Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-08-27 Minutes• PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on August 27, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN Minutes of the August 13, 2001 meeting Page 2 ADM 01-35.00: Administrative Item (Mcllroy Bank, pp 401) Page 3 ADM 01-34.00: Administrative Item (Deerfield Place Lot 35, pp 571) Page 5 LSD 01-29.00. Large Scale Development (Fayetteville Public Library, pp 523) Page 8 LSD 01-28.00: Large Scale Development (Marriott Courtyard, pp 212) Page 34 CUP 01-20.00: Conditional Use (Crandall, pp 484) Page 42 RZN 01-15.00: Rezoning (Karstetter & Glass Body Shop, pp 402) Page 51 Growth in Arkansas prepared by University of Arkansas at Little Rock Institute Presentation by Mr. Hugh Earnest and Ms. Cindy Boland. Page 53 MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Lorel Hoffman Bob Estes Alice Bishop Don Marr Donald Bunch Sharon Hoover Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Kit Williams Dawn Warrick Hugh Earnest Approved Approved No Action Approved Approved Withdrawn Approved of Government. Deferred MEMBERS ABSENT Loren Shackelford STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 2 ROLL CALL and Approval of the minutes from the August 13, 2001 meeting. Estes: Good evening, welcome to the Monday evening, August 13, 2001, meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. The first order of business is the roll call. Dawn, would you call the roll please2 ROLL CALL: Upon roll call there were 7 Commissioners present with Commissioner Shackelford absent. (Commissioner Marr arrived at 5:55 p.m.) Estes: The next item of business before the Commission is approval of the minutes of the August 13, 2001 meeting. Are there any additions, amendments, changes to the minutes of the meeting? Seeing none, they will be approved. Administrative Items: ADM 01-35.00: Administrative Item (Mcllroy Bank, pp 401) was submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton, Tull, & Associates on behalf of Mcllroy Bank for property located on the northwest corner of Wedington and Salem. The request is to revise the building materials of the approved Targe scale development. Estes: The first item of business to come before your Commission is Administrative Item 01-35. This is submitted by Chris Partin of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Mcllroy Bank for property located on the northwest corner of Wedington and Salem. The request is to revise the building materials of the approved large scale development. Staffrecommends approval subject to Planning Commission determination of compliance of the Commercial Design Standards. This item was heard at the August 16, 2001 meeting of the Subdivision Committee. Comments were in favor of elevation changes, however because this project was approved at the full Planning Commission level, the Subdivision Committee felt it was necessary to move to forward this item to this body that originally approved it. Is the applicant Present? Parton: Yes. Estes: Do you have a presentation that you would like to make? Parton: I can make a brief presentation, yes. Good evening. I'm Chris Parton with Crafton, Tull • & Associates here tonight on behalf of the developers of McI Troy Bank Center at the • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 3 Estes: northeast comer of Salem and Wedington here in Fayetteville. The owners wish to make a slight change to the building facade from what was originally approved in June, 1999. They wish to replace a portion ofthe split face block that was originally approved with E.F.I.S.. They would like to leave 3 courses of the red brick colored split face block along the bottom to form a three course band around the bottom of the building around the entire perimeter ofthe building. Then on top of that split face block they will come in a place a natural colored concrete cap stone, two courses thick. From that elevation go up to the roof line with field colored E.F.I.S.. The red metal roof will stay the same color. Glass and everything else will stay the same as it was originally approved. Does any member of the audience wish to provide public comment on this requested administrative item 01-35? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the full Commission for discussions, comments and motions. Commissioners? Hoffman: Mr. Chair, I move for approval of ADM 01-35. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman to approve Administrative Item 01-35. Is there a second? Bunch: I second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there any discussion? Allen: Mr. Chairman, at the agenda setting meeting, I was wondering about the colorofthis roof, wether or not it's relatively true. Is this picture that we have a fairly true shade? Parton: Looking at the elevation photos, this will be the color of the roof here. It may be a little darker in the elevations. Allen: Thank you. Ward: Chris, this is kind ofa dumb question, but why are we changing this? I like split face block and I like red brick. I'm not a real big fan of all this E.F.I.S.. Parton: Well, the main concem was similar appearance to other structures in the surrounding areas. Arkansas National Bank that is directly across the street on the northwest comer has the same type of construction They don't have the red metal roof but they have some split face block along the bottom oftheir building and then E.F.I.S. on up to the roofline. They obviously wanted to blend in with those buildings. Economy is also another factor. • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 4 Ward: Do you have any idea what the cost difference is between using this cheaper material than the bricks would be? Parton: I do not. I was told they could not find a masonry contractor to northwest Arkansas that was really willing to attempt this project due to the difficulty of installing the original elevation as it was designed. Estes: Any other discussion. We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman to approve Administrative Item 01-35 and a second by Commissioner Bunch. Dawn would you call the roll please ROLL CALL: Upon roll call Administrative Item 01-35 is approved by a vote of 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 5 ADM 01-34.00: Administrative Item (Deerfield Place Lot 35, pp 571) was submitted by Jack Parrish for property located at 5548-5598 east Hwy 16. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.94 acres. The request is to waive the requirement ofa large scale development for this lot. Estes: The next item on the agenda is Administrative Item 01-34. This is an administrative item submitted by Jack Parrish for property located at 5548-5598 east Hwy 16. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.94 acres. The request is to waive the large scale development requirements for this lot. Staff recommends denial ofthis request. Is the applicant present? Parrish: Yes. Estes: Do you have a presentation that you would like to make? Parrish: Briefly, yes. This is a relatively simple project on a lot on less than one acre All of the adjacent property owners have been notified by certified mail of our plans and of the meeting tonight and I've encouraged them to share any comments. All of that in the interest of having adequate public forum for people to comment. It's my understanding that that was one of the major concerns for requiring the large scale on such a small lot. That is our reason for requesting this waiver. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Parnell: Thank you. Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this administrative item 01-34. If there is, please come forward, tell us your name and give us your address and provide us with the benefit of your comments please. I'm Bruce Parnell and I live at 5617 East Country Ridge in Deerfield. 1 was never aware of this and never got anything in the mail about this. There was a duplex that went up in the area and it was our understanding that the builder, Gordon Wilkins, was not going to put any duplexes or anything like that on the development. Now we are talking about going up to a large scale project and it's going to devalue our property and have a lot of ramifications on our subdivision. I do not agree with this. Thank you. Estes: Thank you Mr. Pamell. Tim, what efforts were made to notify interested constituents that this item was on the agenda this evening? Conklin: The applicant did notify adjoining neighbors. This is an administrative item. It's not a large scale development or conditional use. The property was zoned RO which allows for professional office and duplex development. So to answer your question, the applicant did the notification. • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 6 COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Ward: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested administrative item 01-34? Seeing none I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion, comments and motions. Commissioners. Commissioner, Tim by denying this that would mean the applicant would have to come in and we would have to look at the commercial design standards and see that all those things meet our criteria. Is that what the staff is recommending? Conklin: Yes. Typically on new subdivisions where the lots are less than an acre and it allows for commercial development we have in the past placed a requirement on the final plat that those lots come in through the large scale development process. What we have found is we have much better consistency with regard to commercial design standards and how they develop within these subdivisions. The most recent example we had was Millennium Place subdivision off of Highway 265 and Joyce Boulevard. After he brought his large scale developments through we did remove that requirement after there was a design theme set and we knew exactly what was going to be built there. As staff we feel that it's in the best interest of the neighborhood and the City to bring these projects through large scale development. Ward: How much more time does it normally take? Conklin: With regard to time, Staff review is probably a three to four week process on a nonresidential development. On a large scale development you are looking at about six to eight weeks. If they do meet all of our ordinance