Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-03-03 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A rescheduled meeting of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on March 3, 2003 in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain at 5:30 p.m. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSD 03-6.00: Large Scale Development (Superior Industries, pp 682) Page 4 LSD 03-5.00: Large Scale Development (Shake's, pp 252) Page 15 CUP 03-2.00: Conditional Use (Community of Christ Church, pp 292) Page 12 RZN 03-6.00: Rezoning (Brophy, pp 291) Page 35 RZN 03-12.00: Rezoning (Broyles, pp 598) Page 37 ADM 03-4.00 Administrative Item (Washington Regional Hospital, pp 212) Page 39 ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Forwarded to City Council Forwarded To City Council Approved COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Bob Estes Lorel Aviles Lee Ward Sharon Hoover Don Bunch Alan Ostner Loren Shackelford Nancy Allen Alice Church STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Sara Edwards Matt Casey Renee Thomas Kit Williams Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 2 Aviles: Welcome to the March 3, 2003 meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. This meeting is actually a rescheduling of the Monday, February 24th meeting which was cancelled due to the snow. We have the same agenda that was published for that meeting. We have no additions or deletions to my knowledge, Dawn, do we have anything to change? Warrick: No, it is the same agenda. Aviles: Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were eight Commissioners present with Commissioner Church being absent. Aviles: The first thing on the agenda is the approval of the Consent Agenda from the February 10th meeting. Do I have a motion for that? Shackelford: So moved. Aviles: There is a motion by Commissioner Shackelford, is there a second? Hoover: Second. Aviles: There is a second by Commissioner Hoover. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the consent agenda was approved. Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 3 LSD 03-6.00: Large Scale Development (Superior Industries, pp 682) was submitted by Jeny Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Superior Industries for property located at 1901 Borick Drive. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial and contains approximately 43 acres with 544 parking spaces proposed and four additional buildings containing 81,184 sq.ft. Aviles: The first item of new business this evening is LSD 03-6.00, which is a Large Scale Development for Superior Industries. It was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Superior Industries for property located at 1901 Borick Drive. The property is zoned 1-2, General Industrial and contains approximately 43 acres with 544 parking spaces proposed and four additional buildings containing a total of 81,184 sq.ft. There are ten conditions of approval. Sara, do we have signed conditions? Edwards: No we do not. Aviles: Ok, thanks. I am going to go ahead and read those conditions in for the record and then we will hear from the applicant. 1) Construction may not begin until the access easement is obtained from the City and approval is granted from the Parks Board for the private drive on city property. 2) The sidewalk requirement is for a minimum six foot sidewalk with a minimum ten foot greenspace along Borick Drive and Black Oak Road. The applicant has requested the option to review the construction costs and contribute funds to the sidewalk fund dependent upon these costs. 3) The private drive and parking lots shall be constructed of asphalt or concrete. 4) A floodplain development permit is required for all development in the floodplain and must be obtained prior to any grading or improvements. 5) The facility shall comply with all Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality regulations and permits. 6) A certificate of zoning compliance shall be obtained for any new manufacturing activities. 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's current requirements. 9) Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 10) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: Grading and drainage permits; Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area; Project Disk with all final revisions; Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City. Is the applicant present? Kelso: I am Jerry Kelso with Crafton, Tull & Associates representing the owner here. We concur with all of the conditions of approval with a minor adjustment of one. The sidewalks being constructed on the south side of Borick Drive that were required. We will go ahead and construct those sidewalks rather than giving money to the general fund for that. Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 4 Aviles: So we would be correct in rewording condition number two to just say that the sidewalk requirement is for a minimum of 6' sidewalk with a 10' greenspace along Borick and Black Oak Drive? Kelso: Yes Ma'am. Aviles: Ok. Do you have a presentation or would you like to answer questions after I take public comment? Kelso: Just that one of the biggest things that came up at Subdivision Committee was meeting all of the ADEQ requirements as far as air quality. We do have all of those permits in place. We do have the permits with the city as far as discharge of our waste that goes directly into the sanitation system for the City of Fayetteville. All permits are in place and as far as I know there has been nothing that Superior has done wrong or had any violations of any kind. Aviles: Thank you Mr. Kelso. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this proposed Large Scale Development? Yes, if you would come forward and say your name and give us the benefit of your opinion please. I will also ask that before we hear from the first person, how many people are here to discuss this particular project? Thank you very much. Combs: My name is Libby Combs. I did not receive a letter about this meeting. I was told by someone who did receive a letter. Since I do live outside of the city limits I would like to thank you all for listening to me because I think that my perspective is unique to someone who lives near the property. I recently heard on the news that people in Van Buren who are protesting about a speedway were told "You knew it was there when you moved there." My house was built in the 1860's. I think I was there before the Industrial Park was. All of the property adjoining the Industrial Park that is private property is property that is owned by people in my family. They are not here to speak. They were not notified either about the planned meeting. I have several issues. As a high school science teacher I went to the internet to see what I could find. I first found that in Fayetteville from information from 1995 that Superior is the number one waste generator in the City of Fayetteville generating 1,056 tons of waste. They transport 1,126 tons of waste. I am assuming that is per year. That is a lot. I am not exactly sure what chemicals they have there. My sister tried to open a daycare center but she was not allowed to open one because of the possibility of reactive materials. The only thing I know for sure that they have is aluminum. I have found numerous documents indicating that aluminum can be carcinogenic and have different effects on the environment. I know that Superior, because I took it straight from the internet, has a statement that says that they are committed to continuous improvement, pollution prevention, and compliance with all relevant federal, state, and local environmental regulations, legislation, and other requirements to which the organization subscribes as applicable. You can also find this on the internet site. They say that they want to operate in a manner which is clean and safe while showing consideration for the environment and our Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 5 employees working conditions. I wish they had the same faith to have our best interest at hand. We are constantly barraged with noises in the middle of the night. Not just the normal noises that you would think that you would hear when a factory is near you and all the trees near it that provide a sound barrier have been cut down. We also hear the sounds of their employees going around racing each other on forklifts. I have driven down to see what they were doing and they were racing. We hear the sounds of the metal that they drop on the ground. We smell the smells every Sunday morning and late at night. We see that when the supervisors leave that they open their doors violating probably the Fayetteville noise ordinance. My three year old grandson, one of my three year old grandsons, is even aware of the sound and talks about the sound from the factory. My dogs bark every time they talk across their intercom calling someone to the office or to the phone. I think if you will allow me to say this, I am not naive. I saw the article in the paper where the Fayetteville Mayor said that this is one of the best things that can happen bringing in the employees, making the new jobs and the expansion so I am pretty sure that this is a done deal. I only ask that they respect the people that live there. That perhaps they be required to keep their doors shut at night instead of opening them so we hear all of the sounds. Perhaps they should be required to insulate their metal building. Perhaps they should be required to build a sound barrier. I am also concerned because at least twice the HazMat team has turned around in my driveway and I have heard on the news that they have also gone back to Superior. As I was looking for the information about aluminum spills, and I know they have other chemicals as well, it talked about the preferred method of cleanup. The preferred method of cleanup is to sweep it up and hose the area off to keep the employees safe. Federal regulations require only a certain amount of exposure to the aluminum dust in an 8 hour time period. You can see dust being omitted from the building. If you haven't been by there I invite you to come any evening late at night and see what is coming from the factory. I also know that this is a floodplain. We used to have the area rented to run cattle on and I have walked through many areas up to water that was knee deep on me. I am not very tall but it was still knee deep water. When Superior built their latest expansion they built as close to the road as they possibly could. It is cut down to perhaps 8' below, maybe even 12' below the level of the road above it. They built at the foot of a mountain. Everyone knows that there is runoff from a mountain. Not too long ago they, without permission from anyone who owned the land, chose to cut a trench. They did not notify the telephone company, they cut through our telephone. When I called to complain their first comment was to deny it. I said but I've already been down and talked to the people so I know that is where it was from. The second thing they did was they cut through a city curb. I know that you have to get your curb cuts fixed, you have to get a certain number allowed if you are going to have openings. They didn't build just an opening. They cut through it and then built it higher to divert the water away from their property onto our property. Common sense tells me if they have hazardous materials that they are going to wash off that these materials are going to be washed onto my property. I am real concerned because you may not think of it as an agricultural area because the City Planning Commission zoned County property Industrial a few years ago and I protested at that point at a meeting. We still think of this as agricultural land. We question land being Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 6 flooded when all the water that floods onto our land goes into the west fork of the White River which in turns goes into I believe Lake Sequoyah. I question about the reactive chemicals that might be omitted from other plants because I read that aluminum fumes and aluminum dust are highly reactive and can be carcinogenic and caustic and flammable, and explosive, and a high hazard when mixed with other chemicals. I question whether or not they really have the