Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-02-22 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on February 22, 1999 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Minutes of Special Meeting 1/15/99 VA99-2: Build -A -Home pp563 LSD99-3: Allied Storage pp 601 CU99-2: Southwestem Bell pp293 CU99-I : Schilcher pp525 RZ99-3: Meadowlands pp439 RZ99-4: Meadowlands pp439 RZ99-5: Meadowlands pp439 LSD99-4: Wedington Place pp 401 PP99-1: Candlewood Sub. pp 294 LSD99-2: Town Center pp 523 MEMBERS PRESENT Bob Estes Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Phyllis Johnson Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Gary Tucker Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Jim Beavers Janet Johns Alett Little Ron Petrie Brent Vinson Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Approved on Consent Agenda Approved on Consent Agenda Approved on Consent Agenda Pulled - 10 public comment Approved w/conditions Approved -forward to Council Approved -forward to Council Approved -forward to Council Approved w/conditions Approved w/conditions Approved w/conditions MEMBERS ABSENT John Forney STAFF ABSENT • • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 15,1999 VA99-2: VACATION BUILD -A -HOME, pp563 This item was submitted by Gary Kahanek and John Firmin of Build -A -Home for property located at 820 South College Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. The request was to vacate a 20 -foot alley to the east of the property. Staff recommended approval. LSD99-3: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT ALLIED STORAGE, pp601 This item was submitted by Kurt Jones of Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of Allied Storage for property located at 15th Street across from Walker Park. The property is zoned 1-1, Heavy Commercial, Light Industrial, and contains approximately 14.98 acres. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide screening that was required for the original development as described in §160.118 (D)(6)[UDO 166.10 (C)(6)]: The applicant shall install landscaping per option it2 stated in the attached letter; however, the variety of honeysuckle to be installed will be "Lonicera japonica purpurea "' as requested by the Landscape Administrator. A description of this plant is included in the agenda material. 2. All new utilities shall be located underground. 3. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 4. Cooperation with Water and Sewer Maintenance Division to provide necessary access to all manholes. 5. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, 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 • • • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 3 approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 6. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 7. Prior to the issuance of building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits. b. Separate easement plat for this project. c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City as required by 159.34. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. MOTION Mr. Estes made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Shackelford seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 4 OLD BUSINESS CU99-2: CONDITIONAL USE SOUTHWESTERN BELL, pp293 This item was submitted by Hunter Stuart of Southwestern Bell for property at 2730 East Township, St. John's Lutheran Church. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional, and the lease site contains 0.02 acres. The total property owned by the church exceeds 8 acres. The request is for a cellular tower to be constructed on the site with an 18 feet x 18 feet base and a height of 86 feet. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will supply a sample of the accent color to be used on the steeple for staff approval. 2. The route from the existing culvert off Highway 265 to the proposed site of the steeple base will be subject to the comments and suggestions of the Landscape Administrator. 3. The drive from Highway 265 will require the approval of the State Highway Department prior to construction. Commission Discussion Odom: This item has been pulled by the applicant. We have had public comment on this item before and therefore, I am limiting any comments to ten minutes. Please keep your remarks brief. Public Comment Brian Runnels residing at 2396 North Crossover spoke in opposition to the location of the cell tower citing health issues and property devaluation as well as light pollution factors. Lloyd Bowling residing at 2360 Crossover spoke in opposition to the location of the cell tower citing health issues and property devaluation. Janice Bunch residing in the area and whose house joins the church property spoke in opposition to the tower. • Pat Coon residing on Countryway spoke in opposition to the location of the cell tower. She stated that she worked for a technology company in Springdale and that the future of • • • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 5 telecommunications was in the digital area which will have an apparatus on top of traffic signals and there will be no need for the microwave towers. Dan Coody a resident of Fayetteville requested that cellular tower be located on public property so the public will get the benefits of lease agreements. He requested that Commercial Design Standards be applied to the towers and they need to colocate and be a short as possible. Dan Danseler a resident in the area spoke in opposition to locating the tower on the proposed site. Shawn Norman a parent of a child who is enrolled in the child care facility at the church spoke in opposition to the cell tower location due to health risk factors for the children. Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 6 NEW BUSINESS CU99-1: CONDITIONAL USE SCHILCHER, pp525 This item was submitted by Linda Schilcher for property located at 904 Rodgers Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 0 48 acres. The request is for a detached second dwelling unit on the lot. Staff recommended approval of the request subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall remove the double doors, microwave oven, refrigerator, and kitchen sink from the master bedroom immediately upon the completion of the construction of the granny unit. 2. The property owner shall reside in either the main house or the granny unit. 3. After completion of the construction of the granny unit, only one family shall be allowed to occupy each structure. 4. No more paved areas shall be added to the property for parking. Only four vehicles at one time shall be allowed to serve residents of the property. Linda Schilcher was present on behalf of the project. Committee Discussion Odom. There are four conditions of approval. Have you had the opportunity to review those? Schilcher: Yes, with the planning office If you would like to read the conditions -- (Odom read the conditions as above.) Odom: Staff, are there any further conditions of approval? Vinson: No, sir. Odom: Do you have any comments above those conditions of approval? Schilcher: No. That is fine with me. That is the original plan. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 7 Public Comment None. Further Commission Discussion Tucker: Regarding page 5.3 of the packet and the septic capacity, is that an issue for us? Vinson: No. They are not adding much. It will be herself in the granny unit and a single family in the house. We didn't see that as a large increase on the septic system. Tucker: City Engineering? Petrie: We briefly discussed this and I have not reviewed the full set of plans I am not prepared to comment. We don't normally review conditional uses. