Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-24 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on April 24, 2000 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Approval of Minutes LSD 00-7.00 Indian Springs, Phase II, pp 372 LSD 00-8.00 McDonald's, pp 401 LSD 00-5.00 Steel Crossing, pp 212 MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Don Bunch Bob Estes Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Don Marr Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Kim Hesse Diana Varner Ron Petrie Sara Edwards ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF ABSENT None Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 2 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Odom: The first item that we have tonight is the approval of the minutes from the April 10, 2000 meeting. Do we have any corrections or changes to that? Seeing none they will stand corrected as they are. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 3 LSD 00-7.00 Indian Springs, Phase II, pp 372 Odom: Conklin: Odom: Conklin: Odom: Henley: Odom: Henley. The first on tonight's agenda is Large Scale development 00-7 submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sweetser Properties for property located south of Hwy 45 and west of Madison Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 3.20 acres with 18 units proposed. Staff's recommendation is for approval of this subject to twelve conditions of approval and I would ask that the applicant please come forward at this time. Staff, do we have any additional conditions of approval? There are no other conditions of approval. Do we have a signed conditions of approval? We do not have a signed conditions of approval Then I will bring forward the applicant to identify yourself. I am Tom Henley of Jorgensen & Associates. We don't have any objections to any of the conditions of approval I believe they are as were stated at the Subdivision Committee Meeting. Okay. Do you have any presentation you would like to make? Other than what you already know that is in your packet. 3.2 acres that's a continuation of Indian Springs Phase I which was done back in the 70's which is adjacent to this property. The Sweetser's did that and they are doing this one as well. PUBLIC COMMENT Odom: Shackelford: Odom. Alright. What I will do now is ask if there is any member of the audience that would like to address us on this large scale development. Any member of the audience that would like to address us on this issue? Seeing none I will close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission and applicant, for questions to the applicant or motions. Mr. Chairman? Commissioner. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 4 Shackelford: I make a motion to approve LSD 00-7 prior, or taken upon the twelve conditions of approval. Hoffman: Second. MOTION We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford, second by Commissioner Hoffman to approve the Large Scale Development with conditions of approval. Any further discussion? ROLL CALL Upon roll call, the motion carries unanimously. Thank you. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 5 LSD 00-8.00 McDonald's, pp 401 Odom: The next item on the agenda tonight is the large scale development 00-8 submitted by Ben Aguirre on behalf of McDonald's's's Corporation for property located on lot 1R of Wedington Place Addition, Phase II. The property is zoned C-2 and contains approximately 1.996 acres. The request is to build a McDonald's Restaurant with a convenience store and gas station. Staff's recommendation is approval subject to twelve conditions of approval. Staff are there any other conditions of approval? Conklin: There are no further conditions of approval. Odom: Do we have a signed condition of approval? Conklin: We do not have a signed conditions of approval. There are some issues the Planning Commission will need to address that include the color of the mansard roof on the McDonald's and the E.F.I.S. that is proposed on the side of the building. Those are two of the issues that need to be addressed. We also have three wall signed being proposed. The Planning Commission determination of some request for variances with regard to curb cuts within 250 feet of the driveway, a variance of our parking lot design standards for aisle and a variance for the actual driveway width. Therefore, those issues will need to be addressed this evening. Odom: Thank you staff. I'll bring it forward to the applicant Estes: Mr. Chairman? Odom: Yes, Commissioner Estes. Estes: Before the applicant's presentation, I have offered to recuse on this item. The reason for my recusal have been disclosed to the applicant and it is my understanding that they do not desire that I recuse. With that said, I would like my remarks to be made part of the record and I would like a response from the applicant. Odom: Okay, before the applicant makes a response, is there anyone else that wants to make the same recusal? Hoffman: Mr. Chairman? • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 6 Odom: Yes Commissioner Hoffman. Hoffman: I as well will recuse unless released by the applicant. Ward: Mr. Chairman? Odom: Commissioner Ward. Ward: 1 also have a conflict of interest with this particular piece of property and so I have the same problem. Odom. Okay. Are these of a conflict that would not allow the three that have spoken, is there anybody else? Anybody else eat too many cheeseburgers at McDonald's? Are these conflicts of interest such that would require your abstention to these votes or are these conflicts of interest that would allow only notice to the applicant of their, of your interests and would allow them to waive the conflict? Are you going to abstain from voting? Ward: I will if I have to. Odom: I think we need a little bit more on the record to make the matter clear so we don't have any appearance of impropriety that you have made a conflict of interest known and aware to the applicant but at the same time it's not something they can't say let's go ahead and waive it. Estes: Mr. Chairman? Odom: Yes Commissioner Estes. Estes: The nature of my offer to recusal is that I have had previous litigation with this applicant and have had previous litigation with the franchisee of this applicant. This litigation is resolved and is not now pending. Odom. Okay. Commissioner Hoffman. Hoffman: I have a business relationship with McDonald's in Illinois and I understand that, that's different, and I guess I should ask you all is that a completely different business entity than your group in Oklahoma City? Fullerton: We are all McDonald's, I'm Chris Fullerton, the real estate rep from McDonald's and we are all McDonald's Corporation. We're based out of Oakbrook, Illinois. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 7 We have 37 regional offices and we are one of those regional offices which is under the office in Oakbrook. But we wish to waive the recusal if at all possible. Odom: Commissioner Ward, do you have anything you want to add to that or do you just want to abstain from the vote? Ward: I think I want to abstain from the vote. Odom. Alright. Commissioner Hoffman? Hoffman: Since I don't know much about recusing I think since I have an active relationship with McDonald's I should go ahead and err on the conservative side and recuse. Odom: And abstain. Okay, Commissioner Estes you don't have anything that's active and not only that, it's typically detrimental to McDonald's's and not to their benefit and therefore I would not think you have a current conflict of interest. Do you have any reason to believe that he should abstain from the vote? Fullerton: No there are no conflicts of interest currently pending. Odom: For the approval of the Large scale development, Tim, how many votes do they have to have for the approval of a large scale development? Conklin: It's a majority of those voting. Odom. Does that count the abstentions? Conklin: No it doesn't. Odom: Let's go forward. Would you like to make a presentation at this time, after you identify yourself for the record. Fullerton: I'm Chris Fullerton, real estate rep for McDonald's. Gary: I'm Ben Aguire, construction project manager for McDonald's. Fullerton: A couple of the items were colors that were in question and we wanted to present you pictures of what currently is what we are trying to get back to with McDonald's and then pictures that will show the concessions that we are making to fit in with the development at Wedington. This is what we are trying to get back to. We have waived the color of the roof beams for those to be the same Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 8 Odom: color as the roof. If you could, and I'm sorry this is sort of cumbersome sometimes, but there are members of the audience that, and for the record if you could make your comments from the podium, just leave the photographs up here. Fullerton: I've also included some photos of Sonic, of what their colors are. And the color that we're using is the Amarillo White. Now in the photos the color on the building is the China White, which is not what we are proposing and is required by the development. The Amarillo White is what's required by the development and it's kind of a light tan. For the E.I.F.S. of the building. Aguire: Just for clarification, our intent is to use that Amarillo White. That's pre - approved for this development. My understanding is that's pre -approved by the Council? Is that correct? Conklin: That was a material list that was presented as part of Wedington Place. Odom. Now Tim, it's my understanding the material list are lists of material items that may be utilized. It does not in and of itself make it approvable to meet the commercial design standards? Conklin: That is correct. We do ask that when the development does come thru the process that they provide us with a list of materials that other development would be utilizing within the shopping center area. Just reviewing the Amarillo White, I'm not as concerned anymore with regard to how white it was shown on the elevation drawing. It's actually more of a tan color and I'm not opposed to that material being used at this time. Odom: You are not opposed to the Amarillo White material being used? Conklin: No. That will be passed down to all the Commissioners. That's the first time I've seen it this evening. It's more of a tan color than what's been shown on the elevation drawings. Odom: Let me ask just a quick clarification. This here that you handed to us to view, what is this? Fullerton: That is the design that we are trying to get back to. McDonald's went thru a phase where we allowed the buildings to be all different colors, different colors of brick and we want to get back to what McDonald's branding is all about. In recognition • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 9 Odom: and that is what we are trying to get back to. Of course, in this building, I mean, we've got to have good brick and the tan E.I.F.S., the Amarillo White and then the roof beams we would paint those red as well. The city has requested we do that. And then those photos also include the Exxon sign which was in question. There is a smaller picture of his sign so you can see what that looks like. But we felt like the red roof tied in with Sonic's red cones and then there is also a red band on the grocery store. What I want you to do is finish making your presentation and then what I'm going to do is I'm going to open it up to public discussion. Then I'm going to close public discussion and bring it back to you and we will kind of go thru these regulations. Fullerton. Okay. We do have some, two brick colors that were options and there were also comments regarding lighting for our roof beams. We wanted to stay consistent within the market. The City and the Subdivision Committee felt that lighting should be consistent. And at the time it was in question wether those roof beams are lighted, which they are and we provided photos of the other stores in town with the lighted roof beams. And our newer roof beams are not as bright. Aguire: Right. You will see in the photographs, although the photographs themselves are dark, they were taken at night showing the existing stores in town, one of them has an entirely lit roof beam which is our older style. And the newer style shows a lot less lumination just by it's inherent design. That's the one that was built in Crossover Place if you're familiar with that one. Odom. Staff do you want to comment on that? 1 don't know that you were actually leaning consistent with other McDonald's. Conklin: That's correct. When we did review this McDonald's proposal at this sight we looked at what the city required of McDonald's in the Glenwood Shopping Center. At that McDonald's they required the same roof color to be used on the roof beams and no lighting of those roof beams. Trying to be consistent here with how we apply our design standards and it was Staff's recommendation that we not use such a bright red color mansard roof try to match what's being proposed in this development. The other developments you've mentioned do have some red in them but it's not a Targe architectural feature that's being utilized within those buildings. That's basically what we're trying to do with our recommendation is try to bring it closer to compliance with our commercial • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 10 design standards and how do we show compliance with a unifying identifiable theme within this development with this red roof color. Odom: Any other presentation that you want to make at this time? Aguire: The only other comment I would make in terms of large architectural features, I would probably argue the point that the Sonic cones are just that. They are not structural members but they are a brand image, identifying architectural features which are real similar, you'll see from the photographs we had, from another Sonic. That's a standard image they use. There was a Sonic as you see rendered here that was approved for Wedington that has a similar color red. You'll see in those photographs that Chris gave you. PUBLIC COMMENT Odom. What I'd like to do now is just go ahead and ask if there is any member of the audience who would like to address us on this particular large scale development? Seeing none I will close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Odom: Now we can get back into the questions and answers with regard to Commercial Design Standards and the waiver requests that you have. I'll turn it over to the Planning Commission now for questions and comments. Estes: Mr. Chair? Odom: Commissioner Estes. Estes: Tim, the roof color that has been proposed this evening, is that acceptable? Conklin: 1 believe it is not acceptable. Estes: What would you like to see done? Does it need to be more earth tone? What are your recommendations? Conklin: I asked them to look at the other red colors that have been used in the development with regard to the brick colors. Estes: And the example that has been passed around, Commissioner Hoover, can I have • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 11 that back, is that what's being proposed this evening? Aguire: Yes. Estes: And this is not acceptable to Staff? Conklin: No it's not. I really believe that the red brick color that's being used on the grocery store, the reddish brick being used on the Bank of Fayetteville directly to the west of this sight, that it should be more in keeping with those colors. Once again, Commercial Design Standards we are trying to have a unifying, identifiable theme within this development. Estes: Where are we with regard to the roof beams? Are you proposing that subdued lighting or no lighting? I'm not clear. We had some photographs passed that showed lighted roof beams. Fullerton: It's subdued lighting. The picture that shows, there's just one triangle, or rectangle that's lit. Estes: Is that the photograph that's taken at night that is dimly lit? Aguire: Yes. Yes, that's the one. And I might add that our intent is to paint the roof beams to match the roof of whatever color and our thinking, red, but we would still request the Tight. Estes: Tim, does Staff recommendation remain the same that the roof beams be unlighted? Conklin: I have not seen those photographs. I would be concerned about not allowing them to be lighted in Glenwood Shopping Center and allowing them to be lighted at this location, with consistency. Odom: On that issue I think the Sonic had lighting that comes out the top of the cones that we did not allow for in that instance. Is that correct Tim? Conklin: The lighting on the cones at Sonic, I do believe the do probably have the neon tube lighting around the cones that does not change color. We did not allow I believe the lighting that shoots out the top. • Odom: That's what I was asking about. We did not allow that? • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 12 Conklin: No. Odom: Okay. Estes: Tim, the third Commercial Design Standard issue I have is the E.I.F.S. Is the Amarillo White E.I.F.S. that's being proposed this evening acceptable to Staff? Conklin: Based on the sample board that they presented, yes it is: Estes: Mr. Chairman, I have no other questions regarding the Commercial Design Standards. Marr: Mr. Chair? Odom: Mr. Marr. Marr: I have a question for the applicant. On the second elevation here on the left, on our drawings it showed signs for the oil company I think on either side. Is that in fact happening or is it as shown on that board? Fullerton: It's shown as on the board. I brought a picture that we were going to be able to present to you that showed that sign on the building, but it didn't come in yet. So you see the blank space on that existing restaurant of that picture, but the plan is to have the sign in that space. It's, the picture of the sign within another picture so you could try and imagine what it really looks like. But, to actually show the actual colors. Marr: So there will be two additional signs, one on each side of the existing one shown today? Fullerton: No. Just how it's drawn. Aguire• The final product will look as shown in this elevation drawing. Man: Okay. Thank you. Bunch: I'm confused on the drawing. It says oil partner's sign is to be located this area. It calls for one. To the left as you are looking at the elevation it's to the left of the sign. Is that, am I correct that you are deleting that? • Fullerton: This is all one sign. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 13 Bunch: Now look immediately to the Left of that. Fullerton: Here? Bunch: Yes. Look at the description... Aguire: I can clarify that. What our drawings do is they dash in an entire piece of the elevation that gets support structure so anywhere in that zone a sign can be mounted and on our particular one it's going to be mounted as show. There will not be an additional sign. Bunch: There will not be one. Aguire: Right. It's an architectural notation. Bunch: Thank you. Marr: Has the applicant considered any other roof color other than this red at the City's recommendation? Fullerton: Well, we went thru our book and thought there were a couple of options but there weren't. I mean the red is the red that we brought you so, any other color would have to be painted and maintenance on painted metal, I mean, it's not going to be as long lasting and it may not look as well, it may not hold up as well as the metal that comes in the red is our only concern. Odom: Staff? Commissioner Marr are you finished with your questioning? Marr: I am I guess except maybe one other question for the city. Were there any, did we offer any other color choices when an applicant comes in with one and we don't approve that? Do we give them color choices other than these particular buildings? I'm just curious what the process is. Conklin: Sure. I encouraged them to look at what's been approved by this Planning Commission in this development and what color reds have been approved with regard to the brick color and asked if they could look at toning down the red color and have some more earth tone color that would match what's proposed for the grocery store that's been proposed for Bank of Fayetteville. I did not give them samples but I did encourage them to offer other options regarding color. Keep in mind the Commission needs to keep in mind that the red color is being proposed for the actual carwash also. And you will have red on the gasoline canopy pumps • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 14 so this red color will be on three structures on this sight. Hoover: Tim, what color roof is the Bank of Fayetteville? Conklin: That's gray. Hoover: And is it galvalin metal or is that a painted gray, enamel gray? Conklin: I am not sure how they are placing that color on that roof system. Hoover: I'm dust not familiar with painted roofs. They come in colors from the factory that are guaranteed for many years so I don't get the explanation that they would have to be painted if they didn't use this red. Conklin: I don't know how to answer that question. Aguire: For clarification, I might add the MBCI panels are pre -made manufactured metal panels come in certain color spectrums. The reds are limited to what we have proposed. Hoover: There is a rustic red. Aguire: My understanding is to get a different hue of the red you have to paint the metal after the manufacturer has already provided one color. At least from the supplier that we use. Hoover: Did you look at others besides MBCI? Other manufacturers? Aguire: I have not personally. We do have specifications that allows a substitute material for our contractors if it's available and I'm not aware of it being available. We do build facilities in this area quite often. I say this area, I mean Northwest Arkansas and the red that you see is the red that we, typically is available to us. Shackelford: Is the Glenwood Shopping Center McDonald's painted or is that enamel? Fullerton: The teal? Shackelford: The teal. • Conklin: The teal is I believe, I think it's painted. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 15 Fullerton: Painted. Bunch: Commissioner? Odom: Go ahead. Bunch: I have a question for Staff. On this Wedington Place Shopping Center monument sign there's a red boarder on the bottom, would that, looks like a good compromise between red on McDonald's roof and the red in the stores, is that an approved color? Conklin: I have asked them to match their colors towards what their using in this shopping center. Yes, I would approve that. I would recommend approval to the Commission of that color. Bunch: The one on the horizontal bar between the two uprights, right below where it says shopping center. Aguire: That color is actually misleading in the rendering. It's on that exhibit of bricks that I showed you. It's actually a brown I believe. I think it was called to be Acme Park Avenue. It would be color 150 on that sample board. Second from the bottom on the left. Odom: I'm going to ask that Commissioner Estes discuss the variance requests. There are three of them and they were discussed at Planning, at Subdivision. Estes: Mr. Chairman, at Subdivision the three requested variances were discussed. The first variance being a variance from section 161.21 (D)(6) of the Design Overlay District requirement of one curb allowed per 200 feet of frontage and to allow a driveway within 250 feet of an intersection. This applicant proposes to install a driveway approximately 130 feet from the intersection of Steamboat Drive and Wedington Drive and then the second driveway approximately 130 feet to the north of the first driveway. The first driveway is proposed to be constructed across from the driveway that was approved for the Bank of Fayetteville. The second driveway is a one way, one lane egress drive. The Subdivision Committee was in favor of this variance. There is a memo in your packet from Perry Franklin which supports this request. The thinking was in part that the first variance, the driveway of approximately 130 feet from the intersection of Steamboat Drive and Wedington drive was to allow ingress and egress into the project. This is going to be a dual branded project, McDonald's and Exxon. There's going to be the traffic that is normally associated with a fast food delivery system such as McDonald's • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 16 and then the self service of gas, Exxon, and a wider ingress and egress. A 130 foot variance, it was thought, was needed for free flow of traffic in and out and for circulation around the building, that is, the McDonald's store and the Exxon store. The second driveway to the back being a one lane egress drive, the thinking was to be able to get service vehicles in and out. It was explained to us that the inventory will be provided by moving an 18 -wheeler in which will park parallel to the east side of the building across the handicap spots and will unload to the back of the building. And then can exit thru the one, the second driveway to the rear. The second variance , should I stop there and allow discussion or do you wish me to go forward with the variances? Odom: Go ahead and address all three. Estes: The second variance was a variance from section 172.01 of the Parking Lot Design Standards requirement for an internal drive aisle width of 24 maximum for aisles with spaces at 90 degree angles and 18 feet maximum for aisles with spaces at 60 degree angles. This applicant is requesting a drive aisle width of 33.3 feet on the east side and 41.4 feet on the south side and 22 feet on the north and west side. The applicant has provided a parking and loading numbers for our consideration and we have in our packet an enclosed table from Chapter 172 of our Parking and Loading Ordinance. The third variance was a variance from section 172.01 (C)(5)(b)(1)(a) of the Parking Lot Design Standards for a one way out drive width of 12 feet. The applicant is proposing an 18 foot width. The Subdivision Committee was also in favor of this variance. Simply stated, Mr. Chairman, the consensus of opinion and the thinking of Subdivision was that with the high volume of traffic coming in and out of this the need to protect pedestrians moving from their cars into the building and out of the building and back to their cars, the requirement to have a free flow of traffic around the building that these variances were necessary both in terms of the safety issue and second in terms of being able to move patrons in and out of the project in a timely and expedient manner. Odom: Commissioner is there any other questions or comments of either the Subdivision or of Staff with regard to those three particular variance requests? Then what I would like to do is come down to item number six which is also for conditional use to allow 20 additional parking spaces for a total of 52 parking spaces. The development is required to have 27 parking spaces and is allowed 32 spaces with the additional 20 percent allowance. And Staff, do you want to comment on that since we commonly have problems with restaurants and parking. Conklin: Our ordinances currently allow parking spaces at one space per 200 square feet. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 17 Typically that is not enough for restaurants. You're typically looking at one parking space for three seats plus employees. With this McDonald's at this location staff is in favor of this additional parking. This is also a convenience store, gas station that will also have additional traffic into this facility, therefore, staff is in support of this. We've granted parking conditional uses for additional parking for other types of restaurants and overall parking will probably be needed at this site. Odom. Commissioners, are there any questions of Staff or the Applicant with regard to the conditional use number six? Then all that is left is for a motion or some additional discussion on the Commercial Design Standards. Marr. Mr. Chair, based on the Staff's recommendations I do believe that the roof color that there are other options other than red that are in compliance with our ordinances here in the City of Fayetteville and certainly with Staff's recommendations here. I'm going to move for approval of LSD 00-8 based on these twelve conditions that the applicant must meet. Hoover: MOTION Odom: Marr: Aguire: Odom: Aguire: • Conklin: I'll second. We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and seconded by Commissioner Hoover for approval of Large Scale Development 00-8 with the conditions of approval including that the roof color be revised to coordinate with other approved developments in Wedington Place Addition and that the roof beams remain the same color as the roof and be unlighted and that the waiver requests in item number two be granted and that the conditional use in item number 6 be granted. Have I stated that motion correctly? Yes. I believe, was there a concession on the lighting on the roof beams? That was item number two, was that the roof beams remain the same color and be unlighted. Did you allow the beam light? No, I recommended that they not be lighted. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 18 Odom. Item number 3 that was on there was that Staff recommended in place of the Amarillo White E.I.F.S. the brown be used but that was what was removed and the Amarillo White was what Staff had agreed to. So that condition number 3 was taken out. Any further discussion? ROLL CALL Upon roll call, the motion carries on a vote of 7 yea and 2 abstain. • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 19 LSD 00-5.00 STEEL CROSSING, PP 212 Odom: Staff, do you have additional conditions of approval on the next item that we have before us? I did not bring mine with me from Subdivision today. Do you have a copy of the staff report that I can review while we are going over the next item? Conklin: I have an additional copy Odom: Okay, the next item we have on tonight's agenda is Large Scale Development 00- 5 submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Milholland Engineering or on behalf of Argus Properties for property located at lot 15 of CMN Business Park. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 18.48 acres. The Staff's recommendation is approval contingent upon the Planning Commission determination of compliance with the eleven conditions listed below. There are eleven, it looks as though there are actually twelve. Conklin: We added one additional condition. Odom: Twelve conditions? Conklin: Twelve conditions. Odom: Staff, has there been any additional additions made since this report? Conklin: No there has not. Odom: What I would like to do now, I'm going to give a brief overview of the procedure we will follow. We are going to get a quick Staff report first on update of this issue and then we are going to go to the Applicant for a presentation from the Applicant after the Staff presentation. After the Staff presentation we will allow for public comment. Now after we have public comment we will close public comment and go onto the questions from the Planning Commissioners to the Applicant and Staff. Now during the portion of the public comment, I know we have some good people here that want to speak. We have already had a lot of public comment on this issue and I would ask your cooperation in when you do speak you address the issues that are before us, which is the new Application that we don't have a repeat, I think we spoke everyone did a very good job of articulating new ideas and concerns and there was not a lot of repeat or overlap. We appreciate that very much. That's kind of the same format we want to follow again tonight. We Just want to make sure that we don't repeat the same information. So now moving on, Staff you gave us a detailed Staff report this • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 20 morning and I would kind of ask that you kind of give an overview of that at this time. Conklin: Yes. This Large Scale Development has been revised. It includes ten tenant spaces as shown on the sight plan. A total of 127, 884 square feet, 611 parking spaces. Two separate structures are proposed in Phase I. The first larger structure will have the two major tenants and four small shops. There is a second structure that's been proposed and it's detached from the principal structure. It contains four shops with 5,600 square feet. Phase line has been drawn on this project for Phase I of Steele Crossing and Phase II. Overall development is a combination of lot 15 and lot 7. With regard to this mornings special Subdivision Committee meeting that was held, it started at 8:30 and we met until 12.30 this afternoon. From that meeting we did discuss and actually had consensus on three items. There was a consensus on preserving two additional trees to the south. Those trees would be extended beyond south in front of the Kohls building This would result in the parking lot shifting to the south into the 25 foot green space along Shiloh Drive. There was an agreement to grant a variance for 11 foot green space along Shiloh Drive. If you're looking at your plans these are the two trees that we talked about when we went on tour out to the site. Because of that this access drive in front of the stores, that's been shifted to the south which shifted the parking lot down further to the south which is requiring this 11 foot green space. There was also a consensus to require planting 4" caliper trees along the back behind the Kohls building, major tenant A, within this green space area. Every other tree would be replaced from the 2" caliper to the 4" caliper. That was discussed and agreed to, to help mitigate the loading docks on the north side of the building. The Committee also added a condition to screen all utility equipment on the ground and on top of the building. So those are the three items that were discussed and agreed upon today. It has been quite a bit of time talking about tree preservation, the role of the Landscape Administrator and her making a recommendation to this Commission and the Commission having to decide the issue with regard to approving or denying the tree preservation plan as a part of this Large Scale Development. That's all I have at this time. Odom. Is that all from Staff? Conklin: Yes. Odom. Kim, are you prepared to make your presentation at this time? Would you please come forward. Hesse: First I would like to recognize everyone's hard work and it's been a long road. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 21 That includes the Mayor, the Public Works Director, City Council, this Planning Commission, Planning Staff. Everyone has spent a lot of time including the developer and his representatives, representatives of CMN Business Park. Like I said it's been a long hard road and I think we are getting much closer to a meeting of the minds. I think it's warranted to mention the implied intention of these Ordinances. I feel that like the Commercial Design Standards, the Overlay District, our stricter Grading Ordinances, Tree Preservation Ordinance, I think that all says, I mean most of these ordinances are brought up under public request and I think that says something of the City of Fayetteville's residents. They want their city to stay in it's, remain in it's unique character. To hold onto some of it's heritage and culture and it's natural beauty. I think that, that is worthy of mentioning and considering during these discussions. This ordinance, the Tree Preservation Ordinance is a very difficult ordinance to read, to understand, interpret, to review. I think there is many reasons for that. One of them is as you know, most ordinances are written in a general sense. To generally meet all sites. And certainly Tree Protection Ordinances is very site specific. Not only do you have the site limitations of grading, utilities, easements where you can flow your sewer to, such like that, but you also have all the criteria of the canopy, whether it's rare trees or whether it's just in canopy. Often times we find heavily forested sites that really have no trees 24" or larger but they are so dense that you know those trees are eighty to a hundred years old just like a rare tree but our ordinance does not cover them. There's a lot of issues like that, that are very gray with this ordinance. That causes a lot of confusion. Confusion for Staff, confusion for developers and for engineers. I think there's one thing this whole conflict has brought to light is a couple of what I think are shortfalls in the ordinance. First of all I need to complement the committee that created this ordinance. There is a lot of very competent people writing this ordinance. I think the intent of the ordinance was excellent in theory. It's a very good ordinance. But it took years to write. It took a lot of compromise. Again it's difficult to be site specific. I think a couple of these shortfalls adds to the confusion. One when you look at subdivisions, whether residential or commercial. Taking residential subdivisions for example, we spend hours with developers and engineers designing around trees, designing the horizontal alignments of the streets and where the sewer and water lines will lie. We spend I don't know how much time with contractors and the contractors just bend over backwards trying to work around some of these trees and all of us can stand there and realize as soon as that subdivision reaches final plat, the city steps back. The homeowners, homebuilders come in and often times, even to their best intentions, most of the trees we were able to preserve are removed during construction of the home. And that's very frustrating for everyone that's involved. So it becomes difficult. Commercial subdivisions are the same way. We have the same conditions for commercial subdivisions where • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 22 you have to save that 15% canopy, 15% of the site in existing canopy. Well you do so and then the Large Scale Developments of each site also falls under the ordinance so how do you look at those? Do you take a percentage of the subdivision? I mean when we approve these preservation plans for the subdivision we don't put those trees in easements. We don't protect them in any other way. So that adds to the confusion as well. And I think in this particular case that confusion has come forward. When I make my recommendation I try to look at all sides. I am not, my opinions do not come from a tree hugger. I'm not an active environmentalist. My background, I have a degree as a Landscape Architect which is a five year accredited course. That education takes us thru years of designing developments just like this. Designing subdivisions. We go thru several semesters of sight design where you analyze the site. And often you are analyzing the natural resources on the site and trying to determine how to best utilize those, work with them and have that complement your development. So that's where my education background comes. Immediately after graduation I went to work for CEI Engineering and did work for their local development team where I worked with several developers much like Argus Properties, developing large commercial developments, residential developments in the communities throughout Northwest Arkansas. 