best interest of our city, their employees, and all of their neighbors when they are making their plans I question where they are going to find sidewalk space and greenspace along Black Oak Road when they have basically cut to the edge and fenced that whole area. I question their ability to be forthright about the problems that I have stated. I question their ability to even supervise the employees that they have because we have frequently called the police because people who work there have come to our property to trespass, to shoot guns in the middle of the night, we have found syringes, we have found bottles of alcohol and coolers of beer and we have frequently reported it to the Fayetteville and the county police. We know that we do need industry in Fayetteville but there are other areas that are not on the floodplain and I know that Superior may own some of that land as well. I question whether or not the places that they have designated as places of expansion are best for our city, best for my family, and best for their factory. I question whether or not any of the members of the panel have checked to see what hazardous materials they have, what possibilities they might have if they choose to change from making aluminum wheels, what else they might be approved to make, and what that might subject my family and my grandchildren, and my dogs to. Thank you very much. Aviles: Thank you Ms. Combs. Before we hear from the next member of the audience, I would like some help from our City Attorney with regard to a couple of points of order about the discussion tonight. She brought up certainly some very valid and important matters however, I would like to more clearly define what we are to consider with regard to a Large Scale Development verses environmental concerns and so forth. Williams: As I think I have pointed out in other memos to you, when a Large Scale Development comes in front of you you are really limited in what you are looking at whether you can approve or deny it to several different factors which are stated within our ordinances. If the particular project meets the requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance, meets all the things that the Planning Division has stated are required in the way of setbacks and anything that they have to do in that matter, and do not create a dangerous traffic hazard, then the Large Scale Development needs to be approved. It is basically an administrative action on your part. You are not given a tremendous amount of discretion if it in fact, meets the Unified Development Ordinance. Aviles: With regard to the comment that this might be a done deal, I would also like to remind everyone in attendance that anyone I think may appeal a decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council, a constituent of that ward I believe or an alderman. Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 7 Williams: I am not sure, it might require an alderman or the applicant to do an appeal. I would have to look back at it and see. Aviles: I think it is a couple of council members would have to agree to the appeal and it would have to come from that ward if I'm not mistaken. Williams: You are thinking of a Conditional Use. This only requires a single alderman and it does not have to be from that ward to do an appeal. That is the way I remember an appeal of a Large Scale Development, which is what is before the Planning Commission. Aviles: Thank you Mr. Williams I say that before we continue with public comment, because I would like to focus our discussion on those items that are related to city ordinances, we also have a staff report, which I didn't take first, but we will hear that after the public comment that will include other avenues such as ADEQ and the geologic survey or something like that for environmental questions that this board does not address Who else would like to address us on this Large Scale Development? Molina, N: Good evening, my name is Noley Molina, I currently reside at 3357 Dead Horse Mountain Road. I also own property at 2951 S. Black Oak Road right across the street from Superior Industries. My concern over here is several fold. Basically, we lived in that house approximately a few months prior to moving into our current residence but prior to that we had experiences such as our neighbor, Libby Combs, stipulated about the noise. Possibly about their emissions over there as well. I would like to back track a little bit here and I would like to voice my concern about the possibility of hazardous emissions coming off the factories. I would like to make a point of has there been baseline emission standards taken from the factory due to the fact that they will be expanding this factory as a manufacturing facility in due time and also I would like to propose to hear about a long term study based on EPA standards and based also on government emission standards. Has there been an EPA baseline taken at the factory itself and long- term studies as well? Our second issue is the floodplain issue. Due to heavy, heavy construction facilities over here being taken into that south industrial parkway there has been quite a bit of flooding especially with the golf facilities. I don't know if you are familiar with that area. The golf course is within 1 1/2 miles from our property over there. In heavy weather there is a tremendous amount of water that washes across that road and it has become impassable on many occasions. Lastly, I would like to voice my concern about the noise in the facilities. When we were living in our old house there were times with the paging of employees, the heavy banging that my neighbor Libby mentioned, and also the noise coming from the furnace itself. It is almost like a small rumble that coming off of there with their doors open. I would like to know if there have been any plans to limit or eliminate these background noises coming from the factories. As far as I am concerned, that would be my agenda at this time. Aviles: Thank you Mr. Molina. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address us? Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 8 Molina, M: I am Martha Molina and I am a co-owner of the property just mentioned. First I would like to address the council who the powers at hand have done great things in the past few weeks for us because in fact, I mentioned that day the problem with the sound and noise and the red evening glow, and it has been squelched a little bit. Until Friday night I think the employees on Fridays and Saturday nights really open up the building to vent out. I would like to thank you for that. I would like to clarify something. Someone mentioned to me that they read in the paper something that resulted from the last time I spoke. I don't want to go through all the details that I went through before about the industrial helicopters that came in on a Sunday morning and rolled us out of bed. I don't want to bring all of that up again, I am sure that is a matter of public record. I would like to say one thing about something that was misrepresented. In the paper it made a comment that I filed a complaint against Superior to the EPA and I just want to state for the record I have never filed a complaint against Superior for anything. They are not my enemy. As a matter of fact, I attend church with several of the people who work there who are in charge there. I have done nothing in any way to harm them or hurt them. The reason I spoke with the EPA is because there was a mysterious car sitting in my driveway and every time I would go by our unrented property by the way, it is unrented, it is a very nice home but who wants to live that close to that much loud noise? The fact is that the EPA was there focusing on Superior. I wasn't the one that called them. Apparently they came on their own and had their own concerns. I just wanted to clarify that for the record and to say that it is still a problem and if you will perhaps even look at the trees in the area that are inside the city, I know you are interested in building parks and doing great things for the environment but if you build parks and you plant trees and do the things that we need then you are going to suffer the chance that they may not live. Like I mentioned, the tree that we planted in our yard, as soon as their expansion opened, it died. As recent as Friday a tree fell in that yard. We were looking at the trees and my husband commented "the trees are dying, these beautiful oak trees are dying." That is important. Thank you. Aviles: Thank you Mrs. Molina. Is there anybody else that would like to address us on this Large Scale Development this evening? Seeing no other member of the audience, if you are an applicant I am going to ask you to wait because we have to get our staff report and then we will come back to you. Ms. Edwards, could you give us the benefit of your staff report but also address specifically some of the things, I know you worked very hard to address some of these concerns. Edwards: Their proposal is for a 543 space parking lot located to the west of the existing site. Expansions include two maintenance buildings and two manufacturing buildings. You did read the conditions of approval. From Subdivision Committee we did do some research, noise is monitored by the Fayetteville Police Department and anytime that an adjacent neighbor feels that a lot of noise is coming from the site they can call the police department, the police department can take a reading and see if it violates our noise ordinance. Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 9 Aviles: Do we have any data from the Police Department on how many calls they have had and is there a record that we could look at? Edwards: We do not have that at this time. With regard to air emissions, that is permitted by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. They are in compliance, as the applicant stated, with their permits. We are amending their current permit to allow for the expansion and that is currently underway with the ADEQ. The ADEQ investigates all complaints associated with air emissions. Liquid emissions, ADEQ also determines compliance with that. The City of Fayetteville does have a permit that allows the release of their liquid emissions into our sanitary sewer system. I did ask ADEQ if they had any complaints of recent overflows into the White River and they have not had any. There is floodplain on the site on the northeast corner, the improvements located there will be a detention pond and an access drive. They were unable to locate any agency that has regulations with regard to any sort of seismic or sound wave vibration. There was some question as to notification, and we did verify that every common property owner that shared a common boundary with Superior was notified. Aviles: Thanks Sara. Matt, I wonder if we could get your thoughts on the floodplain issues and what does our ordinance require with new development with regard to additional runoff? Casey: As Sara stated, there is a portion of the improvement area that is located in the floodplain. I might state that grading is allowed in the floodplain, they would have to submit the proper grading and drainage calculations and plans to the engineer's office for approval for that and also get a floodplain development permit through Sara. The requirements for the drainage, any increase in runoff has to be detained on site to limit the flows to what they are now. They have done that. They have got a detention pond proposed within the parking lot that will handle the additional runoff from this area. Aviles: Thank you very much. Now it is time to hear back from the applicants. Kelso: Bracy: Again, as far as I understand it, we do meet all of the requirements as far as ordinances and things like that from the city. I think from city staff comments you found that. Bob Bracy is also here. He is with Superior and may be able to address some of the environmental questions that were asked. Good evening. I am Bob Bracy, I am the Vice President of Facilities Engineering for Superior Industries and a long time resident of Fayetteville and northwest Arkansas. We appreciate our neighbors. We understand that they do have some concerns. As you all know we are a manufacturer. The noise issues have been addressed. We are