requirements they can be approved at our subdivision committee at about six weeks. Ward: But if you really wanted to, you could look at the plans and construction materials and approve it at your level? Conklin: Yes we could but Staffdid make a recommendation when this final plat did come through and our recommendation at that time was for those lots to come through as a large scale developments and Staff has not changed its recommendation. We still feel like it's in the best interest to bring those lots through as large scale developments. Hoffman: Mr Chairman, I wanted to ask, so this is consistent with other subdivisions that have mixed uses of residential? I did remember that this had single family dwellings then transisitioned to duplex lots closer to the highway and then RO on the highway. We are • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 7 treating this in a consistent manner with other projects that have gone before? Conklin: Yes we are. Hoffman: And it could be approved at subdivision level which is fairly common for smaller large scales that require no variances? Conklin: That's correct. As we continue to mix our land uses more, which is a goal of our comprehensive plan, it's critical that we consider their impacts on residential development. When we do have a public hearing and the neighbors are notified and we do have elevations of the project that the neighbors can review and know where the parking is going to be and the dumpsters, I think it's a much better process. That's one of the main reasons that we are recommending that these projects come to you as a large scale development. Hoffman: And if we required this, as the plat did, to go through large scale development, could you help the applicant to expedite this through the system? Conklin: Sure, we try to help all applicants get through our development process. With this individual applicant we have had preapplication meetings and other developments too. We will do what ever it takes to make sure they can meet the ordinance requirements and get their project approved. Hoffman: Those preapplication meetings seem like they are a pretty good thing. Conklin: It's been really helping Staff and the developers understand exactly what Staff will be recommending and what the ordinances require. This past year we have had quite a few preapplication meetings. Hoffman: Thanks Tim. Estes: Any other discussion? Any motions? The chair will call three times for a motion. Is there a motion? Is there a motion? Is there a motion? Is there a motion? Administrative Item 01-34 fails for lack of a motion. • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 8 LSD 01-29.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville Public Library, pp 523) was submitted by Garver Engineers on behalf of Fayetteville Public Library for property located at the southwest intersection of Mountain Street and School Avenue. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and contains approximately 2.43 acres with a 88,750 sq. ft. building and parking deck proposed. Estes: The next item to come before your Commission is LSD 0I -29.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville Public Library, pp 523) submitted by Garver Engineers on behalf of Fayettevi Ile Public Library for property located at the southwest intersection of Mountain Street and School Avenue. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and contains approximately 2.43 acres with a 88,750 sq. ft. building and parking deck proposed. Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions of approval. Tim are there signed conditions of approval? Conklin: No, there are not. Estes: The conditions of approval are as follows: 1. Planning Commission determination ofa waiver request from section 17201 D3 Parking Ratios. The requirement is one parking space per 1,000 square feet of floor area for a total of 89 required. The proposal is for 219 spaces. Commissioners, there is a letter from the applicant that is provided with your materials explaining this requested variance and the Staff is in support of the requested waiver. 2. Planning Commission determination of a waiver request from section 169.06C4eofthe grading ordinance which states cuts adjacent to the public right of way shall be set back a minimum of25 feet excluding driveways and access roads. The engineering staff is in support of this waiver. 3. Planning Commission determination of required off site street improvements. The applicant is proposing the following street improvements: a) Mountain Street - move the street center line 1.5 feet south and reconstruct street to be 26 feet in width with additional street width for parallel parking spaces on both sides of the street. b) Rock Street - move street center 2.0 feet south and reconstruct street to be 26 feet in width. c) West Avenue - widen the street 8 feet to the east to provide for parallel parking on the east side. In addition the 2001 overlay program includes an overlay for West Avenue and subgrade improvements from Prairie Street to Center Street. 4. Planning Commission determination of compliance with the Commercial Design Standards including signage. 5. Planning Commission determination of compliance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance. You have a memo in your materials from Kim Hesse, our Landscape Administrator and Travis Brooks, the Landscape Architect for the project. 6. Plat Review and Subdivision comments to include written Staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative and all comments from utility representatives. • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 9 - 7. Staff approval of final detailed plan specifications and calculations where applicable for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets public and private, sidewalks, parking lot and tree preservation. The information submitted for Plat Review process was reviewed for general concept only All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval All improvements shall comply with the city's current requirements. 8. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot sidewalk. 9. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calender year. 10. Approval of this project does not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available at the time of construction. 11. Prior to the issuance ofabuilding permit is required: a) grading and drainage permits b) separate easement plat for this project c) project disk with all final revisions d) completions of all required improvements or the placement of assurity with the city as required by section 158.01 guarantees in Iue of installed improvements. Is the applicant present? Foster: Yes. Estes: Do you have a presentation that you would like to make? Foster: Yes we do. My name is Jim Foster. I'm with Amuimoez, Foster, Haisley & Johnson. We are the associate architect on the project. We have some members of the library board here. Michael Thomas is here. We have other members and members ofthe public library foundation present. We also have members of the task forces present. Many others have participated in this process. Of course, Louise Shafer, the library director is available for any questions you have. We have three brief presentations. David Norman with Garver Engineers will talk about site development and utility aspects of that project. Travis Brooks is here to cover the tree preservation and canopy restoration aspects. Sean Wagner, our project manager with Meyer Scherer & Rockcastle, the prime architect, is here to talk about the exterior materials, parking waiver and overall exterior design. The design of the Fayetteville Public Library has been an extraordinary public process. Through thirty plus meetings with the citizens they have shared their opinions and guided this process and design. In addition we have had advice generously provided by specific focus groups concerned with such issues as accessibility, exterior spaces, teen advisory board, senior citizens interest and of course library staff. The diverse and sometimes discarded voices we have in this community have been carefully recorded. In this case played back in perfect harmony. The building has historic reference but it's about today and tomorrow. It will also become the first certified green building in the state. To address the issues of site development and utility issues, I'll call on David Norman. • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 10 Norman: Overall this shows the existing structures and proposed improvements. My name is David Norman and I work for Garver Engineers. We are responsible for the site development issues at the library. First I would like to mention that the conditions of approval were not signed specifically for one item. Item eight refers to sidewalk construction and we wanted to take the opportunity to note that while the development will provide for sidewalks around the site and even an offsite sidewalk on the north side of Mountain Street, there are instances that were agreed to by the Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator to allow a deviation from the six foot minimum so we could install some new retaining walls and replace some existing retaining walls and install the new ones right back in the same location and in order to try to preserve some of the existing trees on the site. Those locations where there is a deviation below the minimum are noted on the plan so you can see where they are. That's the sole reason for the owner not signing those conditions before. Just so you know that. I'll talk about the sidewalks later but I wanted to go ahead and make that point. The owner is also asking for a waiver from the grading ordinance. Part of the grading ordinance that states or prohibits excavation within 25 feet of the public right ofway. There are a couple of reasons for that. Grading the adjacent site down to generally on grade with the surrounding streets will improve some sight distance issues that are out there now. In particular I believe at the southwest comer there is a pretty substantial retaining wall that prohibits sight distance at that corner. Also, we would provide the library the opportunity to use that site more efficiently by utilizing a parking structure and stacking cars instead of lying them out. We will need to excavate