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve conditional use 99-1. Mr. Shackelford seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 8 RZ99-3, 99-4, 99-5: REZONINGS MEADOWLANDS, pp439 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of WHM Land Investments, Inc. for property located at Wedington Drive and Rupple Road. The property in Tract 1 is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 2.37 acres. The request is to rezone the property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. The property in Tract 2 is zoned A-1, Agricultural, and contains approximately 4.09 acres. The request is to rezone the property to C- 1, Neighborhood Commercial. The property in Tract 3 is zoned A-1, Agriculture, and contains approximately 31.91 acres. The request is to rezone the property to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Staff recommended approval rezoning Tracts 1 and 2 from A-1, Agricultural to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Further, staff recommended approval rezoning Tract 3 from A-1 to R-2 (Medium Density Residential). Staff noted to the applicant that the City's sewer facilities may be subject to a moratorium in the near future. Dave Jorgensen and Butch Robertson were present on behalf of project. Little: I believe we should discuss these all at one time. Each of them will require a separate motion and vote. Committee Discussion Jorgensen: I am representing the owners on behalf of this request. As you mentioned, Tract 1 is an existing 2.37 acre parcel of property that is located at the southeast corner of Rupple Road extension at Wedington Road. Tract 2 is at the southwest corner of that same intersection with 4.90 acres. Both of these tracts of property are existing A-1 parcels of property. Our request is to rezone these to C-1 on both corners. They are surrounded, generally, by C-1 property to the north, C-2 property to the southwest, A-1 to the south and R -O to the east. The third tract of property is the larger tract which is 32 acres located to the south of the Rupple Road extension as planned through there. The existing tract is A-1 and the request is to go to R-2. Public Comment Mr. Vernon McBride who owns the property south of Tract 3 spoke in opposition to rezoning that tract to R-2 on the grounds that it could allow for a mobile home park or a very dense residential area. He requested that Tract 3 be rezoned to R -I.5. He stated he had 80 acres south of the subject property and in the future might develop that as R-1 with one acre lots. He also expressed concern about drainage issues from a previous project developed, The Meadowlands. 1 • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 9 Further Commission Discussion Jorgensen: I can say that for sure a mobile home park is not planned in that area What is planned for the R-2 is an apartment complex. You may still have an objection to that. A mobile home park is definitely not planned in there. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve RZ99-3 rezoning Tract 1 from A-1 to C-1. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve RZ99-4 rezoning Tract 2 from A-1 to C-1. Mr. Shackelford seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. Further Commission Discussion Estes: As I look at the one mile radius vicinity map that we were provided, south of Wedington, the only place I see R-2 is over there where the apartments are off of the Bypass. Would R-1.5 satisfy your needs for the 31.91 acres? Jorgensen: I would have to ask Butch Robertson. Robertson: We want R-2. Jorgensen: You may want to comment on some of the on going discussions about the park and the Youth Center. • Robertson: I don't know whether you remember or not but part of this property is where the school negotiations were about putting a middle school there adjacent with a ten acre park. As • • • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 10 part of phase 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of The Meadowlands development, we pledged 9.3 acres of park land at the southeast corner of the property. The school was to be built adjacent to this property to provide a playground area for the school and also a nice park for that area. For whatever reasons, the school got moved north and now Wedington is being widened out to the entrance of The Meadowlands with four lanes. This make ingress and egress much easier. We are currently talking with some people at the Youth Center about the possibility of building a new youth center project out there. I don't know if this will bear fruit or not but we are in the process of discussing it. That would put the Youth Center and the park together and instead of having a 10 acre park, there would be 20 acres with the Youth Center, having a swimming pool, football field, soccer field, basketball goals and have a real community development there for a recreational facilities. In conjunction with that, on the north end of the east side of Rupple, we would like to provide some apartments in there. This seems to be the best use for the property and I believe the staff agrees with the R-2 zoning. That is why we are bring forward this request for R-2. I will be happy to field any questions you may have. Estes: What you have in mind then, is the apartments would be on the northwest corner of the R-2 tract and the Youth Center and the park area described would occupy the remainder. Robertson: That is what we are talking about now. Hopefully, that is what will come to pass. We're just now getting down to discussing this with the powers that be and hopefully we can get this worked out. I certainly would like to see this out there and everyone knows we need a new Youth Center. This would be a real plus to the western side of Fayetteville to have that kind of facility with a park in conjunction with the Youth Center which gives you plenty of room for playgrounds and all the activities that the Youth Center provides. Estes: I agree that would be an ideal use and I would like to see something like that. I would just be concerned about having 32 acres of apartments out there. Robertson: It won't be that much. The Youth Center is going to need 10 to 15 acres We haven't decided the amount. We're still talking to those people and we haven't even gotten down to the nuts and bolts of it but we feel like somewhere in the 10 to 15 acres range coupled with the 10 acre park would give a tremendous complex there and that would leave roughly 20 acres for apartments. Hoffman: I have an observation. It seems more like you may be a little bit premature in requesting the entire 32 acres be rezoned R-2 and possibly this would be better served to be developed as a PUD that has green space allocations instead of rezoning the entire tract for this much development at this time. Have you thought about that? I also encourage the Youth Center. Robertson: If we reduced it from 31 acres to 21 acres, and left the 10 in there for the Youth • • • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 11 Center and the park, would that work? Hoffman: At this stage, I'm not real sure what needs to happen. Robertson: What we are trying to do is something really positive for the western side of Fayetteville. It really needs a shot in the arm. I think this is a move in the right direction. We want Meadowlands to be a nice development, which it is. The city wanted a blend of duplexes and houses. They se m to exist pretty well together. The housing development is a little slower than what we