a factory, we do get outside of the building occasionally and of course there is some noise there. We will look at whatever we can do to minimize that for our neighbors' benefit. I would like to just clarify a few items. Aluminum is not a carcinogenic. Aluminum under MACT, which we are Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 10 governed under, and was just passed by the government last month, does not comply to our industry. We are a safe industry and we do not have to go to certain permitted entities under that MACT regulation. Aviles: Can you tell us what MACT is? Bracy: It is the last regulation for metals. It involves aluminum smelters, we are not a smelter. It is various ways of dealing with melting of metal, particularly aluminum and brass and that type of metal. We are not a smelter, which means we only melt prime metal and iron metal. ADEQ, as mentioned, we hold an air permit, a very stringent one I might say. We are inspected annually, usually in the month of April. We were inspected last month at the suggestion of the city. An inspector came out, he normally goes to the back of our facilities, as one of the ladies probably mentioned. That is a state inspector who observes our operation for an amount of time and then comes into our facility. On February 20th Jay Ellis from the ADEQ inspected our facility and found it to be in compliance. We have been in compliance with ADEQ every since we have been permitted under title 5 of the clean air act. Most of the emissions that you visibly see from our factory is water vapor. We have a numerous amount of cooling towers. If you understand what a cooling tower is, it is where we put hot water over a tower, draw cold air through it and it emits up. It can plummet way up into the sky, it did it last week, it probably doesn't do it too much when it is a little warmer that doesn't happen. We have a number of cooling towers, we actually evaporate quite a bit of water on a daily basis. We do melt metal. There is no visible emissions from our metal. It has been tested by a lab. When we built our chrome plant, which was our last Large Scale Development a number of years ago. It is a chrome plating facility, which is also governed by the state, both with the local POTW which we have a water permit because we do discharge into the city water system, we also again, had our air permit revised to comply with all of state and federal regulations. One of the ladies did mention that we went on her property a number of years ago and dug a ditch. I would just like to clarify that I personally wrote a letter to Ms. Combs identifying that we wanted to secure and refurbish the ditch that runs behind our plant. Part of that was on a fence which was on her property. It is also out of the city limits, it is off of our property because we border the city limits. She had no objection to us doing that as long as we paid for it and we didn't obstruct anymore than cutting and reforming a ditch line for water runoff. Water runoff comes quite a bit from Black Oak Road, which is the hill behind the industrial park. The curb that was in question is not a curb by Superior, it is a City of Fayetteville curb. I had the City Engineer, a number of times we have gone out back to look at this curb, when the city built that curb a number of years ago when they curbed and guttered behind Black Oak, they put a turn down in the curb. We asked could we retain that curb back, they said that was fine if we wanted to do it at our expense. The City Engineer didn't have any problems with that. What that would allow is less water to come directly into our property because it is 14' below the drive behind us. A lot of water comes from that hill. All of it comes onto our property and then we slowly drain it off onto the Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 11 adjoining property because we also have a storm water permit that is required by the state. A storm water permit, as you know, and with this application, says that we cannot release any more water off of our property than would be in a Greenfield. That is what the pond design is. The pond is the portion when you look on your drawings, which is in the 100 -year floodplain. We are not building on that area. That is a cut in that was done in 1975 by McCullum Engineering when they surveyed that that shows that there is a little portion on the seven acres that we purchased from the city for our parking lot expansion that cuts into the retaining part. It is floodplain supplying more floodplain. As I mentioned, we do want to stay and always want to be good corporate citizens and stewards of our community. I would invite any of our neighbors at any time to my office and can explain in more detail what we do and why we do it. We are again, an industry. Sometimes the things that we do can sometimes be misconstrued but I can guarantee you that we are governed very well by the City of Fayetteville, by the State of Arkansas, and by the government. Thank you. Aviles: Thank you. Matt, are they covered by Phase II Environmental for their detention pond now? Casey: Everyone is covered under Phase II. We will be implementing all the required steps involved in that in the next couple of years. We have already started. A lot of the requirements are covered in our grading and drainage ordinance already. The detention pond is one of those and they are providing that, which will limit the runoff. Aviles: Thanks. I ask that question because I think it is very important regarding runoff and the water quality that is going into those tributaries behind them. Will this include filtration? Casey: The pond itself will act as some sort of filtration. There is not any additional proposed treatment. They will be treating the runoff from the parking lot only. It is not going to be coming from inside the plant, or it shouldn't be anyway. The pond will be sodded so that will provide some sort of filtration. It won't be running directly off of paved surface into the floodplain. Aviles: Thank you. I am going to bring discussion back to the applicant and to the Commissioners. Estes: Dawn, condition number six is a Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be obtained for any new manufacturing activities, is that an administrative function that you will do or will we see a rezoning request? Warrick: That is an administrative activity. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance is the way that we can acknowledge that the use of a certain piece of property is permitted under that zoning district. Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 12 Estes: Thank you. Allen: Bracy: I wondered if since it is a concern of the neighbors, noise is a concern of the neighbors, what kind of problem it would be to use their suggestion of closing the door or adding insulation? The issue on insulation, our facility is insulated in the foundry area, the foundry area is the furthest most south portion that is behind the main part of our facility which addresses to the county part. The doors that we have in there are for ventilation for employees to help cool the building down in the summer time particularly. It would be extremely challenging at best to try to find other suppression ways other than trees and things that are normally behind the facility. Trees, are as we all know, some type of a noise blocking agent. We don't, as you can see in your drawing, we don't encompass very much of Black Oak Road. Black Oak has a tendency to go to the southeast, our property goes basically almost due east staying within the city limits. There were a far more greater amount of trees, when we talk about trees, that were directly behind the facility in a little quadrant before the owners there had those cleared out. Now you can see our factory. A number of years ago you couldn't even see the factory from Black Oak. Aviles: I think one of the major concerns was the paging after hours or at night paging, that is something that we can probably work out. Bracy: I can understand paging and think we can deal with that. As we all know, it is a loud speaker and in the dead of night when there are not other normal noises around will be an amplified type of a noise. Particularly when it is in a big can called a metal building. We can deal with that. Allen: I was just searching for some help for both people to be neighborly. Thank you. Aviles: Commissioners? MOTION: Ward: This is a Large Scale Development and I think that there is a tremendous need down there for the 544 paved parking spaces that they need. You can drive down there most of the times in the evening or during the day, there are cars parked all over the yards, all over the roads. There is definitely a need to address the parking problem down there. For it to meet all of our parking ordinances it will make it much nicer down there. I really do truly believe that Superior Industries is definitely one of our biggest, if not our biggest private employer in Fayetteville, Arkansas. I think they have over 1,600 employees, they have a 45 million dollar payroll a year. The sales tax that they pay is 2.7 million dollars a year so they are a major player for our economy in Northwest Arkansas. From what I have been around down there it seems like it is one of our cleanest manufacturing plants and Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 13 it is in our Industrial Park. It has been an Industrial Park for many, many years. I think all of us here want to see that park continue to grow and do well and prosper. With that, I think some of the neighbor's concerns can be addressed. I feel like there were some legitimate concerns there that need to be talked about and see if we couldn't solve some of those problems. With that I will go ahead and make a motion that we approve LSD 03-6.00 for Superior Industries. Bunch: I will second. Aviles: I have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Bunch. Are there additional questions or comments Commissioners? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-6.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Aviles: Thanks Renee, the motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 14 LSD 03-5.00: Large Scale Development (Shake's, pp 252) was submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Springdale -Market Place, LLC for property located at 2785-2835 N. College. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.66 acres with two buildings proposed (6,000 sq.ft. & 1,038 sq.ft.). Aviles: The second item on our agenda this evening is LSD 03-5.00 which is a Large Scale Development submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Springdale Marketplace for property located at 1785 to 2835 N. College. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.66 acres with two buildings proposed, 6,000 sq.ft. and 1,038 sq.ft. There are eleven conditions of approval. Sara, do we have signed conditions? Edwards: No we do not. Aviles: I will read the conditions into the record and then we will hear from the applicant. 1) Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver for a 12 foot high retaining wall. The maximum allowed height of a retaining wall is ten feet The request is for a two foot waiver. Staff is in support of this request. 2) Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. 3) Two variances shall be granted by the Board of Sign Appeals in order to approve the signs as proposed. The required variances include the request of more than 1 freestanding sign per lot and the allowance of a roof sign. Staff is in support of the requested variances. 4) Only one curb cut shall be allowed on College Avenue. 5) Cross access shall be provided to the north. 6) The type and amount of landscaping to be used along the southern border shall be flexible. The adjacent property owner to the south has requested an evergreen tree to reduce debris falling on display cars. 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's current requirements. 9) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot sidewalk with a minimum ten foot greenspace along College Avenue. 