vertically down to some depth to provide for those lower floors of parking. That is the reason for the grading ordinance waiver request. In terms of street improvements, this project proposes to improve Mountain, Rock and West. School street would be left alone with the exception of dedication ofadditional right ofway. Mountain Street would be pinched from it's present width down to two eleven foot travel lanes. This would designate parking spaces on the north and south side of Mountain. The reason for pinching the street down would be to provide the offsite parking and also provide islands for more landscaping and to better tie this project to downtown Dickson Street Enhancement Project. The sidewalks there will have textured finish and also brick pavers along the edge. On School Street, as I mentioned, there will be no improvements just additional right ofway. Rock Street will be decreased down from the current width to 26 feet from back of curb. On West where there is an existing condition in terms of residents parking on the street and that being a collector, the library has agreed to provide additional parking on the east side of West Avenue for those residents to get them off of the street and thereby improve safety and traffic flow. In terms of the sidewalks, again, we are providing for sidewalks all the way around the site. The sidewalk on the southeast corner of the site meanders through the garden. Also, there is a sidewalk along the street where it is now and that is one of the locations where we were not able to adhere to the six foot standard. Storm sewer • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 11 improvements, off site storm sewer improvements, there is also an existing condition in that area where there is minimal storm sewer in that area and water runs down Mountain, west, and does not make the comer onto West Street and it will jump that curb and roll up into the residences along West. So the library has proposed to install a storm sewer collection system on Mountain to intercept that water and divert it properly out to the west. Also, storm sewer is being proposed along Rock Street to intercept additional flows that the library will produce and then properly convey them southward on West Street and discharge out to the west to the creek across the railroad right of way. So there is additional off site storm sewer proposed with this project. The water system, tests were run on the existing water system and it was determined that the pressure flow in the area was not adequate so the library is proposing to install a connecting line between the six inch line on West with the twelve inch line on Locust and thereby improving the fire flow capacity for the entire area and improving fire flow protection for the library. Lastly, overhead utilities are located along the west and east sides ofthe property. The overhead lines are not required by ordinance to be relocated underground because they are of a certain size, but the library feels that aesthetics demand their placement below ground and proposes to locate both of those lines on West and School underground. There is overhead power and fiber optics for the University of Arkansas, cable and phone distributed between those two lines. The library is proposing to relocate those underground and convert residences along West to underground services. I believe we are going to try to get through the rest of the presentation before we entertain questions so at this time I'll introduce Travis Brooks to discuss with you the landscaping. Brooks: On the site there were two tree inventories done early on but before any of the planning was done. One was done by Kim Hesse, the Landscape Administrator. Another one was done by Patty Erwin. You can see the notes on the plans that we submitted of the health and condition of most of the trees. A lot of the trees are not worthy of being saved. We have saved as many trees that we can. There are two areas of the site that are considerable open for landscape, the southeast comer and the southwest corner. The southeast comer we did save as many trees as we could in that area. It's a total of seven percent on the site when our zoning requires that we have fifteen percent. So we are mitigating additional tree planting to make up the difference of the trees that we are removing. In the southwest corner, there are some very nice trees there that we wanted to save but could not because ofthe site visibility. There is a very tall retaining wall now and the street is very narrow and it a very dangerous area. Many ofthe neighbors have complained about it. Because of the fact that we are removing that retaining wall and grading that comer down to improve the safety in the area, that is not allowing us to save any of the trees in that corner. • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 12 Estes: Thank you. Does that conclude the presentation? Wagner: Sean Wagner with Meyer, Scherer & Rockcastle I do have a series of slides that I can present but I think that the model is a very good indication of what the exterior of the building will be. I know in your packet you have color renderings ofthe building exterior. We have some enlargements if there are particular questions about areas and whether or not that is sufficient. I do have a sample board done down here which indicates all of the primary exterior materials. There are two tones of bricks which are indicated on the drawings which were submitted with the application. There are metal panels that have been indicated on the elevations. Natural stone for use in the retaining walls. We also have material colors, the cap stone panels are indicated in the far lower left hand corner ofthis along with the aluminum for the exterior windows and glazing sample. There is also a sample shown here of the roofing material which is a TPO roofing system. It's something that the US Department of Energy has certified as a green building roofor energy star roof which is estimated to save the library in the neighborhood of thirty percent over the course of a year in utility bills through heat gain and heat loss in the roof system. So this is the primary roofing material that you will see on the elevations and the structure. The second portion of my presentation has to do with addressing the 219 parking spaces. I believe in your packet there is a letter which indicates a variety of parking requirements for different library facilities around the country. A lot of those facilities our office has worked on. There have been a number of interpretations of parking requirements for public libraries. We have recommended the one space for every 408 square feet for this facility. 1 do know that in the existing library, which is approximately 30,000 square foot building, there are 137 spaces. We have a public meeting room in the new facility that has a capacity of 150 persons and if we were to provide 89 parking spaces and have a meeting room for 150 people plus all ofthe library patrons, I think that would put an undue burden on the neighbors surrounding the site. We certainly have the capacity and we have tried to efficiently arrange our parking structures so it sits essentially underneath the building. The site is perfectly suited for a parking structure ofthis nature. If there are any questions I will be happy to entertain them. Estes: Thank you. Jim, does that conclude the presentation? Foster: Yes. PUBLIC COMMENT: • Estes: Is there any member of the public that would like to comment on this requested large scale • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 13 development? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the full Commission for discussions, comments, questions of the applicant, motions. Commissioners. Bunch: On the parking, what is the ratio of the square footage ofthe existing library to the parking spaces? I think you said it was 408 for the new, but what is the existing ratio? Wagner. The existing facility is a total of just over 30,000 square feet and I believe as oflast count it has 137 parking spaces. My math is a little rusty, I'm sorry. I would guess that is in the neighborhood of around 1 per 150 square feet. Foster: I calculated that out just before the meeting. 10 of the spaces are on street. Off street is 127. At 30,000 square feet I have 1 per 236 square feet. Bunch: Are any of those spaces currently dedicated to use by the county courthouse's overflow or are they used primarily for the library itself? I'm trying to get a feel for the different ratios and the justification for having more parking. Wagner. I believe Louise Schaper, the library director could probably answer that directly. Schaper: There are no spaces dedicated to the county and in fact until the move the motor vehicle bureau off to Razorback Road, parking was contentious. But it has been greatly relieved with the move to Razorback Road. There are no spaces dedicated. Wagner: Again, l would like to draw your attention to the fact that the facilities and the nature ofthe use of the building and the size ofthe building with apublic meeting room, one main public meeting room for 150 people, we have approximately a 33,000 square foot children's library, we have a second public meeting room that will accommodate 25 persons and that doesn't even begin to account for patrons for the regular portions of the library. The determination for the size ofthe parking structure, I believe, is commensurate with the programming and use and what we have experienced with other facilities throughout the country as being quite within the range of possibilities. Conklin: Mr. Chairman, I wouldjut like to add one more thing. This 88,000 square foot building • is designed for the 2020 population of 85,000 in Fayetteville. So we are not just building • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 14 Estes: a library to meet the needs of today but for the next 20 years as our population grows and the need for that facility. If you keep that in mind with regard to comparing that to what they currently are generating for parking needs at their existing facility, then demand should increase over the years since the building is being designed for an ultimate population of 85,000. Thank you Tim. Any other discussion? Commissioner Hoffman. Hoffman: I have several questions for the applicant. Probably Mrs. Schaper with regards to the parking. And I think also the architect with regards to the building materials. In terms of the parking, I think it's a good idea to provide as much as we can in this downtown area. It's needed and certainly for the library. I was wondering if it's going to be available to the public at other times, other than hours of operation for the library and will there be a charge to park in the garage? Schaper: Those are really good questions. Those are ones we are beginning to think about now. There haven't been any decisions made by the board at this point and time. What we are imagining, at least from the staff end, is that we will open then see what happens. I suspect 10 years after this building opens there will be a lot of dialog around parking. Whether everyone can park there or not, there will be no charge to park as far as I know right now in that building. I believe we are going to be installing gates so that if at some point we need to close the building down when the library closes, for safety purposes, we will have that option. There are no gates for dollars or cards or anything else planned at this time. I think the issue you are talking about is a really valid issue because there will be more and more demands on that parking and the first priority, obviously, has to be for people who are using the library. 