had anticipated and that is why we are moving on to this other area. Eventually, we hope to have the balance of that Meadowlands development which has about 70 acres in it to be residential which would put the whole west side of Rupple Road residential with a mixture of duplexes and houses and then the east side of Rupple would be the park, the Youth Center, and some apartments. They want Rupple Road to have a 90 feet right of way which will be a boulevard. We would be willing to talk to the City about dedicating the extra 30 feet that they will need because there is a 60 feet right of way now and they need 90 to make that a boulevard which gives you the separation that you need between the two types of projects. We really feel like we have all the buffers there. We built one retention pond because we only did Phase I and II. The second retention pond comes when you do Phases III and IV. We understand the water and drainage situations and we will deal with that to try and be good neighbors to everyone there. We don't want anyone to have a water problem. Tucker: I'm hesitant to approve all 31 acres as R-2 for the same reasons as expressed previously. I'm also in favor of the Youth Center and all that but if that does not come to pass, then we still have zoned the entire tract for potential use as R-2 capacity. It seems as if it is not really what you want to have happen anyway. It seems premature for the whole 31 acres to be rezoned R-2. Robertson: We would be receptive to reducing that by 10 acres which is basically what the Youth Center indicated they would need and if they need a little more than that then that would just reduce the 21 acres Odom: Staff, how do we get through this at this late hour? Keep in mind that we are nothing more than a body that recommends something to the City Council anyway. Robertson: All of this has to go to large scale development before anything is done anyway, so we will back to you again. Odom: We approve large scale development but we are nothing more than a body that recommends items to be rezoned to the City Council. They are the ones with the final authority on the rezoning. How do we posture a motion? • • • Minutes of Planning Conumsston February 22, 1999 Page 12 Little: I think what you would have to do is recommend approval to the City Council for "x" amount of acres. But, prior to that going forward, we would have to have the legal description because in order for the ordinance to be written you have to have a legal description of the exact acreage. If that is what you are choosing to do, I think that you have a way to do that. Hoffman: Is there any schedule for the connection of Rupple Road and Persimmon? Little: When the development comes along. Hoffman: On one hand, I have a concern about adding a great number of units to essentially a long, dead end street. This development has no way to connect this to Persimmon until other development occurs. On one hand, I want to encourage that. On the other hand, I want to encourage they reduce the number of acres to be rezoned. Little: You could also ask for this portion of it to be tabled until you had the drawing before you so that you would know exactly what it is you are recommending. You have a couple of options. Odom: I believe the spirit of what we wanted could be ironed out by the time it got to City Council. Ward: The other thing we could do if the issue is to limit, is to condition it upon 12 units per acre for the whole 32 acres and then if some of those acres are developed by the Youth Center, it could be limited to 400 units. You would still have the same number of units you could build on the 20 acres that you have left. It would work out about the same. Little: 32 acres multiplied by 12 units per acre gives us 384 units. Ward: That's one way of doing it Robertson: Basically, what that would mean is if we sold the ten acres off to the Youth Center and have 20 acres left, we could still have 384 units. Ward: If you are going to build duplexes, you won't have any problems. If you build a large apartment complex, you could build 12 units per acre pretty easily. Little: For comparison purposes, if you had 20 acres and you develop that at 24 units per acres, that would be 480 units. Robertson: So you are reducing the amount by 100 units. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 13 Johnson: Do we have the power to recommend a rezoning with these kinds of conditions on it? Odom: Not really. I don't think we can say we'll do it if they will do this. But, if the applicant is saying they will willingly offer a bill of assurance we can do that. Is that right? Little: Right. Ward: Would it be best just to table this? Odom: The only problem with tabling this is it has to come back before us and then it's got to go to the City Council. Why don't we try to get something in the form of a motion that carries the spirit of what we want to accomplish and we can iron out the details between now and the City Council. Robertson: I would prefer if Planning Commissioners would go with us on this to reduce it from 31 acres to 21 acres to be rezoned R-2 and leave the 10 acres in there for the Youth Center project and it would be rezoned to whatever would allow for that use unit. We want to go ahead and rezoned 21 acres R-2 and we will provide you with an amended legal description. If the Youth Center needs more than the 10 acres, then we can negotiate that and whatever the difference is would be R-2. I think the 10 acres is going to be a minimum requirement for the Youth Center project coupled with the 9.3 acres for park land. That's going to give a 20 acres facility which will be really nice. Tucker: Is it your intent that 21 acres be the northernmost 21 acres? Robertson: Yes, sir. Little: The rezoned 21 acres would be the northernmost 21 acres. Robertson: Yes. MOTION Mr. Ward made a motion to recommend RZ99-5 as per the request of the petitioner to rezoning - 21.19 acre of the northernmost 31.19 acres to be zoned R-2. Mr. Tucker seconded. Odom: Staff, do you feel that our minutes will accurately reflect the intent of the applicant in our recommendation? • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 14 Little: Yes. I believe it will. Roll all Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. Further Discussion Robertson: Do I assume then that the southernmost 10 acres remain A-1? Odom. Yes. Robertson: Then we have to come back and petition to rezone that the appropriate zoning for the Youth Center facility? Odom: Yes. That is my understanding. Little: I believe that recreational uses are allowed in A-1. If anything, it would require • rezoning to P-1. They have an unusual situation. • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 15 LSD99-4: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT WEDINGTON PLACE, pp401 This item was submitted by Bruce Adams for property located in lot 4 of the Wedington Place addition. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains approximately 7.733 acres. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the following conditions: 1. Determination of variances as follows: a. Planning Commission determination to allow a parking ratio of 0.78 spaces per bedroom. 1 space per bedroom is the standard requirement. Staff can only support this reduction in parking if the project develops as a senior housing complex. b. Determination by the Board of Adjustments to allow a reduction or the rear setback from the required 25 feet to 10 feet. c. Determination by the Board of Sign Appeals to allow a project identification sign on each lot with a maximum size of 4 feet x 8 feet. 2. A final plat for the Wedington Place subdivision must be processed and filed prior to the issuance of any permits for this development. This is necessary in order to create the lots in question. 