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 that shall include the tree preservation area; Project Disk with all final revisions; Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City 12) Parks fees paid and/or deed recorded and copy received. Is the applicant present? Milholland: Melvin Milholland with Milholland Engineering here tonight representing Shake's. We really only have one item that we don't concur with, we concur with all the others. It is item number four, one curb cut. As our plans show, we Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 15 propose to take what is existing out there to be two curb cuts for the existing facility plus the old service station that had basically one long curb cut and rearrange it into just two for a good flow of traffic. Aviles: Do you want to give an entire presentation or do you just want to answer questions after we have heard the staff report on the curb cut? How would you like to handle this? Milholland: We will concur with all the items except number four. We would like to have two curb cuts. We will answer any questions you may have. Aviles: Thank you. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this proposed Large Scale Development? Seeing no one, I will go ahead and bring it back to the staff. Sara, can you give us the staff report? Edwards: First of all I would like to point out that the applicant did submit a new site plan with some commenting on questions at agenda session. The proposal is for two actual buildings. One will be the restaurant and the other will be an operations building. The cross access has been added as discussed at agenda session. With regard to the curb cut, really it is a safety issue. Our code requires curb cuts to be 40' apart in distance, which this is however, if you feel they are unsafe we can definitely look at that. I would just like to point out that there is going to be a lot of truck traffic to this site. Both to the restaurant and to the rear building, which is their operation's center. There is quite a bit of cueing space needed for their drive thru lanes which routing the traffic in this direction will help. However, I am not saying that there may not be another solution as well. We are recommending approval subject to the single curb cut as requested by the Planning Commission. Aviles: Thank you Sara. I will go ahead and bring discussion back to the applicant and to the Commissioners. Estes: Sara, is staff in support of the request for two curb cuts or is staff encouraging adoption of condition of approval number four for only one curb cut? I am unclear after your remarks. Edwards: Generally with regard to access management it is good to have a single curb cut which is what we are recommending. However, after some discussion with the applicant, with the cueing recently that we have talked about, with the cueing need for the drive thru, circulation on this site needs to be the way it is. However, we are still encouraging them to find a way to leave the circulation on the site as is with a single curb cut. If it can be done and work without significantly changing it to not allow for that much space for the drive thru patrons to use then we do encourage that. Estes: Based on my experience I would certainly recommend that this Commission consider the two curb cuts requested by the applicant. The ingress and egress of the traffic patterns and traffic flows on the site and the absolute necessity for Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 16 pedestrian safety, specifically to avoid pedestrian knock downs is going to require two curb cuts and is going to require the traffic flows and traffic patterns that can be anticipated with two curb cuts and not one curb cut. In addition, there is the issue of accessibility for emergency vehicles, fire, ambulance, if you have got somebody trying to get out of there and you have got a fire truck trying to get in it is going to be very awkward with one curb cut. My first remarks, I have had some experience with pedestrian knock down cases in fast food parking lots and if you have got one curb cut and if you inhibit that traffic flow and that traffic circulation in such a way that you are going to have with the one curb cut you have got a pedestrian safety issue in that parking lot. Hoover: I just wanted to make a couple of comments. I noticed that on College we approved two projects, the Sonic drive thru and strip center with one curb cut and also Fazoli's drive thru with one curb cut. I am just wondering did you mention that at that time because having one curb cut usually is better as far as safety goes. I know you have to be careful where you are going to do this one curb cut when you have a drive thru but if it is possible to do it safely for the pedestrians going up and down the street it is going to be a lot safer than two of them and you are dodging two sets of cars coming in. Also, since we have the connectivity to the building to the north. Couldn't they come through the other centers if this other curb cut was blocked? Estes: Commissioner Hoover, I think more salient to the analysis than the number of curb cuts or the traffic flows and traffic patterns and here you have the drive thru, you have the landscape islands that separate the parked cars from the two drive thru lanes and you have got to have a way to have those cars circulate and stay away from people that are walking in the parking lot. Unlike Fazoli's and Sonic this facility has an operation office building in the back and has got parking and you are going to have to have a way to keep those cars away from people that are going to and from that office building to their cars and also keep those cars circulating around the building going to the two drive thrus. What we did not see with the Sonic site and the Fazoli's site was that office building in the back. Hoover: I think at the Sonic they do have other retail space there so there is something in addition to the drive thru, which I think would be equivalent as this operation's center and probably even more pertinent because they probably have more traffic being retail space than office space. Aviles: What I would like to do is ask what the discussion was at Subdivision Committee. The other thing, I have read the minutes, we certainly need to strive to limit the number of curb cuts on College but we also have to follow certain prescribed standards that the city has enacted with regard to spacing of driveways. There is 214' between these two driveways, is that correct Sara? Edwards: Actually I think that is the total frontage. Aviles: I can't tell how far it is but there is a considerable distance between the two driveways and they are serving two vehicles. What is the acreage of the site? Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 17 Edwards: 1.66 acres. Aviles: Ok, and the office building is 6,000 sq.ft. so that is going to have how many cars based on our parking ratios? Edwards: About 20. Aviles: I would like to have the applicant come back up and I will give you all a chance to talk about this some more in a minute but I would like to hear some more from the applicant regarding the truck traffic coming in and out of the site for deliveries. Does the anticipated truck traffic just serve the fast food operation or is it going to act as a distribution for the operations building as well? Milholland: The truck traffic, delivery trucks are one of the key elements in this and it is hard for them to turn in and out on just one entrance. The way that we have it laid out with two, the truck can come in on the north entry, circle around the back, take care of the delivery and then leave. Also, the dumpster truck can do the same. We have looked at it over and over and tried to find the best route. What we have is actually we feel the safest and is also the best means of access and egress considering College Avenue has a center lane. If you have people coming from the south wanting to turn in in that middle lane and you only have one access and a person is trying to go out and go north it backs them up inside. It also backs them up on the street side. With a truck trying to make a turn in front of the building and go back out it is awful hard. I would like to make one point. On this color rendering I did not have time to have the through street connected on the north side, it is proposed there. We have the architect here and he may have some comments about the traffic also. The main thing is we have two businesses there and we have a lot of car traffic. Aviles: Can you all address the question of the operations center? Does that serve as a distribution point? Osborne: Good evening, I am Cory Osborne, President of Shake's Frozen Custard, Inc. I can answer questions with regard to use. The operations center is going to be primarily a training facility for franchisees across the nation that come in and learn the concept. We will require product deliveries. Occasionally those will be simultaneous. With regard to frequency of delivery it will be twice weekly but a much lower rate to the back facility. Aviles: Where will the deliveries be made? Where will the trucks park when they are on the site? Osborne: It is probably difficult to see, this is a large 48' trailer. Cooper: This is a truck under this tree on these elevations. That allows traffic to still use the facility. It will stop here and then actually come out the side. Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 18 Hoover: What time are the deliveries? Do you have them specified to come at certain times of the day? Osborne: We certainly attempt to specify. More frankly for our circulation that we require away from our peak times but to be honest with you, that is somewhat dependent upon the distributors' schedule. I wish I could tell you a specific time but frankly, it varies. Ostner: The current Shake's is right next to this, that area is tiny compared to this one. Is there a problem now with delivery trucks mingling with customers? Osborne: It is extremely difficult. In fact, they enter the exit and try to make that turn and take out curbing and unfortunately, a car or two in the past. It is very, very problematic. My primary concern is pedestrian safety and the cueing and safety off of North College. The truck can be extremely problematic with regard to all of those issues if we are not careful. When they deliver at 3:00 in the afternoon and we have our after school rush it gets real exciting. Ostner: This is a full size semi? Osborne: Yes Sir, with a 48' trailer. Ward: Why don't you give us a break down of the materials that you are using to meet Commercial Design Standards? What the buildings are going to look like. Cooper: This is a material board. We have a split face CMU to about 8' with an EIFS system above. The parapet is the pink and this is all a trademark facade for Shake's that they have produced for their franchise. Aviles: Is it similar to the one that is there now? Cooper: It is very similar. Aviles: Is it larger? Cooper: It is larger. The one thing about this one being larger is that we actually incorporated the freezer/cooler inside the building and enclosed that so it is not outside of the building. That makes that one a little smaller but it actually has a detached freezer that kind of sits back. The proposed home office will be brick with some precast and dryvit. Aviles: Commissioners, does anybody have any comments? We have got some waiver requests about the signage, does anybody have any comments or questions about that? Ward: Are you all moving your corporate offices to Fayetteville or is this just going to be a training facility? Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 19 Osborne: Ward: Casey: Ward: Cooper: Ward: Edwards: Ward: Edwards: Aviles: Edwards: Aviles: Cooper: Aviles: Cooper: Aviles: The corporate offices are currently in Fayetteville on Dickson Street in the Three Sisters building. We are considering that move. Primarily this will be a training facility operations but that is something that we are considering. The type of look that Shake's is trying to get is kind of the old time 50's and 60's look, the nostalgic type of look that requires a little different signage and so on. I think it is pretty unique that the corporate headquarters is in Fayetteville, they came out of Joplin, Missouri down here if I remember right. It is kind of unique that they chose the City of Fayetteville and not Bentonville or Rogers. As far as the 12' waiver on the retaining wall, how many feet are we talking about again as far as that 2' difference? How long of length is that Sara or Matt? Mr. Milholland may be able to answer that better as far as the lengths, it is not a very long portion. Is it 30' long that we are talking about? I think it is 44' in length. Also, I guess the two variances will have to go to the Board of Sign Appeals, is that true? Yes. Do they need our recommendation or is it just something that goes to them anyway? Yes, on a Large Scale they do need your recommendation. I want to discuss the portion of the sign ordinance that talks about not having large, out of scale colors and signs. Is that the spirit of the wording in the ordinance? Large, out of scale signs with flashy colors. Do you propose neon on this? Yes. There is a neon band that continues on that little band that goes around and one here. What about the main part of the Shake's sign? That is neon as well. To be consistent with what we have talked about in the past, I think we have said that possibly neon accents were over the top with our sign ordinance but our sign ordinance is vague about that or our Commercial Design Standards. Maybe I am trying to talk about Commercial Design Standards more than I am the sign Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 20 ordinance I guess. Shackelford: Madam Chair, are you talking about neon accents on the building itself or on the sign? Aviles: Both. Shackelford: We have allowed neon accents on the buildings. The developments in front of Harps and that area, the restaurants in that area, there is neon banding on most of those buildings. Bizy's, the old Cafe Santa Fe and some others in that area. I know we have done neon accents on buildings. If you are talking about neon accents on signs I am not recalling any of those off the top of my head. Aviles: Does staff have an opinion about neon accents on the signs and would it be too flashy per say? Edwards: Really this type of sign I do believe is pretty typical as signs go with neon on them. I can't think of a time where we have had a disallowance of a neon type sign off the top of my head either. Aviles: I just want to make sure that we are consistent with what we are approving in the past and what we are looking at here. Does anybody want to talk about the driveway some more? Shackelford: I guess I do. I am going to speak in favor of the two driveway curb cuts along with Mr. Estes for two reasons. First of all, we initially had four curb cuts on this property. Even if we allow two we are bettering the situation through the development of this property. I guess on a personal basis, the Sonic and the Fazoli's that were mentioned, I get frustrated every time I go in there on a Friday night trying to get in and out with one curb cut you have got to time your move out when somebody is not trying to come in. Another point that I wanted to make, we have to think about the type of business that Shake's does. The vast majority of this business is going to be drive thru. There is very little area for people to actually sit and enjoy this product. You are actually going to be coming in so stacking is going to be even more of an issue. Traffic backing up in this location is going to be even more of an issue. I really think we are going to struggle with the stacking in the drive thru as the majority of the business with one curb cut. We are talking about 1.6 acres of property. This could easily be two different commercial developments that would each be allowed a curb cut on this size of frontage and be within our ordinances. With the fact that we are looking at a restaurant and an office building, I think that we could be consistent and still support the two curb cuts in this area. Thanks. Aviles: Thanks Commissioner. Hoover: I appreciate your comments Loren. Just in an effort to be consistent, I think this is a great project and I am certainly going to vote for it either way. I think in general we need to start being consistent about how we are handling College Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 21 Avenue. If we are going to allow two curb cuts, we haven't been and now we are. I like Loren's comment about the number of people coming through and I have been there and there probably are a lot more people coming and going here than there will be at Sonic. I am suspecting at Sonic they sit there and eat maybe. Probably a lot more drive thru here could be the possibility. I guess all I am asking, and not that we can resolve it tonight, is that we really look at this issue of how we are going to handle College in the future and be consistent about it so that developers and everyone knows how to go about their business to start off with. Aviles: I think that is part of our work project to develop some driveway standards for College Avenue isn't it? Warrick: Access management is something that we have proposed to work on this calendar year. MOTION: Estes: I would move for approval of LSD 03-5.00 granting the requested waiver for a 12' high retaining wall. The request being for a 2' waiver and with a recommendation to the Board of Sign Appeals that the two variances requested be granted. In addition, the one change and condition of approval number four that only two curb cuts shall be allowed on College Avenue. Aviles: Thank you. I have a motion by Commissioner Estes, do I have a second? Shackelford: I will second. Aviles: There is a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there any further discussion? Renee, call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-5.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Aviles: The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 22 CUP 03-2.00: Conditional Use (Community of Christ Church, pp 292) was submitted by Dan Ferguson of Atlas Construction on behalf of Community of Christ Church located at 2715 N. Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 3.10 acres. The request is for an addition to a church in the R-1 zoning district (Use Unit 4). Aviles: The third item on our agenda this evening is CUP 03-2.00 for the Community of Christ Church submitted by Dan Ferguson of Atlas Construction on behalf of Community of Christ Church located at 2715 N. Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 3.10 acres. The request is for an addition to a church in the R-1 zoning district. Staff is recommending approval based on 12 conditions. Dawn, do we have signed conditions? Warrick: I don't. I do have a change to one condition however. Item number five was a condition based on comments from an adjoining property owner. Mr. Muruaga called me this afternoon to inform me that he has worked with the church and no longer desires a fence along his north property line for screening purposes. He has withdrawn that request. Aviles: So we will delete five at the request of the neighbor. I will go ahead and read these conditions. 1) Planning Commission determination of the compatibility of the proposed addition (materials, articulation, general appearance) with the existing neighborhood. Project shall be constructed in accordance with site plan, landscape plan and building elevations as approved or modified by the Planning Commission. 2) Development activities shall comply with UDO Chapter 170 Storm water Management, Drainage and Erosion Control with regard to permitting and detention requirements for the proposed addition. 3) Improvement of the parking lot to include: Stripe of existing parking spaces; Relocate wheel stops to prevent vehicles from encroaching landscaped areas around the parking lot; Create necessary ADA spaces as shown on site plan (1 van accessible ADA space is required); Remove pavement necessary to create one landscaped island with a tree as required per §172.01 (proposed island currently only shows installation of shrubs, this shall be modified to provide for one interior tree) 4) Payment of $4,500.00 in lieu of installation of a sidewalk along Old Wire Road adjacent to the subject property per §171.12(B)(5) — see attached. 5) Was deleted at request of applicant and neighbor. 6) Trash pick shall meet the criteria of the Solid Waste Division. 7) All utility equipment (new and existing) shall be screened from the public view. The applicant proposes to use wooden, lattice -type enclosures to screen condenser units on the west (rear) side of the proposed addition. 8) No new signs shall be added to the site for the proposed addition. 9) Any outdoor lighting shall be shielded and directed downward and away from adjacent residential properties. 10) Tree protection shall be installed as required to save all existing on-site trees as shown on the landscape plan submitted. 11) Proposed landscaping along the street frontage shall comply with setbacks necessary to accommodate the adopted Master Street Plan in accordance with § 166.19. 12) Future additions or changes to the current proposal will require a new conditional use permit and Planning Commission Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 23 approval. Dawn, do you want to give us the staff report before we hear from the applicant? Warrick: Sure. This is an existing church. It is located on Old Wire Road north of Township south of Old Missouri. The surrounding properties are primarily residential and there is a church to the north. The site contains approximately 3.10 acres. The developed portion of the property is that area that is adjacent to Old Wire Road. There are several mature trees at the rear or west side of the site which is primarily wooded. The property does slope down and away from the street to the west. The flat portion near the front is where the existing structure and parking area is located. The proposed addition will be an extension of the existing structure. We have heard comments from some property owners to the west concerned with existing drainage patterns coming into the neighborhood. From what I can tell in working with the City Engineering Division and looking at plats of the area it is based on the overall topography of this general area and there is drainage that comes off of Old Wire Road that runs along the south side of this subject property and down through the wooded area that is at the west end of the property towards properties along Stagecoach, which is the street to the south and west. The proposal is to make an addition of approximately 3,024 sq.ft. to this existing structure. The addition will feature restrooms, classroom space, a small addition to the kitchen and sanctuary space and a fellowship hall. A storage area is also proposed at a basement level. The seating capacity in the main sanctuary is not proposed to increase thereby, not requiring an increase in parking. The existing parking lot is adequate to meet the requirements of the parking lot ordinance for the number of seats in the sanctuary space. That parking lot will need to be improved. It will be striped and there will be one landscaped island installed in order to bring it up to current requirements, current standards for parking lots. The applicant proposes to construct the addition using brick and composite shingles to match the existing structure. Metal panels are proposed for the rear of the structure and within the sidewalls as shown on elevations that you all should have in your agenda packets. I think that covers it. Aviles: Thanks Dawn. Is the applicant present? Nugent: My name is Jeff Nugent and I am the pastor of the Community of Christ Church in Fayetteville. This is Kelley Collier with me who is a member of the building committee. With me tonight we have Dan Ferguson with Atlas Construction. Art Scott and Amy Scott with PDC Civil Engineering and several members of our congregation have come with us tonight to be supportive. Our church was built in 1970 so we have been in that same area for 30 years. We're not proposing any addition to our sanctuary. Our main objective is to build classrooms. Right now we don't have an area for our children to meet separately. We have one sanctuary and a small fellowship area where we don't have an opportunity for our children to be separated to have an opportunity to learn in a quiet classroom space. That is the main reason for our addition which is on the main floor. We will also be adding a couple of bathrooms to that and also adding a little bit to our