1, for one can contest that or state that Fayetteville is a difficult city to develop in. It was one of the most difficult to have to come before Planning Commissions and City Council. I used to represent, I used to design as well as represent the project and I know how difficult it is. There are more ordinances, more staff, more committees. It's that much more difficult. As far as the engineering side, unless you have done this kind of work yourself, you don't realize how much time it takes before a development is even turned in. So much work has brought, so many hours are spent before the city staff even looks at a plan and oftentimes after forty, fifty, sixty hours of work you take it to the planning department, you get a better idea of what they want, you go back to the drawing board, you go back, this and that, finally you submit your plan. I realize that when I first came here that's why I sent a letter explaining why I'm reviewing this ordinance differently because I didn't think it was fair to require them to make changes when they didn't see if coming. It is a very difficult thing to do. Developers take a lot of risk ahead of time. I have experience with a small subdivision that we were a developer within the Northwest Arkansas area and I know developers put all the money up front. I mean, it's their risk strictly. They buy the property, they pay the cost for infrastructure. Almost always you have overruns. There are almost always situations that you don't foresee that cost more money. And most, I would say probably, most developments, the developer at some point or other just is praying at night that he brakes even. And it is a high risk. It's a risk taken because the rewards are higher but they are not always there. And you have to step lightly and • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 23 you have to know what you're doing to be profitable at this business. Then there is the public point of view. I found some people could stand up here and give you thousand different reasons why those trees should be preserved. There is the environmental aspects. There is the cultural, historical, emotional and there are economical reasons for saving trees. Like I said , I came from an engineering and architectural background. I had to take 18 months to really learn what tree protection is really all about, to understand what urban forestry was. After 18 months I feel like I have a good understanding and I think it's very important that not only are we adding more trees to our community but we are preserving what we have. In a community like Fayetteville where there are so many trees and you are so close to the Ozark National Forest, it's easy to just see all the trees and not really pay attention to what's there. There were other communities that are much bigger than us that started out very much like us and those communities are wishing that they had had stricter ordinances because they find themselves now in a sea of concrete and asphalt. They find their heating bills raised, their cooling bills higher in the summertime. They realize the benefit to storm water and air quality abetment. And that is why this ordinance is important and those viewpoints are very important. These are the issues, basically, I took into account when I developed this recommendation. It is my opinion as Landscape Administrator I have the responsibility of upholding and enforcing the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance. It is my opinion as to whether a piece of property can be feasiblely developed and the existing tree canopy preserved. The property must remain developable in it's current zoning designation. Steele Crossing is zoned C-2. For this reason it is my opinion that it is too much to ask the developers of this project to preserve all of the rare and landmark trees on the site. Though, again, I would like to point out that a large percentage of these trees were submitted as tree preservation at that preliminary plat approval. But, again we do have recommendations for the individual lots and that is where we find ourselves today. From the beginning of this project I took the stance that we should apply the 15% requirement in this type of situation. In an attempt to prove to the Planning Commission that this development could be developed in kind and the trees preserved I developed a concept that kept the intent of the original design while preserving what I estimate to be half of the existing canopy. I made this recommendation at the March 27, 2000 Planning Commission meeting and this remains my recommendation tonight, April 24, 2000. By adding the calculations of the latest plan and I believe they are the same, that was just turned in today, 23% of the entire site is covered in existing tree canopy. Half of this canopy would represent 11.5% of the entire site. I recommend that the developers be asked to preserve 11.5% of the entire 29.9 acre site in tree canopy. The proposal before us is for just over 10%. I feel that the developers have demonstrated good faith in their efforts to meet the requirements that were established at that 27`" Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 24 Odom: Planning Commission meeting. I think in a perfect world we could save all 81 of these rare trees. Ideally, we should preserve 15% of the existing canopy. But in all fairness my previous recommendation was to preserve half of the canopy and that remains my recommendation today. I feel that recommendation can be satisfied with the preservation of 11.5% of the 29.9 acre site. Thank you Kim. Before we do questions, because we are going to have them, I want to do that and then we come back. Now what I'd like to do is bring it to the Applicants for their presentation. Rankin: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm Curt Rankin with Argus Properties. We are again focusing I think primarily, unless I'm confused, solely on the tree preservation as the presentation here before Commission. There are other issues. Is everybody okay with all the other issues and that this is the only thing that remains or are there any questions about any of the other design standards, any of the other issues that have been discussed this morning or previously about the project before we launch into just this one single issue? • Odom. What we are going to do is you are going to make your presentation now with regard to this Large Scale Development. If you want to state some stuff about Commercial Design Standards I urge you to do it at this time. I also urge you to touch on the tree canopy thing. Then I will take public comment, then we will come back and address specific issues and so forth and you will be given the opportunity to answer those questions at that time. Make any presentation that you care to right now with regard to the approval of this subdivision, wether it's trees or Commercial Design Standards or variance requests. Or you can preserve that until afterwards if you want to. That's your call. • Rankin: Well, I just was trying to understand exactly where we were going. Odom. The trees are not the only issue. We are going to focus on the entire thing. Obviously the trees are going to be the main thing. Rankin: Well, it's certainly an issue. With respect to the overall development we have made numerous changes since our initial submissions to comply with various requests by the Staff. We've increased, on the rear of the store for instance we've had several different comments about what we needed to do with the rear of the stores, how we needed to provide additional articulation and screening and so on and so forth and we've made those changes. I believe that we have, with all those have complied. That was one of the reasons that I was certainly willing, subsequent to this, to address any specific questions but, because I'm not aware of • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 25 any issues outstanding with respect to that. If there are I'm certainly willing to listen to those. As a part of our adjustments and so on as we have gone thru this project we started off with the usual prospects or process rather, of getting comments at the Subdivision Committee level and moved forwarded to the previous discussions before the Planning Commission here and most of you were here at that time. I see there are some new faces that were not here at that time. I think, and we have further refined most of the questions with respect to the architectural designs of the buildings and so on. One of the standards, guidelines that was issued to us at the time of our initial presentation that we have made and spent, I think that everybody has spent a great deal of time on is the issue of tree preservation. In the first thing that I want to clarify, and maybe it's clear in all of your minds but, that at no time have we believed that we was submitting a plan that was inconsistent with the overall ordinances and in particular with Chapter 167 of the City Ordinance. This ordinance provides for a combination of preservation and replacement of the tree canopy. And to achieve an overall canopy area equal to 15% of the total site. The ordinance has been in existence, I don't know, I've heard different numbers, 1992, 1993, I'm not sure, but it's been in existence at least seven years, and other commercial developments have been completed in this jurisdiction under this very same ordinance and they have utilized the replacement provisions extensively. I had three examples that I spoke to this morning and I want to reiterate them here that have been done since this ordinance has been adopted. The National Home Centers development site canopy area was achieved thru 100% replacement trees. The Wal-Mart site on Joyce Avenue was a 25 acre site which had prior to development 2.5 acres of existing canopy. The canopy that was ultimately preserved with this development based on the plans that were submitted thru the City was 0% and for some reason 11% replacement canopy area was approved. This plan was produced by CEI at the time the Tree Administrator was an employee there. The third example is the Washington Regional Medical Center which prior to development had 14.7% tree canopy and 7.9% preserved and approved in 1998 after the Tree administrator was here. I think these few examples demonstrate the replacement is not only a permissible method of achieving required canopy coverage but was and is consistently utilized for achieving canopy replacements requirements of the ordinance. Since the initial study of this project started a little over 18 months ago, and one of the questions was asked why had we, is this only become an issue now, what we looked at in terms, with regard to this was the ordinance and how it was interpreted and what consistently utilized based on the previous rulings and trying to come up with a plan. I admit our initial plan required, got us to the required canopy area almost totally with replacement trees as provided in section 167.02 e2 in the ordinance. We have made some rather huge adjustments to try to bring this into compliance, however we have had sort of a consistently moving • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 26 target to deal with. At Subdivision Committee we were told both verbally by the Tree Administrator and per written instructions that she thought we ought to be able to preserve 15% of the existing canopy. Now that is totally different from 15% of the total site area. But the instructions were 15% of the existing canopy. The plan that we submitted at the agenda session exceeded that. Then we were told, well, that's not what it was and we should have been sufficiently omniscient to know that, regardless of what's written in the instructions that we should have known better than to that, that was not what was meant by that regardless of what it said. So, not with standing that, we moved forward again and we had a long meeting to try to come up with a plan with the Tree Administrator, with Director of Public Works, and spent a long time hashing out a plan and we came up with a plan that at the end of that meeting was agreed upon by all parties in the meeting. We presented that plan and that was the plan that was presented this morning. Now we are told that, not with standing the agreement at the time we came up with that, that is not good enough either. So, I can't, I feel like I'm in a track meet or something trying to do the high Jump. You clear this hurdle, well we are going to raise the bar again and we are going to keep raising it. That becomes very difficult to work with from my standpoint. Where we are now with the plan we produced this morning, we went out on site, it was requested we make an additional modification to try to pick up another two rare trees, which we have done by putting a slight kink in the road. We have reduced some of our parking islands, landscape islands on the end of the parking rows to be able to have a minimum twisting and turning for vehicular traffic thru there. We were able to increase our percentage up to the level where we are now at 10.29, 10.3% of the total site in preserved canopy. Our replacement numbers added to this and would not reduce the replacement trees that we planted takes us way over 25% total canopy requirements for the entire site. So, we are not skimping by. We are far exceeding the minimum standards set forth in the ordinance. In addition, it was requested that, and we agreed to plant, in addition to the 2" replacement trees, diameter replacement trees that are called for in the ordinance, along Van Asche and that we replaced every other of our previous 2" trees, we will replace with 4" trees to give that sort of a jump start and to provide additional screening from the back of the stores on Van Asche. So we have done that. I think that we have shown that we are willing to make huge changes. We have made huge changes, and the other thing is well, why can't you move a little bit more?, which you know essentially we have pushed the buildings as far as we can reasonably. There is one issue that I would like to point out, and I'm not sure I know the exact difference between the two, but the Tree Administrator's presentation she said we had to do whatever was feasible. The ordinance does not use the word feasible it uses the word reasonable and that is in 167-05 b 6. The best way we thought to preserve the trees on the site for numerous reasons, the ones that we are • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 27 preserving, because they are clumped so close together there, is to separate the buildings and let them stay in a group as they have managed to grow over the years rather than scatter around. So as we have separated the buildings we have moved the potential tenant in lot 7 to the west to the point where we have cut, and they have agreed to cut the back corner off of their building to stay out of the setback requirements, we have pushed the other tenants to the east to achieve the separation between the major tenants. We started off with the buildings, with the walls side by side with over 200' of separation between those two major tenants. We have restraints on further movement to the east and in that we have an existing sewer easement running thru the property. We have not moved the buildings all the way to that level, to some extent, is it physically possible to do it, yes, but as we go that direction and with the angle, depending on how you look at it, the angle of Shiloh or the angle of Van Asche relative to Shiloh, it means bringing the buildings further forward. We have had, and I have mentioned and everybody seems to think that I'm focusing 100% on parking lot, but trying to satisfy the tenants essential for this development, we have to meet certain parking ratios for those tenants. The Kohls building for instance, Kohls has agreed to begin with this, to let you know that they, it's not a question of not making any concessions, this plan is shown, they have come off over 100 parking spaces from their standard criteria. The tenant to the west is willing to cut off part of his building to let us move him as far to the west as we can, Kohls has reduced their standard parking requirements by essentially 20% to try to make this work. We have a third tenant that we have shown these various plans, this major tenant A which is our furthermost western tenant that we have got a couple of people we are talking with but we have grave problems in dealing with them with such a restricted parking field in front of them. One other thing we focused on the 23, 25 trees that we are saving, those are the mature trees, they are an additional, in that preserve area, they are an additional, I think the number is 60 trees that are not in the status of the rare tree status but they are above 4" in diameter, 18", 19", 16" of a variety so, what you see there represents what we are required to show and that is the rare trees that are referred to as mature trees and certain other submissions, but that does not show all that's being saved as far as an absolute tree count but our concern is trying to put additional charts of other counts and we have counts of counts and so on and we get so balled up in numbers and percentages that it almost becomes unintelligible and I'm not trying to continue to go that route at this point. I believe we have made monumental efforts to get to this level. I request that we approve this level. I think that it is significantly more than any of the other retail sights that I have seen in this town in terms of preservation and replacement. This I'm willing to do but I think I am pushed pretty much to the limit on this. There is not a whole lot of wiggle room left in this at this point and time. Again we have been chasing a rainbow in terms of trying to find out exactly • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 28 what it is we needed here, this number tonight, I would ask you to give favorable consideration to this. PUBLIC COMMENT Odom: Thank you Mr. Rankin. What I would like to do now is ask members of the audience who would like to address us, come on up and line up behind the podium so we don't waste too much time. Go ahead and line up behind him whoever else wants to speak. Emenegger Hello. I was very moved by that speech he made. My name is Bob Emenegger and I'm representing the Board of Directors of Friends for Fayetteville which has a membership, paying membership of over 300 people. And by the way, three out of the four who are running for Mayor are members of Friends for Fayetteville. Interesting. The Friends for Fayetteville Board has unanimously agreed to