1 don't anticipate that being an issue initially. Hoffman: I asked the question because I can envision, I think 1 parked at the library for Autumn Fest, for instance, and I can see some overflow parking coming for things like that and other downtown events. Schaper: We get that now in our present location. Courthouse, big court cases. It's become a more significant problem particularly during the summer when the summer reading program is going on and you have parents trying to find a parking space already and if there is something going on at the county then it's a concern. Certainly the philosophy we have always taken is that we are part of the community and we work with the community and unless there was some major issue, I can't imagine that we would close it down for people who are attending other events downtown. I can't imagine that initially. But again, ten years after the building opens and Fayetteville is at 70,000 to 75,000 people, there may • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 15 be a whole conversation around this again. Hoffman: I certainly understand. My next question is about the on street parking and reduction in width on Mountain. Jim, you may need to pitch in here, are we maintaining our minimum street standards with the inclusion of the off site parking? Are we creating any kind ofa ha77ard by decreasing the width ofthat street to accommodate the two rows ofparking? Foster: I believe that Mountain Street is considered a local street if I'm not mistaken, which would require a width of 28 feet. What is being proposed is 26 feet but adding 8 foot side parking on both sides. If you add it all up, it will stay the same width as it is now. Hoffman: So can two cars pass each other and not hit the parked cars on each side? Foster: Yes. Hoffman: Okay. That's important. Foster: You are going to have parallel parking spaces on that street that will occupy approximately 8 feet along each side ofthe street. What they are doing is bringing out the landscaping and grading the landscaping areas and narrowing the street down to two eleven foot lanes. Hoffman: And that will naturally slow traffic down. We assume people will be more cautious through that area? Foster: Right. The islands and landscape islands will better define how the parallel parking spaces are along that road instead of just having a big huge expanse like is out there now, the islands will define it. Hoffman: Thanks. One more question for the architect on the white roofing. Is that going to cause a glare that will be obnoxious to the neighbors in any way? Wagner: Because of the nature ofthe site, the purpose ofthe roofing is reflect heat and light, but the only place that I can imagine surrounding this site that you would begin to see that would be up on top ofthe hill looking down or from the roof structure of the apartment building to the north. It won't project heat or light onto the adjoining or neighboring properties, it's meant to just push it back up towards the sun. Hoffman: Do you know of any time that that material has been used that it's had to be repainted • because of glare problems? • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 16 Wagner: No. The first testing ofthis material was done with the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and the US Department of Energy in downtown Los Angles and there has been, I believe, the first test was in the late '70 early '80 and they have been continually researching ways, the product is used to reduce what they refer to as the urban heat island effect and they have been looking at this particular material specifically for urban areas to reduce the amount of solar absorption in the roof structures. In all of that data, I'm not familiar with any case where they have had to go back and paint it black. Hoffman: Or another gray. The testing data to me sounds like it 's for the building itself. Obviously it's a good thing to have a lighter color roof but you can have that glare issue. Wagner: The testing data they have been looking at is to look at urban environments as a whole and not just a specific building and the impacts of the building. The economic analysis and benefits to the building structure aside, the goal is to try to reduce the heat sink effect. If it were to have a black or gray or another color roof material it would begin to absorb heat and create what is termed a micro climate and begin to actually raise the temperatures of the adjoining sites. As opposed to putting this white roofing material on which actually reflects heat, in a similar fashion to the natural vegetative landscape that is there now. Actually in terms of the impact ofthe building on the adjoining properties, the white roofing, and it sounds a little counter intuitive, but the white roofing material more closely reacts the way trees do than black or a darker color which would actually increase the temperature of the surrounding properties. Hoffman: Thank you. I appreciate that. I will go on record as saying that the extra parking is needed and a good idea. Estes: Commissioner Bunch. Bunch: Question for Staff. On condition 11 d, on completion of all required improvements and a surety, what is the procedure? Is that actually required in this case or does the city assure itself that it's going to complete its job? What is the procedure there? Conklin: The City is not going to require itself to put money in escrow. So, funds that will be generated by our sales tax will be the a surety guarantee that we will use. Bunch: I'm curious if we needed 11 d on there as a condition. Conklin: Well, it's in our accounts here at the City, so we have access to the money. I don't think • the Planning Staff will have to get a letter of credit or anything to get the money. • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 17 Estes: Commissioner Ward. Ward: We have a letter here from Kim Hesse and I'd like to address it a little bit, if you don't mind Kim. This has to do with the landscape and tree removal and so on. I feel like I'm going to be a devil's advocate here. First of all, I do think the commercial design standards are better than what I imagined it but, to make sure everybody is playing on the same level field, if the Marriott Hotel, which we have this big picture right here in front of us, was going to put on this same lot which is 108 rooms needing about the same amount of land, are we allowing some, we have 68 trees on the lot and we are cutting them all down except 10. Most of those 10 are eight to ten inch, so they are very small that we are leaving out of68. We are doing a lot of things to preserve and according to the letter here it says between the square footage requirements for the building and parking much ofthe site selection for the library will be utilized for infrastructure leaving little room for preservation of the natural resources. Larger oak trees on the site are located above a tall retaining wall that must be removed and the area graded to increase visibility to the intersection of Rock and West Avenue. Obviously these trees had to be sacrificed in order to provide safe access to and from the library. So, what I'm trying to make sure of in my mind is that we, this is coming in front of us and we are treating it just like we would any other enterprise as far as tree removal. Are the things we are doing in regard to tree removal, will that also fit when our new tree ordinance, what we have proposed right now. I would like you to just address some ofthe things conceming the letter and basically clear up in a lot of people's minds where we are on this. Hesse: . There are basically two things I look at on any project. One is limitations of the site in relation to preservation. On any project I will look at what is proposed for development, the building, the parking lots, the roads, whatever is needed for that development to go on that site. Then I look at the amount of the flexibility in the site. lfthrough my experiences I can find a design that will still allow the same amount ofbuilding, parking, circulation vehicular and pedestrian, and save additional trees, that's when I request additional trees be preserved. That is what I did on this site. We looked for different ways to lay this building out but the site is very limiting due to it's size and due to the size ofthe building specifically. The second thing I look at is the health of the trees and how they are located on the site. If the trees are very healthy and it's feasible that those trees can be preserved then that also factors into my decisions. When trees are in large groupings and they are healthy, there is a very good chance you can preserve those trees intact if you take a portion of that group and preserve it. When you have trees spaced out and you are building here and there around those trees, the feasibility ofthose trees actually surviving is less. I look at that as a factor on whether I ask for additional preservation or not. The new