fellowship Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 24 hall. The average attendance in our congregation is approximately 50 people per Sunday. The main reason that we wanted to ask you a few questions tonight is that we have some concerns regarding a couple of requirements that the city is asking us to meet that we would like to talk about if we would have that opportunity to do so. Some of the things that being a small church that we have been saving up for 15 years or more to add on to our church that are really hurting our opportunity to be able to do our expansion and we were wondering if we might have an opportunity to address that tonight and if you had any questions for us. Aviles: You certainly do. If you would like to go ahead and address the questions to us tonight either the Commission or the staff will be happy to try to answer any questions that you have. If you would like to do that now or you can wait until after I've taken public comment to respond to any questions that your neighbors might have. Nugent: Aviles: Gay: Ok, if you could go ahead and take public comment first and then I will ask my questions. Ok, thanks. Is there any member of the audience that would wish to address us on this proposed Conditional Use? Yes, please come forward, say your name, and give us the benefit of your opinion please. My name is John W. Gay. I own that property just to the west that this panel has said that is the way the drainage slopes. I want these people to have their church extension, I am not opposed to that at all but we do have somewhat of a water problem now. The information that I had as to what was to be built is not going to be that, I was told it was going to be a parking lot and I wondered where that water was going to go. On each side of our house there is a depression for water to drain off of that property behind us. There is what I suppose is an easement there and we kind of like that easement. There are bushes and trees back there and it is sort of like living out of town so that is kind of nice, we like that. We don't want to hinder the desire of these people to provide additional buildings for their church but to the south of us we had a big hole develop in that little depression because of water drainage and we filled it up with dirt, which wasn't very bright because it just washed right out again. We filled it up with gravel and that has been adequate. There is a drainage on each side of our house because of the depression on each side of our house between our neighbors. That has worked very well. All that I am interested in, the drainage is to the west and we are the house that is adjacent to the west. I would like some kind of positive proof that this will not increase water drainage across that easement down on our property. If it does, I feel rather certain that water would not get in the house but it would get under the house and undermined the foundation and I would want some kind of proof that we are not going to have a water problem when they do this. I understand there is a ditch back there now, I've been told, I haven't particularly noticed it as I have gone through that particular area because I didn't look very Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 25 Aviles: Warrick: closely in the past because I never gave it a thought but we have a lot of water now. It is not hurting anything now, it is not hurting anything now but if we are going to have more or if we are going to dig a ditch I would like some kind of proof that the ditch or the drainage would be effective. Thank you. Dawn, can you address his question with regard to, I know Matt is not here, with regard to the drainage issues. I have spoken with Mr. Casey about the project. What I can tell you is that one of the conditions is that all activities on the site must comply with the storm water management drainage and erosion control section of the City's Unified Development Ordinance. A part of that, based on the size of this development, will require a grading and drainage plan which must be reviewed by the City Engineer's office. A part of that requirement, and I have included in your packet on page 3.10 a reference to that section of the Unified Development Ordinance that addresses peak discharge. What that does is require that post development peak rate of surface discharge may not exceed the existing discharge. Basically what that means is that detention or some other engineered means on the property must be established in order to insure that the rate of water flowing off the site today is the same as it will be after the development. It cannot increase beyond what it is currently. Aviles: Do we have that as a condition of approval? Warrick: Yes, item number two references that condition. Aviles: Ok. In essence what she is saying is that this is covered by ordinance. I would like to see if there is any other member of the public that would like to address us about this Conditional Use. Seeing no one, I will go ahead and bring it back to the applicant and to the Commission and staff for further discussion. My question for the applicant then would be have you made any progress with your development plan with regard to the drainage and addressed this gentleman's concerns? Collier: I am Kelley Collier from the Building Committee. I would like to refer that Art Scott with PDC Civil Engineering. Scott: Hi, I am Art Scott with Project Design Consultants. We are working for Atlas Construction to help the church get these plans taken care of and get their construction started. I think that if you look at the way that this project lays in the land out there you will note that most of the drainage that enters your property Sir, is probably from the highway and up above there. This project, when we add 2,150 sq.ft. it is only 1.7% more impervious area for our property that we are talking about. It is over 300 linear feet of drainage from that new addition to that drainage easement that is offsite and that being the case, the increase in runoff would be virtually nill. We are not going to propose any type of detention for that facility thinking that we could use the money elsewhere for classrooms and so Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 26 forth. Aviles: This is something that you will be working with the City Engineer on as the development proceeds? Scott: Yes. Aviles: Thank you very much. Estes: I have a question for the applicant. Is there any fee for childcare facility proposed, thought about, contemplated? Nugent: No, none at all. Collier: We have Sunday services only, really nothing to speak of during the week. Aviles: You had some questions that you would like to ask. Nugent: One of the questions was on the landscaping buffer on the northeast side of the property, we were concerned about the amount of buffering that we needed to put up there. You notice where our building sits down so low to the road and as our driveway comes up it is very hard to see when you come up there to get access onto Old Wire Road. Our other concern was that in the past three months our church has been broken into twice and the Police Department bas requested that we put more lighting around our church, which we have done. We are concerned about a large number of trees in the front of our property that don't allow the police to see down into our church facility. On our building we have been broken into on the front side and around the back, the north end of the church. We are concerned about some of the trees. Right now our property has 88% greenspace, which most of it is to the back of the church. We have our sign in the front, which if you are coming south on Old Wire Road is really the only way to see that the church is there because it sits down so low. We are worried about maybe losing some of our exposure to let people know that haven't been there where the church is located but also because of the situation of blocking it where the Police Department can see down into our church. Aviles: Did you have other questions? Nugent: One of the other things was since our parking lot does meet the requirements of the people that we have coming, was the landscape island that was proposed takes away a little of our space. We were questioning about if we might be able to do something without having a landscape island. Collier: We are really looking to see if we could tradeoff some landscaping in other areas outside of the parking lot rather than trying to use up or tear into our existing parking lot. We feel that having a landscape island in there might be a concern Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 27 for some of our elderly members and their negotiating turns with their cars and parking or possibly creating a trip hazard as well. Nugent: The other thing was we wanted to petition about the contribution to the sidewalk fund, if there might be anything that we could do about that. Aviles: Did you have an alternate proposal? Collier: Saving money. Nugent: Putting the funds into our classroom space and our furnishings. Right now our project has gotten to the point that we are at the make or break point now. In meeting the requirements that the city has asked us to do which we have been doing, we are putting brick exterior also with our metal and we are doing some different things with our building but we have pretty much used up all of our budget where we are sitting at right now so we are trying to look for some areas that we might be able to put into the church. Aviles: You have had enough fund raisers for the time being, I understand the tight budgetary constraints for any church. Dawn, can we discuss the landscaping questions? Have you all discussed alternate methods of compliance at all with yourselves and with the applicant? Warrick: There is some flexibility that can come into play with regard to the landscaping along the front property line. One tree per 30' plus a continuous row of shrubs adjacent to the parking area, that is basically what we are looking at. The trees particularly, it is permissible to group up to 25% of those. I will be glad to work with the applicant to group those in a way that they still have visibility for their facility. The row of shrubs that goes between the front property line and the parking area, that can be moved down to the level of the parking as opposed to up at the street level and that may help to mitigate some of that problem with visibility. As long as it is the purpose is to buffer the impact of the parking lot and it can do that in either one of those locations so I think it would be reasonable to be flexible on the row of shrubs particularly and then grouping the trees in a reasonable fashion I think may also help with that particular issue. As far as the landscaped island within the parking area. Basically we are looking at an addition of 100% plus as far as the existing square footage of this facility and that requires an improvement of the entire existing parking lot. The parking lot meets the number requirements. Restriping can provide for a reasonable configuration of space without adding pavement in any location. Staff merely proposed the removal of a turning area at the entrance of the parking lot to provide one tree space. If the Planning Commission feels it is appropriate to place that tree on the perimeter of the parking area staff has no problem with that, we can work on the location of that if that is your choice. Aviles: Does that sound like a more acceptable method to you to try to work with the staff Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 28 as you go along? The whole idea behind the landscaping ordinance for parking lots is to buffer them and certainly not impede the security for your building and things like that. Commissioners? Ward: What about the sidewalk situation? It is $4,500. Is there a new sidewalk across the road now? Warrick: The Shadow Hills subdivision across the street has a new sidewalk that is being installed or has been installed. Ward: Why are we not requiring a sidewalk to go ahead and be put in place on this particular property? Warrick: I know that was a decision of our Sidewalk Administrator with regard to the site conditions. This site slopes steeply from the street and at the point that you would be installing a sidewalk it is at a grade that in order to get