stand in support of the decisions of the Landscape Administrator, Kim Hesse, and her recommendations and any other environmental ordinances that might be applied to this Kohls development. Now, I would like to very briefly read you and e-mail that came to me and I think that it's very pertinent after what I've heard. It's written by a man named Scott Gruenwald, do you know who he is? Some of you? Anyway, he wrote, " My name is Scott Gruenwald. From 1987 to `94 I was staff architect for Wal-Mart stores in Bentonville. I designed many stores all over the country and worked with Planning Commissions and Review Boards. I would take a store design and modify it to fit each site and restrictions imposed by the local authorities. We had to abide by building aesthetic review boards, landscape review boards, EPA reviews and many other public interested groups. Granted the big boys didn't care for our changes but they were made in order to be a good citizen and good neighbor in the community. The press was always important to good relations as they influenced the higher ups. Let me say that very rarely did we ever give up on a community if the economics were there. We would always modify our design to accomplish what was required, even though we, even though we protested to the very end, yes, we threatened to pull out and we, but we always, was mostly just a bluff. Certainly this real estate firm knows about your landscape ordinance and has tried to convince the buyer that they would get around it if they would, you know, if they, if they could. And to put these people on watch. - I think they were referring to the real estate people - And I'm sure an architectural site engineer staff could provide some alternate solutions to the submitted designs. Yes it will cost them more money. But they are gambling on the sight without the ordinance. Kohl is a, has a building in Rogers. They will not give up building in Fayetteville market if they have one in Rogers. If this sight does not pull thru, they will pick another one. They will not pull out • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 29 Odom: Nicholson: because, of a lucrative market. Believe me, trees do not kill their presence if they lose this one battle. A landscape ordinance is a necessary part of the responsibility and sustainability in the development and the smart thinking that can result from that. In fact it could solve their development woes if they would just abide by this, your ordinance. Finally, this will be a test case for your ordinance. It is imperative that this case be upheld. If it loses, your ordinance will be useless and many court cases will follow if others do have to abide by the ordinance and Kohl does not". He added with his own personal note which was, "Save the trees for the next generation. It takes 100 years to grow those trees and only about an hour to destroy them". And that's about what I'm, as a matter of fact somebody handed me, not that it would be that much of interest to you, but somebody handed me like 600 signatures just now to also uphold the ordinance and Ms. Hesse's recommendations. And that's all. I think you guys should know that it's sort of like a peek behind the scenes about developers and real estate and all of that. Thank you. Thank you Bob. My name is Patricia Nicholson. Last, it was about a month ago and I spoke to the children. I was in tears before you. I had never been to a meeting like this before, speaking in front of you. You're human beings but your kind of scarey to me. That, within the last I have learned a lot about politics. I've learned a lot about how this city works. I'm not going to give you the tour that I was given because that's not pertinent right now. And maybe people have been biased in their views. What I do know is that we have a law. What I understand is that it says no landmark or rare tree shall be removed from commercial land to be developed unless there is no reasonable way the property can be otherwise developed, improved or properly maintained and the trees saved. I would like to propose and the gentleman over here said that reasonable was the word. I would like to propose that we sincerely look at what is reasonable and that we get citizen input that we get your input, we get the administrator, the Landscape Administrator's input and we can get the, actually I don't think we need, and we'll get the developer's input, excuse me, a little prejudges. We need everybody sitting down and figuring out what is reasonable because we can't, with creative thinking all things are possible. I think that we are limiting ourselves when we say we can't figure out a solution. My recommendation is 15% of the canopy is saved, my recommendations is that every single one of those rare trees or 24" trees are saved. And I think that, the feeling that I get from the hundreds of people that I'm sending out e-mail to and communicating with and people come up to me, I'm not saying I've had hundreds of people speak to me, but the sense I get from the care of the people is that is what they want too. I've had people come up to me with • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 30 stories. They have been practically in tears. I know I've been told, don't look like a tree lover. Do you know how many times I've been told that? People don't' listen to tree lovers but I'm not a tree lover. I'm a person I'm a mother. You are all people and I'd just like to ask you from the standpoint of the law, please as my sign on the front page of the newspaper said, uphold the law. And thank you. Odom. Thank you Patricia. Crider Good evening. I am Jim Crider, Director of Economic Development with the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce. I want to emphasize the economical development part because I need to allay perhaps the concept that being with the Chamber of Commerce and in charge of Economic Development that I would be in favor of clear cutting everything. But that's not the case at all. And I want to commend Argus in their efforts to meet with the standards set by this community as best they can. And I think they have gone the extra mile in all their efforts. And on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce I would encourage you to let common sense prevail and come out with a win-win situation for everyone. We think that an attempt has been made, an earnest attempt to come out with a good and solid plan, an earnest attempt. And also I can speak as a bit of an authority as a professional tree climber, l grew up within two and a half blocks of where I stand right now. I've climbed most of the trees as a child in the downtown area and along College Avenue, many of which are gone now. And so I experienced what happened along College Avenue, the depletion of the canopy there and it's for that reason, the witness of what happened along College early on that I really appreciate what Argus is offering to do to save trees. In fact the last figures I saw you got a net gain of 167 trees out of this project. That doesn't sound like clear cutting to me at all, and salvaging some existing trees and bringing in some other nice size of which you all know. I went out with you at the site this morning and had the pleasure to be there along with you and to see up close the beauty that we have here in Fayetteville and I would encourage you, as I say again, to let's use common sense as I know you will. I appreciate this Planning Commission and all that you have had to go thru in particular. I know the heat's on and you have had a lot to deal with and we would encourage you to support this project as it has been submitted by Argus after so many times here. Thank you. Odom: Thank you Mr. Crider. Erf: Hi my name is Jeff Erf. I'm a resident of Fayetteville. I have a question about, • it's something different, I was wondering if the applicant had submitted a storm water management plan? • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 31 Odom: Staff? Petrie: Yes he has submitted a preliminary storm water management plan that meets the criteria. It's specified in the drainage criteria. Erf: Will there be detention on the site? Do you know? Petrie: No detention is planned for this site. Nor is it required. Erf: Okay so the flows off the parking lots then will go where? Petrie: At this time it's proposed to drain to the east towards the, one tributary to Mudd Creek. One requirement Erf: Will it go directly into Mudd Creek? Petrie: One requirement from the engineering department is it has to be addressed, the flows going directly into the creek will have to be addressed by the Corps of Engineers that they meet our ordinance. It specifies the storm water quality draining into wetlands has to be addressed. Erf: What about quantity? Petrie: Quantity is based upon the effects of peak flows. That information has been submitted and they are not effecting the peak flows in Mudd Creek. Erf: Is the storm water management plan something that the Planning Commission deals with? Odom. That's something that we rely on Staff to help us with. Erf: Do you, but is there not, is there a final approved storm water management plan? Is that how it works? Petrie: Are we talking about CMN or are we talking about this project? Erf: This project. Petrie: No. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 32 Erf: Petrie: So you are referring to the whole subdivision? I'm referring to the preliminary information that has been submitted for this project. Erf: Okay. Is that subject to change then? Petrie: Yes sir. Erf: Okay. Petrie: And additional information is required to be submitted. Erf: Okay. Is there a final grading and drainage plan? Odom: I don't mean to interrupt you but part of the conditions of approval is that Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, street, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. Erf: Right. Does that happen before or after approval by the Planning Commission? I guess my concern is that, for example, if there was, if the project required detention that it could impact where the parking lots are for example. Odom. If something is that major, then it has to come back before us. Petrie: That is correct. They have submitted the preliminary calculations showing that it does not effect the peak flows. They are not increasing the peak flows in Mudd Creek. Erf: But they have not addressed then the water quality? Petre: That's correct. There is adequate space where they are planning to discharge this. Erf: Okay. Is that indicated on what they submitted? That is before the Planning Commission now? Odom: To the Engineering Staff I would imagine. Petre: Yes. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 33 Erf: Okay. So, I'm just trying to understand the process then. Planning Commission really relies on Staff to approve final plans. Odom: That's correct. None of us are trained engineers in that regard which is why we have Staff to rely on. Erf: And the final approval for the storm water management plan can come after the Planning Commission makes a decision on whether or not to approve a project? Odom: Yes. And it's based upon them having to ok it before they are allowed to do their stuff. Erf And is the same true for the grading and excavating ordinance? Odom: That's right. It's standard, one of the standard recommendations, or conditions of approval that we have is that the final detailed plans on all of that, whether it's grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets or tree preservation, that those final ones have to be approved by Staff. Erf: Okay. Thank you very much. Odom: You're welcome. Hienselman: My name is Pete Hienselman. I've been a resident of Fayetteville for about 24 years now and I'd like to make some comments just about what I consider the big picture of this issue. I've taken the opportunity of walking thru this grove on two occasions since this question came up and I was impressed by not just the trees but the place where the trees are, the park that the trees are actually in. It's too bad really that it can't be a city park. But those trees have been there, as I understand it, many of them at least 100 years, some of them perhaps 150 years. They probably were in existence when the first settlers came to this community. And for whatever reason they survived. If we lose them, we certainly can not replace them. We can't replace the place or the trees. I was talking to Gerald Klingaman who is a horticulturist at the University. It was his feeling that there's only three places where we have a grove of trees like that in Fayetteville. This is one. One is at the agri park and the other one is by the Farm Bureau building on Hwy 16. It's not so unique to have a couple 150 year old around but it certainly is to have 98 of them around. I think we have to look at what the value of this place is and what we are possibly replacing it with. We are replacing it with essentially a lot of asphalt and a big box which is actually a building. A store. There is a longevity on those things, that store. I don't know how long people from the • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 34 business community consider these stores to last but would you think they would last 40 years? I don't think they last much longer than that. Then you have to think what are you going to do with that place that you have changed. I think you also have to look at the grove in it's, for it's economic value. To me it has a lot of economical value for what it will give to things that are around it. It would be a wonderful center for a group of businesses or surrounding businesses to use as a focal point. It would draw people to that area where they could enjoy this park are and in turn would enhance the businesses. So I would like you to consider those kind of big picture thoughts about this place. Thank you. Odom: Thank you. Easton: Hi, my name is Terry Easton and I have the very great pleasure of spending the morning with the sub committee and going out and seeing this site. I do believe that Argus Properties has made a valiant attempt to preserve this canopy as much as possible given the scale of the development. I also was overawed by this Commission's desire to set a new standard in our community, or start more closely upholding the ordinances as they read. I Liked Argus' presentation, the problem that I have is that when someone stands before me and says well you ought to let me do it because you let everybody else, that doesn't hold water here. I charge you all very, very deeply to find a compromise. I'm not sure from Ms. Hesse's presentation weather she is telling all of us that we are within a point and a half or a percentage point and a half of saving this canopy, and if we are that close can we not go ahead and do that? Are we charged with a 23% canopy which is my understanding will be preserved or will be viable once the new facility is up and running or are we talking about a 10.23% of the canopy that is actually only the old portion of the existing trees? It's not in my understanding and in my mind clear yet exactly what all these numbers represent and I hope that it is to you all because you are setting a standard. Economics for our community is a big part of that standard and I applaud Argus' position and willingness to work with the community. But I do not applaud their standing up here and saying, you ought to let me do it just because you let everybody else That's the only point I wanted to make. I know your decision is tough. I would hate to be in your chair, but I hope that you will remember that these trees are a valuable asset to our community and whatever decision that is made should not be made lightly. Thank you. Odom: Thank you Terry. Is there any other public comment? Coody: I'm Dan Coody from Fayetteville and a lot of folks want to back away from being an environmentalist but I readily admit that I'm an environmentalist and I'm also a capitalist. You wanted to know if there are any new ideas and I have one. I • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 35 Alder: wish that this had come out about a year and a half ago and there was more time to discuss ideas like this. In extreme circumstances, sometimes we need to think outside the box. What I would suggest, I know there is not much time on this, it's probably too late for this particular project, but if another example like this ever comes up, maybe something that could be applied then might be something along the lines what we could have used here, is that if we use 15% as the number and 30 acres as the number of acres here, 30 acres, then that would roughly be 4.5 acres of canopy to be preserved. Once the buildings get built and the, if we use the 1 5%, the 4.5 acres of trees canopy are preserved and that 4.5 acres makes no money for Argus or Kohls, it's just basically to them, it's land they have to pay taxes on and maintain. Maintain liability on if somebody goes out there and hurts themselves they will be liable for it. They have to pay property taxes from them on as long as they own it in perpetuity. What I would do if I were in a position to do so, I would look at designing a situation like this to where the 4.5 acres could be made into an oasis there in the scenic business park to where it could be tied in with the trail system, actually donate it to the city as a park thereby relieving the department store and the property owners of maintenance of the land, relieving them of any liability as far as someone hurting themselves and suing and relieving themselves of all future property taxes and getting roughly a million dollar tax benefit from it. So instead of being 4.5 acres of land they can't do anything with, it's not a liability to them and it becomes a big tax benefit. That way the citizens get the preservation they are interested in and the business could get the money concentrated where they can get the best use out of it. And I hope that one of these days we will be able to start thinking like this because in extreme circumstances like this, I think that may be a viable alternative. I don't know if it would work, but it certainly worth the research to see if it would. Thank you very much. Hello, my name is William Alder and I come to you today bearing a, uh informal message from the International Anti -Development Collective of Organizations. I just returned from Washington, D.C. where you may have seen myself and a few thousand of my friends on television. We had a couple thousand people get arrested. Last fall we shut down Seattle and, forcing the Chief of Police to resign. Took the covers of all the news magazines around the world. I just wanted to let you know that Fayetteville is now in the spotlight, at least as much as a community this size can be internationally. There are a lot of people watching this region of the country and there are a lot of developers who seem to feel that they can come to this part of the country scott free an get away with a lot of things that they would never be able to get away with in California or New York or, in many cases in, you know, places like Canada. This is something that really concerns a lot of people at an international level, that there are areas like this that • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 36 set bad precedents. We have an example of