3. Assessment of $67 per unit fee for sanitary sewer improvements to the Hamstring basin (144 units @ $67 = $9,648) 4. All necessary improvements for the entire development (both lots) will be required to be installed with the first phase - including but not limited to the construction of the entire main access drive. 5. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $300 per unit (144 units @ $300 = $43,200). 6. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards. The sidewalks for the public streets that provide frontage for these lots are required as a part of the Wedington Place Subdivision. 7. All drainage structures such as pipes, headwalls, swales, and detention ponds not located within the public right of ways will be private and privately maintained. The need for • • • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 16 private and/or public drainage easement will be determined prior to approval of the construction plans. 8. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 9. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, 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 the City's current requirements. 10. Large Scale Development approval is valid for one calendar year. 11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits. b. Separate easement plat for this project. c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Bruce Adams was present on behalf of the project. Committee Discussion Adams: I reside at 21 Wimberly Drive in Bella Vista. The request before you this evening is actually a modification to a large scale which was previously approved. I have requested that the 144 units be reviewed for approval. The intent here is to develop this project in two phases. The reason for phasing is this is driven by the requirements of Arkansas Development Finance Authority and the current request pending with them for approval on a tax credit application that will go along with this property. As seen in the large scale, I intend to develop this property in two separate buildings. That is why we have a 4A and 4B designated. That in essence is a response to the specific dollar limitations on tax credit applications to the State of Arkansas. If there are any questions this evening, I will be happy to answer them. Odom: Are there any of the 11 conditions of approval that you disagree with or wish to discuss tonight? Adams: I have reviewed all 11 and I consent. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 17 Public Discussion None. Further Committee Discussion Ho man. Why do you need a 10 feet rear yard setback as opposed to the required 25 feet? Adams: In reviewing the actual plan, we are fronting two streets actually. The building configuration, instead of leaving it as a single site which we would not have this situation existing, and splitting the site due to the legal definition for the purpose of recording the loan and the tax credit, it has created a situation where the buildings are separated only by 17 feet from the property line itself to both buildings. Hoffman: So this does not address the property line adjacent to the neighborhood? It's just the intermediate property line. Adams: That is between the two buildings -- Odom: What authority do we have over that? Isn't that Board of Adjustment issue? Little: It is a Board of Adjustment issue. We wanted to make you aware of it. Hoffman: I just wanted to find out why. Odom. Should we approve this and this project changes uses from a senior housing complex to just a regular apartment complex, what mechanism is available to us to require additional parking at that time? Little: We would be able to review it if it came to the City for a building permit. Odom: So, if it just changed hands 20 years from now and became an apartment complex, there would be no way for us to know that it was being used for an apartment complex as opposed to a senior housing? Little: I don't think there is a good mechanism. Adams: I will suggest that in the application with ADFA, we have agreed to a fent restriction agreement that includes restrictions to seniors. We have also agreed to extend that beyond the statutory 15 year compliance period. So those mechanism are in place at the State level with the application for tax credits. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 18 Odom: Okay. Adams: One other comment on the setback issue, in designing this project, I have looked at the potential impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood and that is one of the reasons why we have kept this building to a two story building in lieu of going for maximum height limitations. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion approve LSD99-4 subject to the conditions of approval and all comments. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Further Discussion Johnson: At subdivision, we recommended that the stub out shown to the south according to this language, "be shown dotted" and indicated they are being bonded. Have you looked on the new drawings we have been given to be sure that has been done? I don't see it referenced in the conditions of approval. Is it there? Little: It is not in the conditions of approval Petrie: I did not include that in the conditions of approval because it was shown on the plat. Johnson: So it has been added? Petrie: Yes. Johnson: And what about the drainage? I don't see anything additional on the drainage to reflect our observation that the issue will be dealt with subsequently. Petrie: I added conditional of approval number 7 that discusses the drainage. Johnson: You think that is adequate to take care of the concern we had at Subdivision? Petrie: Yes, ma'am. Roll Call • • • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 19 Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 20 PP99-1: PRELIMINARY PLAT CANDLEWOOD SUBDIVISION, pp294 The next item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of David Chapman for property located north of Township and east of Highwy 265. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 45.60 acres with 60 (amended to 59) lots proposed. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission determination of stub out(s) for future street connections. The Subdivision Committee recommended that right of way be dedicated for future connections to the north and south of this development without constructing the street. The applicant has revised the plans to reflect this recommendation. Planning Commission determination of any additional improvements or assessments for future improvements to Hwy 265 (Crossover Rd.) (The Planning Commission is not requesting any assessments at this time. 3. Prior to the submittal of construction plans, a retaining wall shall be designed along Candlewood Dr. on Lot 10 for the preservation of the double oak tree that is existing. 4. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $22,500 (60 lots @ $375 = $22,500.) Based on the fact that there are only 59 lots the revised amount of park fees is $2Z 125 (59 lots @ $375 = $22,125.) 5. The existing 25 feet utility easement to be vacated must be processed as a separate application prior to the approval of a final plat for this development. 6. Dedication of right of way along Highway 265 (Crossover Road) shall be by warranty deed. 7. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 8. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, 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 the City's current requirements. Dave Jorgensen, Tom Hennelly, and David Chapman were present on behalf of the project. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 21 Commission Discussion Jorgensen: I am representing the owners on this project and you mentioned it is a preliminary plat for Candlewood Subdivision. We need to correct one thing. It says 60 lots and there are actually 59. We have to take out another lot because in the process of getting this approved, we were asked to provide an easement to the north and also to the south and this rearranged the lot lines such that we had to eliminate one lot. It is true that we have 45.6 acres. Approximately 4.5 acres was added to the original farm tract to allow for a connection on the south end of Township so that it lined up with the street that leads to Vandergriff School. The original layout was somewhat to the east of that. It caused a problem with that alignment. We now have 2 ways of ingress and egress on this project. We have access to the south on Township and we have access on Highway 265. As I mentioned, we were asked to provide an access to the north and we provided a dedicated right of way to the north. Also, we provided the dedicated right of way to the south by the Runnels property. I'm not sure if these are terribly beneficial but it was worked out in the Subdivision Committee meeting. We do have the owner here to answer questions. Public Comment None. Further Commission Discussion Estes: We have a letter in our packet from Dr. Runnels that in the early stages of this project that the density was going to be 1 home on 4 acres. Is that true? Jorgensen: I don't know how that came up. I haven't had a discussion with him and I'm not sure that the owners have either. At this particular point, as you can see, we have almost 46 acres with 59 lots which is not 1 home per 4 acres but it does have very large lots in the subdivision. Tucker: Does the property span Mud Creek? Jorgensen: No. It's just down the center line. Little: Only at Lot 45. Jorgensen: You'll notice on Lot 45, because of the original layout of the property, Mud Creek has a tributary that comes in from two different directions and Lot 45 is kind of like an island with frontage along Township. Tucker: The reason I'm curious is that a couple of meetings ago, we had a presentation dealing with Mud Creek in the CMN area and the idea there was the opportunity to do some • • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 22 preservation and keep that as a riparian corridor. Would you be amenable to some type of special treatment to preserve the Mud Creek boundary on Lot 45? Jorgensen: I would imagine that it would remain as is Lot 45 is very large and we're in the process of installing a box culvert from another project which is located in the southwest corner of Lot 45. There are some improvements immediately downstream from the box culvert but for the most part it will remain as is. The building area of Lot 45 is going to be on that portion that faces Township. As far as improvements to Mud Creek all the way north, as you can see, all of those lots are so deep that the likelihood of any construction in that area -- well, there just won't be anything happening because of the flood plain and the easements and the fact that the houses are going to be located along the street. Tucker: Between Old Wire and 45, this is a significant opportunity. It appears as if Mud Creek is unspoiled. Do we have any properties? Little: Odom: We have Easton Park and it will now be called Covington. Brookbury Subdivision backs up to the other side of the creek. Little: Yes. We did receive some park land along the creek in the Brookbury plat. Regarding the access to the trail, I see that from our preliminary plat or from our plat review plat for the one that went to Subdivision Committee and now, that the 12 feet wide sewer access drive is noted as City Access - Not Parks. The Council specifically requested at the rezoning that there would be an access to the area that had been designated for trail in Brookbury. I understand that the Parks Department may not want to maintain that area but I need to make sure that it's real clear that is the access back to that other particular piece of property. Is that what that is intended to be? Jorgensen: Yes. Little: Just so I have it on the record in case we need it. Jorgensen: That is what it is and they -- Little: That's between Lots 26 and 27. Jorgensen: They just wanted to make sure that it wasn't dedicated as a Park's trail for some reason. • Little: satisfied. I wanted to make sure that it was on there for access to that other property I am • • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 23 Jorgensen: That's one of the purposes, to access the sewer line. Little: Thank you. Hoffman: Did you ever decide if it was going to be asphalted? Hennelly: We were proposing SB2 with sod on top. That is still up in the air. Hoffman: But you are making plans for the trucks to be able to access the manholes. Jorgensen: Tom Hennelly is from our office and has been working on this. I think he has had the latest discussions with the engineering staff on this. We're still not sure whether it should be a based with a sod on top or possibly some pavers. We weren't sure whether to make it asphalt. We do have to make it acceptable and it was also made clear to us that we needed to mark this so that everyone realizes that it is a pedestrian pathway for access down to the creek. MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a motion to approve PP99-1 subject to all staff comments. Mr. Shackelford seconded the motion. Further Discussion Odom: Condition 4 indicates the park fees were based on 60 lots and I'm assuming this will be worked out with the applicant since that affects 59 lots. Johnson: On condition 2, I assume that was encompassed in the motion which deals with improvements to Highway 265 and I believe at Subdivision, the staff was going to confirm that the Highway Department does not plan any improvement to that particular section of 265. Petrie: That is correct. Johnson: Then it seems to me that probably condition 2 should be deleted or that we should say the Planning Commission does not request assessments at this time. Hoffman: I'll say that at this time. Shackelford: I'll amend my second. • Roll Call • • • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 24 Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 25 LSD99-2: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT TOWN CENTER, pp523 This item was submitted by Richard Alderman of WD&D Architects on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located south of Mountain Street, west of East Avenue, north of Rock Street and east of Block Street. The property is zoned C-3, Downtown Commercial, and contains approximately 1 11 acres. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. 2. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications, and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, street, 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 the City's current requirements. Large Scale Development approval is to be valid for one calendar year. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project. c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Richard Alderman was present on behalf of the project. Commission Discussion Odom: Are there any further conditions of approval? Petrie: No, sir. Odom: I will ask Mr. Alderman to make his presentation at this time. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 26 Alderman: We are here today and the last two issues are to go through the planning process and to bid the job. We've been working on this about 3 years. It has been a long process. We have worked very hard to try to create a project that fits into the Fayetteville area It has met all the technical requirements that you have asked for. It has a plaza in it that: is an extension of the downtown square. It has a tower that recalls other towers that are in the City of Fayetteville, such as the way the court house works and the other churches that work on axises. It has terraces and setbacks. Due to the comments that were asked for at a few of the last meetings, we have added landscaping to both Block Street and East Street. We worked with Charlie Venable and Kim Hesse, the Landscape Administrator, to add that extra detail to the work and tried to comply with all their requirements. I also tried to write a letter for you to give you more information on the detail that is in the facade of the building and the way we have setbacks on the parking deck levels and different materials and where we are trying to spend our budget on upgrading materials as best we can. That being said, I am here with the model and I have other drawings and things to go along with that and I'm here to answer any questions that you might have. Odom: Do you have any questions or comments about the conditions of approval? They are all fairly standard. Alderman: We have no problems with the conditions of approval. Public Comment Jeff Erf residing at 2711 Woodcliff inquired regarding the parking spaces. Alderman: We have 220 in the parking deck. We have replaced the existing 31 spaces that were surfaced with 31 spaces. There are a total of 250 total parking spaces. We are taking out 4 of the parking spaces from the side street to provide for landscaping. There is a possibility that we will take deductive altemates to parking and we would come back for a parking variance. One alternative that we have talked about are some of the lots across the street, we could take advantage of using some of those parking places with a shared parking agreement and if we do because of the budget have to ask for that, we will come back with the shared parking agreement. Estes: Are you talking about the parking spaces on the south side of Rock Street? Alderman: Yes. Estes: Are those lease spaces? Alderman: I believe those are owned by one of the banks and also a private individual. We have contacted both of them now. This is only in the case that for some reason, we would have to come back. • • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 27 Ann Murphy representing Friends for Fayetteville spoke in support of the project and encouraged the Planning Commission to hold firm on design standards. Jim Bemus further inquired regarding the parking net increase and maintenance. Alderman: If you are talking about taking the 80 surface parking spaces that were there, we have 220, so there is a net increase of 140. Further Commission Discussion Hoffman: I was not at the Subdivision Committee at which the commercial design standards were discussed and I don't want to rehash old ground. I would like to bring up a couple of observations about this building. This is going to be something that the citizens of Fayetteville will live with and be with for many, many years to come. It is my opinion that there is not sufficient detailing on the upper level and it does appear to be very plain and box like is the word used in our commercial design standards. My other concern is as a pedestrian walking by three sides of the building and they will be looking directly down into the parking garage into cars that are not screened in some manner from the sidewalk. I understand that there will be a guard rail but not anything decorative. The budget constraints -- I know that you have had lots and lots of meetings that this has been discussed and rediscussed. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel but I feel like I need to raise these concerns at this level. Alderman: I did try to give you more information on the fact that the upper level of the building is going to have reveals. We are going to have predominately glass area all around. We have added accent colors and recesses to try and make that look as much like a stone type facade as we can. I brought some materials to go over that if we want to get into that a little bit more. As far as, the parking deck goes, again, instead of doing the 2 feet wide parking deck tinker toy type project if you've seen that everywhere. We have widened the columns out. We made them 6 to 8 feet wide. We put heavy rustifications in there. We are going to have precast concrete separator areas for the bumpers or the guard rails in there and we have recessed those areas back. I think we've tried to put a lot of details and alternate materials or two or three types of materials together to create more depth for all of the parts of the facades. The budget is not an excuse for not doing a nice building and I think we have done a nice building. We have provided a tower for the main entrance. We're talking about brick substantially on most of the building the first 12 feet all the way around. We're using stone and precast detailing on all the entrances. We're using a lot of accent materials and nice materials. The tower has two or three different types of glass on it to make it a very lighted interesting addition to the square using the plaza. I think we have gone and done a lot. We've also, on the back side to help the parking deck, created that stair that comes down and added the brick that comes all the way down to the ground back there • on Rock Street so that it breaks up the facade of the parking deck and tries to give it additional detailing. We've added the additional landscaping throughout and put in trees and that is • • • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 28 probably more trees than has ever been down on that side of the square before. I think we have done a lot of things and created a lot of issues and if you look at the model, you'll see that it has set backs in it and different levels. It's not just one piece. It has set backs and terraces and lots of extra handrails and other materials to try to really do the details that you asked for in the commercial design standards. In fact, one picture that I remember in the commercial design standards is the tower on the corner. This building, I think, could actually be put in there as an example of what it requires us to do. I think we have tried very hard to do that. I will say that there are some limitations but I think we worked with those limitations very much to try and make it meet the requirements. Hoover: I would like to go over the materials. Do you have the material board? Alderman: Yes. Hoover: Would you explain the ones on the parking deck? Alderman: (Mr. Alderman explained the site plan --) Here would be the square, Mountain Street, Block Street, East Street, Rock Street. These are the existing buildings on the south side. This is the south side building. Tim's Pizza is right here. This is what they call Executive Square. We have taken that surface parking lot that is there right now and that becomes the plaza. Those 31 parking places that are there have been pushed down there underneath that and you have the plaza on top of that. That creates the extension to the square and gives us this access that runs all the way through the project and makes this tower element our main entry into the