ordinance would be reviewed the same but what is different in the new ordinance is • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 18 Ward: Hesse: that we have an outline of the criteria. There are 15 criteria that go through the health of the tree to the species and size of the site, the limitations ofthe topography on the site, all of those things that I typically look at are outlined n the new ordinance and so each one would basically be answered and it would be easier for the Planning Commission to understand my reasoning. That's how I looked at this project and that's how I look at any project. As far as the proposed landscaping, they have met the proposed landscaping. There isn't any exterior parking on the site so interior parking lot landscaping is not a requirement. There are the design standard trees along the right of way which they have met. They have actually added more landscaping around other parts of the development. Does that answer your questions? Yes. One thing that we have had to do in the past, many times seems like, just like with this Marriott Hotel we have coming up next with 108 units, we would say here's the problem, we are wanting to save these trees right here and if you will only build 88 rooms instead of 108 rooms we can save these trees and we've made them cut back the size and design of their buildings whether it's apartments or offices, in order to save trees. I would like you to respond to that. Thinking of the last few months ofprojects that we have reviewed I can only think of a couple where they actually reduced the units and a lot of that was a combination of other needs on the site from detention and such. Again I look at that quality of those trees too and the impact that the removal of those trees will have not only �n that site but the neighboring sites. Very rarely do I ask them to reduce their building size or their parking lot numbers. Sometimes I ask them to rearrange them to the point that it doesn't seem effective to them, but my goal is to find a way to develop the site to meet the needs of the developer without reducing their future income levels but also to do something that is the most sensitive to the natural resources on that site. That is the best goal that I can reach. We don't always reach it. Ward: Like I said, I was kind of playing the devil's advocate there but I've had a lot of people calling me about, gee, there are a lot of rare trees on this particular lot, how are they going to build this huge structure on there and save the trees. Well, all ofa sudden you find out we are not really saving any trees. We are cutting down 58 trees. Hesse: On this particular site, a lot ofthe trees that we are removing have health problems where 1 don't think they would survive beyond another 20 to 30 years and to affect any development for a tree that is not going to survive more than 20 to 25 years, it doesn't make common sense. On this site there are a few trees that 1 would like to see preserved but again, I'm yielding to just common design sense. Those are the trees that are at the • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 19 intersection of Brock and West Avenue and I've been on that intersection several times and I know how difficult it is to see and we will be increasing the traffic flow dramatically at that intersection. It would not be good sense on anyone's part to require those trees be preserved and that retaining wall remain the same. The only way to preserve those trees would be to leave that retaining wall just as it is. There is no visibility for traffic. Ward: Thank you so much. Estes: Commissioner Allen. Allen: Before you sit down Mrs. Hesse, I have some more questions about the trees. 1 have the strong feeling that this Commission would not approve an apartment complex going in there where all of the trees would be removed and we put an apartment complex in there. I think we could be opening a big can of worms in the city to apply the tree ordinance differently for the City than we do for any other development. I just wondered your thoughts about that. I don't want us in the guise of good works to be throwing away the rules. That would be wrong. Hesse: There are a couple of developments I could name right now where we literally removed all or most of the trees because the development didn't fit the site. One was, I believe it's called the Business Center on Joyce and Old Wire or Old Missouri. Those had some mature trees. Again those trees were not very healthy. Due to the way that the site was being developed it didn't make sense to have them rearrange what they were doing to save these trees that would probably only survive 20 to 25 years The only tree that was worth saving was in the location of the widening of the street so none of those trees were preserved. The other site was JD China. Again, that site was very narrow, small and sloped. We did not save most of the large trees on that site. If I was to think back I'm sure I could come up with more recent projects. There was a recent subdivision where actually some of the best trees, there are some of the best trees being lost but because of the topography what they were doing was actually utilizing the topography of the site in the road construction to reduce the amount of cut and fill and that did take out a couple of trees. I could have asked them to save those couple of trees, but there would have been a lot more grading work and probably a lot more of that site would have been disturbed so we allowed those trees to be removed. I think there are several situations, 1 f 1 go through my files, where we have allowed the majority of the trees to be removed because the site just didn't allow for preservation. Allen: I just feel like that because it's a building deemed for the public good that it isn't immune • from questions. Also, I wondered if you could tell me a little bit about how you determine • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 20 Hesse: the health ofa tree. Other than the obvious disease, if it's an old, old tree do you just project that it will die in x number of years? What are some of the things you look at when you say an oak tree is not healthy? I personally bring in two arborists. I'm not qualified to make most ofthose decisions. 1 utilize the university professors and I utilize the forest commission. Patty Erwin, the urban forester there will sometimes bring in certified arborists from the area to help me make those decisions. Allen: Do you feel like every effort was made to save every possible tree on this lot in terms of the design? Hesse: Yes. Actually we have made some changes at the very end ofthe design in order to save four more trees. I was involved in the design process early on when I did an inventory of the site and came to as many of the outdoor spaces meetings as I could go to and worked with Travis Brooks, the landscape architect, and in the end we were able to save four more trees. They are not large trees, but they are nice healthy trees that will be an instant addition just by leaving them. They will be better for the site than having to replace them with new trees. Estes: Mrs. Hesse, before you leave, how many trees were included on your inventory on this site? Hesse: I don't have my inventory with me. Estes: Is there someone who does? Hesse: Sixty eight. Estes: Looking at the tree inventory that was prepared, it appears that ofthose sixty eight trees that you found only two to be in good condition? Does that se m about right to you? Hesse: What we did was compare two inventories, mine and one done by Urban Forester by Patty Erwin. I found actually, and I'm not as qualified, after I saw her inventory we went to the site again and she pointed out why some ofthose trees that 1 thought were healthy were not healthy There are a lot of problems with trees that are not visible to the average person. • Estes: Here's where I'm going with this and what I'm trying to develop. There were 68 trees in • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 21 Hesse: Estes: inventory and the materials that have been provided to us I see that only two of those sixty eight were listed in good condition and the remainder were listed in fair and poor condition. Am I reading that correctly? That could be correct. And the trees that are being removed then are in fair to poor condition. Is that a fair statement? Hesse: That's a fair condition. The oak trees that are being removed on the southwest corner, l would have to look at that inventory again to remember how the health of those were. Estes: The only trees that I see that are listed on the inventory in good condition are two hackberry..The rest are listed as being in fair to poor condition. Am I reading this correctly? Allen: Mr. Chair, is Mrs. Erwin here? I wondered ifyou could talk to us a moment about how you determine the health of a tree. Erwin: First I would like to say that unfortunately the trees that are growing on this site have never been managed at all so over the years problems that have occurred have not been addressed such as ice storms, there was a house on this site that burned and things like that. The trees have been exposed to a lot of different elements over the years. When we look at a tree to determine the health of a tree we start at the canopy and work our way down to the root system. A lot of times when you know the species of the tree, you know what the size of the canopy should be and if, say, a post oak has a very small canopy then it tells you that the tree did not reach its full potential. Then you start looking for different types of damage to the tree and decay. A lot of these trees had decay in the upper trunk of the tree. When you have that it leads to a hazardous condition ifyou have winds making it break at that weak point on the tree. There were a lot of trees that had that type of situation. Then as you move down the trunk you can see where different things have occurred. Branches have been broken offor vehicles have hit the trees and things like that. Because these things were not addressed over the years, decay had set in and there was a lot of decay in the trunks of the trees. This again can cause a hazardous condition. The situation is anytime you have any kind of development where you are going to have the public there on the site or