the developer talking to us, you know, if you let Wal-Mart do it you should let us do it? If your rules are meant to be broken then why can't I brake them also? This is where many, many thousands of people around the world are getting very angry at elected officials and at developers, is because number one the rules aren't strong enough and number two they are not respected when they are there. If you look around Fayetteville I wonder how many people have been out protesting in the streets because they feel they are going to loose some tax revenues because Kohls is delayed for a few weeks or the developer loses a couple hundred thousand dollars having to redesign the center to meet the community's demands. I haven't heard any of those voices. I mean, maybe there's a few, but it seems to me that people in Fayetteville are pretty happy with the economy that they've got and they like the standard of living here. That's what brings people here as residents, because they like all the green. That's why they are not living in Springdale. And that's why we have a high quality standard of living and it's why we have a reputation around the country as an attractive place to live. Right now, we have before you all an issue that's confronting you which basically is being watched throughout this country and within certain circles around the world to see what's going to happen. What's going to be done and where is Fayetteville going to stand. And this is going to, if Fayetteville stands the right way on this, this could impact this community in terms of many millions of dollars of revenue of people interested in moving here and doing good things. Doing things the right way. Bringing those people to town. If the decision comes down that we are not going to respect the rules then probably the option is going to happen is that a lot of those people are going to start feeling like they would rather move to someplace where the rules are respected. Our economy is going to be hurt as a city even though Kohls economy may be doing fine. So what I'm asking you to consider here today is where caving into this developer and keeping the growth restrictions we have as lenient as they are is worth the possible repercussions that come along with that. Which many of you might not know what's been going on around the world but, we just made Starbucks start buying free trade coffee from small farmers as a large percentage of their coffee because they have been buying very cheep coffee where they are spraying DDT on the workers in the fields. People didn't feel that was right. Starbucks caved into us. We just took on the nations largest developer of suburbs, Cyntax. Basically, I don't know the details of it, but a week ago, just said that they were going to meet 100% the demands of the environmental community even though that exceeded what they felt they were legally required to do because they understood what was going to happen to them otherwise. And the same with Lowes and Home Depot. All these companies are changing the way that they do business because they have no choice. Because they are being forced to respect the communities that they are coming to. And Kohls is no 1 • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 37 different from these guys. If they think they can get away with this, it's not just the Fayetteville Planning Commission that's going to be held accountable, it's citizens everywhere and the corporations involved. There are a lot of people watching this to see what happens from other states willing to come here on busses to lock down, to really cost this city and this area major, major in its reputation and also in the cost of handling this situation. It's not just about a few trees the developer is talking about ten trees here, ten trees there, to meet the different criteria. It's about where do we stand on our development policy. And that is something that you need to think about not only in this case but also in the future, how much more of this is going to happen and how many more trees are we going to lose and still be the Fayetteville that people are in love with. Thank you. McKinney: Good afternoon. My name is Tom McKinney representing the Arkansas Sera Club and our members here in Fayetteville. Many folks before me have talked about the value of trees and done it very eloquently so I will bypass that and go straight into a couple of things I think that have not been asked or addressed as of yet. First of all I want to make sure I understand, I talked to Ms. Hesse earlier and trying to understand exactly what this proposal is. This is two separate lots that are being considered as a single unit basically. If the eastern most lot was considered by itself the plan would save, the store on that plan would actually save I believe 14.5% of the total canopy area. That's basically almost meeting the 15% canopy retention requirement. But however the building for the eastem most lot, being built the way it is would only save one tree. I think that came down to maybe 3% of retention if that much. The total, since we are considering both lots, both lots still are only going to save I believe 10.5% under the developer's proposal right now or close to that. Again that's 10.5% of the canopy area of both parcels. Is that correct? Odom: 10.29%. McKinney: It's .29. I'm sorry. I guess I'm going to be up here asking you all to uphold and defend the Tree Preservation Ordinance particularly since unlike other developments where replanting has been used, there has never been one with such a large number or such a large are of what is defined under the city ordinances as rare or landmark trees. First of all being their size, second of all being the type of remnant habitat that used to be here in Northwest Arkansas. Basically an old savannah prairie. I looked up Kohls web site today and they are engaged in a very aggressive building campaign across the United States with their stores. According to their site they were supposed to have put in forty to forty-five stores around the country last year. They are shooting for fifty stores this year. So, this • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 38 is not a mom and pop operation. They don't have what I would consider limited resources. This is happening in other communities and the same process. I have not yet heard anybody ask the question what is happening in other communities that also may have tree preservation ordinances and specifically, ordinances that define a rare and landmark tree or habitat. Maybe they have complied with no problem in other cities, maybe they haven't. Maybe they have asked for variances, maybe they haven't. I don't know. I would like to see that question answered before we approve this project. One of the commission members this morning, I'm afraid I can't remember who it was, asked why not build a two story building such as Kohls has done in other places. That was never answered so I would like to possibly have that question answered, asked and answered. There certainly is no limit of sky out there and it would certainly reduce the footprint and possibly help meet the requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Also I have not heard a comparison, we keep throwing percentage points around but one percent doesn't sound like a whole lot. It all depends on what kind of area you are talking about. As in the difference in the actual canopy retention's square footage between 10.29% what the developer is asking for as opposed to 11.5% which Ms. Hesse is willing to settle for and then that difference between those two numbers and the 15% that the Tree Preservation Ordinance actually calls for. Converting that into a square footage or some sort of area we can picture in our mind, I think, might give us a better idea of what we're talking about. I would like to ask you all to please uphold this city's Tree Preservation Ordinances. I know that Mr. Conklin and Staff have been working with the developers to compromise in changing the plan. They have compromised, they have changed some things, but it's not really gotten us to where we want to go. It's gotten us from being grossly in violation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance only now to be in drastically in violation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. We are not there yet. I would ask you all to please uphold all ordinances. They were put in place by volunteers in this city, enforced by volunteers in this city, including you all and it has been a long and drawn out process to put what a lot of people consider restrictive planning regulations to, and I've heard this term used, to make it really hard for businesses tomove here or as a Chamber, as some of the Chamber members I've talked to said, it really chases them away. This city, the folks of the city of Fayetteville are not chasing anybody away. We have set standards. We've set guidelines. They should be enforced. It should be up to a developer to want to be a participant in the economy of this city and these regulations and preservation ordinances are actually going to enhance their ability to do that rather than decrease it. I would like to close real quick by quoting from today's, the great liberal newspaper The Democrat. They had a nice editorial comment in the paper this morning and it says, "The Tree Ordinance has set down a minimum and it can be met by a little more redesign work on Steele Crossing. Fear not. If the Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 39 shopping center's developers decide it's not worth the trouble there will be another development for that site soon enough.. It's prime territory. The rules and the ordinances are plain. This city just needs to stick to them and make sure everybody else does too". Thank you very much. Odom: Thank you Tom. deNoble My name is Tim deNoble. I was recently before you on a separate request. 1 just wanted to point out a couple of things not necessarily specific to this Large Scale Development. I do want to point out that the 300 acres development is approximately 263 times the size of our downtown square and what worries me in the future is that when, and I know that many of you weren't on the Commission that voted for the rezoning, but just in the future when we vote to rezone something maybe we need more than a simple request or at most a preliminary plat that we have some idea in the future about what may go into a sight that has such ramifications in that this probably, at least half the size of the original plat of Fayetteville. I would also say that as a fisherman that spends a lot of time, or used to, out on Clear Creek it's not quite as clear anymore. I hope that the Mudd Creek, which now has its appropriate name; will eventually clear up enough that the small mouth bass return to Clear Creek. Thank you. Monique: I'm Marquette Monique and I wasn't going to say anything today and I'll make this really quick. If we keep exchanging information and energy and keep talking, keep dialog and keep building bridges between each other I think we are going to figure out who we are and what we are and put our roots down and stand to it. It feels really good. Let's just keep on talking, keep on working with this. Maybe we will beef up that ordinance that probably isn't serving us like it needs to and maybe folks will come to a park that's right near Kohls Department Store and maybe they will come so often they'll go thru the doors and spend some money there. Farrell: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Robert Farrell. I live at 2413 Twin Oaks Court in the city limits of Fayetteville. I've lived here off and on for about 52 years. It seems to me like we have been following this thing pretty close and my hope was that we would find common ground and it seems like we have found some common ground. It seems like we are so close right now and ultimately the decision is going to be on your shoulders. I think that this business development will fair well for Fayetteville and it's future. I urge you to make a decision and vote in favor of the development. Thank you. Odom: Thank you Robert. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 40 Morman. My name is Barbara Morman. I live just outside the city limits in the growth area. My property spans the county and the city. I have about 45 acres in the city and about 40 outside. I may misunderstand the Tree Ordinance. My understanding is that canopy, percent of canopy, is not the same thing as rare tree and that the city, that is the Landscape Administrator has made a concession by agreeing to consider rare trees in the same context as percent of canopy. So when we talk about, 1 believe the man used the term having been pushed pretty much to the limit and Mr. Crider used the term the heat's on. I think we need to stand back somewhat from those menacing words and think in terms of concessions that have already been made to these people. I would hope that you would think of these trees and this area in the terms that for one Dr. Hienselman used rather than percentage and canopy think of them as tree. As very old trees that have been here since maybe the first settlers that create an atmosphere and ecosystem of their own that could be a park and that will never come back again if you let these people cut them down. Thank you. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Odom: Thank you Barbara. Anybody else like to address the Commission on this issue before we close the floor to public discussion? We will close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Applicant for questions and comments of the Planning Commission to the Applicant or to, and Staff if you wanted to make another presentation you are welcome to at this time. Milholland: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Number one there have been several statement made regarding Argus' request here tonight to you and being treated fairly In their investigation and in their meeting today with some of the Commissioners and again tonight he related to several projects, in discussing this situation with Mr. Tim Conklin, the Planner for City of Fayetteville, it is my understanding that what is being offered here is canopy in relation to the existing canopy and correct me if I'm wrong is beyond what is normally required to reach the 15% required by the ordinance. Most of the time, a Targe portion of the time replacement of trees, tree planting, has been the means by, whereby the canopy has been met. Just for some numbers, I don't happen to have given these to you before, so I'll give them to you now, the whole site is 29.9 acres, both lots 7 and 15 together. Our plan shows to you that the existing canopy is 23% and Ms. Hesse referred to that, and some of those trees of course are not real important but that is included in there. Just a comparison, the preserve proposed is 10.29%. These percentiles are of the entire 29.9 acres, not of canopy. Ratio of preservation of existing canopy is 44.16%. That is nearly half of the canopy has been preserved on these two tracts as far as percentage of existing canopy preserved. She is asking for • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 41 Odom: 50% and we've gone to this, the plan you have in your hand is about number fourteen that we have gone thru in trying to reach a goal that we weren't sure what was the goal other than 100% which we knew we couldn't do. Even as of today we revised it. As of Friday we revised it. Asking for waivers to do these revisions. So, which means if additional is done for this to be economically feasible for Argus it's going to take additional waivers. But, just to give you the figures, The total of canopy that's there is proposed to be preserved is 44, over 44%. Also, as far as the large number, large trees over 24", 81 trees exist 24 proposed to be preserved That is 29.6% of existing trees over 24". I asked my crews go out today, I have two crews there working, flagging and so forth so you could see it, but I also asked them to count the total number of trees 4" and Larger on these sites. On the site that is preserved, where we have been talking about 24 trees, there will be 91 trees in excess of 4" that's living today that will be preserved on that site. 91 trees that's out there. Total on the whole project including both lots is 200 trees. That's a round number but that's what it was. You would take the 91 as far as preservation of trees on this entire site it is 45.5% preservation. That's quite a number. That's a large percentage of preservation. I don't recall any particular project that's been in this town that's come thru that can come up with the same figures and percentage of preservation of existing trees nor canopy. I would like to also say in addition to that Argus plans to plant in addition, not counting the three out lots, over 240 other trees on these two Large Scale Developments. Of course, the three out lots will take care of themselves and carry themselves. The total figure, you're looking in the neighborhood of 350 plus trees including the existing 91 trees. That's going to be a lot of trees. Close to 400 counting the out lots. So we just ask you to give us your favorable consideration of Argus' efforts to bring a successful business to our community. And it will also be a very positive impact to this community. Thank you. What I would like to do now is bring it back to the Planning Commission and the first item I would like to address is item number one on the Staff's recommendations. Hoover: Commercial Design Standards and Design Overlay District Standards, you want to do those right now I think. I guess one of the large issues I have and I'm still not convinced about, I know the Overlay District line goes right thru these buildings and Staff has assured me that, that means that one side of the building must conform to the overlay district and the other side then conforms to the Commercial Design guidelines. I still find that hard to believe that when it goes thru an actual building that it doesn't, all the building does not have to respond to the Overlay District. I can understand if you had a raw piece of land and you had 40 acres and it was going thru, it divided it into 20 acres, I wouldn't expect you to • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 42 have to follow that on the other 20 acres. But this is a one monolithic building and I don't see how you can not apply those to the entire building. And I guess I'd like, I know, I don't know if Staff has more information about that, the legality of the whole issue? Odom. Staff why don't you go ahead. Conklin: Sure. During the adoption of that ordinance the public was informed that those district boundaries only applied within the 660 feet. Also, when the City of Fayetteville was sued with regard to that ordinance and it went to trial, that question came up at trial And we sat in that courtroom and we told people that were suing the City of Fayetteville that those regulations only applied within the 660 feet. It is a zoning ordinance. It's part of our zoning. It has a described boundary, 660 feet from the highway right of way. Hoover: But, specifically was it a building used as an example or a piece of raw land? Conklin: It's a boundary line. It's a described boundary line that is on a map. And within • that boundary, like all zoning, you apply those regulations within that district boundary. I don't believe that we can apply them outside that boundary. There is no authority that states that we can apply those standards. If you had a 40 acre tract of land and it was only partially in there, we couldapply those outside that boundary. Wedington Place, we did look this afternoon and it did include part of that grocery store shopping center. Part of that building was inside and outside. • Hoover: Which one was that? I'm sorry. Conklin: The IGA at Wedington Place Subdivision. Part of it was in and part of it was out. I believe that you can not apply zoning district standards outside of a described boundary. The City Attorney and Assistant City Attorney were not available this afternoon to get a written legal opinion on that but sitting thru that adoption process and sitting at that trial and having those questions asked and listening to the response from Alett Little, former Planning Director, we clearly stated and have been enforcing that ordinance that we can not apply those standards outside that 660 foot boundary. Hoover: I just find that on a case like this it's a significant factor in that we have a rear of a building facing a collector street. And I hate to keep harping on that, the rear of the building, but we don't have, I mean we have one building on a collector street that does this same street but it's on a dead end street that is not used as a collector street. And frankly I'm worried about the whole development. 