building and then you have the main hall that runs this way, out the back, and down that stair in the back that I was talking about. We're using that extra relief on the face of the building. This area, right here, is the main floor plan of the building and this area is the top or terrace area so that is where you see the set back here between the main parking deck and the main part of the building. It is terrace all the way around. That allows people on the square to be able to walk and they don't have to go in the building to walk all the way around and be up high where they can take advantage of the views on the south side This is a wonderfel view of the south. Using terraces all the way along the back side and it will be up at about the corner where the existing walkway on the south side of the building is about 15 feet about the ground and it will be at that same elevation to take advantage of those fantastic views all the way out there. So, that's a very nice public amenity. As far as material wise, if we're talking about the parking deck itself, it is basically concrete. It will have a decorative thorough coat for more detail. That's a type of finish on it. It will have heavy rustifications through it to create more depth. Instead of this being a 2 feet column, we have widened those out and then we have recessed inside that all of the guard rail and the edge of the slab. If you go all the way around the building, you will see a more building like look by the way this was done with the trees and the precast railings are all pushed back in about 1 foot so that there is recess and detail. That is going to be painted an alternate accent color and there will actually be precast which will be the third material for detail to the • • • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 29 guard rails. Hoover: What are the columns out of? Alderman: Concrete. Hoover: They are solid concrete. So everything in the parking garage -- Alderman: This will be concrete that is painted different colors and this will be precast. I think the railing being precast will give us another material so it will have more detail. We're also talking about putting a handrail across the top which will be metal and will be painted and round to add more detail. We will also have the reveals and the rustifications throughout that. When you get up to the main part of the building, we have brick up 12 feet covered by canopies and the glazed canopy entrance over the building will have the main entrances and the tower will have the stone at the bases and precast along here and then from there up we will have the EIFS materials with major areas of glass. There will be recesses. There will be joints. There will be a lot of accent pieces in here. We've also done a similar thing to what is done on the deck here. This piece is recessed back to accentuate the building and try and give it more detail. Hoover: From the pedestrian level, what am I seeing as I'm going around the parking garage? Alderman: Landscaping on all three sides and as you walk around here you will see landscaping and concrete. There will be precast at all these levels and there will be concrete and there will be recesses. These will be niched back a little bit so it won't be just one solid flat wall. It will go in and out. This is very important. It kind of accentuates, really, the idea of the vertical part these areas recess in a little bit. Hoover: I have reservations. From a birds eye view it doesn't look like a box but from a pedestrian and walking around the sidewalk and walking around the parking garage, that is definitely a box. Alderman: Any project that is going to have 120 cars in it like that is going to fill up most of the site. I think if you look at that closely, we cut the corners to create less wall space. These corners are cut out here where we can't park a car in the corner. They are cut out like this. That is this big shallow curb for the stair that goes all the way across. We have created these ins and outs and done some extra detailing at the entrances with an arch type feature so that they can be recognized through there and we put a lot of landscaping in. As far as it being a box, yes. It's got to be. It covers the site but it has a lot of features -- cuts, round features -- things like that to try and make that reflect. When you look at the model it does look boxy but when you take all these materials and bring them all the way through there and all the way down to the ground and • • • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 30 tied this main portion of the building all the way down to Rock Street with the brick -- Hoover: Was the reason for the concrete on the parking garage was that cost or would brick cost the same on these columns. Alderman: Brick would cost a lot more. Brick would cost a substantial amount more but you have to have the concrete there anyway. A parking deck basically is a concrete structure. You could do it out of precast if you wanted to. Hoover: I thought it was a steel structure. Alderman: It could be steel. In this climate, steel doesn't last as well as it does down south so once you look at it precast which I think has more of a tinker toy look or the poured in place are the two most used types of materials for that. Again, we tried to work with the idea of using a lot of concrete and making a lot of changes to it to give it more depth and detail. Hoover: Was there a board of actual materials? Alderman: Yes. I brought several samples of brick because obviously at this point, we haven't picked a brick. I think the appropriate brick for the south side of the square is something in a red brick range. I brought three or four possible samples of red brick for that. Everything from a brick that pretty much matches some of the older buildings which don't have a whole lot of detail to one being two or three shades to one that has what we call a iron stock kind of thing. All of those are sort of within the range of what is basically a red brick. This is precast which is meant to look like cut limestone. That is going to be the other materials around all the entrances. That will be the predominance of what you have where you can get up close to the building. Then we would have drivet or EIFS for the rest of the material. As you can see, what we want to do with those is to make it look as much like stone as we possibly can and we're going to add the rustifications and the details to that and from a distance, I would know it was drivet, but from a distance, I don't think too many people other than architects who see it all the time probably would know that much. We will have some accent areas as we have been talking about that would have more color to it by having an alternate color to go with it. Estes: My comments are that the upper level of the building with the EIFS and the glass, to me has an industrial look and that is compounded by the straight roof line. Because of the slope of the property to the south, when you're on the square that is what you are going to see. Can you do something to that roof line to get away from the industrial look? Am I seeing something that is not really there? Alderman: I feel with the amount of glass that we have put on there and it's hard to show in these kind of detail but the glass is going to be set in from those frames. There is probably a lot • • • Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 31 more detail than you see in the model there. Unless we were to have some different roof shape and with a 120 x 120 feet room which is the majority of what we are doing with