it to a reasonable condition for the installation of a sidewalk, it is probably quite cost prohibitive because of the engineering that would have to be done. There are no other sidewalks on this side of the street for it to connect to and then there is that sidewalk that is being installed across the street. Aviles: We have an appeals process for this do we not? Williams: Yes, actually it would come to this very body, the Planning Commission. I don't know if you have seen the ordinance that was recently passed. It does give you the right to appeal this. Basically, in trying to determine the amount of money I would just go to the statute itself, it says the amount of money in lieu of construction once the Sidewalk Administrator says it is not very feasible to put it on this site. The amount of money in lieu of construction to be dedicated shall be determined based upon the rough proportionality of the impact of the development upon the sidewalk infrastructure needs near the development including consideration of the persons served by the development and the approximate pedestrian trip generation rates of the development. I should note for the Planning Commission this is talking about not the current development, but the enlargement. I am a little concerned when I read in the report that the main facility is only going to remain at 80 seats. The main church, even though it is going to be enlarging with classrooms, the sanctuary itself is going to remain the same size and that would give me some pause when I consider what the impact of their renovation is really going to have on the sidewalk needs and therefore, I think that you all probably should request the Planning Commission to consider what has been proposed by staff at this point in time as a money in lieu of having to build your own sidewalk which I think would be prohibitively expensive on your side of the street. Aviles: I am not the best at our procedures here, but I would think that you would need to apply for a separate variance and have that considered and worked out with staff Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 29 and then brought back to the Planning Commission at a separate time, a later time, should your Conditional Use be approved. Put some numbers together and work with them with regard to that proposed impact of your addition. Again, if you have no additional cars or people coming to your congregation I think our City Attorney has just made a pretty good case for you to seek some relief. Williams: If you would contact me tomorrow I will tell you what the procedure is. There are specific provisions within our Unified Development Ordinance that governs this. Basically, as the Chairwoman said, you would probably find yourself back in front of this same Commission. To do that, I would also say that probably even though we do say that all of this should be done pursuant to § 155.06D of the appeals and you come back, I would think that if the petitioner consented and if you all wanted to hear it tonight you could do that or if you wanted to have more study and more facts and figures, or if they wanted to have more time to get their stuff together they certainly would have a right to just go through the appeals process. I think that if both sides consented you could hear it tonight if you wanted to. Aviles: My only concern with that would be is there a notification requirement if somebody had a question, some other citizen or something like that. Williams: There is no notification requirement. I certainly can't speak for either you or the applicant. Nugent: I guess my question is that the variance would be for in lieu of contributing to the sidewalk? Aviles: It would be for how much you would have to contribute. Warrick: I am looking at §155.06D of the Unified Development Ordinance. An appeal would need to be submitted within ten working days of final action taken by the Planning Commission. In this instance, there is not, as Mr. Williams stated, a notification requirement for that. We will be glad to continue with the conversation and consider the appeal now, I will address any questions that I am able to do if that is what the Planning Commission chooses to do and just take care of it at this point in time. Aviles: Thanks Dawn. MOTION: Estes: I would move for approval of CUP 03-2.00 deleting condition of approval number five. Hoover: I will second. Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 30 Shackelford: By that motion and second I take it that you are not interested in considering the variance at this time? Estes: My thinking, Commissioner Shackelford, was to have a dispositive motion on the Conditional Use and then if the applicant wants to appeal from condition number four they can either do so at this time or they could do so at a later time if they have got information, data, and material that they would like to bring to us. Are you asking for my preference? Shackelford: I was just asking if your motion would not allow us to consider that if that is something that the applicant wanted. Estes: No, quite to the contrary. My motion would be dispositive as to the Conditional Use request and then the applicant could appeal condition number four and they could either do it this evening or they could do it at a later time. Quite candidly I would prefer it be at a later time so if there is any other information that needs to be brought before us we will have it. I would like to give the applicant the opportunity to do that. What this will do is allow a vote either up or down not eh Conditional Use and then of course if it is approved then there can be an appeal from condition number four. Bunch: A question for the motioner, how does your motion address the landscaped island as opposed to alternate methods of trees along the parking lot in lieu of a landscape island? Estes: The motion would incorporate condition of approval number three and as Dawn has explained to us there is some administrative relief available to the applicant if they will come back. Dawn, would that be visiting with you or visiting with Ms. Hesse? Warrick: Probably both of us. There is one statement under condition number three however, that would require the installation of a tree within a landscaped island and that is something that I believe the applicant is requesting not to have to install. Aviles: Why don't we just delete that paragraph if it is acceptable to the movement? Estes: You are deleting subparagraph number three "remove pavement necessary to create one landscaped island"? Aviles: Why don't you amend number 11 to say the applicant shall work with city staff for acceptable positioning of landscaping. Estes: The movement does so. Aviles: I have a motion by Commissioner Estes, do I have a second? Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 31 Hoover: I will second. Aviles: There is a second by Commissioner Hoover, is there any additional discussion? Ostner: Yes. I have a question about this gravel area by the street. Is that going to be paved? Collier: That is actually more of a mail stop turn around and we don't intend to pave it. Ostner: It just seemed handy when we toured. We drove through here and it just seemed like people would use that if they wanted to turn left on this street. Is it more than a mail turn around, do you all use it? Collier: I have seen people use it but the exit, people coming off of Old Wire Road and coming down onto the gravel is a pretty big drop-off, there is lots of water that has torn out that area of the gravel. There is a pretty good drop-off coming off of Old Wire and it is pretty bumpy. There are times such as Easter and Christmas that people have been parking up there but it is typically not used on a regular Sunday. Ostner: I was just curious why we were requiring them to upgrade their parking lot but allowing a gravel entry, which I believe is not allowed. Aviles: Dawn help me out here. If there is no addition to the parking lot do we have a driveway standard that requires us to upgrade? Warrick: Their existing drive into their parking lot is asphalt and does connect to the street. The requirement is that there be a connection of hard surface from the street right of way in order that gravel or whatever surface the rest of the drive may be may not be thrown up onto the street. What I would consider the driveway is the asphalt that connects the actual parking area to Old Wire Road. This is kind of no mans land along the front property line that people obviously drive through and there is a post office box that is located up there and that is where the mail carrier drives to drop-off and deliver but I do not consider that graveled area to be part of the driveway for the purpose of parking lot improvements. Aviles: Thanks Dawn. Are there any other questions? Nugent: I have a question. Aviles: I am sorry Sir, I have closed public comment now. You will have a chance in a minute if we hear the waiver request on the sidewalk. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 03-2.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 32 Aviles: Thanks Renee, your Conditional Use carries unanimously. Do you wish to appeal at this time the $4,500 sidewalk contribution or would you prefer to wait? Collier: What would we need for the appeal at this point? need to provide for you? Aviles: Collier: Aviles: Collier: Aviles: Shackelford: Williams: MOTION: Bunch: Allen: Aviles: Shackelford: What information would we This is a first for me. I am told by our City Attorney that since there is no public notification requirement you merely have to appeal within ten days. As it stands now we have approved your Conditional Use and it requires a $4,500 sidewalk contribution. Ten days from now is when the clock runs out on that appeal date. We do want to appeal the $4,500 and try to alleviate that if we can. Tonight or later? Tonight would be fine. I think that somebody is going to have to make a motion to grant that waiver. To hear the waiver. It is my understanding, and obviously, the City Attorney needs to help us here but it had to be unanimous that we would hear the waiver. Normally you wouldn't have to have any kind of motion to hear an appeal but since this is outside our normal procedure where they would file something within ten days and then it would be set as kind of a new item on your agenda and therefore, if you want to hear this item on your agenda you would need a motion for that. Once it is on your agenda you don't need any further motions. I would like to move that this item be considered at a later date so that the Sidewalk Administrator would have a chance to weigh in on it and the Engineering Division, they are not here. Staff has not had time to review this and develop any numbers. I think that in order to best serve the applicant and our purposes it would be better to postpone it until such time that it can go through proper channels. I will second. Thank you. I have a motion by Commissioner Bunch and a second by Commissioner Allen, is there further discussion? I agree with the motion. I rarely support any sort of table but this is something that we need to get all sides weighed in on. Obviously, I am only one vote out of eight here tonight but I would encourage the applicant to come back through that process. As I reviewed this packet I came to the same conclusion that Mr. Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 33 Williams did. I have struggled with the fact that even though we are increasing the square footage we are not increasing the overall seating of the sanctuary. I struggle with what additional impact that is going to have on our infrastructure. Obviously, I am only one vote but I would very much support hearing this variance in the future. Collier: Would the Commission be willing to hear possibly $2,500 in lieu of $4,500 at this point? Estes: This is not the time to negotiate. What has happened is that you have appealed and Commissioner Bunch has made a motion that we take this up at a later time so that we can have the information available to intelligently consider your appeal and that motion has been seconded by Commissioner Allen so you have appealed and it will come back. It will just come back to us with more information and more documents and more data than we have available. Of course you know that I am in support of that because that is what I said a moment ago. You don't need to negotiate with us now. Aviles: I will say that this is the time to hold. I am in support of some kind of an appeal too. I think it is wise to involve our Sidewalk Administrator. He is very knowledgeable on these matters and he can work with Dawn and you all to come up with something. Is there further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table the appeal of the sidewalk money in lieu requirement for CUP 03-2.