1 mean, • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 43 I'm thinking that the development across the street on Van Asche, when the new tenants come in and they are trying to sell this development they are not going to want to be facing the back of the building either would be my guess on the whole thing. I think that the whole issue comes back to my overall problem of the development is the master plan. And I think Mr. Erwin was helping today when he was starting to give me some conceptional ideas of what they have planned for the rest of the acreage. I'm starting to get in my mind how this whole thing is going to work together. But I think that if I actually knew what the layout might be across the street, I might better understand that maybe the back of the building is not gong to be a significant factor. I just don't have a clue so at the moment I don't see it addressing the street or responding to the adjoining neighbors which goes back to, now I've forgotten it, that's in our Commercial Design Guidelines and it needs to respond to the adjoining development. And I guess I read the adjoining development's not just this one 30 acre site but the whole 300 acres. How does it respond to that? Accessability is an issue. I know that we have got some pedestrian accessability now but for instance, looking at it today is if I park in front of Kohls directly and I want to get to the development back here on Van Asche that will be some other stores, I'm going to have to go all the way out the parking lot to the west and loop around or else I could take this little driveway that is actually the truck road back around behind the building that will be about half the distance and probably a lot quicker. And I guess that's the issues. I still have issues with that and I think it all comes back to having a grand master scheme. I think that's all the issues I have on Commercial Design Guidelines. Odom: Did you want to make another comment there? Conklin: Yes. Just with regard to the back of the back of the building. Staff has worked hard to try and mitigate many of your concerns with having quote a back of a building along Van Asche. And if you will refer to the elevation, I know I went over this at Subdivision Committee, but for those that were not there, we have added columns. We have changed the material from smooth face concrete block to split face concrete block. Added color bands. Added blue canopies. We have tried to make this not look like a back of a building and stay within our Commercial Design Standards also. I look at that elevation which is the far one over here and I believe it's not your typical back of your building. I went out yesterday and I looked Wal-Mart Super Center facing Joyce. I looked at Barnes and Noble, Toys R Us, Circuit City, Old Navy. This elevation in my opinion is better, has a better design than those elevations that I reviewed yesterday. Hoover: And I appreciate that. And I agree. It is better than a lot of those but none of those face a collector street. One other issue I have on the elevations here is they Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 44 are not showing the topography and actually the road is something like, I don't know eight feet lower than the actually loading docks. And I'm thinking when you're approaching from Van Asche again, you'll actually be able to see into some of the loading docks and that kind of thing. It dust, yes I think they have done an improved job on having loading docks designed and all that, but I'm just not convinced that, that is what should be on a major street. Now maybe this street is not going to become the kind of collector street that I have visioned. I don't know. Conklin: I always try to have the best project we could have to improve upon the elevations. Now Wal-Mart Super Center does not face a collector street, it faces a principal arterial. It's all one color split face block. We have more than one color. We have bands. We have columns. I think it's better than that one. Once again I'm trying to meet our Commercial Design Standards. It's talking about having an articulated building. No precision block, unpainted concrete block walls. And I think we are meeting those standards. Hoover: I have no other comments. Odom: Commissioner? Bunch: I have a question for the applicant concerning the smaller building on the site. Is this planned to be built at the same time as the main building or would it be built at the same time as Phase II? We don't see any elevations. Rankin: With respect to the 5,600' of shop that is on the boundary line I guess between lots 7 and 15, the answer is I don't know yet. Probably it would be built with Phase I but there is a chance that it may be delayed where that work can all go on in concert right adjacent with each other but I would think that the likely hood is it would be built in conjunction with Phase I. Bunch: That brings in the question if it was built in conjunction with Phase I then the west wall of it which later would be attached to Major Tenant B, I don't know if we have any depictions of what that wall would look like and also the back area. Any elevations that would tell us? Rankin: As far as what that side wall? The side wall would be the west wall? Bunch: Right, because it, you know, if there is substantial time between the time that is built and Phase II comes into being there will be walls there that are visible from the roads and we have ordinances that address those • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 45 Rankin: Well we have, that's a reasonable concern I guess, that I have neglected to think about actually. Technically I guess, that wall, while it does face the street it is not, does not have street frontage. We are several hundred feet from Steele Boulevard. So this is not, also the other thing that I would point out that when we build the Phase I and if this is included with Phase I we would not be, since we do not own, grading the land on lot 7. So those trees in the interim would still be there which would provide additional screening from the right of way. Odom: Any other questions or comments regarding the Commercial Design Standards? Rankin: The wall by the way, I mean, one thing I noted in the design standards, we will paint the wall, for sure. We are not going to leave it unpainted. We are not going to leave raw block there in the event that happens so we will paint it with the color scheme that goes with the rest of the design. Bunch: That brings up the question about can we do that, or can that be done under the current property lines? Is it too close to a setback line? • Rankin: I believe that I can get permission to put a ladder up to paint the wall. • Bunch: No, I mean the location of the building itself and it relative to the property line before there are lot splits and adjustments? Odom: You want Staff to address that issue? Bunch: Yes. Conklin: There are no setbacks, side setbacks in C-2 zoning. Bunch: Okay. Odom: All right. I'm going to move on. Estes: Mr. Chairman, one other thing, briefly, I believe the Commissioners at one time raised the issue of mechanical equipment on the roof and screening. Without full complete architectural drawings, we don't know if there is going to be mechanical equipment on the roof. Could we have some discussion regarding if there is mechanical equipment on the roof how it would be screened to comply the Commercial Design Standards? Rankin: Well, I guess the first answer to, the answer to the second question is yes, there • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 46 will be mechanical equipment on the roof. Weather it will be visible or not is one part that I can't answer. To the extent it's going to be visible, as we get the final layouts for the mechanical equipment I have no problem in agreeing that we will comply with whatever screening requirements are necessary under the ordinance. I'm not asking for some sort of variance of that. I know that I've got to screen them and I will comply with that and if you need to make that a condition in addition to what the ordinance says, I am certainly willing to provide the screening as required. Estes: Thank you Mr. Rankin. Odom: One of the other items was with regard to the monument signs. The Applicant is requesting a waiver to allow two ground monument signs to be located on Shiloh Drive. The Applicant would like one for each of the major tenants. Staff supports this request with the condition that both signs comply with the monument signage area requirements of the Design Overlay Ordinance. Any comments on that variance request? All right. The item number D was the Applicant is requesting the Planning Commission grant a variance to allow 21.15' of green space where 25' is required along the south property line in front of the property line. Staff is in support of the variance since it is related to the preserving more of the rear trees on the site. This variance only applies to Phase I of Steele Crossing. That's, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's with regard, when we were out there today and got two more trees to be saved but they needed to move the parking lot in order to comply with the Parking Lot Ordinance? Conklin: Right. And actually, I think that 21' is 11'. They were requesting 21' before we saved those two additional trees. Odom. Now it's down to 11'? Conklin: 11'. Odom: Okay. The next... Hoover: Mr. Chair, were we going to discuss that one? Odom: Sure, go ahead. Hoover: I appreciate saving those extra trees and I am in favor of this 11' but I think it would be appropriate if they get with the Landscape Administrator and perhaps the trees should be larger here, some kind of berm. I know in one of the • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 47 ordinances somewhere they make suggestions if this space were reduced that you would have larger shrubs or some kind of more obscuring method of the parking lot. I think the Applicant had made reference that they would be willing to do that. Hoffman: Bigger trees in the back or the front? Hoover: In the front too. Where this, this space is reduced, but of course, you better hear from the Applicant. I mean, that was earlier today. Odom. Applicant, you want to make comment on that? Mr. Rankin or Mel? Rankin: There are two, we have asked for, I guess since this morning's plan with this save are for a reduction as planners pointed out. However one thing I would like to try, I hope I'm not mudding the waters, this reduced area really only comes into play in the event that Kohls expands and we need the additional parking. So, we have future parking that is currently going to be grassed area out of the box. What I would agree to do, and I think we need to do it to, I know we have got a site line or two, but to move that, those, that planning from where it is now in the event that it is, this variance actually comes into play if and when Kohls expands which won't be in the first ten years, they are precluded from doing so in the first ten years of their lease. To move that closer to the road so that we wouldn't be in a situation of having, in the event it did expand, to come in and tear out what's there and put in, start all over again. To move those out of the parking area. The proposed future parking area I think would make a great deal of sense and the going of our initial development we've got, we meet the guidelines in terms of setback, but I would certainly agree to and recommend that we, some of this we just didn't have time to fine tune all of it between this morning and this evening. We would move those plantings closer to the property line or the right of way line on Shiloh so that they would not have to be removed subsequently. And by that time they would have ten years growth on them and I see no reason to plant something that we know going in is a possibility that it's going to have to be taken out. Does that answer ... Hoffman: Thank you. Yes, yes. Odom: Item C, well I guess we can just cover it, with regard to Item C Site Coverage the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission consider both Phase I and Phase II together when determining compliance with the green space and site coverage requirements. The outlots will be required to meet site coverage independently of this large scale development. Please see attached letter from • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 48 City Planners. Staff, you want to make a quick comment on that? Conklin: Yes, with regard to site coverage they do have in their tables calculations for site coverage in the overlay district and outside the overlay district for each Phase of Steele Crossing. If the Planning Commission decides to act on this I think the variations in site coverages that have resulted from saving the additional trees and granting the variances from the green space along Shiloh Drive need to be reflected on the plan and in this table. I guess what I'm saying, I can't give you an exact number with regard to Phase 1 and Phase II, but what they are proposing on their plan is what you will be approving with regard to site coverage. Odom. Mr. Bunch did you have a comment? Bunch: No, that's sufficient, thank you. Odom: Okay. Anybody else? Item number two deals with the compliance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance, actually we are going to come back to that one because that is the one that we are going to talk about the most I suspect. With regard to the determination of the waiver request to allow a 60' truck entrance with no islands off Van Asche Drive. Staff supports the waiver due to the fact that a large radius will be needed by the delivery trucks. Anybody have questions or comments with regards to that specific waiver request? Conklin: Commissioner or Chairman, we do need to include that 36' drive. The second 36' drive, truck drive to the west. Odom: 60' truck entrance and a 36' drive to the west. Conklin: A 36' wide drive without landscaped island. Odom. A second truck entrance with no islands off Van Asche Drive? Conklin: That's correct. Odom. Okay. Hoffman: I have a question. Odom: Yes. • Hoffman: Is it necessary to put in and out arrows on those driveways since they are so wide? • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 49 Conklin: We do require all driveways to be marked based on the uniform traffic control manual. So they will have to be marked. Hoffman: Thanks. Odom: The remaining items of approval are standard items of approval that do not require Planning Commission action with regard to waiver requests and so forth so I would now bring it back to item number two. Which is Planning Commission determination of compliance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance and approval of a tree preservation plan. Under Section 167.05 of the United, of the Unified Development Ordinance, a tree preservation plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission as a portion of the large scale development plan. The tree preservation plan approved in CMN Phase I and II at the preliminary plat stage required each development to have individual tree preservation plans. The applicant is requesting both lot 15 and lot 7 be combined when determining the tree preservation requirements for the development of both lots (including any future out lots that may be created from those two lots). The applicant has proposed to preserve 10 to 11 percent tree canopy and is requesting approval to utilize the tree canopy created from the tree plantings as required by the Parking Lot Ordinance, Commercial Design Standards, and Overlay District Standards. Any trees located on the designated outlots which are included in the preservation canopy for this large scale development shall be preserved and protected in protected, in perpetuity and shall be reflected on future development plans. The Landscape Administrator has provided her recommendation regarding the proposed plan in a separate report, which we heard earlier. So I will now bring it to the Planning Commission for questions and comments of the developer or Staff or Kim. Hoffman: Mr. Chair? Odom. Mr. Hoover, Hoffman. Hoffman: That's okay. I have, I'll have more to say about it later but I do have a question of the applicant, Mr. Milholland. When we had out site tour this morning it was with, and let me preface this by saying this has been the most difficult process to go thru to try to get our two sides closer and closer together and we are really close. I want everybody to know that I am just in awe about how much work has gone into this and how each side has tried to come closer and closer to the middle. When we were at the site and I asked you if there were any other trees that could be saved and you agreed that the two that have been added to the plat today could be saved and still gain the approval of both large buildings. I have to ask you one • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 50 more time in this public meeting, there are some trees located in the parking lot in front of the shops between Kohls and major tenant A on the site plan. Trees, I think, I can't read, there is one tree 12 and above that there would be another tree, those are located really close to a parking lot island. It would seem to me that we can come closer to meeting our percentage recommended by our Landscape Administrator if we just tried to get another tree or so included and saved and preserved in this plan. So, I want to ask you in this meeting if there is another way to preserve any additional trees in the parking lot, by and large in the islands, and then adding some additional parking as shared employee parking in one or more of the outlots as a result of the space that you would lose from preserving those