this building, I think that most people, unless they are in a plane are not going to see that. They are going to see that mostly from a ground view and that is where we have a lot of the detail that we are going to be able to add with the tower. The tower breaks up that and the entrance and access all the way through break up that. If you look at the back, we've got the sun shades and the awnings all the way across the back all the way around. When you see the building as a pedestrian all the way around you're going to see a lot of the trees and the tower as you come in from that front entrance over there. I think that material which is set back about 30 feet from all of the elevations that you see on that side is going to be something that will be back a little bit. It is our opinion that the use of the glass panels that are inset with that will give a very good look to it. It will have somewhat of a stone type appearance. I think I have done a lot to try and create that as a very pleasing back drop to the rest of the materials we have used throughout the project. Estes: Can you do anything with the roof line to get away from that box? Alderman: Again, I think we are pretty much set with the 120 x 120 shape that we have to it. It is hard to do anything with it. We could put a big a curved metal roof on there I'm not sure that is the appropriate response to the City of Fayetteville. We did the convention center in Hot Springs which has a big sloped metal roof to it like that but I don't think that would look appropriate. With the detailing of the top all the way around, we will havt. something that will look substantial. If you'll also look at all the other buildings on the south side of the square, they are predominately the same material as that all the way around. The south side building is pretty much all drivet. The Executive Square Building has a predominance of drivet all the way around it. The front of it is brick but it is painted very similar in color to that. The CGN Building, that is one block over to the west of this is all drivet throughout. We're using materials that are basically compatible with all the materials used on the south side of the square Hoffman: I have one more question about the front. We do not have a north elevation in our packet so I am looking at the tower view from the square looking to the tower through the plaza. Alderman: I thought that was in your packet? Hoffman: I don't think so, unless I missed it. There is an area of the building to the right of the tower that doesn't look like it has any windows in it. What is that? Alderman: This area has the recesses in the same places as the windows but it is on that side, since we're going to have a well down over here in between the building for some of the mechanical equipment, we did not put windows on there. Hoffman: So is that a view of drivet from the square? Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 32 Alderman: With the trees in there, yes. The edge of the building that is there will be blocked and you will see only one bay or one and half bays. You will be presented with 99% this, brick all the way across here and that would be the edge of one building. 68% of that is behind the buildings there. Hoover: I think the building closest to the Town Center is lower and it's not the building shown on that section. Alderman: From the square, the other -- again, when you look up at it from a pedestrian stand point those buildings are still blocked even at a lower level. Johnson I did get the new elevations in my packet but there is not a new north elevation. Is there anything changed on the north elevation from what we saw at subdivision? Alderman: We changed the Block Street and the East Street elevations because that is where we added the predominance of all the landscaping. Those two are new. Then we added the other details. It's hard in those drawings only that big to show some of the detailing that is there, so we added those two new drawings to be able to show you more what the detail all the way around the building. I believe the north and the south elevations haven't changed since the last time. Johnson: On the large south elevation detail that shows us the entrance, that entrance is not at ground level. How do you get to the entrance that is blown up here on the upper right? How do pedestrians access that from the street? Alderman: The site plan gives more detail. We put a stair on the back that takes you from Rock Street. You can walk up an outside stair that takes you from the lowest level along Rock Street to up to the terraces, so that way you don't have to walk all the way around and up to get onto the terrace. From Rock Street, you come up the stairs. That also gave us the opportunity to make a break in this plane that runs all the way across here by allowing that to go out a little bit and accentuate that stair. On your elevation, that is the place that doesn't have the frieze in front of it. Johnson: But, we can't tell from our elevation that there is a stair there. Alderman: The stair is built inside of that and it works that way inside this form. That is predominately the masonry materials they were using on the building by bringing them all the way down to the grade. Johnson: On the south elevation, you have shown some contrasting color on the top part of the building under the windows. That's new from Subdivision. But you have not shown that on Minutes of Planning Commission February 22, 1999 Page 33 the east elevation. Alderman: The east elevation doesn't have the same two story space. You have this part of the building which is one story and then you set back another 30 feet to where you get to the other portion. It is set back on both sides. On all the sides where we have the two story as part of the building, we have used the same. Ward: I was at the Subdivision Meeting and we discussed the whole project such as the box like structure. It seems to me that you have answered most of my questions by color accents and the change in insets. You have done a lot of little things. The landscaping is going to be a big part of the whole project. This thing has been beat around now for several years. I feel this is a fantastic project for the City of Fayetteville. MOTION Mr. Ward made a motion to approve LSD99-2 subject to the conditions of approval and all comments. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Further Discussion Odom. I think one of the reasons we're so critical of this project is that is it critical to Fayetteville and one that will be with us forever. This is a valiant effort for what we have to work with. Your struggle to build the best you can and still remain a society that doesn't tax its citizens to death to build something more than this. I believe it does comply with the commercial design standards that we have and that is probably the largest obstacle that we have. All the other issues have been essentially resolved. It is difficult to build something that is not a box like structure in the downtown area that every building down there is what makes Fayetteville what it is a box like structure. I live and work down there everyday. The Gueysinger Building is on the National Register of Historic Places just like a lot of the places down there. I believe that it does comply. There were some things that I would have liked to have seen that I think anybody would like to see added. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 5-3-0. Mr. Estes, Ms. Hoffman, and Ms. Hoover voted against the motion. Meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.