Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-08 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, July 8, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN PPL 02-4.00: Preliminary Plat (Ash Acres P.U.D. , pp 367) Approved Page 4 CUP 02-8.00: Conditional Use (Ash Acres P.U.D., pp 367) Approved Page 10 CUP 02-18.00: Conditional Use (Southwestern Bell Telephone, pp 484) Page 11 Approved LSD 02-17.00: Large Scale Development (Nelson-Bema Funeral Home, pp 99) Approved Page 14 CUP 02-20.00: Conditional Use (Nelson-Berna, pp 99) Approved Page 20 RZN 02-16.00: Rezoning (Lazenby, pp 560) Forwarded to City Council Page 22 RZN 02-17.00: Rezoning (Mathias/Barnes, pp 364/403) Forwarded to City Council Page 26 CUP 02-21.00: Conditional Use (The New School, pp 290) Approved Page 33 ADM 01-15.00: Administrative Item (Outdoor Lighting) Forwarded to City Council Page 35 ADM 01-19.00 Administrative Item (Off -Street Parking Ordinance Amendments) Page 48 Forwarded to City Council Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERSABSENT Nancy Allen Donald Bunch Sharon Hoover Lorel Hoffman Bob Estes Alice Church Lee Ward Loren Shackelford STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Kit Williams Renee Thomas Ron Petrie Matt Casey Dawn Warrick Tim Conklin Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 3 Hoffman: Good evening everybody. Welcome to the July 8, 2002 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call all eight Commissioners were present. Approval of the Minutes Hoffman: Thank you. The next thing on the agenda is the approval of minutes from the June 24, 2002 meeting. Do I have a motion? Motion: Ward: So moved. Shackelford: Second. Hoffman. Renee would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 4 PPL 02-4.00: Preliminary Plat (Ash Acres P.U.D. , pp 367) was submitted by W.B. Rudasill of WBR Engineering on behalf of Rob Stanley for property located south of Ash Street between Gregg Avenue & Woolsey Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.28 acres with 6 lots proposed. Hoffman: We have a revised agenda from last Thursday. Items are going to be taken out of order from the original one. Our first item of business is old business. It is number three on our agenda. It is PPL 02-4.00 for Ash Acres, P.U.D. It was submitted by Bill Rudasill of WBR Engineering on behalf of Rob Stanley for property located south of Ash Street between Gregg Avenue and Woolsey Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.33 acres with six lots proposed. This is a reconsideration. This item was tabled at our last meeting. There are nine conditions of approval. Tim, do we have signed conditions? Conklin: Yes. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Allen: Madam Chair, before you continue I will recuse from this item. Hoffman: Thank you. I will read the conditions of approval into the record. 1) The tree preservation area shall be clearly shown on the plat and shall be dedicated as a tree preservation easement on the Final Plat. 2) Planning Commission shall specifically grant a density bonus pursuant to UDO. 166.06. This property is 1.33 acres and is zoned R-1 which allows for five units by right. The applicant is requesting a total of six units or a density bonus of one unit with 40% of the site remaining open space. The Planned Unit Development portion of the UDO has been attached at the end of this report. 3) Planning Commission approval of a conditional use allowing for a tandem lot for Joseph Kilgore. The property owned by Joseph Kilgore to the south is being granted an access easement through the Ash Acres development to his property. Until recently, he owned property all the way to Ash Street, but sold it to the developer of this subdivision which created the need for the tandem lot approval. 4) The private drive shall be constructed to public street standards. 5) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 6) 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. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with Cityas current requirements. 7) Payment of parks fees in the amount of $2,350.00 (5 additional units @$470). 8) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum four foot sidewalk and six foot greenspace along Ash. 9) Preliminary Plat shall be valid for one calendar year. Staff, do we have Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 5 any presentation before we hear from the applicant? Conklin: I would just like to remind the Commission that this is a Planned Unit Development. You do have to make a finding that because this is a Planned Unit Development it is more efficient use of land. Other findings also are preservation of natural resources. I bring that up because this is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and we are allowing increased density on this development. Hoffman. Thank you Tim. Is the applicant present? Would you come forward please? Do you have a presentation or would you just like to answer questions as they come up? Blakeley: We will just answer questions. Hoffman: Can you please tell us your names? Stanley: My name is Rob Stanley and I have a little presentation if you want to hear it, then I would be glad to answer any questions. I just wanted to say after the last meeting it was requested that we meet with the Woodland Neighborhood Association and I did that and the engineer did that with me. This is his assistant, he was out of town on vacation this evening. I think one of the representatives is here from there and can speak to that meeting. I felt like it was a very positive meeting. There were approximately 30 people. I didn't count everyone but I did have an opportunity at that meeting to explain what I was wanting to do and to show them some pictures of houses similar to what I want to construct. I just thought it was a positive meeting as far as I was concerned. I didn't receive any negative comments. I did bring a floorplan of the houses that I am going to build. Also, I brought an elevation for them and also to the meeting so that they could see and explain to them that originally the design was for a one story, one car garage, approximately 1,200 sq.ft. and we have changed that now to still fit within the existing footprint that was originally proposed but to a two story, two car garage, three bedroom, two bath home that will be approximately 1,500 sq.ft. My point was that I think this is going to be a very nice addition to the neighborhood. Four of these houses will be on one side of the property and then one house will be on the other side. The four on the west side will buffer between what is right next door to me there which is new apartments that are being constructed and then directly across the street from me is a townhouse and a duplex. I am on the very edge there of multi -family. On the east side of the proposed road will be just a single home and that will adjoin the other single family homes that are along that area. For the most part that is where the continuous greenspace is that I am proposing. That will be left a large wooded area and I think that that will be a good use of the land and will provide quite a buffer to what is there. One of the other key things, and then I will be glad to answer questions, I think when I got to talk with the Woodland Association and explained that yes, I am asking for one additional house, I think some people thought initially that we were going to build six new ones so there would maybe be seven there. When I explained that I am Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 6 proposing five for a total of six, I think that that seemed to go over better when that was understood. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hoffman: We will go ahead and take public comment and then we will come back to you. Is there anybody here from the public that would like to address us? Shock: My name is Laura Shock. I am with the Woodland Neighborhood Association. I just wanted to let you know that he did meet with us in a very timely manner and had a lot of good information. I think it is vital that you continue to encourage developers to meet with the neighborhood associations because I think a lot of it came out of it on both sides. Questions were answered on both sides. I think he increased the greenspace. He mentioned that and did do that which made us feel a little bit better. Hoffman. Ok, thank you very much. Is there anybody else here that would like to comment on this development? I will close public discussion and bring it back to the Commissioners and to the applicants for further discussion. Estes: Mr. Conklin, when we saw this before, a concern of mine and a concern of the Chair was the 5% increase in greenspace and the entitlement to the one bonus unit. Can you help us out in that regard? How much was dedicated to greenspace when we saw this project before and tabled it and then how much is being dedicated to greenspace now? Conklin: I don't have that. Stanley: Originally it was 35% and what we have come back now to propose is a total of 40% and I am asking for the one additional home. The one additional home would be an increase proportionally of 20% going from 35% to 40% increase in greenspace proportionally is just over 14% so it is not an exact tradeoff but then it is very close proportionally to the increase. Of course, you have the yards and the landscaping that I will do around the houses, which isn't included in the greenspace but I think it will be very nice. I will sod these yards and landscape them. They are going to be at least the bottom floors will be brick, they are going to have 9' ceilings downstairs. They are not going to be just metal siding thrown up houses with dirt around them and no bushes or anything. Estes: So you have got 40% dedicated to greenspace? Stanley: Yes Sir. Estes: In the findings prepared for us by staff there is the sentence that there is currently 47% of the site in existing tree canopy and the applicant is proposing to preserve 25% of the site in tree canopy. The requirement in an R-1 zone is 25%. Can you Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 7 help me out on that? That leads me to believe that you are meeting the minimum requirements. Conklin: The tree canopy is a different calculation from the overall open space calculation. The open space includes area that is not included in tree canopy. Estes: Where in our material do we find the open space calculation? Where is that done for us? I see as a condition of approval 40% of the site will remain open. Conklin: It is on the plat of the subdivision. It is shown as an area that is cross hatched. Estes: Mr. Conklin, in the calculations that are done on the plat, there is a notation that the required open space is 20,000 sq.ft. Provided open space is 22,857. Is the required the minimum or is that minimum under the Planned Unit Development ordinance? Conklin- The open space requirement in our Planned Unit Development is 30% and then if they want additional density bonus they have to add open space. Estes: Help me out because that is what I am having trouble with. 30% of 20,000 gets us to 6,000 so that would be 26,000 instead of 22,857. Conklin: We are at 1.33 acres. Hoffman: The 20,000 is the 30% and then if you add another 10% to that would that then come out to the 2,857 additional square feet over 20,000? Estes: In other words, is the 20,000 sum 30% of some number? Conklin: Maybe the engineer can answer that question. Blakeley: I am looking at this. The required open space we have is 20,000 sq.ft. That might be a typographical error on the plat here because the site area less the right of way is only 57,145. Estes: Can you help me out or edify me? That is what I am having trouble with. I cannot compute how we get to the required open space. Is the 20,000 a typo? Blakeley: That may be. It doesn't seem to be in my head right now 30% of 57,145. Estes: It seems to me that we are way below the open space to get the density bonus of one unit is what I am struggling with. Blakeley: 17,143.5 would be 30%. Hoffman: Are you taking the 30% of the site area less the right of way of 57,145, 30% of Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 8 that is 17,143? Blakeley: Yes. We needed 40% of open space. We got 40% of open space from 57,145 sq.ft. Hoffman: What does that number equate to? I think Commissioner Estes is right on with his comments. These plats need to clearly indicate what we are agreeing to and what we're not because we can't work with this. Estes: It is just difficult to do our homework. Blakeley: 22,858, it was rounded to 22,857 is 40% of the site area less the right of way. Hoffman: Commissioner Estes, did you have any more questions? Estes: Not at this time. Hoffman: I would like to ask a question. Could you tell us about what areas were calculated in this 22,858 and particularly in regard to the detention pond. What is that going to look like? Is it truly greenspace or is it going to have water in it all the time? Blakeley: It has got an outflow structure. It is going to be empty and will fill up on the heavy rains. The outflow structure will release the water. A calculation has been determined by the engineer. Hoffman: Is it going to be sodded? Blakeley: Yes it should be sodded. The sides, at least. We weren't planning on sodding the bottom but the side banks will be sodded. We can sod the bottom though. Estes: Mr. Conklin, is it permissible to include the detention pond in the calculations of the open space? Conklin: The ordinance reads you can include 50% of anything with a ten year storm frequency. Hoffman: It is on page 3.8. I think it is saying what you can't include. That would be the surface areas of parking lots, including driveways. The area occupied by structures... Conklin: It goes on to say land within a floodplain ten year frequency and wetland may be counted as no more than 50% of the usable open space. With regard to the pond, it wouldn't be designated on a FEMA map as a floodplain. It is more of a judgment call I guess on the city's part whether or not you are going to classify that as a wetland or floodplain. Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 9 Hoffman. It is a man made created detention structure. Conklin: It is manmade, it is being created by the applicant. Hoffman: What I would like to ask the applicant is that many of the ponds that we see around that are strictly being used as detention ponds, they are not very attractive, they just have dirt on the bottom and so forth. Did I understand that you would be willing to sod this because if it is to be counted as greenspace, I think that is important to delineate. Stanley: Yes Ma'am. My plan is to make it look nice because it is going to be visible from all of my homes so I actually want that area to look very nice. It is going to run up against the trees with just a dense woods right there on the other side of it. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Commissioners, are there any other questions or comments? Ward: As far as findings, I like these Planned Unit Developments and I think that this one has got a lot of extra landscape that surrounds the boundary of it so it is kind of self contained. We have been working with this. There are less units on it now than originally and I think it is a pretty unique project and it is not your common ordinary apartment complex that is kind of surrounding that area right now. I will go ahead and move for approval of PPL 02-4.00 for Ash Acres. Hoffman: I have a motion by Commissioner Ward. Ward: We have signed conditions so it is with all those signed conditions. Shackelford: I will second. Hoffman: I have a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there any additional discussion? Seeing none, Renee would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 02-4.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-1 with Commissioner Allen abstaining. Hoffman: The motion carries on a unanimous vote of seven affirmative. Thank you gentlemen for meeting with the Neighborhood Association, we really appreciate that. Stanley: Thank you. Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 10 CUP 02-8.00: Conditional Use (Ash Acres P.U.D., pp 367) was submitted by W.B. Rudasill of WBR Engineering Associates on behalf of Rob Stanley for property located at 243 & 245 Ash Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.17 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. Hoffman: The next item is the Conditional Use for this project, it is CUP 02-8.00 for the tandem lot. It was submitted by W.B. Rudasill on behalf of Rob Stanley for property located at 243 and 245 Ash Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.17 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. Tim, could you give us a report on this? Conklin: There are no changes to this conditional use from the previous time it was on your agenda. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Gentlemen, do you have any presentation? Stanley: No Ma'am. Hoffman: I will take public comment. Is there anybody here that would like to address us on this? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the applicant and the Commission. Motion: Ward: Since this is a companion item to the one we just approved, I will go ahead and recommend that we approve CUP 02-8.00 to allow for a tandem lot. We have four staff conditions with this one. Hoffman: I neglected to read those. Let me read those before we have a second. 1) Compliance with all conditions of the accompanying preliminary plat for the Planned Unit Development. 2) No vehicles shall be parked at any time on that portion of a tandem lot utilized as a private drive or on the vehicular turnaround. 3) Approval of a variance from the Board of Adjustment for a lot within the R-1 zoning district with less than 8,000 sq.ft. lot area. 4) Trash shall be brought to the private access drive on mornings of scheduled pick ups. I have a motion by Commissioner Ward, do I have a second? Shackelford: I will second. Hoffman: I have a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 02-8.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-1 with Commissioner Allen abstaining. Hoffman: The motion carries unanimously Thank you very much. Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 11 CUP 02-18.00: Conditional Use (Southwestern Bell Telephone, pp 484) was submitted by Larry Bates of Canino Peckham & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Southwestern Bell Telephone for property located at 138 N. East Avenue. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and contains approximately 0.25 acres. The request is for an emergency generator, two fuel tanks, and a circuit breaker and transformer on the existing parking lot (use unit 3) and waiver of parking requirements in lieu of shared parking agreement. Hoffman: The next item on our agenda is another item of old business. It is CUP 02-18.00 for Southwestern Bell Telephone. It was submitted by Larry Bates of Canino Peckham & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Southwestern Bell Telephone for property located at 138 N. East Avenue. At this time I need to let everybody know that I have to abstain from voting on this item. I will be happy to chair it if nobody has any objections. Commissioners or the applicant, do you have any objections to this? Seeing none, I will go ahead and continue to chair it. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and contains approximately 0.25 acres. The request is for an emergency generator, two fuel tanks, and a circuit breaker and transformer on the existing parking lot (use unit 3) and waiver of parking requirements in lieu of shared parking agreement. We have eight conditions of approval. Tim, are those signed? Conklin: No they aren't. Hoffman: I will go ahead and read those conditions now. 1) Compliance with all conditions of the accompanying large scale development. 2) Notification of all owners using the adjacent building using the alley about temporary alley closing or blocking for the purpose of installing this facility. A temporary alley closing shall be coordinated with the City Streets and Solid Waste Divisions. 3) Weekly testing of the generator shall not occur between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 4) All requirements of the shared parking agreement shall be met and adhered to. 5) Installation of landscaping in accordance with site plan and elevations presented by the applicant to include a 5'8" x 39'6" planting bed between the enclosed facility and Spring Street. In this planting area two trees and ground cover plants shall be installed. 6) Installation of a hose bib as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant to aid the maintenance of the landscaping. 7) Construction of a brick screening wall along the northwest and east sides of the proposed generator and equipment facility as shown on the site plan and elevations submitted for this project. The brick pillars shall match the existing building on the site. Maximum height of the brick screening wall shall be 13'4". 8) Relocation of the trash dumpster from its current location on Spring Street to an area south of the proposed generator facility with access from the public alley. A generator facility will screen the view of this dumpster from the public right of way along Spring Street. Tim, do you have anything for us before the applicant gives their presentation? Warrick: I would just say that in your packets you have elevations and a new site plan. Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 12 Hoffman: Foracre: Those are revisions based on the Planning Commission's discussion at the June 246 Planning Commission meeting. Significant changes have been made. Also, within your packets you have a signed shared parking agreement to accommodate those spaces that are being removed with the installation of this proposed facility. Thanks Dawn. Is the applicant present? My name is Kathy Foracre. I reside at 3438 Sassafras here in Fayetteville. I am employed by Southwestern Bell and actually work in the building at 138 N. East Avenue. Hoffman: Are you the actual applicant? If you are not the applicant of record I need to talk to them first and then you can give your input during public comment. Bates: My name is Larry Bates. I am with Canino, Peckham, & Associates and we are the architects for this project. Hoffman: Ok, so you would be the applicant. Bates: I am representing the applicant. Hoffman: Would you like to make a presentation or would you prefer to answer questions after the public comment phase of this? Bates: I will just answer questions. I think you have the drawings and everything there. Hoffman: Ok, now it is your turn. Foracre: I appreciate your consideration of our project. On behalf of Southwestern Bell the only point I want to make is how critical this project is to the reliability of the service that we provide. This office is not only the central office for Fayetteville, it is also the hub for all of Northwest Arkansas. Every single 9-1-1 call that is generated from any home or business anywhere in Northwest Arkansas goes through this facility. The equipment that is required for this is very sensitive to the elements and it is required to keep it cooled. A variance of 4° either way will offset the equipment, that is just an example of why we need this generator on our parking lot. I don't know if any of you follow the stock market but Southwestern Bell has not been immune to the effects of September 11`h and capital dollars are not being spent like they have in the past. Just to show you how important this project is, it is one of the few projects that we are investing in the state this year. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Is there any other member of the public that would like to address us on this project? Seeing none, I will go ahead and bring it back to the applicant and to the Commissioners for additional discussion. Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 13 Hoover: Hoffman. Allen: Hoffman: Shackelford: Bates: Shackelford: Bates: Shackelford: Hoffman: Roll Call: I would just like to say we saw this before and it is greatly improved since the last time it was here. They have added landscaping and I appreciate whoever was instrumental in getting the dumpster location moved. I think that is going to be the most significant part of this whole thing is getting the dumpster off the sidewalk. I would like to make a motion to approve CUP 02-18.00. Thank you Sharon. I have a motion for approval by Commissioner Hoover. I will second with the comment of how pleased I am with the additional landscaping that will help with the major arteries into our town. It is nice to see an essential project, which I think this is, be able to add some beautification to our square. Thank you Commissioner. I have a second by Commissioner Allen. Is there any discussion? A quick question of the applicant. We have before us tonight eight conditions of approval. During the presentation earlier it was mentioned that we do not have signed conditions of approval, I was wondering why we don't have signed conditions of approval if you have any issues with any of these conditions. No we do not. Ok, it is just simply the fact that you haven't got a chance to review them and sign off at this point? Right. Ok, thank you. Is there anybody else? Renee, would you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 02-18.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-1 with Commissioner Hoffman abstaining. Hoffman: The motion carries on a vote of seven with one abstention. Thank you very much. Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 14 LSD 02-17.00: Large Scale Development (Nelson-Berna Funeral Home, pp 99) was submitted by Michael Weir & Brian Moore of Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Scott Berna of Nelson-Berna Funeral Home for property located at the northeast corner of Crossover (Hwy 265) and Zion Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and R -O, Residential Office containing approximately 3.12 acres with an 8,350 square foot building proposed. Hoffman: Our first item of new business is item number six on our agenda. It is LSD 02- 17.00 for Nelson-Berna Funeral Home which was submitted by Michael Weir & Brian Moore of Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Scott Berna of Nelson- Berna Funeral Home for property located at the northeast corner of Crossover (Hwy 265) and Zion Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and R -O, Residential Office containing approximately 3.12 acres with an 8,350 square foot building proposed. Estes: It will be necessary that I recuse from this proposed Large Scale Development and from the accompanying Conditional Use. Hoffman: We have eleven conditions of approval. Tim, do we have signed conditions? Conklin. Yes. Hoffman: I will go ahead and read these conditions for the record. 1) Approval shall be subject to an amended re -zoning which places the crematorium in the required A- 1 district. 2) Planning Commission determination of required off-site street improvements. Staff has recommended that in lieu of the standard street widening to 14 feet from centerline on the north side of Zion Rd for the entire length of the property that the street be widened on both sides of the street up to and including the proposed driveway on Zion Road. A center turn lane would be included in the widening for a total street width of 36 feet. 3) Planning Commission recommendation of the requested 72 square feet monument sign. The sign ordinance will only permit a maximum of a four square foot sign in an R -O district. Staff is in favor of this request if it is revised to include a height of six feet as permitted in Commercial districts. The applicant must also seek approval of a variance from the Board of Sign Appeals. 4) Planning Commission approval of a conditional use for parking in addition to that allowed by code. The maximum number of spaces allowed by code is 46. The proposal is for 59 spaces. 5) Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards including signage. 7) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 8) 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. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City -is current requirements. 9) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 15 standards to include a minimum six foot sidewalk and ten foot greenspace along Zion Road and Crossover Road. 10) Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 11) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: Grading and drainage permits; Separate easement plat for this project ; Project Disk with all final revisions; Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by .158.01. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Tim, does staff have any comments before we get to the applicant? Conklin- I have no further comments. Hoffman: Thank you. Can you please tell us your name? Humbard: My name is Phil Humbard with Engineering Services. Mr. Berra is here and the architect is here also to answer any questions. Hoffman: Do you have a presentation or would you prefer to answer questions? Humbard: I would just prefer to answer questions. Hoffman: Ok. Is there anybody from the public that would wish to comment on this large scale development? Ok, I will go ahead and bring it back to the applicant and to the Commission for further discussion. I am sorry Tim, did you say we do have signed conditions of approval? Conklin- We do have signed conditions, yes. Hoffman: Thank you. Ward: I think the first thing I would like to do is for the applicant or the architect maybe to discuss the building and type of materials, color of materials that will be used for commercial design standards. Cooper: I am Tim Cooper, the architect for this project. What we are going to do is go with red brick with a painted white trim with columns, asphalt shingles. That is it as far as materials, it is very simple and a clean structure. Hoffman: You have got a sample board, which brick material is it? Cooper: It is this one. Hoffman: Ok, thank you very much. Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 16 Ward: Cooper: Ward: Cooper: Ward: Hoffman: Ward: Hoffman: Ward: Casey: Ward: Casey: Humbard: Ward: On the north elevation we had some concern about that long, blank, unarticulated wall. Yes. There are some functional areas on that side and we went back to the owner and discussed them and due to that conversation, we were able to articulate this elevation. What kind of landscaping are we putting along that north line, do you have any idea? We discussed that and there were some existing trees there that may end up getting taken out but they will be replaced. Ok. I think it needs more landscaping along the building side. Do you want to add that as condition of approval number twelve? Yes, I think so. I think we would like to have a little more landscaping there, more trees than what is shown if it is possible. Is that agreeable with the applicant? It has got one tree is all that shows. Maybe a little more might be nice. Also, I would like to ask our City Engineer about the septic system instead of the city sewer, why we are proposing a septic tank and not the sewer at this time. Our requirements are that if accessible sewer is located within 300' of the development they are required to hook up to the sewer system. This has a force main that runs across the front of their property but that is not accessible to the building here. There is a manhole located to the south but it is outside of the 300' radius, the 300' buffer of the development. The elevation is such that they can't access that anyway. The nearest one other than that is to the north and that is about 1,500' away so there would be considerable costs involved to extend the sewer main up to serve this. With putting in the proposed septic tank, do you think there is a chance of contaminating the existing pond to the east? There is always a chance of failure if it is installed improperly. We have had a preliminary study done on that and it looks conducive to a septic system being installed there. How big do you think that will be? Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 17 Humbard: It will have to be properly sized by a designated representative, which I am not so I can't tell you the exact size. Cooper: We believe it is going to be 1,000 gallon. Humbard: I would assume that but until it was sized by somebody that was certified to do it I wouldn't make a guess on it. Hoffman: Did you have anything else? Ward: No. The other thing we had talked about a little bit at Subdivision was the access out onto Zion Road instead of onto Hwy. 265. You are still planning on going out on Hwy. 265 is that the way you are always going to exit and enter? Cooper: Unless we have a funeral to the east, then the procession would start and the rest follow to avoid the major road. Ward: Another thing about parking. You have got a lot of stacked parking. If you all find out that you don't have enough parking in the future and you come back, is there a place to put more parking? Humbard: There is a small area where we could put additional parking but hopefully we won't need it. Ward: That's all I have. Hoffman: I was just going to jump in with one follow up to the septic tank question. I talked to Tim this afternoon and it is my understanding, I want to make sure that you are aware, if sewer becomes available you have twelve months to hook up to it by ordinance. Is that right Tim? Conklin: That is correct. If sewer comes within 200' of the property they will be required to tie into that sewer within 12 months after the sewer is installed. Hoffman: I am not aware of any CIP projects to bring that that way at this time. Casey: Not at this time. Hoffman: Matt Casey, let me welcome you to the Planning Commission. I think this is your first Planning Commission meeting and I just want to say welcome and glad to have you. I should have done that at the beginning, but there you are. Casey: Thank you. Hoffman: We have an accompanying item which is the parking variance. We can talk about these together because I think one affects the other and just vote separately so if Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 18 anybody wants to go ahead and talk about the overflow parking or the access or circulation on the site then feel free to do so. Ward: I think we ought to just go ahead and try to get this one done first. Hoffman: At Subdivision did most of the comments have to do with the appearance of the building and the north facade? Was there anything else other than the septic tank? Motion: Ward: I think that pretty much covered it. I will go ahead and follow this up. It looks like a great project, a very good location I believe for this type of facility out there on Hwy. 265 so I think it is something that will be a very nice attraction out there and kind of fits in with the other type of homes that are already built out there. I feel like it meets all of our commercial design standards. With that, I will go ahead and make a motion to approve LSD 02-17.00 for the Nelson -Berea funeral home with all staff comments and the additional landscaping on the north side of the building, number twelve. Hoover: I will second. Hoffman: Is there any further discussion? Shackelford: Just a quick question for staff, just for my education if nothing else. Condition one, approval shall be subject to amended rezoning which places the crematorium in the required A-1 district. Is that something that we need to vote on or is that something that goes through a different process for the amended rezoning for that specific piece of property? Conklin: We are bringing that back to Council and are just going to have the Council change the area of the crematorium. Shackelford: Ok, so it doesn't take action by the Planning Commission. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you Commissioner Shackelford. Bunch: One comment, at Subdivision I think the relocation of trees on the north side was covered under the mitigation trees. We had quite a number of mitigation trees and the request was to relocate some of those to that area rather than just throwing in additional trees. It was just a matter of changing the scheme of some of the trees. Hoffman: I think the intent of item twelve is pretty clear that that is to screen that side of the building so whether it be with mitigated trees or new landscaping, they can coordinate that with staff. Renee, would you call the roll please? Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 19 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 02-17.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-1 with Commissioner Estes abstaining. Hoffman: Thank you. The vote carries on a vote of seven with one abstention. Humbard: Thank you very much. Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 20 CUP 02-20.00: Conditional Use (Nelson-Berna, pp 99) was submitted by Michael Weir and Brian Moore of E.S.I. on behalf of Scott Bema of Nelson-Berna Funeral Home for property located at the northeast corner of Zion Road and Hwy 265 (Crossover). The property is zoned R- 0, Residential Office and A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 3.12 acres. The request is for additional parking. Hoffman: The companion item is CUP 02-20.00, which is a Conditional Use submitted by Michael Weir and Brian Moore on behalf of Scott Berna of Nelson-Berna funeral home for property located at the northeast corner of Zion Road and Hwy. 265. The property is zoned R-0, Residential Office and A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 3.12 acres. The request is for additional parking. Staff recommends the approval of the Conditional Use subject to the following conditions. There is one condition. Compliance with all conditions of the accompanying large scale development. Tim, is that condition signed? Conklin: Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman - Conklin: Hoffman: Yes. Do you have any statements? The maximum amount of parking allowed is 46 spaces for a total of 59 spaces so that is 13 more than allowed by ordinance. We currently don't have a specific requirement for a funeral home. However, in our administrative item looking at parking ratios we do propose one. Staff is recommending approval of this. They will need the parking for this type of activity in this location. In your research did you find that this was compatible with other funeral home uses, this number of parking spaces, is it in line with other zoning ordinances that you researched? Yes, fairly similar. Thanks. I will take public comment. Is there anybody here that would like to address us on this conditional use? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission and to the applicant. Motion: Shackelford: Based on conversations from the last item, I will move that we approve CUP 02- 20.00. Hoffman: I have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford for approval, do I have a second? Hoover: I will second. Hoffman: I have a second by Commissioner Hoover. Renee, would you call the roll please? Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 21 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 02-20.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-1 with Commissioner Estes abstaining. Hoffman: The motion passes by a vote of seven with one abstention. Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 22 RZN 02-16.00: Rezoning (Lazenby, pp 560) was submitted by Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Bill Lazenby for property located west of Razorback Road and north of Baum Stadium Parking lot. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 6.99 acres. The request is to rezone to C-3, Central Commercial. Hoffman: Our next item of new business is RZN 02-16.00 which is a rezoning for Lazenby which was submitted by Landtech Engineering Inc. on behalf of Bill Lazenby for property located west of Razorback Road and north of Baum Stadium Parking lot. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 6.99 acres. The request is to rezone to C-3, Central Commercial. Staff is recommending denial of this requested zoning. However, they are in support of a C-1, Neighborhood Commercial zoning district based on the findings included as part of this report. Tim, would you or Dawn let us know what the staff's position is? Warrick: This project did come through with a request for a C-3 zoning. The purpose of staff's recommendation for denial was basically the definition of the C-3, Central Commercial zoning district and the primary location of those properties that are zoned C-3. There is a map that was added to your packet on page 8.21 that shows where all the properties in the city of Fayetteville that are zoned C-3 are located. We are recommending the C-1 zoning district because this property is designated on the city's future land use map as a mixed use area. The C-1 designation provides for a mixed use development that would allow for commercial uses, neighborhood shopping is the primary use within the C-1 zoning district. That zoning designation also permits the developer to incorporate residential uses within those developments. In speaking with the applicant and his representative this evening, they are amble to the C-1 zoning request understanding that they can process a mixed use development on this property with a C-1 designation that would incorporate apartments up to a maximum density of 24 units per acre as well as commercial uses and I believe that is what they are considering at this time. The incorporation of apartments or residential units if they are detached in this type of development would require a conditional use by the Planning Commission that could be heard at the same time that a Large Scale is processed for the project. Hoffman: Let me just interrupt. Do you mean separate apartment buildings or individual? Warrick: Separate from the Commercial. If they were attached to the Commercial or the primary use on the site then they would be a use by right. Hoffman: Do you mean physically attached? Conklin: Yes, as part of the building. Hoffman: Is the applicant aware of that? Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 23 Gabbard: Yes. Hoffman: Ok, thank you very much. Is the applicant present? Gabbard: Thank you Madam Chairman. My name is Leonard Gabbard with Landtech Engineering here tonight representing Mr. Lazenby who is also in the audience. We have talked with Ms. Warrick and we are in concurrence that we would be amiable to doing the C-1 zoning as long as staff would get behind us with the mixed use development. I think what Mr. Lazenby would intend to do would develop the frontage of the property, which is about 240' of frontage that would be out on Razorback Road as commercial and then toward the back have the residential apartments. If there are any further questions I will be glad to entertain them. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Is there any member of the public that would like to address us on this rezoning request? Davison: My name is Sharon Davison. I am glad to see that they have decided on C-1. I am not really clear on all of our distinctions but C-3 seemed a little much and C-1 seems to be, is that not what Mr. Broyles' area is going to be is C-1, correct? Hoffman: We have a lot of C-2 zoning on Razorback I believe. Tim, is that correct? Warrick: The Broyles' rezoning, there were three tracts of land with that. Two fairly large tracts, 20 acres or larger were rezoned to R-2, Medium Density Residential and a third tract on the south side of 15`h Street, basically half way between 18th and Razorback was rezoned to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Conklin: The purpose of C-2 was that they did plan on a hotel. Davison: Right, and this all seems to fit. I think the C-1 that is the plan, this is what we are hoping to see. This is when I come to you and speak out about inappropriate projects in developed neighborhoods. I also want to speak out about when I think you are doing things right. This is a logical plan as I have said before in front of the City Council. It seems to be what is going to work down there and I wish we would focus our energies on developing this and slowing down the improper development in other areas. This seems like what that zone is going to be. It is going to be our main College strip and I think Mr. Lindsey, I mean Mr. Lazenby, I get these guys a little mixed up but we know who we are all talking about, it will be the two big L's that will be down there together. I think this is appropriate and I am glad that it is C-1. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you Sharon. Is there anybody else that would like to address us on this rezoning request? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the applicant and to the Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 24 Commission for discussion, motions and so forth. Procedurally Tim I have a question. I know that we have switched boats in mid -stream before. On rezoning requests there is nothing that would preclude us to changing the recommendation that goes forward to City Council from C-3, as originally applied for by the applicant, to C-1 tonight. Conklin: You are allowed to amend the applicant's request and make an amended recommendation to the City Council. Hoffman: Thank you. Ward: Tim, why don't you go back over one more time if he is going to use it for mixed use commercial in the front and then try to get residential apartments, what usually needs an R-2 or R-3, what does he need to do to get that approved? Conklin: He will have to apply for a conditional use if they are detached for residential. In most of our commercial districts and industrial districts we allow accessory residential units to go in. It is actually on page 8.9, we have the ordinance that talks about what is allowed. Attached residential uses shall be permitted in the C- 1, C-2, I-1 and I-2 zoning district as a use by right. That is allowed. We do allow mixed use residential and commercial and industrial together currently in the City of Fayetteville. I bring that point up because sometimes I hear people say that we separate all of our land uses and we don't allow mixed use. Our ordinances do allow mixed use in Fayetteville. If you want detached they may be permitted as a conditional use in the C-1, C-2, I-1, and I-2 zoning districts. Ward: If it was left I-1 like it is now could he put in residential rentals of some kind on the property? Warrick: Yes he could, as an accessory use. Conklin: We informed the applicant at the time of rezoning that the I-1 zoning already allows pretty much most of the uses that they want to potentially put down there. If anything, this benefits the City of Fayetteville because it is going to restrict the type of uses that can go down on Razorback Road from a used car lot to even other type of businesses that are allowed by conditional use in that area. C-1 is neighborhood commercial, I think that is the most appropriate zoning in that area. Once again, if the applicant left it I-1 he could probably achieve everything he wants on that piece of land today. Ward: So by doing C-1 he pretty much has no chance for a lot of things that go into C-2, which is Thoroughfare Commercial, right? Gabbard: Mr. Lazenby wants to restrict the use if he is going to invest in the apartments. I don't think there are certain facilities that would be allowed in the Industrial use Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 25 Hoffman: Warrick: Hoffman: Warrick: Motion: Estes: Hoffman: Allen: Hoffman: Shackelford: Hoffman: that you wouldn't want to see right next to those apartments, possibly in front of them. At any rate, that is the intent of going with the C-1. We really didn't understand until staff informed us about the mixed use and the fact is that I think we will be bringing a large scale development that will have commercial on the front and approximately 140 units of apartments on the remainder. I think we would be allowed according to the comments from staff, to go as high as a density of 167 units but I don't think we can get that many in there. We will get all we can without going over that but realistically probably that is what you are going to see. Thank you. Let me jump in with one quick question. You referenced density in §162.02 and that is not part of our packet. Can you let us know what that actually would be? That is the definition and description of the R-2 zoning district, Medium Density Residential, that permits between 4 and 24 units per acre. Ok, so the high number of 167 would reflect the 24 units per acre? It is 24 units per acre at 6.99 acres is 167. This in effect is a request for downzoning. I believe it is a very good idea. I believe it is beneficial for the area, I believe it is appropriate. It is for those reasons that I would move that we forward to the City Council RZN 02-16.00 to be rezoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Thank you. I have a motion for approval of C-1 zoning by Commissioner Estes. I will second. I have a second by Commissioner Allen. Is there any further discussion? Commissioner Shackelford? I am ok. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-16.00 to the City Council with a recommendation of C-1 zoning was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: The motion carries unanimously on a vote of eight to zero. Thank you very much. Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 26 RZN 02-17.00: Rezoning (Mathias/Barnes, pp 364/403) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sam Mathias and Bleaux Barnes for property located south of Deane Street, west of Sang Ave and east of Porter Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 21.03 acres. The request is to rezone to RMF -6, Low Density Multi -Family Residential. Hoffman: The next item on the agenda is another rezoning. It is RZN 02-17.00 which was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sam Mathias and Bleaux Barnes for property located south of Deane Street, west of Sang Ave and east of Porter Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 21.03 acres. The request is to rezone to RMF -6, Low Density Multi -Family Residential. Staff, do you have a report before we get to the applicant? Conklin: This rezoning request is for RMF -6. Prior to filing the application they did meet with staff and the applicant has met with the Neighborhood Association. There is a Bill of Assurance in your packet. I would like to make sure that everyone understands that this was offered voluntarily by the applicant. It is my understanding also this evening that there have been some modifications to this Bill of Assurance and the applicant will have to talk to you about that this evening with regard to how that Bill of Assurance may have changed. I don't have that in my possession this evening at this time. RMF -6 is one of the new zoning districts that we adopted over a year ago. It allows for multi -family structures, apartments. It also allows for single-family duplex or triplex. The Bill of Assurance that they are proposing does limit the type of units that are proposed within the RMF -6. They are proposing I believe a total of seven single-family homes as part of this development. This piece of property a few years ago did come before the Planning Commission and City Council. The request at that time was to rezone it to R-2. There was quite a bit of opposition with regard to the proposed use for student apartments or student housing. It was ultimately denied by the City Council. This request once again, goes back to this RMF -6, which is a total of a maximum density of six units per acre. It is significantly less density than what was requested a few years ago. That is all I have. Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Conklin. Is the applicant present? Jorgensen: My name is Dave Jorgensen and on behalf of the developers on this project I am here to represent them and we have Bleaux Barnes, who is one of the owners on it and also we have Richard Maynard here with us who is with the Asbell Neighborhood Association. To carry on what Tim was talking about RMF -6, we have got 21 acres. We are allowed six units per acre, which brings us to 126 units, which is what we propose on this. We did meet with the Neighborhood Association and we did come up with a plan that hopefully you have in your packet. This is going to turn into what will eventually be the preliminary plat of this project and the reason we did this is to show the neighbors what this project is Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 27 going to look like and tweak it so that they are satisfied. For instance, we have all the lots adjacent to Porter Road and Sang Road as single-family. Those are lots 111 and 112 and lots 10, 23, and 24 are single-family. All of the Tots along the south boundary line, there are eight condominium lots, which there are four units per each one of those so that is 32 units. We also have a single-family lot number 59 on Deane Street. Lots 60 and 61, we are reserving those for five units combined on both of those lots and then all of the rest of them are what we call patio homes. For instance, lot 17 is a lot 17A and 17B and the reason for this is so that we can have separate ownership on each one of these units because their market is for single-family houses. The owners even went to the trouble of drawing up exterior elevations so that you can see what it looks like. This is a condominium unit. The patio units, this is not correct in that the patio units now have two car garages, which is one of the reasons that we changed the Bill of Assurance. In working with the Neighborhood Association and getting all of this information, we are also tweaking that Bill of Assurance making sure that it satisfies them and that is one of the things that we changed on the Bill of Assurance that each one of the patio homes has a two car garage. In addition to that, the owners are in the process of developing covenants. Here again, this is premature. Normally we don't do this until a little bit later on in the process but at this particular point they are calling for 80% brick, front yards sodded, architectural shingles and they want to also do something like mailboxes that are either brick or something that is uniform throughout the whole project. The interest is to build a project here that satisfies the surrounding neighbors. By the way, we like working with neighborhood associations for that exact reason. I would be glad to answer any questions. Hoffman: Do you have the revised Bill of Assurance that you can address or do you want to do that later? Jorgensen: We can address that now. I just did this this afternoon and it is redlined but if you have a Bill of Assurance in your packet, item number two, and this may have already been corrected, does your version say seven units on two lots? Warrick: I marked that out and wrote five. Jorgensen: That is one item that we're correcting. At the end of that it says on two lots along Deane Street for a total of 126 units, I just wanted to clarify that there is a total of 126 units. Item number four, it reads "condominium units will have two bedrooms each with a one car garage." Also, another sentence right after that. "Each patio home will have two or three bedrooms with a two car garage." That is added after that item number four. Item number five is "The petitioner agrees to install a view obscuring hedge along the back of the other properties along Sang Avenue." This was requested. In addition to that, we have added item number ten and I will read that. "Petitioner specifically agrees that all such restrictions and terms shall run with the land and bind all future owners unless and Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 28 until specifically released by a resolution of the Fayetteville City Council. This Bill of Assurance shall be filed for record in the Washington County Circuit Clerk's office after petitioner's rezoning is effective and shall be noted on the Final Plat, which includes all the petitioner's property." That is a result of meeting with everybody several times and you might say refining it. Hoffman: Thank you. Would you provide the staff with a final copy of that for their records? Jorgensen: Sure. Hoffman: Do you have any more presentation before I take public comment? Jorgensen: I think that is it. I would be glad to answer questions. Hoffman: I will go ahead and take public comment on this rezoning. Maynard: Good evening. My name is Richard Maynard. I am here both as an adjoining property owner and also for spokesperson for the Asbell Neighborhood Association. For a couple of years I have been pushing for these preliminary meetings with developers and neighborhoods and now I've had two in as many months so kind of be careful what you ask for because they do get kind of time consuming but I am glad that we have them. I think as you all know, we did have this meeting on May 23`d with Mr. Barnes and Mr. Mathias. Just to give you a little bit about that, because I think it is important and it is pertinent to this and just how we do that. As a neighborhood association we are not there advocating necessarily for the neighborhood but we are providing the forum to let this dialogue happen. I don't know how we could've advertised this anymore. I put it out on over 300 flyers. We skipped the apartment complex. We didn't have as great of a turnout. We had about 33 people from about 20 households, which is a lot less than the one we had with the Lindsey development. My feeling about it is in that sense it is like an election. You can choose to come and participate or choose not to come and participate. If you don't mind, I would like to just give you if you are interested the results of these if I may. Hoffman: Hand those to Renee. Maynard: Basically what it does is it just explains how we go about doing this because I know you are just seeing the result of the process and not the process itself. I am not going to take a lot of time even talking about that but that is really how it should be. There are a lot of these things I think can get worked out before it ever reaches this far or even before it gets very far in the planning office. Although, we try to involve the planning office every step of the way because we don't want to go making agreements with each other that wouldn't fit into the city plan. I just wanted to break it down so you kind of saw where the people were coming Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 29 from. Some people weren't there but voted anyway. Of course, as I said last time, we realize that this is not a binding vote. It is just to let you know how the neighborhood feels about it. I think it is pretty clear the neighborhood feels fine about it so far and now we just sort of leave it up to you because none of us are engineers or we are not builders or we're not contractors. If I may, I would just like to say that this process works, it just does. The worst thing that could happen out of this is that a developer or neighborhood could meet together and the neighborhood says no. Then the developer has a better idea of whether they want to proceed or not. That is really I think all it should mean. More than that, what this does and what Mr. Jorgensen mentioned, the whole tenure is much different, it is much friendlier than coming up here and battling out through you and asking you to play an arbitrator in the whole process. Things come out and it becomes a dialogue. I think in the interview that some of you may have read a few weeks ago, Mr. Mathias said it actually makes us better developers. If I may just give you a couple of examples. When I first saw this it was a very, very preliminary idea from Mr. Barnes and Mr. Mathias. It was a horseshoe development. There was now outlet onto Dean and I know Mr Conklin wasn't very fond of it from the city's point of view but I had another for it from a neighborhood perspective. I said "I don't think you realize every development along Porter all empties out onto Porter." Maybe they would've found that out on their own, maybe not, but that is something from a neighborhood perspective that comes out. At out neighborhood meeting a couple who lives across the way on Porter were bothered that the new street would empty right out onto their driveway. Because of that they were able to make an adjustment and still make this development work. We were talking at one time about a private fence along those Sang properties where I live. I said "Why do that? We already have a fence there, chainlink fence to a pasture fence. Why don't you put a hedge row there?" That is something that comes out of these meetings. It is not just presenting something to the neighborhood and the neighborhood going thumbs up or thumbs down. I think we really try to work out what we can work out beforehand. How far a neighborhood wants to go with that, I guess that is up to another neighborhood and another developer. We kind of stop there. We didn't want to get too much into materials and certainly not as the head of this organization, I didn't want to be putting myself into a negotiator position because I don't think that would be appropriate and it didn't get brought out in the meeting. I do want to point out that the revisions on the Bill of Assurance. Yes, they were not things that we were bickering over by any means. I think it really was fine tuning. I simply made the case that anything you are sure of put in the Bill of Assurance. To my mind, the Bill of Assurance truly is between the neighborhood and the developer, whether you agree or not I don't know. There is nothing taken away in other words. If you know you are going to do a two car garage, what is the problem? Why don't you go ahead and put it in there? They were absolutely agreeable. That is really all I have to say about it. Please keep in mind, we have already had another situation, and I hope this idea catches on. This idea will really not work if this becomes a neighborhood referendum. In other words, this will not work if Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 30 just because the neighborhood says it is ok it goes through or quite frankly, just because the neighborhood says no that it doesn't go through. I don't believe in that at all. I have never advocated that. Basically what we are saying is that it looks good to us and now it is up to you. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Maynard. Is there anybody else that would like to address us? Davison: Hi. I am still Sharon Davison. I sort of have to be a little sarcastic here and say I think that it is great that we are all so happy that developers are finally showing some minimal consideration and speaking with the neighborhoods. I think it is sort of sad that we have to be so grateful that they are finally doing the decent thing that they should have done to begin with. I would also like to clarify for people that aren't really in a lot of these processes that when City Planners say staff recommends, these things are saying these people have followed the rules, or whatever they say they have to do so we say they can. Very rarely do they vigorously say we think this is a great project so do it. We need to listen to some of these things. Lets also understand that with our neighborhoods when they are saying ok. Well, they are resigned to having to say ok. It is wonderful that they can have little things that actually turn into big things such as primarily where the dumpster is located. These are issues and these are issues that developers have chosen to ignore until we have really applied pressure. I think you all may have had phone calls, you may have been paying attention the past year, neighborhoods are feeling pinched and we are all really, really looking to you to help us out here. It is great that we can rely on you for exactly what Mr. Maynard said, the details. I appreciate going to Subdivision and having Commissioner Bunch say "Well, what about these parking spaces? or what about these numbers?" That is what I feel you are supposed to be doing for us and I appreciate you doing for us. My problem is not that this may not be the persons right to develop, not that this may not even be an appropriate project, but it is the timing of these projects. Look at what we just discussed. All the building we are going to do with the Broyles and Lazenby field. We have people over there by Wedington. Well, the thing is we can't handle it all right now. I was wondering are we at this limited sewer capacity? Does anyone know our current capacity rate at this point as of, we can even say July Is'. What is our sewer capacity? Can anyone tell us that? Are we operating at 99.4% as I have been told? Conklin: I don't have that information. Davison: But we can keep approving everything and not know? This is part of my issue and why I brought up a complaint at the City Council about dragging our feet on impact fees. We have volumes of these projects. These are people that are living in these neighborhoods that are still suffering with sewage water runoff in their backyard in this very area. Simply as we are up on Mount Sequoyah dealing with sewage runoff and we don't have these things fixed. The question came does building drive infrastructure? You know, I think the whole point of planning is Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 31 meaning you build the infrastructure and then you build the units. We are at the point now where we are building things and saying "Oh, ok, well later we'll fix it." I loved Mr. Earnest's eventually comments. He wanted to approve a lot of developments because eventually this is all going to go in over there. Wedington has we think 20,000 max cars on it although we were given erroneous figures of 13,000. Here is the deal, why are we not at a moratorium? We were at a certain deal about capacity. You approve these yet we have to see. Will you inform me of this Ms. Hoffman Hoffman: I will do my best. We are here to discuss this rezoning. This is not a forum for impact fees. I know that we have got the consultants and we have had many public meetings and those are in process. I can just tell you that a standard condition of approval prior to approving any new residential development is that they are made aware that should sewer capacity not be available at the time of construction they don't get a building permit. That is the standard that we follow for any new development or rezonings that are approved by this Commission and by City Council. Davison: I appreciate that. That is very important to me that people are coming in. My thing is I am not trusting some of the numbers I am getting such as from Mr. Hugh Earnest as our city representative. Therefore, I am very leery as to wondering why Mr. Conklin doesn't know our sewer capacity and how we can keep doing this. I would like to request that Mr. Conklin... Hoffman: Do you have anymore comments based on this project? Davison: Based on this project, do we have the sewer capacity at this time for it? Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you Ms. Davison. Hoskins: I am Anetta Hoskins and I am a home owner adjacent to both of these little properties. I have been there sixteen years and I have enjoyed having cattle on both my south side and my west side and I really enjoy that. However, I realize that things can't stay the same and I am very pleased with this proposed development that is going in. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address us on this rezoning? Seeing none, I will go ahead and close public discussion and bring it back to the applicant and to the Commission. Estes: This project of course has had a history. Those of us with institutional history has some memory of that. Some of the participants no longer serve, other participants have passed away and are no longer with us. The last time that this was before us I, together with Commissioner Hoover, voted against this rezoning request. All of Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 32 Hoffman: Shackelford: Ward: Estes: Jorgensen: Estes: Ward: Hoffman: Roll Call: Hoffman: the reasons that I voted against it are no longer with us. I am very pleased that the developer has met with Mr. Maynard and with the neighborhood association. I am very pleased that the matters and concerns that I had when we saw this before have been resolved and have been worked out. It is for those reasons that I would move that we forward to the full City Council for its consideration RZN 02-17.00. I have a motion for approval of this rezoning and forwarding to City Council by Commissioner Estes. I will second. Does that include the new changes and the covenants? The Bill of Assurance of course is not within our providence to dictate or to request but let me address Mr. Jorgensen in that regard. Mr. Jorgensen, as the movement I have heard your comments and I have heard the amendments to the Bill of Assurance so let me say that. Let me also say that the form that you are using for the Bill of Assurance references our Chancery Courts. By Amendment 80 we no longer have Chancery Courts, we have Circuit Courts so you need to also strike the reference Chancery Courts from your Bill of Assurance. Ok. It is the Circuit Court, strike Chancery Court. Amendment 80 was passed and we now just have Circuit Court. Mr. Ward, is that responsive to your thoughts? More than enough. Thank you Commissioner Estes. Is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve RZN 02-17.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thank you. The motion carries unanimously on a vote of eight to zero. Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 33 CUP 02-21.00: Conditional Use (The New School, pp 290) was submitted by Hannah McNeill of Criterion Architecture, Inc. on behalf of The New School for property located at 191 E. Sunbridge Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 3.25 acres. The request is for an educational facility (Use Unit 4). Hoffman: Our next item of business is CUP 02-21.00 for the New School, which was submitted by Hannah McNeill of Criterion Architecture, Inc. on behalf of The New School for property located at 191 E. Sunbridge Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 3.25 acres. The request is for an educational facility (Use Unit 4). There is one condition of approval. Tim, do we have a signed condition? Conklin: Yes. Hoffman: That condition is any portion of the facility which will be open for general admission for performances or events shall meet ADA requirements. Tim, do we have any staff presentation before we hear from the applicant? Warrick: I would just mention that this proposal is to renovate the old Nettleship home on this property to use by the New School as a fine arts complex. One of our main concerns as staff was with regard to parking and whether or not there was adequate parking for this facility. There is another structure on this site. These two structures are basically east of the main facility for the New School. They refer to the smaller building, which is south of this building, as the east annex and then of course this is the Nettleship home for the fine arts building. On the second page of your staff report on page 10.2 there is a calculation of parking requirements and staff did find that there was adequate parking being provided to meet the needs of both of these structures. Hoffman: Thank you Dawn. Is the applicant present? McNeill: Yes, I am Hannah McNeill. I have no presentation. I am just here to answer questions if you have any. Hoffman: Ok, thank you Ms. McNeill. Is there any member of the public that would like to address us on this conditional use? Seeing none, I will go ahead and bring it back to the applicant and to the Commission for discussion or motions. Ward: I think this particular old home will make a unique fine arts center. It seems unusual that there are only going to be two or three parking spaces up against the building. I don't know how you can have any kind of showing and have parking. It seems like everybody will want to park up there by the house that will be the fine arts building. It is a very unique structure and I think this is a great use for it. Would you like to address this Hannah? Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 34 McNeill: The main thing is most all of these classes are taken care of in the existing building where the parking is. This is just a way to eliminate having art within the classes themselves. The same teachers and same students are within the area, we are just trying to free up the classroom itself so that the kids aren't taking projects out and putting them up or whatever. It will just make the school a little bit more efficient. The parking is right between, if you have been up in that area the way the driveway works, the parking lot is actually between both buildings. The teachers would park there in that area and the students walk between the three buildings. Ward: With the way that structure is built can you meet any ADA requirements? McNeill: We can in the main area. In the others they cannot. The house itself is basically about four or five different levels. It is impossible to meet ADA. It is all concrete and most of the walls are 14" thick as well as a lot of the floors so it is just a totally impossible situation. The main area, they don't plan on having any performances there, but if they ever in the future chose to, that is fully ADA, has access to bathrooms and can completely be egressed out in that area. Ward: Like I said, I think it is a very unique structure already and will make a nice fine arts center and that is an appropriate use for it. With that, I will recommend approval of CUP 02-21.00 for the New School. Hoffman: I have a motion for approval of CUP 02-21.00 by Commissioner Ward. Church: I will second it. Hoffman: Is there any further discussion? Renee, would you cal the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 02-21.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: Thank you. The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 35 ADM 01-15.00: Administrative Item (Outdoor Lighting) to adopt an ordinance that minimizes the impact of outdoor lighting on adjacent properties and improves nighttime visibility. Hoffman- We have got two administrative items tonight. They are both review of new ordinances or proposed ordinances. Our first one is ADM 01-15.00, which is an administrative item to adopt an ordinance that minimizes the impact of outdoor lighting on adjacent properties and improves night time visibility. Tim, I believe the staff has a presentation to make on this outdoor lighting ordinance? Conklin- Yes. Shelli Rushing, Associate Planner with the City of Fayetteville Planning Division has a short presentation on this ordinance. Hoffman: Thanks. Hi Shelli. Rushing: Good evening. I do want to go over a few things with you. You have seen this Outdoor Lighting Ordinance at the January 286 Planning Commission meeting. At that time it was tabled in order to take a look at a few other issues and Planning Commissioners had a number of comments. We have met with a local engineer, architect and they have had a chance to take a look at this ordinance that we are proposing tonight. We have received comments from Mr. Green who is here this evening. He has some additional comments. He has helped us with drafting this ordinance up to this point and he does have some additional comments. I just want to point out that in regard to what we have proposed at this point. The proposed ordinance will pertain to any new outdoor lighting fixtures and any fixture that is going to be replaced at any point. It applies to everything, all new developments with the exception of single-family and two-family developments. I wanted to go through a couple of definitions with you real quick because they pertain to the new standards that we are proposing at this point. These definitions are based on the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. This is an industry standard, a handbook that they have. They have essentially four different types of light fixtures. There is non -cutoff, semi -cutoff, cutoff, and full cutoff. Non -cutoff basically is no limitations on the amount of light that is emitted from it. Semi -cutoff, cutoff, and full cutoff are all based on the amount of light that is emitted above the cutoff angle. The cutoff angle that the IESNA, which is the Illuminating Engineer Society, takes a look at is the 90° and the 80° cutoff. Semi - cutoff is somewhat restrictive. It allows 5% of the light to go above the 90° cutoff angle and 20% above the 80° cutoff angle. Cutoff allows 2.5%, it is a little bit more restrictive than the semi -cutoff. 2% above the 90° cutoff angle and 10% of the light to be allowed over the 80° cutoff angle. Finally, full cutoff is the most restrictive and it allows no light above the 90° cutoff angle and allows 10% above the 80° cutoff angle. I wanted to go through that because that is what our standards are pertaining to. We have here the semi -cutoff, cutoff, and full cutoff. As you will see, the most that we will be proposing at this time to require is the cutoff. We are not requiring full cutoff. We had tossed that around quite a bit. Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 36 Estes: The reason that we decided not to go that route is first of all, cost. The cost of full cut off fixtures can be higher than the semi -cutoff or just the regular cut-off. Also, in talking to some people in the lighting industry we found that when the full cutoff light is confined to such a narrow area it actually creates hot spots and reflects more light up into the air, which is not what the goal of the ordinance is. The goal of the ordinance is to prevent that light trespass into the night sky. What we are recommending is that anything that has a bulb with 260 lumens or less be non -cutoff, no limitations essentially on the type of fixture that it is. Anything between 261 and 8,500 lumens would be the semi -cutoff and more than 8,500 lumens would be the cutoff fixture and that would be the requirement there. I believe that Mr. Green has some comments in regards this particular standard here. One of the other things is the goal of this ordinance is to help reduce the amount of glare and the amount of light that trespasses onto adjacent properties. In order to control that we are recommending that the outdoor lighting be fully shielded which is essentially an opaque housing on the fixture itself or some type of glare shield. We are recommending that there be some ability for the City Planner to approve any kind of advanced alternative technology that meets that requirement of full shielding because there are certain fixtures out there that will meet that requirement but aren't technically shielded fixtures. We would then also like to add a requirement that at recreational facilities that they place louvers or shields on their fixtures to help because their height is extreme and they do have requirements as far as the type of light output that they have to have so we would like to see some shields on that to help prevent that glare that can be posed by those types of fixtures. One other thing that we are recommending to help reduce the amount of light trespass is to restrict the amount of light that is projected at the property line to 1.5 foot candles and that would be measured 3' above the grade at the property line. The last thing I wanted to address is the canopy structures. I apologize, the image up there did not show up very clear. One of the issues that came up when we first started doing this was the impact of some of the canopies over the fueling stations and the glare that they produce. We are recommending that they be either a recessed fixture where the lens is flat with the bottom of the ceiling of the overhang or the canopy and that they may also use indirect lighting or any other type of lighting that the Planning Commission approves, that they find is not producing glare offsite. That is all I have as far as a presentation. If you have any questions I would be glad to answer them. Thank you Mrs. Rushing for that very fine presentation. On behalf of the Commission I would like to thank you for the work that you have expended on this project. I know that you have worked for over a year in bringing this material to us this evening, and we thank you. Mr. Green, did you have something that you would like to say to follow Mrs. Rushing's presentation? Green: Yes I do Mr. Estes. Thank you for this opportunity to address the Planning Commission this evening. My name is Michael Green, I am a resident of Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 37 Fayetteville and I have been a lighting engineer for a little over 25 years. I first got involved in this project at a subcommittee meeting back in February where some of the members of the Planning Commission were wrestling with this very complex issue of creating a lighting ordinance. My purpose of getting involved was to try to make some technical recommendations as far as definitions and try to explain some of the technology and problems that you are going to face in creating a lighting ordinance. I was asked to make those recommendations and comments. I am strictly acting on an advisory capacity. I must point out that free advice is worth every penny you pay for it. The real burden is still going to rest with you in deciding what level of ordinance you want to create, what kind of flexibility you want to build into it and exactly how you are going to enforce it and administer this ordinance. The Planning staff has really done a lot of work on this. Shelli Rushing in particular has done an outstanding job in trying to boil down these issues and