trees. And I'm not talking about a whole bunch of trees, I'm just talking about, I think one or two trees and they are located, if you can see on your plat in the area in front of the shops between Kohls and major tenant A. And I do not like doing design in a public meeting but it may come down to that. Rankin: I believe that is uh, and I'm not arguing with you, I'm just trying to clarify. Hoffman: That's okay. Rankin: I believe that is tree T2. Tree 12 is in the middle of the Kohls building. Part of, in order for preservation and to meet the terms of the ordinance, it's not a situation where we can come in for a variety of reasons, and put an island around the base of the tree and hope that it will survive because the chances of it surviving I think, would become slim and none. We would have to essentially, to give you, take out that whole area that's shown, or shaded in as the whole boundary of the canopy line there. Hoffman: But then we have these irrigation methods that I think have been successful in some applications. Not, I'm not really talking about the permial, pavers, but I am talking about a sub grade irrigation type of a system to help augment that. And I'm not trying to set up a situation where we cost you a bunch of money and kill a tree either. That's not the point. But I'm saying if we have to lose a certain number of parking spaces can they be recouped? Like outlot area one is pretty close to Kohls. If you take the north side of that lot and just add a few more spaces that you would lose, would that not be something that could be accomplished? Rankin: Well, in one of the issues, and unfortunately I can't describe exactly what's going on these outlots, and sort of by definition they are out of, other than overall tree canopy, they are not part, technically of the rest of the LSD that we are dealing with here. And each one of those is going to have to meet its own coverage, green • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 51 Hoffman: Milholland: Hoffman. Milholland: Hoffman: Rankin: Hoffman: Rankin: Hoffman: Rankin: space coverage area and canopy requirements on its own so the effective area, albeit shown as 1.1 acres in this particular case the real true usable area is already squeezed down by virtue of these other... And I'm not talking about eliminating any of that with shared parking. If it's a restaurant you have an opportunity for a share of use based on different times of operations or employee parking or something. So, and I don't mean to put you on the spot but I did. And I, okay, I have asked the question and I know there are other Commissioners that have other very specific issues that they wish to discuss and I can wait, if you don't have an answer for me, so be it. I can state this, that we have endeavored on many occasions in the last three weeks to look at these trees and try to figure a way we could not put asphalt under their canopy and save them. That one tree there you are talking about is taking about probably 8 or 10 spaces plus a two way driveway which would block the thru traffic going into the almost thru the, it would be almost the east door of Kohls, really at the front door. In all reasonableness I'd have to say right now I don't see how you can. I really don't. Or any other tree, because there are others scattered throughout that... Yes, but those other ones, almost any of these here cause, to save those trees, to make them really live an extended amount of time you're going to have to leave the area under canopy almost, at least 90 to 100 % without asphalt. And each time you do one you've looking at anywhere from 8 to 12 spaces plus driving surface. And in some, most cases you're looking at driving surface that's being blocked.. And the shared parking is also not an option? Am I hearing that? The shared parking for the loss of those spaces would not be an option either? I'm not sure I understand the question. I'm just trying to determine if the development can share spaces. I'm not giving you a blank stare, I just don't understand. No, that's okay. It's not because I disagree. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 52 Hoffman: Milholland: Rankin: Hoffman: Hoover: Odom. Hoover: Conklin: Hoover: Conklin: Hoover. You may want to skip over this and go on and let some other people talk because this is a, this is something I almost really prefer not to discuss in a full Planning Commission meeting because it's almost like Subdivision Committee work, but that's what we have been doing for the last week, so I guess I'm used to it. Anyway. Mr. Rankin, has informed me, way back, I don't know it was three weeks ago, four weeks ago, when this was drawn, the very first time, let's look and see what we can do. We tried. Even with that configuration, that would, probably eight or ten past that one, and everything to move spaces over, up and down, up and down, I really don't see a lot of hope in that without going thru a great extent of waivers or cutting something else short. And I don't know how long the tree would live. I mean, they are large trees. Kind of like old men. The older, they say they are past the midterm of their life. They are used to a certain nature and I don't know how long it would live. My experience is that it won't live at all. I'm going to let him speak about the old men. Thank you all. Mr. Chair? Yes. I have a question for staff about the parking landscape ordinance, which, you know, I'm totally confused by now. Tim, on this new one I'm looking at, am I correct that every twelve parking spaces you need to have a tree? Or am I reading from the wrong ordinance again? There are three options. Kim Hess probably can better explain those options. We do what's called a tree Lawn. We don't have any tree lawns in here. A tree island which is I believe 1 for 12 and then we have something for small trees which is a diamond. Make a 5x5 diamond that's allowed in parking lots. Those are what you see in front of Service Merchandise. Those diamonds. The tree pits. Tree pits. Yes. So what size is this particular configuration? • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 53 Conklin: It is an option that the developers are allowed to utilize one of the three options, a tree pit, a tree log, or one of these tree islands. It seems like the trend is for these tree islands. Most developers use tree islands. Hoover: But they can have 15 parking spaces and a tree? Conklin: Where are you referring to? Hoover: Looking at their plan and I guess I didn't count them but it says a total of 30 spaces. Maybe I'm not looking at this correctly. I have 15 spaces on the majority of this. Hesse: I think I can help you. Overall I have the numbers. What they are showing furthest to the north plus Kohls they show 10 spaces contiguous then a tree then 15 spaces contiguous and a tree. They could break them up more evenly and meet it to the word. The important thing is to have the number of trees, you know, shown throughout the parking lot at the right numbers. We can move an island around just a little bit to get the exact word of the ordinance. Hoover: So you take the overall. I guess I was reading it the maximum you can have. Hesse: They show three trees, no they show more than that. They show six trees, so they have met the ordinance. Hoover: Okay, I see. Odom: Thank you Commissioner Hoover. Come on, we've got to have more questions than this. Estes: Mr. Chairman? Odom: Commissioner Estes. Estes For a point of clarification, Kim in your remarks to us this evening and in your written memo, you informed us that your previous recommendation was to preserve half of the canopy and does that recommendation remains your recommendation and that this can be satisfied with preservation of 11.5% of the 29.9 acre site? Does this applicant's proposal this evening satisfy this recommendation? Hesse: Awfully close. I mean, they have, what I can say and we all saw that this • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 54 afternoon or this morning is that the representation of that full canopy, they are preserving a real prime chunk of that. And I think that says a lot. You know, if we hadn't gone and looked at each individual tree it may be they are meeting they are meeting half of the healthy, you know, oaks out there. I mean, there are other trees mixed in that are also important, but we haven't looked at each individual and just trying to stick what I've stated in the past. Estes: Thank you Odom. Kim, do you feel that what they have proposed is a reasonable plan or compromise? Hesse: Yes. Odom: Okay. Anybody else have questions for Kim while she is up here? Bunch: While Kim is up here and also apply to the applicant, this question was asked after we came back from the tour and it applies to brush, vegetation in general in the tree preservation area Do you have any recommendations there or any, not necessarily official recommendations but just concerns of security, also sidewalks, security lights, security for patrons of the store and employees, that sort of thing? You know, an idea of how the rest of this tree preservation area would be handled as shrubbery brush, grasses, that sort of thing. Hesse: When I brought consultants out there to really look at the health of these trees we discussed that and what it would mean to put this type of preservation among commercial development. And we talked about I'm sure that the developers would want to mow and maintain that and how would that effect the health of the trees. We felt that, that would not effect the health of the trees as long as you don't do grading. I think as far as security, you don't really want to trench for lights but there is options for low voltage lighting where you aren't really trenching very deep. You could actually put lighting either within the trees shining up in the trees or somehow produce a, some sort of security lighting in there. Bunch: I guess this may also be for Staff. Sometimes when we put, we say where there is lighting on the sides of the buildings we don't want them pointed away from the buildings and with Phase II not being built, if this area were lighted from the side, from the west side of the Kohls building, the light would be shining away from the building. Follow me Tim? • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 55 Conklin: I understand. In this commercial area I envision that there will be lights in the parking lot. It's going to be a very lit up area at night. We normally recommend that they be shielded and directed downward away from adjoining properties. We could add that as a condition. Overall this is zoned C-2. I expect that there will be more commercial development in that they will be lighting up the back of their dock areas also. Bunch: This is approximately 100 yards long from the front parking lot to the back parking lot and truck dock area so it's an opportunity for a less than secure area. I was thinking another thing that we haven't looked at is a sidewalk along the west side of Kohls building to be able to get people over across Van Asche. And since we have a park to have a trail or you know, in the tree preservation are to provide some sort of access and, you know, show it off. Conklin: I'm not the Landscape Administrator, but when I look at preserving these trees I think we would want to minimize or avoid doing anything undemeath that canopy. I'd even be concerned about putting lights up there. I'm not sure what effect they have, having lights or light 24 hours a day in the trees but I think trying to preserve it in its natural state would be my recommendation. Odom: One of the problems that we have is that for everyone that has wanted to save the grove of trees they have had their own idea on what we should do with them. Weather it be a park like setting or weather of not it should be a natural preserve. It's difficult issue. Marr: Chair? Odom. Yes Commissioner Marr. Marr: I had a question too. I understand from the meeting earlier today we had talked about planting larger trees on the back, I think it was the Van Asche drive. I don't know if this is appropriate but I would like to see a designation of those trees to be something other than Bradford Pears To be canopy trees that offer coverage since I believe that we have enough Bradford Pears in Fayetteville. Rankin: I agree to that stipulation without any problem. Odom: Well, why don't you ask the Landscape Administrator. She's the one that approves it and so forth. Do you have a recommendation as to what type of tree it ought to be? • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 56 Hesse: We have a list. Hoffman: Mr Chair Odom: Yes. Hoffman: I have a question about those trees. On your legend you've got big and little trees alternated. When I was thinking about that compromise I kind of had envisioned big trees all along the back. So, would you be willing to go with the big designation for all of those trees behind Kohls where you have the alternated big and little? Rankin: In general, I'm more than willing to do that with, I guess I'm willing if this is the only additional request. I would like to reserve the right to refuse this if there are additional requirements. Hoffman: I understand that. I understand that, but you are not meeting the tree preservation ordinance. Rankin: You have asked for several compromises. 50% seems to have been agreed upon. Hoffman: And I said some trees. I didn't say all the trees. But I feel that I really want to approve this development and as a personal comment that since we are losing some very big trees in this big grove that I thought that if the development is going to be a sustainable and attractive development for many years, fifteen, you know, you have a spacing and fifteen more trees is not something that I felt like was unreasonable to bring up. So, maybe you feel that it is. Rankin: I want to say yes I'll do that but, provided, how much longer is the list going to be? Hoffman: You want me to stop there? Believe me, I would like to, too. Rankin: If we have ended the list, yes. If this is the beginning of a list then I want to reserve the right to comment on and see how long the list is. Hoffman: I understand that. That's pretty much all I had to say about that. Estes: Mr. Chairman? Odom: Yes, Commissioner Estes. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 57 Estes: Allen: Odom: Allen: Shackelford: Odom: Shackelford: My overall concern is that when this applicant purchased this property and began the development process these ordinances that we are talking about this evening were spread of record. They were available for study. If they were not included in a feasibility study or marketing plan, they should have been included in a feasibility study and a marketing plan. We have learned today that what this applicant did was chose to rely on various waivers and variances and not on the ordinances. If that in fact is the case, then that was the applicant's decision. These ordinances were available from the conception of this project. I am concerned that we are being asked to do something that is not in compliance with an ordinance. Regarding accommodations made to this applicant, accommodations have been made. Both Phase I and Phase II have been combined to determine site coverage, green space and, the, requirements. I just don't feel like that I can vote for this large scale development until the ordinances are complied with. And I don't think that, that is an onus or unreasonable request. Mr. Chairman: Good luck, Commissioner Allen, in venturing into your first public comment. Go right ahead. Not the one I'd want to jump into first. I feel that Fayetteville and Kohls has an opportunity to create a beautiful shopping center that hopefully would be emulated all over the area. That people could have something that we could point to with pride. I know that the applicants worked hard and spent a lot of time and money to try to reach the goals so that we can work together and that they can be good neighbors with us. I think that we're worth the effort of making, of being good neighbors. But, it seems to me that the onus of being a good neighbor falls upon the applicant not on Fayetteville. I looked in the dictionary to see if there was a difference between a law and ordinance and it says that an ordinance is a law that is set forth by a government authority. So, therefore, I see that 10.29 is not 15%, consequentially it doesn't abide by the law so I couldn't vote for it. Mr. Chairman? Commissioner go ahead. I'll go ahead and give a speech on the other side of the coin. Obviously I'm on record for being in favor of this development. I think it's very beneficial to the city. I think it will provide hundreds of full time jobs, hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax revenue that will improve the quality of live in the City of Fayetteville. I think that we can look, we've heard the terms a lot, common sense • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 58 and compromise. I think we can use common sense and compromise in this situation. I think we have the ability to compromise due to the way the ordinance is written. The Landscape Administrator's interpretation is opinion as to weather or not property can be reasonably developed and existing canopy can be preserved. If not replacement trees are an option. I feel that the applicant has compromised. They have split the building in half to save trees. They have done away with one complete outlot at tremendous economic cost to them. They have done this to get the canopy preservation up to 11%. And I think anymore would be unreasonable and I think that we should allow replacement trees. I think that replacement trees are a viable option. I think with replacement trees we can get the overall canopy up to 26 % which does satisfy the regulation. I think that the net gain of over 100 trees to the overall development is something that we should look at. I think that replacement trees have shown to be very successful. I think if you look at development on the end of Joyce Street and 71 Bypass, I think that the replacement trees have really looked good there. I think that Northwest Medical Park is another great example. The replacement trees have really taken off there and it looks fine. So, I think that is an option. I think we do have that opportunity the way that the ordinance is written. I think that we do have a precedents in place of not enforcing the tree issue. I think there are many examples of developments that have been done to where we have saved zero percent of the existing canopy. I think by compromising you're requiring partial preservation we are setting a positive precedents going forward in the city. I'm also concerned by not compromising we're setting a dangerous precedents being impossible to work with. I've heard developers in the area talk about this ordinance and the fact that if we get to where we won't compromise that maybe they want to develop they will cut down all the trees before they even come and talk about rezoning. I think we will end up hurting more trees, costing more trees that what we are out to save. So, I think that since the tree ordinance was passed there has been other ordinances passed, parking lot, landscape, overlay district going to add another additional 125 trees to this