cars parked on the site, that is when you call the tree a hazardous tree. Because this is going to be a public piece of property there will be a lot of people on the site and you have to take that into consideration when determining the health of the tree as well. Then when you look at the root system, a lot of these trees have • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 22 grown being planted by birds and they have grown up through the concrete and so they are growing crooked and leaning and really have not developed a healthy root system to hold them up. When you start working with the site and changing the soil and things like that then you are just leading to a more hazardous condition. A lot of the trees have girdling roots. Again, this can cause a hazardous condition when there is a strong wind and can cause the tree to fall in that direction. There are a lot of different things we look at Allen: So where there are a lot of human traffic, then most trees would be called hazardous? Erwin: No ma'am. Allen: I thought that is what you were saying. Erwin: I'm saying that when you are putting a tree on public property, you have to look at it more closely because there are going to be more targets for the tree. Allen: And you only saw three trees that you thought were not healthy, is that correct? • Erwin: There were three trees, and I've not looked at the inventory in a while either, that I gave a good or excellent rating. The other trees that are in fair condition are not necessarily in terrible condition, they just have some problems. There were also several trees that had been topped by the utility company over the years and all of these trees have decay in the canopy. Allen: Thank you. • Estes: Commissioner Marr. Marr: Thank you Mr. Chair. I apologize for being late and the attendance can actually be noted that I'm actually here now. 1 had a question for Kim also and at the risk of being, l guess, politically incorrect maybe, I too received calls today wondering and asking the question to make sure that people understand why we approve a plan for less preservation in one case and not in another. I'd like to, I've heard some of the reasons, but just for the record to get it stated, if you could speak three or four bullet points on the difference between this development and the CMN development when we had some of the same issues. The second question is, I know there have been a lot of public hearings relating to the library, library site, architecture etc..., what the public comment in general was since we didn't have any public comment tonight relevant to the tree preservation. • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 23 Hesse: I'll address Steele Crossing versus CMN. Steel Crossing was a fairly large site with the Target store and Kohls and adjacent stores to that and quite a bit of parking and a very large lot. When I reviewed that I saw that there were 200 rare trees in one area of the site and I saw that there was a good 25 percent of the site that was totally left open. Part of that because of our overlay design standards and part of it because of our commercial design standards. All of that open space was in one area to the far east of the site where there were literally no trees. I instantly saw that by moving the building to the east and slightly to the south we could save close to 100 trees. It seemed pretty easy We didn't lose any square footage, we didn't lose one parking space. We did separate the buildings and that was the difference. To me that slight difference of separating the Kohls from the Target was not enough ofa reason to loose that many additional trees. Second thing about those trees is they were healthy and in a grove so it was very easy to save them all in a grove. If they were spread about that site it would have been different. First, I probably wouldn't have been able to come up with a design that showed that much preservation. Second, it would have been much more difficult during construction to save those trees. When they are in a group the roots are all entwined and you have a very good chance of preserving the roots that are in the center ofthe preserved area. You just prune around the outside and you still have a large root zone that is left in tact. When they are spaced out like at the library site, to develop that site you either reduce greatly the amount you can develop or you end up impacting the entire tree all the way around that tree and all of the roots around that tree. So, if they are in a questionable condition health wise, there is a lot they are going to go under and the amount of stress will really take them on a downturn. Thirdly, this at Steele Crossing was a unique site in that you don't see that many groves of the post oak like the oaks have been arranged. So there was an historic quality to that site. Again, like I say, it seemed very reasonable to me to ask them to shift their buildings and save all those trees. They didn't loose square footage and didn't lose parking spaces. With this library site, in order to save that percentage you would greatly reduce that building or have to go up three stories, well I guess it is three stories, you would have to go up more in height and reduce the parking and reduce the viability of that building for the future if it's designed for the year 2020. In looking at those trees it just didn't make sense to put that much expense into a building knowing that those trees will not survive for sure past 50 years and most likely 20 years. Most of those trees were diseased because of the poor maintenance they received. Did that answer your first question? Marr. Yes it did. Hesse: And your second question? Marr: In the public hearings through the development of the library, what was the feedback from • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 24 the public relative to tree preservation since it's substantially less that what we typically see? Hesse: I'll refer to the architect for that. Wagner: Sean Wagner of Meyer, Scherer & Rockcastle. 1 guess the issue ofthe development of this site and the viability really goes back longer than 18 months. I believe during the site selection and exploratory process, the identification ofthe site did bring up issues such as site coverage. It is a small site. It is an urban site. It has a lot of the problems that have been created by abandoned homestead sites. You get a variety of different arrangements and one of the problems is what Kim is describing, is that the trees are now disbursed over a single block although at one time it was four or five more smaller separate properties which had their own peculiar nature. The issue of tree preservation on this has come up during at least the first six public meetings. There were atotal ofbetween 30 and 50 public meetings over the last 18 months, excuse me, three years. During the initial stages of schematic design for this building at least six of the first public meetings during that process focused entirely on site development and issues of building configuration. One meeting we would have a lot of people saying we needed to concentrate on saving as many trees as we could. So, we looked at options that excluded the reduction of the retaining wall at the southwest corner of the site and we in fact saved quite a bit more canopy. At the next meeting and in meetings with city staff and a number ofother interests groups two weeks later, the outcry was no, there is a real public safety issue with the southwest corner ofthe site. During that entire schematic design process we probably explored six or seven different options and ways to develop the site that would accommodate neighboring property owners and their desires would deal with some ofthe special interest groups and different voices within the community. Really out of that entire process we began to develop this notion of small committees, public committees such as the exterior spaces committee that really had a lot of influence on our design process. It wasn't a singular notion of this is how the building is going to be and this is how it's going to fit on the site and there are no other options available. We really solicited as much public input as we know how and I understand that it really has been a very good and growing process both for us as designers but also as a community. I think a lot of people have had an opportunity to express their opinion and their voice and add influence into the design. It really has grown over time. Marr: Estes: Thank you. Mr. Chair, I have one other question. Yes Commissioner Marr. • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 25 Marr: I want to jump back for a minute, Tim, to the Mountain Street issue and the width ofthat. I understand that the road is classified local today. Do we anticipate any type of reclassification on any of these streets because ofa building ofthis size and the traffic that may be generated particularly over this time and are we taking that into consideration in this design? Conklin: I would not imagine us reclassifying these streets to make them four lane streets in our downtown area. I think the streets that we have when we looked at our Master Street Plan and we did modify the collector street to a 50 foot right of way that, with regard to Mountain Street, I don't see us making that as a collector street. West Street is a collector and School Street is a collector with access to Dickson Street and even west up to Maple all the way down south. I can not imagine us making West Street. If anything the proposed parallel parking and the landscaping will help slow traffic down in an area that we will be encouraging pedestrian activity. The bike racks are located on the north side of the building, therefore people bike riding or walking to the facility, we do want to make sure the traffic is slowed down and makes a safe environment. Marr: Thank you. One last question. I'm assuming that the public school systems will probably use our public library and have we allowed for buss parking and will our garage handle that? Wagner: Right now the way that the service entrance offof Rock Street allows for essentially the standing or parking oftwo full size tractor trailers or busses at the same time that the ramp itself can be opened. We also along Mountain Street have a designated place, and