do the research and try to sort of herd these cats. That is probably the closest analogy I can think of as to what her job has been. She has done an excellent job on it. There are just a few additional comments. Some of these things, as you have been passed out there, some of them are minor clarifications to definitions that I gave before that I would like to have an opportunity to correct or clarify before they get placed in any ordinance. These first four items are just a matter of eliminating a redundant term in those definitions we had before. As those definitions are currently stated, right now it says "For cutoff a fixture's light distribution where no more than 2.5% of the fixture's total lumens are emitted at a cutoff angle of 90° or greater." Actually the way cutoff angle is defined is that that is the angle in which the lamp is just barely visible. This cutoff angle has to do with that visibility to the lamp and not necessarily a cutoff angle other than the angle at which you can see the lamp, if you can understand where that redundancy comes from. What I am proposing is to change cutoff angle to just vertical angle. Basically it is the angle where the light either 2 %% of the light is emitted above that angle. Those are very minor tweaks to those definitions. A couple of other suggestions on the additions. Fully shielded, I would propose to add to the end of that sentence or in a given direction, which would then read "A fixture with an opaque housing or glare shield attached thereto, which prevents a line of sight to the bulb above the horizontal plain or in any given direction." The reason I am suggesting that is that it ties in with a further restriction or a further specification in your ordinance concerning fully shielded from neighborhoods by adding "or in a given direction" it gives some additional options of shielding a light fixture other than shielding it above the horizontal plane. It is kind of a minor thing but I just wanted to offer that as a clarification and to tie in maybe a little bit better to the rest of the wording of the ordinance. The other definition clarification is under the landscape lighting. Its definition currently states "A fixture designed to illuminate landscaping features including plants, flowers, shrubs, trees, and walk ways that do not exceed 75 watts and is less than 4' in height." As a definition of lighting I don't think we need to define that as not exceeding 65 watts because there is lots of landscape lighting that exceeds that and there is lots of lighting other than low Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 38 voltage lighting, which is where this 65 watt lamp came from. That will qualify as landscape lighting. Further in the ordinance it states that landscape lighting is only exempt if it is no more than 65 watts. Again, a minor tweak I think in what the intent was. I don't think that changes anything other than clarifying some of the language. Probably the next item in this handout that Shelli passed around is a clarification of exactly the status of street lighting. In paragraph 176.02 under applicability, one thing that it does state is along streets. In another section, 176.05(a) it says that light from all fixtures except street lights and traffic lights shall be cut off fixtures. Is that going to exempt street lights from the ordinance or does that only exempt the direction of streetlights from the ordinance? In other words, what is your intent there? Is it to include street lighting by either the electrical utilities or whatever. That becomes a very major point in your discussion, whether or not you include streetlights. Hoffman: Shelli, correct me if I'm wrong, I think we did because we determined that our standard streetlight used by the City of Fayetteville would comply with this ordinance. So we were attempting not to have any impact on that standard. Green: I don't believe the streetlights, most of them as now exist, would comply with the ordinance. In the definition of the semi -cutoff and the cutoff luminaries, most of the streetlights, in fact the so called workhorse Tight fixture that is used throughout most of the subdivisions and a lot of commercial establishments, is the little round type fixture with a glass prismatic lense, it is open at the bottom. I don't think that fixture qualifies in any way as even being a semi -cutoff lighting fixture. If it is not in accordance with the definition of your ordinance, then probably about 80 to 95% of all the street lighting in Fayetteville is not going to comply. Hoffman: We discussed that specifically. I was the Committee chair and I am trying to remember. Perry Franklin had come and talked to us about the standard light that they use and I am not arguing or anything, but I think that is something that we need to reconfirm. It is my memory that these would comply. Rushing: That is prior to a time that we got to a point of setting these standards with a cutoff and semi -cutoff. My understanding is that our existing street lighting may have difficulty of meeting that requirement so they are exempt from this particular requirement. Green: Yes. If they are exempt as cutoff fixtures they would probably also need to be exempt as semi -cutoff fixtures as well. Really the way that particular standard lighting fixture is designed is that it really will not limit 5% uplight and 20% in the 80° or above zone. You may want to consider that in putting the final adjustments on this. Hoffman: We have had something like eleven or twelve public meetings on this already. I think we are down to the point that yes, these are all excellent comments that if Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 39 Green: Hoffman: Conklin: Green: Estes: we are going to move this ordinance forward, the next body that will hear this and discuss it will be the Ordinance Review committee. There is ample opportunity to fine tune should it be passed onto the Ordinance Review Committee. It is good to have so that the staff can work through them and add as this goes forward to that. This ordinance of course as it is intended right now is to apply to new installations and renovated or rehabilitated outdoor lighting systems. Right now probably the City of Fayetteville has over a thousand lighting fixtures that they probably own and are on maintenance agreements with utility companies throughout the city. Right now the way I am interpreting these numbers and some of the information, the photometric information that I have tried to get from the lighting fixtures themselves, it looks like a majority of the city's lighting fixtures will not comply with the ordinance. I don't think that is really what your intent started out to be. Are you referring to security lighting like outdoor lighting for the utilities and things like that? I was going to ask a question. The cobra head type lighting, what definition would that fall under? Most of the cobra head fixtures that are along College Avenue for instance, there are two different types that you will see. One of them has a very flat bottom on it and I think that fixture itself would probably fall under the definition of the ordinance qualifying as a cutoff type. The cobra heads that have the dropped lense on them, the rounded lense at the bottom, those may or may not qualify as a semi cutoff. Trying to measure that or get the photometric data for someone to prove that I think is going to be a real burden on planning staff in trying to enforce that. That has been some of the problem with developing an ordinance all along. It is technically very complex and yet we are needing to get some kind of an ordinance that is very simple to administer and to enforce. We really have some conflicting requirements there that probably need to be balanced properly. That is something that you really need to consider in looking at this is exactly what are we going to allow under this ordinance. Is it going to be only these very expensive cutoff type lighting fixtures for general purpose streetlights? Is the city going to retrofit those that don't comply and at what cost? There are just a bunch of other lose ends out there that I think you need to consider as you are looking at this ordinance. Mr. Green, under applicability it includes along streets and then under lighting standards in parenthesis is "except streetlights and traffic lights." I believe I attended two of the subcommittee meetings. My thinking was that to include along streets take care of the situation where you have a commercial use and then over in lighting standards we specifically exempted street and traffic lights. Is that consistent with your thinking or do you see something else? Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 40 Green: Estes: Green: If streetlights are going to be exempt, it would probably be a good idea to make that a little more clear. The City Attorney may have another opinion on that but under exemptions if street lighting is going to be exempt then it probably ought to be included under the exemptions. In 176.05(a) it does say "exempt street lights and traffic lights" Under rules of construction that I am familiar with street lights and traffic lights would then be excluded. I am deferring to your technical expertise now. Do you see an issue there that we need to resolve? The only fine technical point there and this probably gets into the actual structure of the sentence, but light from all fixtures except street lights and traffic lights shall be cutoff fixtures as defined. That seems to be exempting street lights from being cutoff fixtures but it doesn't exempt them as being semi -cutoff or the other categories that they would fit into. In other words, in this table 176 (a) most of your streetlights are not going to fit in there because they are more than 8,500 lumens. Estes: So your suggestion is in 176.03 is to add a new i. that reads street lights and traffic lights? Green: I think that would clarify that part of it if that is your intent to exempt street lights and traffic lights. Estes: Thank you Mr. Green. Green: The next little paragraph there has to do with under the exemptions also. Exemption F security lighting simply states that security lighting controlled by sensors that provide illumination for 15 minutes or less. I would propose that we exempt all security lighting. There is a couple of reasons for that. Number one is this 15 minutes or less is referring to the builders type occupancy or motion sensor that will automatically turn a security light on when there is motion and then turns it off after some predetermined time. That really only works effectively with quartz lighting and some types of incandescent lighting. It doesn't work well with metal halide or the high pressure sodium type lighting which requires a long extended warm up time. That particular requirement there means that you couldn't have security lighting unless it is incandescent lighting and unless it had this motion sensor attached to it. Probably again, the City Attorney needs to look at potential liability that we might have in passing an ordinance that could create a security problem for the user. Williams: I haven't really attended the meetings that you had on that. I would be a little concerned about creating an exemption that could swallow up the ordinance and that every builder could say "Well, that is a security light." We need to look at that very carefully and make sure that, I don't see a definition right now of Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 41 Green: security lighting and maybe we need to define that if we are going to make such a broad exemption as suggested by Mr. Green. Then another thing. There is another thing that I need to clean up from something that I recommended earlier. In that same paragraph 176.05 (a) it says "shall not exceed the power density budget referenced in the Arkansas energy code." Right now there is some confusion about whether or not some of those provisions are even applicable. There are also some revisions that have changed and omitted some of the power density budgets for outdoor lighting. There is still a great deal of power density budget setup but they are mostly for indoor lighting and they only address the facade lighting and canopy lighting, which really doesn't cover too much as far as the parking lot areas and things of that sort. What I would recommend just to stay consistent, is to eliminate that particular reference and then that paragraph would read "Luminous design levels shall conform to the Illuminating Engineers Society of North America recommendations for the specific application." It would also tend to address Mr. Williams' concern about security lighting because the I.E.S. handbook has a specific chapter on security lighting, which has recommendations on luminous levels for various types of security applications. It has not only horizontal foot-candle recommendations but also the vertical foot-candle recommendations for recognition of facial characteristics and things of that sort. I think the I.E.S. handbook could properly address a lot of those kinds of issues without having to pull additional references in like energy code or the OSHA 90.1 standards for energy efficiency of buildings. Trying to keep it as simple as we can I think is usually a good course to take. The last paragraph, or the last concern that I have, Shelli kind of eluded to that, that has to do with the limits that we have in that table, 176 (a). Those can be very restrictive. They can be arbitrary in some cases and can greatly restrict some design freedom for particular applications. I know what we are trying to achieve, basically what we are trying to achieve is to reduce light pollution, which is what creates sky glow and we are also trying to reduce light trespass, which has to do with spill light over into unwanted areas. Those are basically the way I understood the subcommittee and the direction that they were going, that is really what they are trying to achieve. How we do it gets to be very complicated and somewhat arbitrary in trying to establish those particular cutoff levels. Just looking at some of the existing street lighting for instance, if you wanted to make the street lighting comply with this ordinance, I think what we would have to do is change the limit on non -cutoff luminaries up to approximately 9,000 lumens and we would have to raise the semi -cutoff limit to approximately 20,000 lumens, 20,000 to 24,000 lumens in order to take into account most of the existing streetlights as they exist. What this ordinance does do though, whether streetlights are included or not, it would eliminate the worst culprit of light trespass and also light pollution and that is the large adjustable floodlights. Those area lights, as they are sometimes called, can be extremely powerful. They can be very blinding if they are aimed at some critical angles and they do cause a tremendous problem of light trespass as well as sky glow or light pollution. From Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 42 Hoffman. MOTION: Estes: Hoffman: Bunch: Hoffman: Shackelford: that standpoint, I think there might be even another way to state that more specific if that is what your intent is to eliminate some of those larger adjustable area lights. Those again are lights that are generally leased from the utility company. A lot of the business owners along College Avenue, you can see a lot of them use that adjustable floodlight for their entire parking lot and for their building facade and security lighting and everything. You probably just need to decide if those fixtures are worthy of exemption or whether you want that type of lighting fixture to be eliminated from new construction. That is really all I had to say. I will be happy to try to answer questions that you might have. We want to thank you very much for your hard work and effort. I know that you have put a lot of time into this and your professional opinion is greatly appreciated. I know for one, when we started out our main goals were to point the lights down and to make the ordinance not have an economic impact, just to be reasonable. I think that that is our common goal still. Again, thanks for the assistance, we really needed it. Is there any other member of the public that would like to address us on the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance? Seeing none, I