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 34 RZN 03-6.00: Rezoning (Brophy, pp 291) was submitted by Bill Rudasill on behalf of Ralph Brophy for property located north of Township and east of 71B. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.74 acres. The request is to rezone to R- 3, High Density Residential. Aviles: The fourth item on our agenda this evening is RZN 03-6.00 submitted by William Rudasill on behalf of Bill Brophy for property located north of Township and east of 71Business. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.74 acres. The request is to rezone to R-3, High Density Residential. Staff is recommending approval of the requested rezoning. Dawn, would you like to give us the staff report before we hear from the applicant? Warrick: The subject property is located north of Township, east of College Avenue. It adjoins Commercial properties that front College and extend eastward. The tract was previously platted with adjoining residential property for development of town homes or condominiums. However, the development was never installed. The C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial zoning designation was applied to a strip of land 350' wide in 1970 when the city went through a citywide rezoning. That 350' strip incorporated small triangular portions at the west end of this particular tract and therefore, the piece of property that we are dealing with is remnants of C-2 zoned property that are parts of lots that are actually split zoned, partially C-2 and partially R-3. The applicant's request is to unify those lots with an R-3, High Density Residential designation which is consistent with the adjoining properties. Aviles: Is the applicant present? Do you have a presentation? Rudasill: My name is Bill Rudasill, I am with WBR Engineering representing Mr. Brophy. Basically, she covered it. We have got property lines that go north and south, east and west and are stair stepped and we have got a line that kind of goes straight through the edge of them and we are just trying to clean that up. Aviles: It is one of the most disjointed zonings I've seen. Rudasill: The Commercial in the back of these lots is very small and there is no way to get to it. You have to come through a Residential zone to try to get to it and the Commercial developments are already developed, they have got all the property they need so there is no potential for it ever to be developed as Commercial. Aviles: Thanks Mr. Rudasill. I will take public comment. Is there anyone here that would like to address us on this Rezoning this evening? Seeing no one, I will go ahead and bring the discussion back to the applicant and to the Commission for further discussion or motions. Shackelford: I will go ahead and make a motion that we approve RZN 03-6.00 and forward it to City Council. Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 35 Bunch: I will second. Aviles: I have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Bunch, is there any additional discussion? Estes: What is the ingress and egress to the property? How do you get there and how do you get out of it? Rudasill: If you are familiar with Township, there is Brophy Circle that comes off of Township. It circles around and at the north end of Brophy Circle there are some undeveloped residential lots. The backside of those lots toward the west is what is the Commercial zone that is cut off. It is little triangles in the back of that because the property goes north and then jogs to the east. Then there is also a driveway, a private drive, that comes in on the north end there next to Midas that if someone were to eventually develop that property, he is just doing it on speculative stuff, they would have a potential drive entry and a public residential drive on the south. Estes: Thank you. Ward: On R-3, Multi -family high density, this is 3/4 of an acre, how many units could possibly be put out there? Rudasill: 30. Warrick: The R-3 district permits 40 units per acre. Ward: Ok, thanks. Aviles: Renee, call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 03-6.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Aviles: Thank you. The motion carries unanimously. Rudasill: Thank you very much. Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 36 RZN 03-12.00: Rezoning (Broyles, pp 598) was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Tom Broyles for property owned by Helen Adams and located at the northeast corner of 18`h Street and Futrall Drive. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 17.65 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Aviles: Our next item is another Rezoning. It is RZN 03-12.00 which was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Tom Broyles for property owned by Helen Adams and located at the northeast corner of 18th Street and Futrall Drive. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 17.56 acres. This request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Staff is recommending approval. Dawn, would you like to give the staff report now? Warrick: Yes. The subject property is south of the Fayetteville Center development. That consists of the former Food4Less structure that is now used for Wal-Mart for a demo and display setup. Westlake Hardware is in that development as is the Waffle House and other retail restaurant and entertainment type uses. The property is currently vacant. It is bordered by Futrall Drive on the west which is an outer road for I-540. 18th Street runs to the south and Best Way Street on the north. The applicant proposes to downzone the property from I-1, Heavy Commercial, Light Industrial to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Basically staff is in favor of the request. The General Plan 2020 does designate this site as regional commercial. Therefore, the C-2 request is consistent with that policy. Aviles: Thanks Dawn. Is the applicant present? Kelso: I am Jerry Kelso with Crafton, Tull & Associates. The way we established that line is we went from the center of the creek over to Futrall Drive. That is how that line was established and like I said, it is in keeping with the Master Land Use Plan. I will try to answer any questions that you might have. Aviles: Thank you very much. Is there any member of the public that would like to address us on this Rezoning request? Seeing no one, I will go ahead and bring it back to the applicant and to the Commission for discussion at this point. Bunch: Back in November there was considerable concern when some property requested a rezoning north of 6th Street adjacent to I-540 that we were eroding our commercial base by making that residential. Here we have an opportunity to maybe restore some of our commercial base and potential tax base. That being said, I will move that we forward RZN 03-12.00 to the City Council for approval. Shackelford: I will second. Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 37 Aviles: I have a motion for approval by Commissioner Bunch and a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there additional discussion? Renee, call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 03-12.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Aviles: The motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 38 ADM 03-4.00 Administrative Item (Washington Regional Hospital, pp 212) was submitted by Peter Nierengarten of USI -Arkansas, Inc. for property owned by Washington Regional Hospital located south of Futrall Dr. and west of North Hills Blvd. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 52.03 acres. The request is for a waiver of the Design Overlay District requirement for sodium lighting fixtures. Aviles: The last item on our agenda this evening is ADM 03-4.00 submitted by Peter Nierengarten of USI Arkansas, Inc. for property owned by Washington Regional Hospital located south of Futrall Drive and west of North Hills Blvd. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 52.03 acres. The request is for a waiver of the design overlay district requirement for sodium lighting fixtures. Sara, would you give us the background on this please? Edwards: The hospital representative contacted us requesting to match lights proposed in the new parking lot which was a Large Scale that we recently heard. They requested those lights to match what is already out there at the existing hospital. Of course we researched wondering why something in the design overlay district had metal halide lights instead of the required sodium fixtures. Our research lead us to see that the original Large Scale for the hospital had an error showing the design overlay district boundary of about 400'. That Large Scale indicated that all of the proposed parking areas were outside of the design overlay district and that is why they have the metal halide instead of the sodium lighting fixtures. Now the request is to match that existing lighting. They have proposed to use a full cutoff light which is what is in our proposed new outdoor lighting ordinance. Staff is in support of that because it will meet our new ordinance. Also, we handed out before the meeting a comparison of the sodium light, which is the yellow light and the metal halide, which is the whiter light, so you can understand that. Aviles: Have we had any complaints from passer bys on the bypass with regard to these lights? Edwards: I have not heard any. Aviles: Thanks. Is the applicant present? Nierengarten: Good evening. My name is Peter Nierengarten, I am with USI Arkansas. I will be brief. Basically, we are constructing 200 plus parking spaces to relieve some of the parking congestion at the Washington Regional hospital that is going to be associated with an expansion that is about to be undertook. We request that the lights for the new parking lot match the existing lighting. As Sara mentioned, we are using our full cutoff fixtures, which direct the light down and not out. The parking lot does sit about 8' lower than the bypass so we feel that the projection of the light downward instead of outward will not create any excessive glare and unsightly conditions for the parking lot. As Sara also mentioned, the cutoff Planning Commission March 3, 2003 Page 39 Aviles: Ostner: Edwards: Shackelford: Edwards: Shackelford: Edwards: MOTION: Bunch: Hoover: Aviles: fixtures with the metal halide lighting is compatible with the new lighting ordinance that is set to be heard sometime I'm told in the next few months. With that, I will be willing to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you very much. Is there any member of the public that would like to address us on this proposed waiver request? Seeing no one, I will bring it back to the applicant and to the Commission for discussion or motions. This is a question for you Sara. Does the new lighting ordinance address metal halide? It does not have a requirement and actually removes the design overlay district requirement for the sodium lighting fixtures. Right now in the design overlay district we require sodium lighting fixtures to be used. With the new outdoor lighting ordinance that requirement will not be in place so the sodium lighting will no longer be required once that comes into effect. It doesn't specify the type. Just to make sure that I am understanding you, under the proposed lighting ordinance there isn't a requirement for the sodium light even in the overlay district? That is correct. What they are requesting would be in compliance, even with the metal halide lights? Yes. I move that we approve ADM 03-4.00. I will second. I have a motion by Commissioner Bunch and a second by Commissioner Hoover. Is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 03-4.00 approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Aviles: The motion carries unanimously. Meeting Adjourned: 7:28 p.m. was