development. I think that the net gain of over 100 trees to this development is something that is very beneficial. I'd like to see us use some common sense and compromise and get this thing thru. Thank you. Odom: Thank you Commissioner Shackelford. Hoover: Mr. Chair. Odom. Yes Commissioner Hoover Hoover: Well, talking of money, which I was dust thinking about, how to use this opportunity of these trees and its park like setting, this whole development is • • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 59 starting to remind me of Central Market in Austin and of a similar situation where there is a large grove of existing trees. They have a restaurant on that side of their building. They have a deck that's open air for eating outside and then they even have play equipment for the children in the existing grove of trees. I don't know if the applicant thought about this and I know that this whole plan has been shifting around so quickly in the last week, but I was just curious if the applicant had considered switching the outlot and Kohls Department Store and actually putting Kohls up next to the street and having a whole side, while with Kohls on it they would still have their front parking but have the restaurant where Kohls is in the park area. I'm sorry. This was a design thought. I don't usually have these but I thought I would share it. And I don't mean to slow things down. Odom. Does the applicant wish to address that? Rankin: The footprint of Kohls is essentially twice the size of the outlots and I sure haven't compressed that onto one of those lots. Hoover: I'm just saying the location, not necessarily, that things would have to move around some but I was just trying to take the opportunity of those trees rather than just making a solid wall right there not having any relationship to the building. Rankin: And 1 understand that, and then we will be trying to do commercial activities under the canopy of these rare trees and I'm not sure I can do that anyway. You know, I think a massive redesign at this point is out of the question. Odom: I think the answer is no, you didn't consider it. Thank you. Bunch: Mr. Chairman? Odom: Yes, Commissioner Bunch. Bunch: I have a question of Staff. We reached, on the item before this, the application before this on our agenda we included a conditional use for parking for a restaurant, is there any sort of conditional use for additional parking on this lot 15 and lot 7 of CMN II of total Steele Crossing, is it over the allowable limit? Conklin: No. They are meeting the ordinance requirements. There actually are fewer spaces than what the maximum would allow per square footage. Bunch: And there is no way to increase it over the maximum? Is there a conditional use that could be applied? • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 60 Conklin: We could. I'm not following you why we would want to increase the parking. Bunch: One of the questions has been put forward, I've asked this question several times and one of my, the responses I got was is this is never done in Fayetteville therefore the outlots were not considered as potential parking spaces and we've gotten to the point that we're looking at compliance with Tree Preservation Ordinance vs. acreage in outlots and one of the reason outlots were not considered supposedly because we never gave, Fayetteville never gave conditional uses for additional parking over the stated maximum in our ordinances. I just wanted to have an answer on that situation. I know there has been no application for a variance or for a conditional use for additional parking. Conklin: We have in the past granted approval for additional parking over, beyond what the maximum allowed is. We also have in our ordinance the authority, City Planner, myself, has the authority to allow 25% less parking. We have a minimum, we have a maximum. We have a method to allow more than the maximum and we have a method to allow less than the minimum. Bunch: So, in other words, additional tree canopy could be gained by utilization of one of these outlots as parking and that Fayetteville's ordinances are not the limiting factor in the ability to utilize those outlots as parking. Conklin: If you preserve more trees and you provided more parking with outlot it would probably be a wash. I mean, you'd probably end up with the same amount of parking that we are proposing right. I'm not sure if we would need to approve more parking. Odom: It's my understanding it's not a parking issue it's a money issue. You have to have the lots to sell. Bunch: I was also told that it was also a parking issue because a comment was made that Fayetteville never grants additional parking and the various tenants have all made severe concessions over having less parking. That this is one of the compromises that has been given up is to deal with less parking. I'm making a question of are we, have we forced the issue of less parking or can it actually, can there be more parking? I just want to be on record that there can be more parking. So, it's not necessarily the City of Fayetteville that is not allowing this compromise. Odom. I understand. That makes sense. They typically grant those waivers, we're talking about restaurants. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 61 Conklin: Restaurants are typically where we grant these waivers. Odom: Like Cracker Barrel, that kind of stuff. Yes, Mel. Milholland: I want to clarify the record for his, my record for him. I have requested additional parking beyond 124 and never got it. I have not been aware that they have done this. I know in large parking lots they have contracts where they crossover and share parking but I personally have never had a request to get it more than 120% and I think that my client, may can speak for himself, but I know my conversation would be, with him would be the same thing I told you, I think his whole economic package the last eighteen months has been around with this clients who wanted more than what your 120% allow, they made their decision to them ever offering the money based on what you required. It had nothing to do with not using the outlot for parking. That wasn't the case. The outlots were an economic benefit to make the thing work. So, it's not outlot vs. parking. My personal experience, I've never had the City grant more than 120%. Bunch: Well, the applicant did make a study of how the tree preservation ordinance was enforced other than your personal experience. We've put other engineering companies had done and other developers had done on the Tree Preservation Ordinance and I just, was kind of curious if the same diligence to research had been done on the parking. Hoffman: Mr. Chair? Odom: Commissioner Hoffman. Hoffman: Before we go on with motions or whatever I'm going to say something real shortly about this. Again this was a most difficult project and I think that we are clearly experiencing growing pains in Fayetteville and we will continue to do so for a long time. I think that we are not all the way grown up yet in enactment and enforcement of these ordinances. I don't feel like we are diluting this ordinance by voting for a lesser percentage if we do vote for that, than 15, because we have I believe, some agreements in place for some pretty strong replacements and so forth. As shopping centers go, I think this will go much beyond the typical mediocre big box that you see in Tulsa and else where. So, for that reason, I don't even want to say reluctantly, I want to say that it's just a hard decision but I will vote for the project but with the understanding that this is not something that I give up, I don't give up large landmark trees easily. I do think that they need to be preserved. And just a footnote, on Washington Regional there were a couple of great big landmark trees that were preserved. There was another smaller • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 62 canopy grove that couldn't be because of the need for a retaining wall for the ambulance traffic. So, yeah, we look at all that and it's very important to us but I think we have a delicate balance that we need to maintain between environmental responsibility and economical viability. And that's my speech. Odom: Thank you. Commissioner Marr. Marr. Well, I feel like I should make a comment considering that I was the Commissioner at the last meeting that made the motion to deny the development. I thought a lot about it, I've done a lot of research. I, too, have pulled out the dictionary and looked at things myself. I will say the initial development I thought was also a gross attempt at neglecting trees. I don't consider 2.14% considering our ordinance. I will tell you that what I heard in the last meeting was that there should be a cooperative environment. That there should be an effort of compromise and that we need to be held accountable to our actions here as a Planning Commission. I've spent the last few times when I am in town driving around looking at developments that I too know had no trees on it when it was started or was used by replacement canopy and I feel very good that we have trees (tape turned over)...the fact that we need to consider reasonable. I think the question was asked to Ms. Hesse at the very end, did she consider the development offer reasonable and her answer was yes. Did it meet 11.5%? No. Did it meet 15%? No. But is it considered reasonable? Yes. Is it a long way from 2.14%? Yes. And so for that, for those reasons I will move for approval of LSD 00-5 based on the conditions of approval as stated. Shackelford: I'll second. MOTION Odom: Ok, we have a motion by Commissioner Marr, second by Commissioner Shackelford to approve Conditional Use 00-5 based upon my understanding of the motion which you stated in agreement, I am going to assume, so please listen carefully to make sure I am not wrong. That incorporated in that motion you are supporting the request that the applicant receive a waiver and allows the two ground monument signs, further on C that they are allowed to consider both Phase I and Phase II together when determining compliance with the green space and site coverage requirements but that the outlots would be required to meet site coverage requirements independently of this large scale development. That they are granted the variance to allow 11.15' of green space along the south property line in front of the parking lot. That they comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance and that there's the approval of the preservation plan. That you are • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 63 Marr: granting the waiver of the 60' truck entrance and the 36' wide entrance along Van Asche drive with no islands. That any mechanical items on the top will be screened in accordance with the Commercial Design Standards and approved by the Staff, which is item number 13. Yes. And I did understand I think from the developer that the alternating big, large, big, large would be all big assuming we had nothing else on the list which I didn't recommend anything else so I'm accepting that as a condition. Rankin: Yes. They will all be 4". Odom: Item number 14 is that all big, all big will become big, big. Shackelford: I'll accept that in my second. Bunch: Mr. Chairman? Odom: Yes Commissioner Bunch. Bunch: On item 2 the last part of it where it addressed, item 2 of the conditions, starting on page two and continuing on page three where you are talking the trees, designated trees on outlots, are any trees on designated outlots which are included in the preservation canopy for this large scale development shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity and shall be reflected on future development plans, is it appropriate at this time that we designate what those trees are? They are listed in the tables but they are not necessarily, it's questionable, two trees are shown on the drawing as being preserved but one tree is shown on the table as being preserved. Similarly, I believe this is on the outlot or undeveloped area three, I'd just like a clarification on that if we could. Odom: That is an important point. If there is a discrepancy we need to be sure we are all clear and on the same page with regard to those on the outlot that are being preserved. Marr: I'm understanding that to be tree 32 at this site, T32 and T31 maybe? Odom: Mel can you give us a clarification on that? • Milholland: The intent on the trees that are preserved are in the legend. They are the trees that have the heavy colored, or heavy ink on them. On the area preserved all the trees • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 64 Odom: larger than 24" are shown there and they are the ones preserved. I guess that's what we are talking about right. What trees are preserved? I think the biggest concern is with regard to the outlot because it shows, Don are you saying in the table it says only one will be preserved and on the site plan it shows two. Bunch: In the summary of the tree canopy for outlot three shows one tree is being preserved and there are two on the plat. Conklin: And you are showing two on your plat. Rankin: The site plan shows one tree on lot 3 being preserved the other tree is not in lot 3. Milholland: One tree on outlot 3 should be saved. Bunch: And one tree in Phase II? • Odom. And one tree in Phase II. Is that correct Mel? Milholland: Yes Odom: Okay. Thank you. Ward: Mr. Chairman? Odom: Yes Commissioner Ward. • Ward: Since everybody else said something I'll go ahead and say something. It's past eight o'clock and I'm usually on my couch by this time so, but uh, I feel this development has come a long ways. I voted against it originally because I thought there was a lack of trying to save the tree canopy out there and I had some, few things about the Commercial Design Standards that I didn't think had been met. But I really feel like this development now would be a real asset to our community. I think there will be a positive economic impact will be brought here. And I think they did some things by dividing the buildings up and so on that our Landscape Administrator had asked for to preserve these particular trees, that they have done. They have gone out of the way to do that type of thing. So, I think there has been a lot of compromising made and this is workable now for everyone. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 65 Odom: I guess since I am the only one left I will say something. I am very proud to live in a community where these are the kind of issues we deal with and that we do what we can in saving the trees with the ordinances we have. I don't know how it's been addressed in the past but I think Kim Hesse has done a wonderful job in her interpretation of the ordinance and has gone the extra mile to make sure that the spirit of the ordinances is met and that we save some of these historical trees that those in Fayetteville care very much about. By that same token I think it's also very important that we remember the economic considerations. This land was designated to be commercial in nature by the City Council. That's our boss. This is going to be the commercial hub and how a commercial hub can function in a city like Fayetteville is something that is going to be a struggle. Something that we are going to have to deal with on a case by case basis. Something that makes the decisions up here tough, but the decisions up here if they were easy it wouldn't be worth our wile to sit up here. So, I'm going to sit in support of the ordinance, or of the proposal and vote in favor of it. I'm going to do so proudly. I think as we put more and more of these ordinances on the books, which I was in favor of, I think I helped a little bit on the Tree Preservation Ordinance, I think I helped on the Parking Lot Ordinance, I think I helped in the Commercial Design Ordinance, I think I helped in the Overlay District Ordinance. So, I'm proud to see these all come to play. But when you put that many regulations together we are granting more and more variances because we have to. Otherwise, we are doing nothing more than condemning property that we have already rezoned. It's a struggle but it's a struggle that's worth our time and effort. And that's why I'm in support of it. Allen: Mr. Chairman? Odom: Yes Commissioner Allen. Allen: Can I make one other comment? Odom: Certainly. Allen: I just wonder if there is a tree ordinance, what kind of a precedent we are establishing. That is a concern I have. Odom: Just to follow up comment on that, I think we are setting a very good precedent. And that's the Tree Preservation Ordinance does allow for replacement but that we aren't going for just replacement any more. That we are going for preservation and that if in fact it is shown that a piece of property can not be developed in a reasonable nature under that ordinance that we will work and do • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 66 what we can to save all that we can and put the replacement to fulfill those that are lost. So, I think it's a very good precedent. Anybody else? Call roll. I'm sorry. Wait, wait, wait. Did you have something? Bunch: Have we had a response from the Landscape Administrator since we determined the additional 4" trees. The comment was made that we were very, very close in her estimation, I wondered if the 4" trees made it even closer? Odom: What I will do Kim, I'll give you the opportunity, if you want to respond with regard to the additional 4" trees that all will be big along Van Asche, did that influence your decision in any way? She is nodding her head no or lust don't care to comment on that? Hesse: Yes, I think larger trees will help. Odom: Thank you Bunch: Can I make another comment? I'm looking at a drawing that Kim submitted some time back and is one of her suggestions as required to offer alternatives, and then I'm looking at the drawing that we see from the applicant. They are starting to be very close. And I too, voted against this earlier. Some of my concerns were other than the tree ordinance, they were commercial design issue as well as Design Overlay District issues. Thru asking a lot of questions and getting a lot of answers and clarifications on many things, most of my concerns have been allayed so I too will support this? Odom. Any further comments? I didn't mean to cut you short there, I apologize. All right. Call the roll ROLL CALL Upon roll call the motion carries on a vote of 6 to 3. Thank you very much. Russell: Mr. Chairman, excuse me if I may address the Planning Commission and developers for a moment to go on the record? Odom. I don't think it's appropriate. Russell: What? Odom: It's not appropriate. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 Page 67 Russell: Well, I would like for the record, my name is Kyle Russell, I'm on the City Council. As I understand it our ordinances give the developer or an alderman ten days to appeal decision to Council. I'd just like to put everyone on notice so that the chain saws don't go out there tonight. I will sleep on it tonight and decide weather I disagree with this decision enough to file an appeal and if I do so I will do it tomorrow. Thank you Odom: Thank you Mr. Russell. Staff do we have any further items on the agenda tonight? Conklin: There is no other business. Odom: All right, we are adjourned.