will go ahead and bring discussion back to the Commission. I too would like to thank Mr. Green for his efforts. These have been volunteered efforts on Mr. Green's part when he could have been billing and collecting from paying clients he has volunteered to work for the city. He is the only individual that I am aware of in this area that has this level of expertise. I appreciate it and I know the Commission appreciates it. With that said, I would move that we forward to the City Council for its consideration and for its referral to its ordinance review committee, the ordinance amending Title 15, the Unified Development Ordinance of the Code of Fayetteville to provide for the regulation of outdoor lighting installations in new developments and my motion incorporates all of Mr. Green's comments and Mr. Williams' suggestion that in the definitions section there be a provision regarding the definition of security light. I have a motion by Commissioner Estes. I will second. I have a second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there any further discussion? I have a couple of points that I would just like some clarification on before we proceed. I will try to make them as brief as possible. First of all, in earlier conversations regarding this I was one of the more vocal ones in situations where there could be variances or waivers looked at in this area. In particular with security concerns. I see that we now have variance waivers in place for any undue hardship. Is it my understanding that if there is a situation in which Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 43 security issues may be compromised by this ordinance that that would incorporate and be an undue hardship for the developer, is that correct? Williams: Undue hardship is usually viewed by the person or committee that is going to grant it and so that is a very common thing in our zoning ordinance is just leave it a fairly general term that is in many of our variances. It would probably be up to this commission to decide what does that really mean? Conklin: I was just going to add that most installations of lighting, people say they need the lighting for security. One point that I would like to make is that this ordinance is not trying to provide less lighting, it is trying to direct the lighting and shield the lighting so it doesn't trespass beyond people's properties. You can light up your parking lot as bright as you can. We don't have any maximum foot-candle requirements for commercial development in this ordinance. The only foot- candle requirement that we have where you want to try to reduce the amount of light is adjacent to a residential use. I just want to make sure everybody is clear about that so you can design lighting that is going to light up your building, your parking lot in areas and hopefully provide the type of lighting you need for security at the same time. I think it is going to be somewhat difficult to try to define security because most lighting is used to help make a site more secure. That is the reason why we wanted to have this ordinance because we have the design overlay district and the parking lot ordinance and other ordinance that talk about shielded, directed downward, away from property. That has always been left to staff to try to figure out what that meant. We are trying to come up with standard definitions of what do those other ordinances mean and hopefully we will achieve it with this ordinance. Once again, the idea is not to make a commercial site dark. You can light it up as bright as you want. Under this ordinance you just have to light it up in a manner that is not going to spill light beyond the property. Thanks Shackelford: Thank you. The second point is §1.2 (1) close to the bottom. It says "This ordinance applies to all new outdoor lighting installations in all zoning districts with the exceptions of single and two-family units." I thought it was, my understanding at one point is that we were actually directing this more at commercial areas and that all residential areas were going to be omitted. The way that I am reading that is that with the type of subdivision that we looked at tonight with these patio homes, these condominium types, these are still residential instances that don't fall under that definition of single or double family homes. It is our intention to govern the lighting in those types of developments even though they are residential, is that correct? Conklin: You will typically have a parking lot when you have something larger than a duplex. There are many residential developments that do not light their parking lot areas. If they do, the ordinance would apply to those parking lots to make sure those lights are cutoff or semi -cutoff type lighting fixtures depending on how Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 44 bright the light is. I think it is important that we include those because you can have just as much impact if you just buy floodlights to illuminate an entire parking lot. That is the distinction between the single-family and the two-family. When you start adding more cars and you want to add parking lot lighting, we want to make sure that that is also meeting the ordinance. Shackelford: Ok. Also, in that same section, "Any fixture being replaced must also comply." How will this be governed and regulated when an existing fixture is replaced, how will we govern what fixture is going to be used to replace that? Will there be building permits required? Are there already building permits required to replace pole fixtures for example in a C-1 zone? Conklin: There are not building permits required. Shackelford: How will we govern what is replaced when these are replaced? Conklin- Possibly an electrical permit I think there is somewhat of a learning curve with this ordinance. Right now we have received complaints of people buying or leasing those floodlights, shining them onto their buildings and outdoor areas into residential neighborhoods. Hopefully over time people will realize that buying a floodlight and lighting up the entire neighborhood is no longer allowed in Fayetteville. If they redo their fixtures in the parking lot hopefully we don't have too many instances where people are unaware of the ordinance. Shackelford: As far as the overall ordinance will the enforcement of that ordinance be something that is handled by your department? Conklin: Yes. Shackelford: Do we have the equipment and technology needed to enforce that ordinance at this time? Conklin: The City of Fayetteville does have a light meter. How we envision with regard to enforcement of this ordinance is that all lighting fixtures typically have cut sheets that will tell us whether or not the fixture is semi -cutoff, cutoff, or non -cutoff. We will rely on that information based on the cut sheet, the photometric data. If there is a problem with regard to enforcement from there we would have to go out and probably seek a consultant to verify if there is a problem. Typically what I have seen in 90% to 95% of all new development are using cutoff lighting and Ms. Rushing did bring an example of a box type fixture that has the four sides. You will see them at Kohl's, Target, Walgreen's, most of your new development where they are pointed downwards. They are shielded on four sides with no light output on top. Shackelford: My concern is that this ordinance is going to create one more form of expense for Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 45 the developer in our community that he or she may not have to face in adjoining communities. I am concerned with the cost that this is going to add to the development process. I too would like to thank Mr. Green for his hard work and would suggest that we consider his final option that we increase the limits that are allowed going forward so we can make this less expensive on the developer. I would not like to see it be a situation where our ordinance requires such specific equipment for the developer that it becomes a substantial cost to development going forward. Thank you. Hoffman: Is there any further discussion? Allen: I have several little ticky tacky things but I will just mention one. I wondered about the government flags and lighting there so often the company flag is also a part of that. Will that be something that will be regulated? Will they have to remove their company flag in order to illuminate it? Hoffman: If it is an existing installation, no. As I understand it, a new installation would not permit the private sector signage or flags or that kind of thing. Conklin- Yes. We seem to have a few U.S. flags popping up around town I've noticed which would be allowed to be illuminated. That is just a commentary that I've noticed when I was driving on the bypass. Ward: What about neon lights Tim? Rushing: At this time we haven't addressed the type of bulb that it will be whether it is neon or others. We have not addressed that yet. I believe there is some information in the signage ordinance in regard to that but we did not address that in our outdoor lighting. Hoffman: My thought on that is commercial design standards cover somewhat of neon as do the sign ordinances and no flashing lights and that kind of thing. I think we have other areas that we can work within. Ward: Shelli, are you aware if there is any government lighting standards as far as streetlights that are shielded? Rushing: I am not aware of any standards. Conklin: You mean like for the City of Fayetteville? Ward: Yes. We have got all these that Mike Green says wouldn't qualify under this new ordinance if these streetlights were actually underneath the ordinance. Are they producing streetlights now that are inexpensive that a city could afford? Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 46 Conklin: The City is going in and as the older streetlights are worn out, are replacing them with the cutoff type lighting. That is the reason for my question with regard to the cobra head lighting where it would fall into that definition. I am not sure if it would be cutoff or semi -cutoff but Perry Franklin, Traffic Superintendent, did state that we are trying to go back in and replace them with the cutoff or semi - cutoff type lighting as they wear out. As part of the subcommittee, I think that is part of the confusion this evening with regard to do our streetlights meet the standards because we did have our Traffic Superintendent come to the meeting and talk about that the city is purchasing and installing cutoff or semi -cutoff lighting in Fayetteville. Hoffman: Just one additional comment that I would like to put in to respond to Commissioner Shackelford. We were really careful in researching the economic impact of this ordinance. I think that we did an informal survey of the commercial projects that were coming in for approvals and I believe that with the exceptions of the ones with the up floodlights, the vast majority of them would comply with this with no additional effort. Is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. Most new lighting is that type of lighting on commercial developments, which is cutoff lighting. Hoffman: So it may indeed need some fine tuning to workout the fixture lumens and the things that Mr. Green was referring to but I think that if you just take the new construction plans that we're getting and look at that and say that this has little or no impact on it then I think we're headed down the right road or that is the idea. Conklin: I think Mr. Green summed it up when he stated what this ordinance will do. It will prevent the floodlights from being installed and lighting up the entire street and neighborhood and that is the intention is to if you want to light your display area or your building or your parking lot, that you use appropriate lighting that is not impacting the entire street or your neighborhood. We have worked on this for a long time and the current ordinances state shielded and directed downward. Staff has interpreted that to require to make sure the lights are shielded, but that is as far as we have gone. That is a very simple way of doing it. I think this is the best that we can get at this point with regard to a definition of what cutoff is and full cutoff. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you. Does anyone else have any questions before we take the vote? Bunch: I have one. Mr. Estes, when you made your motion did you intend to include Mr. Green's suggestion of revisions on 176(a)? Estes: My motion incorporated all of Mr. Green's comments and would ask that they go forward to the City Council and that Mr. Green's letter dated today, July 8`h numerates those comments. Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 47 Bunch: Estes: He did have some additional information that was not in the letter that had to do with the numbers, adjusting the numbers in 176(a). Yes, my motion includes all of those comments and of course that will be transcribed right Renee? Thomas: Yes. Hoffman: Ok, thanks. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 01-15.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: The motion for the Outdoor Lighting ordinance carries unanimously. Thank you everybody for your efforts and we appreciate it. Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 48 ADM 01-19.00 Administrative Item (Off -Street Parking Ordinance Amendments) to revise Section 172.01 Off -Street Parking Lot Design Requirements of the City of Fayetteville Unified Development Ordinance to provide a method for reducing off-street parking requirements for properties that share a common parking facility and to revise parking ratios for certain uses. Hoffman: Our second proposed ordinance this evening is ADM 01-19.00 which is the parking ordinance amendments ordinance to revise § 172.01 off-street parking lot design requirements in the City of Fayetteville Unified Development Ordinance to provide a method for reducing off-street parking requirements for properties that share a common parking facility and to revise parking ratios for certain uses. Tim or Dawn would you like to give us an introduction and then we will have presentations? Conklin- Sure. This ordinance started approximately about a year and a half ago it started with a meeting with Mayor Dan Coody and talking about the ability to reduce parking through a shared parking between mixed use developments. From there, Laura Kelly, a Fayetteville citizen prepared an ordinance to put in front of the Planning Division based on some work that was done by I.T.E., Institute of Traffic Engineers, that looked at shared parking ratios. Staff asked that they get with the Downtown Dickson Street Enhancement Project to discuss this shared parking within mixed use developments ordinance, D.D.E.P. did review it and they did send a letter in support of this ordinance. At this time I am going to let Shelli Rushing go over the ordinance that is proposed before you tonight. When we initially brought it forward there was a request to also look at our parking ratios. We have quite a few conditional use requests for restaurant parking and bank parking. Staff has gone forward and we have provided those parking ratio amendments also as part of this request. Rushing: The main things I want to point out to you in regards to the Shared Parking Ordinance are two items on page 2.16 starting at the top of the page. This is the newest portion of the ordinance with the exception of the parking ratios and it does address shared parking between developments and setting up those agreements and identifying the number of shared spaces that we basically currently have. The newest portion is the number four reduced parking within mixed use developments and what this does is use table 4 on page 2.17 using the occupancy rates and using the calculation to determine the number of spaces needed for both or one or more developments that are involved within sharing a parking space to determine the maximum amount of spaces needed. Those are for land uses that typically have different peak demand times such as a bank and a church is a good example of land uses that would be able to share parking. That is the shared parking agreement. We also have in your packet, we put together a worksheet so that we could clarify how that calculation is determined because it originally started out kind of confusing. I think based on comments from the last time we were