I believe it's shown on the plans, a public drop zone which will allow large school busses and Grayhound type busses to pull up and drop people off and then make additional runs. So, in terms of site access, I think we have done a pretty good job ofthat. We don't have the capacity to run a full size Grayhound\school busses through the parking garage because the turning radios inside that garage would be quite significant more than what the site would actually hold. But I think we've provided equal access to as many portions of the building as we can to drop and unload people. Marr: Dust want to make sure, I feel it's appropriate that the neighborhood not deal with 20 busses or 10 busses taking up street parking as a result of the library activity so I appreciate that. Thank you. Estes: Commissioner Hoffman. • Hoffman: I have, back to the landscaping question that I will need Kim and the architect and Louise • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 26 all three to respond to this. During your design process the city has undergone a change in thinking about the importance oftree preservation. I understand that you have had three years of focus groups focusing directly on this project and have at the same time considered your tree preservation issues. Our new ordinance has passed the Planning Commission and is now on its way to City Council and it includes many different methods of mitigation on a site like this when it's impossible to preserve the tree canopy and have the size of building. Lee's question about the Marriott Courtyard going on this site prompts me to ask this. My first question is what is the estimated construction cost of this building? Schaper: The total project is 22.6. About 23 with the off site improvements. I'm looking for the actual construction of the building. Hoffman: Just round numbers, Louise. Schaper: About 17.5 for the actual building. • Hoffman: With site and everything it's about 22, 23 million? Schaper: 23 million. Hoffman: Okay. My next question then would be to Mrs. Hesse regarding the new landscaping ordinances we would have opportunities for off site mitigation for removal of these trees. Can you give me an estimate of under our new ordinance what the cost would be to mitigate the removal of so many trees on this lot? I hate to put you on the spot. This is not something we've talked about and you may not be able to answer it tonight. I would like to get an idea if our new ordinance would allow for the development of this lot with the addition of some other trees in another more desirable location. The reason I'm getting at this is because I would like to see the city play on a level playing field with commercial development. Hesse: On this site they have mitigated on site by planting some native trees they have shag bark hickory, short leaf pine. They have smoke trees, now whether they can find a native version of a smoke tree, if they could they would have accomplished a portion of that mitigation. One thing to note on this particular development is that they are also planting trees across the street. Hoffman: Have those been counted in your numbers for the onsite canopy? Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 27 Hesse: No. Hoffman: So that is in addition? Hesse: That is in excess of what is required which would equate to an offsite alternative. We don't really call it mitigation because it's not on the site. It's off site alternative which allows them to plant off site on an adjacent property or on a property they own or they give to a tree fund which the city administers In this case since it is a public building the city can put trees in their own rights of way which is kind of being implemented with this plan. If this was a private entity they would probably be giving money to the city and the city would then come back and plant trees across the street, most likely. Whether they have the numbers I would have to calculate that. Hoffman: Do you get a sense in general that they would be close to coming up to the mitigation factor that might be required for private development on private property? Hesse: That would depend. Again, we look at the health so it may not be as high a priority. Remember the priority system? If they are high priority trees there is a higher percentage of mitigation required, a higher number of trees. I would have to really calculate to find out what is a high priority tree on this site and what is mid level and determine the number of trees. I don't know that they would have the room to put them all on site. Most likely they wouldn't not with the amount of space that we would want them to have. They are grouping a lot of their trees although they are planting some native species. I'd say it's a combination of meeting onsite and doing an offsite alternative by doing the street tree plantings around the site. Hoffman: Thanks. Estes: Mr. Williams? Williams: Mr. Chairman, I'm in complete agreement with the Commission here that the city should be held to the tree preservation standard but you are talking about a level playing field and the current tree ordinance is of course what they have to meet. We wouldn't ask any other commercial developer to come in and meet a new tree ordinance which has not been passed yet. Our landscape administrator has come up with a determination I believe, and she should correct me if I'm wrong, but reading her letter she says that little can be done to preserve more of the canopy than is proposed. I take that to mean that there is no reasonable way that the property can be otherwise developed, improved or properly maintained and the trees saved which is what the statute gives the landscape administrator • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 28 the discretion in saying therefore, those trees can be removed. Was that your determination Mrs. Hesse? Hesse: That is correct. Williams: So I think that, I'm glad to see that there are many questions going out to the developers here and the city however, I don't think it would be fair to hold the city to a higher standard than we would another commercial developer and the city is developing under the current tree ordinance and has in fact done the mitigation, which is called replacement canopy up to 25 percent on this lot. I think that's what your facts are. I think with the interpretation by our landscape administrator who has the power under our ordinances to interpret that, that they have in fact created an acceptable tree preservation plan under the current ordinance and we should not try to hold them to a higher standard. Just as we could not to the Marriott or any other commercial developer until the law has in fact been changed. Hoffman. Mr. Chair? • Estes: Commissioner Hoffman. • Hoffman: I didn't feel that I was asking the city to hold to a higher standard. I did feel, however, that it was imperative to note that the city should be an example for the rest of the development community. We should actually lead the way and have in the drafting of our ordinance, was merely trying to point out that the library had gone over and above the minimum requirements which was not apparent in the initial presentation. The minimum requirements, which are just those. Anybody has a right and I think in some cases a duty to exceed those minimum requirements. Especially the City. We should act as the example rather than just the lowest common denominator. Marr. Mr. Chairman? Estes: Commissioner Marr. Marr: I completely agree with Commissioner Hoffman. I think the other thing for me is, I want to feel like we have done good due diligence to understand how we make those determinations. I think that was one ofthe biggest questions that I certainly got, was why we do it one way one time and what may be perceived to be different when in reality I thought the explanation tonight certainly outlined why one development was treated one way and one the other. I think it's good to ask ourselves what is the process that we go • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 29 Estes: Bunch: through. I certainly enjoyed hearing how we evaluate the health of a tree. I've often wondered that. It's certainly not meant to hold them to a higher standard. I think the other value in the question is to understand what it would have been in this situation so that as the City Council and the rest of the public continues to provide their input on the tree ordinance that we take a real life example that today if it had lived under it, what would that change have been. Any other discussions? Any motions? Commissioner Bunch? I would like to also concur with the line of reasoning on the trees. Judging from past history we have looked at 10.9 percent and now we are looking at 7 percent and 10.9 percent created quite a firestorm concerning the preservation of just 10.9. 