeting it was but we talked about it. Our ordinance should be able to accomplish that but should it not, I do agree that we need some kind of variance procedure. Shackelford: I don't think it will be a problem very often. I would just like to have the variance there if it was a problem we could address it. Hoffman: Absolutely. Estes: Commissioner Bunch? Bunch: Yes, I have a few questions for the committee that crafted this. What about temporary lighting for construction job sites? I don't see any exemptions for it in here or any means of addressing it. Also, for industrial zones and yard lights and things like railroad switchyards and electrical utility switchyards. Some might come under display areas, some might come under buildings and structures. The first time we come through with this I think we need to be fairly comprehensive. Marr: If I could add onto Commissioner Bunch's comment and I have other questions when he is done, but what doesn't make sense to me about those two items is that they appear to be in the minutes of the committee. Industrial lighting and construction lighting requirements but nothing is in the ordinance. I think his comment is right, there is nothing in it but I am curious if the committee could address why you didn't move forward with it because it is in your minutes as an item. Estes: Commissioner Bunch, were you finished with your comments? Bunch: In that one part. Another was the definition of low voltage lighting. I am wondering if that was covered in some of the standards that were Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 38 Hoffman: Conklin: mentioned because in the electrical industry there are multiple definitions of low voltage. It could be anything from well over 600 volts on down. I am just wondering which standard was called out to determine exactly what is low voltage lighting because this could come into problems in industrial sites and on construction sites. For some reason I can't find it in here but I know that we had something in there about utility lighting and that kind of stuff. It is on page 8.5 under 176.03(b) exemptions. "All temporary emergency lighting needed by police or fire departments or other emergency or utility services are exempt." You could possibly add temporary or permanent that is needed to cover that. Hoffman: I'm not sure about putting in construction lighting at night because if they are trying to meet a deadline and they have got a commercial property next to a residential area, conceivably, they are exempt. They could be spending months trying to get a building built 24 hours a day with lights shining in the neighbors yard. I don't know if we should put that in there or if that could just be something that could go through the variance or appeal procedure. Ward: What I think I would like to do, in essence of time, is table this administrative item. I think we are really close to getting it done but we definitely need an appeal process or a variance process in it first of all. There are three or four other items that it looks like we need to address again. There is no use fighting it out here trying to figure out on four or five of those little items like Don has brought up. I would like to go ahead and table it for the time being because we have to do some work on it anyway and try to bring it back this next time. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to table ADM 01-15, is there a second? Marr: Second. Hoffinan: Before we do that can we get the whole list? Williams: I would like to ask a question. On the variance, I can understand it was for security, is there any other thing that you would want as far as another reason for a variance besides security? Estes: I would suggest Mr. Williams, that we not define the reason. That we just provide a right, as a matter of the ordinance, to request the variance. Then if the requested variance is denied provide a provision that the aggrieved party may appeal to the full Commission. Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 39 Shackelford: I agree. Hoffman: I have written down that we have the variance, the temporary construction issue, the utilities I think have been answered, I don't know if they were satisfactory to you but I would like to know. Bunch: Where it is not just the emergency. I realize some of our variance towers, the support gear rooms or equipment sheds, if we lose capabilities on some of our cell towers or our transmission towers for radio systems. Some of those are located in residential areas and they could require temporary lighting to get back on line as fast as possible. Some of those would probably come under emergency services or utility services. Hoffman: They are all on generators so I think they would definitely be a temporary or emergency condition. Bunch: Well, it may not be just loss of power, it could be loss of function of some of their equipment that has to be replaced and they would need possibly lighting to do that. I just wanted to have enough room in this to accommodate some of the what ifs without having to list them specifically or without having to tie people's hands to wait for an act of congress before work can ensue to take care of things. The same way with our industrial areas. Often times they are not, they are kind of out of site and out of mind many times. We have industries that run 24 hours a day and we need to address situations in the industrial zones, particularly in the industrial parks. Hoffman: Those existing industrial uses are exempted and new ones would get.. . Bunch: Right, but looking down the line we do have an industrial park that hopefully at sometime that we would sell some of those lots and have some new industries in it to help support our community. We just need to not tie their hands. Allen: I call for the question please. Estes: Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to table ADM 01-15.00 was tabled by a vote of 8-1-0 with Commissioner Hoffman voting against it. Estes: The motion to table passes by a vote of eight to one. Perhaps Commissioner Bunch would accept an interim appointment as a defecto member of this committee. Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 40 Bunch: Yes I would. Hoffman. All comments are welcome. Usually we can do it just by emailing and Shelly kind of puts them together. Marr: Estes: Mr. Chair and I know you want to move forward but I just want to make one comment. I think that when we have a new ordinance getting a packet on Thursday and seeing it for the first time doesn't give you adequate time as a Commissioner to get your comments to the committee without having this kind of meeting. If we do not want to have a lot of discussion about what we think are items on Planning Commission, other than taking public comment to it, then I would suggest that we have another forum for getting in earlier. I certainly have comments but I am aware enough to understand that the Commission doesn't want to sit here and dig through those tonight. Either when we do a new ordinance and we want to get feedback from all the Commission once we have a subgroup, I think we ought to get it earlier so that we can get our comments back and we can have a speedier meeting if that is the intent I think it is important, I certainly wouldn't want to send a message to Commissioner Bunch that his items aren't important and this was the only forum we had to bring it up. I concur with your comments. To propose an ordinance to the City Council is a very serious matter and I think it is very important that we do have this dialogue and we do have this discussion and that if there are concerns that they be properly addressed. Once the committee completes its work and the finished project is available to us we are not going to see it until Thursday before the agenda session and perhaps, for that reason, it is important that we do have a full dialogue and a full discussion among us. That is the reason that I voted for the motion to table was to send it back. I think all of the concerns, Commissioner Shackelford, Commissioner Bunch have all expressed valid and genuine concerns. Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 41 ADM 01-36: Administrative Item (Fee in Lieu of Construction of Sidewalk) was submitted by Kit Williams, City Attorney to revise the calculation method for determining the fee in lieu of construction of sidewalks for a single-family lot, duplex lot or lot split. The amendment also adds a list of factors for the Sidewalk Administrator to review when considering waivers for the construction of sidewalks. Estes: The next item on the agenda is ADM 01-36.00 an amendment to §171.12 regarding contribution of fees in lieu of construction of sidewalks. This is to revise the calculation method for determining the fee in lieu of construction of sidewalks for a single family lot, duplex lot or lot split. The amendment also adds a list of factors for the Sidewalk Administrator to review when considering waivers for the construction of sidewalks. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the ordinance prepared by the Planning Commission subcommittee for adoption by the City Council. I know that Mr. Williams, our City Attorney had a considerable degree of involvement in this matter. Mr. Williams, do you have any comments or any remarks that you would like to make at this time? Williams: Mr. Chairman, as I told you during the agenda session on Thursday, I felt that you should consider a revision of the sidewalk ordinance at the same time that you consider another ordinance that I have prepared and hopefully have got distributed to you. It has not been published long enough for you to be able to consider it tonight. That ordinance would amend our appeal chapter in the Unified Development Ordinance in order to give a right for someone that feels like they have been aggrieved by a requirement of some sort of dedication or requirement to pay money beyond the impact of their development. This was something that we talked about several months ago. At this point in time I have prepared an ordinance and it will be, I think it has been published. Is that right Tim? In two weeks that can be heard and I simply think that since that was mainly motivated because of the sidewalk problem, I think those two ordinances should be considered at the same time so I would request that after you make any kind of discussion on the sidewalk ordinance tonight that you table that so that both of them can be considered at the same time. Motion: Estes: In light of Mr. Williams' remarks, I would like to make a motion that we table ADM 01-36 so that it may be considered in conjunction with the appeal ordinance. Marr: I'll second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Marr, is there any discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 42 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table ADM 01-36.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Estes: The motion to table passes by a unanimous vote of nine to zero. Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 43 Estes: Conklin: The next item on the agenda regards the 2002 work program. Tim, what action do we need to take on this administrative item if any? There is no action that you need to take on this administrative item. I would ask that each Commissioner take a look at the 2002 work program. Based on our retreat, we prioritized the work for this year and will be bringing forward different items to the Commission. One of the things that came up in the retreat was to have on the extra Monday, that happens four times a year, for the Commission to have an administrative meeting to work on different items. I think the first one is in April. With regard to what we just looked at tonight, the outdoor lighting ordinance, we do have several ordinances that we do plan on working on with subcommittees. We will be bringing those forward, we will try to make sure that we get those to you ahead of time so that you don't have to try to understand the ordinance when you get it on Thursday prior to Monday night. There are many items within this work program that we may not and probably will not, accomplish this year. We have put everything down that we want to try to look at and the ones that are prioritized are the ones that we will be working on. If there is an issue or a task that you believe was brought up during the retreat that should have a higher priority and that staff should be working on, please discuss that with me and we will determine how to look at working that into our priorities and meeting with the Commission. That is all that I have. The last page on 10.7 and 10.8 does have a chart with a schedule of when these items will be worked on by our office. We will try to closely meet that. It has been very beneficial to look at all of the different items that we would like to accomplish this year and take a look at that and give me any feedback that you may have with regard to the work load that the Planning Division currently is bringing forward to the Commission. Thank you. Estes: Thank you Tim. Is there any discussion regarding this administrative item? Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 44 CUP 02-7.00: Conditional Use (Wilson, pp 406) was submitted by William Jenkins of Jenkins Surveying, Inc. on behalf of John Wilson for property located at 1628 and 1630 N. Gregg Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.37 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. Estes: The next item on the agenda is CUP 02-7.00 submitted by William Jenkins of Jenkins Surveying, Inc. on behalf of John Wilson for property located at 1628 and 1630 N. College Ave. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.37 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use subject to certain conditions of approval. Tim, are there signed conditions of approval? Conklin: Yes. Estes: The conditions of approval are 1) Compliance with all conditions of the accompanying lot split request. 2) No vehicle shall be parked at any time on that portion of the tandem lot utilized as a private drive. 3) Each household shall bring trash to the curb at Gregg Ave. only for designated pick up days. 4) The tandem lot shall only be occupied by one single family home. Is the applicant present? Would you state your name please and if you have a presentation that you would like to make please provide us with the benefit of your presentation. Wilson: First, I would like to thank you for letting me be first on the agenda. I promise I won't make the mistake of being late again. The bottom line is this. We requested this split for financing purposes. The houses, of course, as you know by now, have been in place for fifty years. We had a little bit of a situation on finding utilities and locating those, which we have gotten now. Mr. Jenkins has gotten that lined out for us. We have no problem with meeting the requirements of the Commission as spelled out. I guess that is about it. Thank you. Estes: Motion: Thank you. Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on this requested conditional use? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussions, motions or questions of the applicant. Ward: I would like to recommend approval of CUP 02-7.00 for the property on Gregg Street. Marr: I'll second. Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 45 Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve CUP 02-7.00 and a second by Commissioner Marr. Is there any discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 02-7.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of nine to zero. Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 46 LSP 02-8.00: Lot Split (Wilson, pp 406) was submitted by William Jenkins of Jenkins Surveying, Inc. on behalf of John Wilson for property located at 1628 and 1630 N. Gregg Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.66 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.37 acres and 0.29 acres. Estes: The next item on the agenda is the companion lot split is LSP 02-8.00 submitted by William Jenkins of Jenkins Surveying Inc. on behalf of John Wilson for property located at 1628 and 1630 N. Gregg Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.66 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.37 acres and 0.29 acres. Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions of approval. Tim, are there signed conditions of approval? Conklin. Yes. Estes: Those conditions of approval are 1) The plat shall be revised to include tract 2 extending to Gregg Ave. This extension shall include the driveway and water and sewer easements, which will be approximately 35' in width. This is required by the Arkansas Health Department. 