before you, we have included those and tried to clean up the description of the calculation. Then in regard to the parking ratios, what we did is Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 49 we took a look at our existing ratios. We looked at some of the requests that we have had for conditional use permits to increase the amount of parking and looked at some other ordinances not only just in Arkansas, but also outside of Arkansas and looked at some standards and tried to find those land uses where we felt that we needed some clarification or we actually needed an actual parking ratio, which we didn't have on a few of them. We are proposing a new category for funeral homes, which would be one per four seats in the main chapel, one per two employees, and one reserved space for each vehicle that is used in connection with that business. Another new category is fuel sales with convenience stores and fuel sales only. I think everything kind of fell into gas service stations. We separated those into three separate categories. Another change that we are recommending is that right now we have restaurants excluding drive-thrus, and those that offer entertainment and then we also have restaurants that offer entertainment. What we kind of do is try to clarify that a little bit and come up with a new category, which is strictly restaurants which is one per one hundred square feet of gross floor areas plus four stacking spaces for any drive-thru window. Those are the new categories. The other categories, you have had a chance to take a look at this. We are proposing some slightly revised ratios based on some of the research that we have done. Hoffman: Thank you. Bunch: On the new category on fuel sales only, does that need to be described as maybe retail or wholesale or what does that encompass? Rushing: Strictly fuel sales. Bunch: Would it be like a bulk plant for wholesale sales or would it be like a retail outlet? Rushing: I think we would apply it to both situations. Conklin: It does state with convenience store. Bunch: No, that is the next category. Fuel sales only is this one. The question becomes is that to include a bulk plant where they have the trucks and everything that are hauling to the retail stations? Hoffman: There is only one that I know of in Fayetteville, off of Sixth and Razorback, there is purely a fuel sales facility that doesn't have a convenience store attached to it and I think that they sale wholesale and retail both. I am sorry I don't know the name of the business but that is the only one I know of'. Conklin: Mitchell Oil Company. Hoffman: Do you know of any others in town? Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 50 Conklin- That is the only one I can think of. Bunch: At one time in this town we had quite a few outlets that were help yourself stations where there was basically a little window and a trailer or something like that and some fuel pumps. You know, these things go in cycles. My question is if from past experience of what we have seen in this town, if we should encompass those types of installations and also to differentiate from a bulk oil wholesale operation and a retail outlet. Conklin- I am trying to understand your question. Would that be from a refinery? Bunch: An oil distributor. Someone who has the trucks and the equipment and the large tanks and they haul the oil and gasoline products to retail outlets. Conklin: Would it be like an industrial park use? You are going to have tanks and trucks? Bunch: Like a Mitchell Oil Company. Just an outfit that sells to other service stations, convenience stores, it is more of an industrial application. Hoffman: Can I ask you a question Commissioner Bunch? When we talk about three spaces per each employee and spaces of the pump islands are calculated towards this requirement. Do you have a problem with the actual parking ratio for this use or do you have further questions about the use? I think the use is we can get some more in Fayetteville or not but how does this pertain to the parking? Bunch: Where it just says fuel sales only, a bulk plant operation has maybe several employees that are driving trucks that they pick up products on site and deliver to other sites. What we may be doing by not being more descriptive in our definition, we may be requiring considerable amount of parking at a bulk plant operation when it is not necessary. Hoffman: I would suggest then that the staff take a look at other types of facilities like that and see if they need to have reserved spaces for the trucks and then how many people actually work at those facilities. We are having reserved spaces for the funeral home specialty vehicles, I guess we could reserve spaces for the trucks too. Bunch: I am just trying to get a differentiation between a wholesale distributor type operation and a retail outlet because it seems like it would be an adverse burden. My question is what is the intent of what it says here? Hoffman: Would it clear it up if we just put wholesale fuel sales only? Williams: I think that actually means retail. Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 51 Bunch: I think it should be retail. That is what my question is. Apparently it is quite confusing because the intent is probably retail. Rushing: Yes. Hoffman: Then do a separate category for wholesale and that should clear it up. Bunch: That would clear it up. Church: Just a quick question for Shelli. On the table on 2.17 it lists out commercial, would retail fall in that? I know there is an asterisk there but I don't know what that means exactly. Would retail fall under commercial because that is kind of its own category instead of falling into commercial. I am just wondering if maybe we should list retail separately because the hours might be different than the normal commercial category. Rushing: At this point we would interpret that retail would fall into that commercial category. This was some of the research that was put together by Laura Kelly and she came up with these land use categories. I don't know if in her research she found a specific category for retail or not. Church: That might just be something to take a look at. Hoffman: Does anybody have any other questions for Shelli before we take public comment? Estes: Shelli, in the material that you provided us regarding the restaurant parking, we are told that based on the historic data that the average is 14.9 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. and that that excludes Chili's and then in table three we have got one per 200 sq.ft. of floor area, which his of course five spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. Again, my concern is is there something that we can do to get that current ratio for restaurants up to a more realistic level that is consistent with the historical data? I guess another way of saying it is why did you set it at one per 200 sq.ft. of floor area knowing that the historic data is that we do about three times that? Rushing: That was something that we really tried to take a look at. Keep in mind that these are requests for conditional use permits for more parking. We did not want to set the minimum requirements so high that we had restaurants not being able to meet that requirement. These are particular situations where they requested an amount of parking spaces significantly higher than what we currently not only require but allow. We did not want to set our minimum requirements so high that those other restaurants would not be able to meet it. We didn't want to go to extremes with it but still wanted to be able to try to catch some of those conditional uses that we have coming in. This does catch a few of them, it does not catch all of them. Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 52 Warrick: I would just add on that in the area on table three that you are looking at, the one per 200 sq.ft. of floor area for restaurants. If you will look the proposed ratio on that is to delete that category and two down below that is a proposed new category that changes the ratio to one per one hundred sq.ft. of gross floor area plus stacking room. The one per 200 is what we currently have. Estes: So we are going to continue to hear variance requests on a case by case because one per 100 is way below what the historic average is. In other words, what I am saying is simply stated can we sieze the moment and use this as an opportunity and set these ratios closer to the historic data so that we don't force applicants to come to us time and time again with these variance requests for restaurant parking? Conklin. We looked at table one and for McAllister's and Guido's that ratio works for them. If you wanted to set it for the other type of restaurants it would be the fifteen per 1,000 sq.ft. Rushing: Fifteen per 1,000 sq.ft. is the next level that we were looking at. When we took at that you will see when you look on table two, J.D. China and Guido's, the number of spaces J.D. China provided was 57. If we go to 15 per 1,000 sq.ft. they would have had to have provided 93 spaces. Those seemed a little extreme to us and we didn't want to have such significant requirements for some of the smaller restaurants. The same with Guido's. They ended up providing 40 spaces and with the 15 per 1,000 sq.ft. they would have had to have provided 64. Hoffman: Could we look at instead of holding fast at one per 100 sq.ft., could we put in a percentage and say as long as they fall within some percentage within 50% to 100% of this number, if they didn't want to put that many in they wouldn't have to? It is all based on performance data on these chains that have got a pretty good idea of what they need. Rushing: I believe we could put together something along those lines. Williams: That is why I recommended that you give the Planning Division more power. Right now we say the minimum and maximum number is this. In other words, this is the number and then you say well you've got 20% that the Planner has. I recommend that you go at least 30% with the Planner to give them more wiggle room. The same number right now by ordinance is the minimum and maximum number and really I think that we can rely upon our city Planning Division to use their discretion appropriately. I think 20% up and down from that is not enough variation between different kinds of restaurants and I would rather have you all recommend to the City Council that we give the Planning Division more discretion, more leeway between those two numbers. That is why I recommended 30% as opposed to 20%. Maybe that is not even enough but that would at least take care of some of these problems with different sorts of restaurants. Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 53 Shackelford: Could we not set a minimum and maximum and have a range? Hoffman: That is what I was talking about. Shackelford: You are talking about just a variance from that. Would it be a request for less parking spaces too? Hoffman: Yes. It happens sometimes. I think you have people that have a high percentage of drive thru and things like that that this would take them into account. Does anybody have anymore questions before we take public comment? Estes: With regard to the schools, considering the gymnasium and the auditorium, is there any way to calculate that on a square footage basis and fall into something like we do for community centers? Rushing: I believe we could do something like that. Estes: How would you suggest that that be done? I have got the idea but I don't have the technical expertise to implement that idea. How would we do that? Rushing: We would have to find a way to coordinate it with what they would be providing for student use. That would be used for auditorium use as well. What I have seen in some of the other ordinances is that they will do one per 10 students based on current enrollment or the one per four seats in the auditorium and whichever one is higher is what they would require. So, you could do something along those lines. Hoffman: Ok, anybody else? Thanks Shelli. We will get back to you because I'm sure we have got more questions. We appreciate it. I will now open the floor for public comment. Kelly: Hi, I am Laura Kelly, a citizen of Fayetteville. I just want to state that number one remember when we are talking minimum requirements flexibility is such a great idea. I am glad you brought that up because when we are talking about land for cars it doesn't help the developer or the city when we take space away and pave it over so flexibility is a good thing and that is why the shared parking element was expanded and introduced to allow in certain circumstances in which you do have some mixed uses with complementary demands on parking, it is really to the advantage of everyone to increase the profitability of that site by allowing some more buildable area. Also, in the categories of minimal use you have feed lot wholesales and emergency medical technicians. You are going to have too many categories if you try to cover everyone and I think it is just really good to streamline and allow flexibility and usability and that is all my comments. Thank you. Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 54 MOTION: Hoffman: We want to thank you too for the time that you have put into this. I know you spent a lot of your personal time on helping the city with your ideas and so forth so thanks Laura very much. Would anybody else like to talk to us about this? I will go ahead and close public comment and bring it back to staff and to the Commission for additional suggestions or motions or whatever. I have just a couple of housekeeping items. I would like to add a category for nightclubs and taverns that is currently not listed. I don't know what to suggest for those ratios but I think that they have one space per four seats is kind of a national standard. I hesitate to bring up outdoor seating areas but I think it is something that we should address at some point and those are not covered. I am not sure whether we want to go ahead and exempt places that are putting in fewer than 10 or 15 seats because I think that most of our small bars have limited outdoor seating that is seasonal in nature so I will just throw that idea out and you can think about it and work with it. I would also like to add a standard for queing spaces for any drive- thru facility, banks, restaurants, so whatever. Are there any other comments? I would like to go ahead and move that the Planning Commission approve this for forwarding to the City Council to the Ordinance Review Committee for their consideration in taking into account all of the comments that have been mentioned this evening with regard to retail commercial, the restaurant upper and lower limits, and I am sure that I am forgetting something. I apologize, it has been a long meeting but that is my motion. Bunch: Is that to include the queing? Hoffman: Yes, everybody's comments and the wholesale verses retail fuel sales. Bunch: Nightclubs and taverns. Hoffman: Nightclubs, taverns, outdoor seating. Bunch: At what point in time do those standards get developed and get inserted? Hoffman: I think that between the time, this is something I personally trust staff with. They have done an excellent job of researching what is done nationally and what seems to be a national standard and these really don't vary that much. If you guys can find similar cities of similar size and use those ordinances as a guide then I have no problem with them inserting that. We are all free to go to the public meetings that will occur and if this goes to the Ordinance Review Committee. Bunch: I will second. Hoffman: I have a motion and a second. Is there any additional comment? Renee, would Planning Commission July 8, 2002 Page 55 you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 01-19.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: Thank you. The motion carries unanimously. Thank you everyone for your hard work and efforts. We do appreciate it. That concludes our agenda for this evening. Tim, do we have any announcements? Conklin: I would just like to remind the Commission that we are scheduling a Planning Commission retreat. I believe that that is July 296. If you put that on your calendar we will get more information to you. That is all I have. Hoffman: Ok, thanks Tim. We will adjourn this meeting Thank you everybody and have a great night. Meeting adjourned: 8:08 p.m.