2) Pursuant to the Master Street Plan, 45' from centerline shall be dedicated along Gregg Ave. in order to determine if any additional right of way is required, the survey shall be amended to dimension the right of way from centerline. 3) Planning Commission approval of the conditional use to allow a tandem lot. 4) Plat Review and Subdivision comments, to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 5) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. Is the applicant present? Wilson: Yes Sir. Estes: Would you state your name please and if you have a presentation that you would like to make please provide us with the benefit of your presentation. Wilson: Yes Sir. My name is John Wilson. I am actually representing my wife, which I will be doing for quite some time. We are going to be maintaining these two residences as rental units. We just have done remodeling on them. They will be in place how they stand and there will be no changes. There are no long-term plans for them. We just spent quite a bit of money remodeling both of the houses so they plan on standing as they are for quite some time and being used in the same manner they have been for the last few decades. Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 47 Estes: Motion: Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested lot split, 02-8.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion, motions or questions of the applicant. Shackelford: I would like to make a motion to approve LSP 02-8.00 subject to the five conditions of approval. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford to approve LSP 02-8.00 is there a second? Marr: I'll second. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Marr to approve LSP 02-8.00 is there any discussion? Bunch: Yes. At Subdivision Committee there was some question about the location of some of the utility services, has that been nailed down and are they properly included within the easements? I guess this question is both for the applicant and for the Engineering Division. Wilson: It has been nailed down. There was a question as to the location of the gas line. The gas line was located and it is on the north side of the lower residence. There has been an easement established for access and service to that line. The other line that was in question was the waterline and it was detected between the access drive and the sewer line. An allowance has been made for it also in order to access for maintenance or services. Petrie: They do show it on the plat. Of course, we are asking for a revision on the plat to have that lot extend to the road. I certainly would have to take their word that it was located correctly. Bunch: Ok, thank you. Estes: Are there any other questions or comments? We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Marr to approve LSP 02-8.00, would you call the roll Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 02-8.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of nine to zero. Tim, are there any announcements? Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Page 48 Conklin: Yes there are. Warrick: I have two brief announcements. The first is concerning a handout that I am passing down right now and that is about a lecture series that is being offered by the University of Arkansas Community Design Center. The first lecture in that series will be this Friday afternoon and the Commissioners have been invited to attend that. The information is on the sheet that is being passed down. The second announcement is concerning Planning Commissioner terms. Earlier this evening at your places you should have had a two page handout from myself. The first page is the resolution at council level. There was a determination in 1999 with regard to citizen committees and the terms that you volunteer to serve on those committees. What it reads is that "...Any person who has served two consecutive full terms on any city commission or board shall not be eligible for reappointment to the same commission or board until the same term of office has expired unless there is an insufficient number of qualified applicants to fill all vacancies." Then it further goes on to define "A full term shall be the term established by the City Council for the Commission or board or the appointment to a vacant position when the person appointed participates in regularly scheduled meetings of the commission or board for 'A more of the term established by the City Council." That is a little bit important because it leads to the next sheet in that handout which is a spreadsheet that lists all of the Commissioners currently serving and your terms of office. The end result of this is that previously some erroneous information had been given out. We do have three Planning Commissioners whose terms are ending this March. Those Commissioners are Mr. Estes, Mr. Shackelford and Mr. Marr. Each of you is eligible to serve another full term. That is reflected in this spreadsheet and everyone else's terms are listed as well. Conklin: We have gone back and calculated what percent of the unexpired terms that you have fulfilled and two of the Commissioners were reappointed to unexpired terms. Chairman Estes served 47% of the unexpired term so you would be qualified to reapply for a second full term. Loren Shackelford served 8% of the unexpired term so it was kind of unusual to have Commissioners and especially our chairman, so close at 47%, but everybody is eligible for reappointment. Estes: Are there any other announcements? Conklin: That is all we have. Estes: We will stand adjourned until our next regularly called meeting.