1 think the actual total canopy wound up with replacement being somewhere in the same neighborhood, 24, 25 percent. So I feel it is our duty at this time to explore this and see what the process is so we can, for the record, let people know how these things are determined. I see one ofthe differences on this project is that we have gone vertical. I think that the project where it was 10.9 percent replacement there was a refusal to go vertically. This has gone vertical parking and with the building itself which has maximized the utilization ofthe building space in the downtown area. I think that's something that should be applauded. I do have one minor question to ask the landscape architect, are you still considering deciduous trees versus pine trees on the southem face, the southeast comer? Have you made a determination on that? Foster: Sean can actually answer that. He's familiar with what he is expecting. Wagner: Actually I feel somewhat unfortunate that I was not at the last level of meetings simply because my directive to Travis was that the southem exposure to the building given that it's a library and given the way we've designed the interior of the library to take full advantage of natural light as opposed to artificial or electric light. All of our reading spaces are located, reading tables, reading chairs, reading arrangements are located on exterior walls to take advantage ofthis. One of the things that came up during all ofthe public meetings was a real concem for having southem exposure. For having glass on the south side of the building. We began to analyze that and explore options and look at different designs of glass. What it finally came down to was that direct sunlight is not a healthy environment to sit down and read a book. In fact it's very uncomfortable and both myself and Jeff Scherer and the entire design team were not interested in internalizing the reading space as we felt it very important for patrons to have a sense of connectedness to the exterior. That's why we requested the coniferous trees to be located on the south end ofthe reading areas on the southeast corner of the site. There is definitely a cross benefit analysis that Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 30 one has to go through but I think that we looked at it very carefully. The building was not designed as a passive solar building. We weren't looking to necessarily take enormous advantage off of heat gain during the winter time which is what you would end up with deciduous trees In fact your biggest dilemma in this part ofthe country is your cooling load and the most amount of energy and electricity and long term operational cost to the owner has to do with the ability to cool the building down. It was of interest to the project to try and provide long term shading to all ofthe direct glass exposure to the south and that is why we requested Travis to consider the narrow leafpine, short leaf pine which I think is the state tree of Arkansas. So, again looking at native species and different options in terms of vegetation and achieving some ofour environmental goals for the building was the marching orders that I had passed on to him. Bunch: One of my concerns in posing that question, in the recent past the library went through a period of possibly curtailing hours and changing schedules because of budgetary requirements. We do have this tax to build the building but what I was looking at primarily was operating the building over the next 20 years and the significant savings on energy levels in the wintertime could possibly forestall some ofthe budgetary problems we've had in the past where we've had to curtail hours and not had the library as accessible. That's one ofthe questions, again, we're building a bigger building and are we going to have budget in place in order to operate this building and to keep it open so the public can use it over the next 20 or 40 years. Wagner: The last part of your question is not something that I can address specifically, however it sounds like you and I share similar goals. My goal for this building and part ofthe reason why we are pursuing building certification through the US Green Building Council as a green certified building which is the leadership for energy and environmental design program through the US Green Building Council, is architecture is sort of interesting in that we create buildings. We create buildings all over the country. Our firm creates public libraries all over the country. The biggest legacy we leave communities often times, is operational cost. One of the things that we have explored in any number of ways with this building is how to reduce those things. We are looking at a lot of technology where we are bringing sort of a new standard of envelope and thermal design to this facility that frankly has not been done in Arkansas before. We are seriously looking at ways of improving building efficiency and the envelope efficiency so you don't have to bum as much fuel to heat the winter. There is a way of making the building more intelligent reducing operational costs. I think I've given this example in the past. There are some buildings that we have done in the last four or five years, maybe 70,000 square feet that have had an operational budget $70,000 or $80,000 a year. By looking at the energy star roof system and increasing the envelope performance and looking at ways of reducing the amount of heat • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 31 gain to the building, our minimum goal is to actually reduce the building's energy use by a minimum of30 percent which translates into $20,000 to $22,000 a year in annual savings over the same building that would be designed in accordance with the Arkansas Energy Code. We, on our own incentive we have brought to this process, and I actually should step back, the community actually demanded this process in every aspect. I think the entire design team was fortunate enough to look at that as an opportunity to do something special for the community and look at ways of making sure you can operate this building 20 years from now. More so than a building that may be designed by another architect in another community. That is what I can add to that. Estes: Commissioners, any further discussions or motions? Hoffman: Mr. Chair? Estes: Commissioner Hoffman? MOTION: Hoffman: I would like to thank everybody for answering some hard asked questions. I'm going to make a motion and I'm still going to try to do that. 1 do appreciate everybody's work and continued hard efforts. I know we have a long ways to go on this during construction. I would like to move approval of LSD 01-29 with the specific findings that the parking waiver is approved, that the engineering support of the waiver for the retaining walls is approved, that the off street improvements are approved as stated in item 3, and that the commercial design standards have been met and that the tree preservation ordinance, certainly, has been adequately addressed. Marr: Estes: Allen: I second. We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman to approve LSD 01-29 and a second by Commissioner Marr. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Chair just one quick thing. I'm going to vote for this project since the citizens of Fayetteville voted for a library but I continue to have concerns about the tree ordinance being applied differently for the City than it is for other folks. I think we need to be very careful about not apply ordinances differently for the City. Estes: Thank you Commissioner Allen. Mr. Williams. • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 32 Williams: On condition of approval number one where it talks about a waiver. In looking at that statute it says that any additional spaces above 20 percent shall be allowed only as a conditional use to be granted in accordance with Chapter 163, am I reading that correctly, Tim, where they actually need to consider that as a conditional use and then make the findings under that particular chapter? Conklin: Yes you are reading that correctly. Williams: Then l would ask the Planning Commission as part of your motion you include the required findings that we have under Chapter 163 for conditional uses. First that you are empowered to make this a conditional use and the granting of the conditional use will not adversely effect the public interests and you have certified that you have checked through all of the factors there including general compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district and make that as a part of your motion if you would. Hoffman: I certainly intended to at least imply that I had made those findings in my motion and concur. I would like to incorporate that a conditional use for the excess amount of parking be granted as a part of this motion. Estes: Commissioner Marr, does the second accept that? Marr. Absolutely. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and a second by Commissioner Marr to approve LSD 01-29. Is there any further discussion? Bunch: Mr. Chairman, the question I have is on the propriety of making a conditional use and we need to check with the attomey and staff. Can we add that to this project at this time since it was not on the agenda and not published? Conklin: We have done that in the past on these excess parking on large scale developments. That's how we have handled them in the past. Bunch: Even though we have done that in the past are we allowed to? Estes: Mr. Williams, may the Chair suggest this, because Item one would require a conditional use which would require five affirmative votes as opposed to a majority of affirmative votes for the LSD, may the movement Commissioner Hoffman entertain the thought or notion of first taking the motion on the conditional use? • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 33 Hoffman: Yes I will be happy to do that. And you are correct because the vote count I believe is different for the two motions so 1 will move for approval of conditional use related to LSD 01-29 for the additional parking with the findings that the additional parking is needed and is in conformance with our ordinance. Estes: And would the second entertain acceptance of that motion? Marr: Yes sir. Estes: We then have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman to approve the condition of approval number one as a conditional use and a second by Commissioner Marr. Normal order of business would be to take the first motion because that motion is normally dispositive but the chair will rule that the second motion will be heard first. Do we have any discussion • regarding the motion to approve condition of approval number 1, that is the conditional use, the determination ofa waiver request on the parking ratios? Before you call the role, Dawn, would you let the record reflect that Commissioner Marr is present and Commissioner Hoover is now present. Would you call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion to approve condition of approval number one as a conditional use, that is a waiver request from section 172.01d3, the parking ratio passes by a vote of 8-0. Estes: There is now the motion on the floor to approve the LSD 01-29. That is a motion by Commissioner Hoffman with a second by Commissioner Marr. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, Dawn, would you call the roll please ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion to approve LSD 01-29 passes by a unanimous vote of 8-0. • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 34 LSD 01-28.00: Large Scale Development (Marriott Courtyard, pp 212) was submitted by Andy Feinstein of Engineering Design Assoc on behalf of Marriott Courtyard for property located on lot 17 CMN Business Park Phase 1. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.95 acres The request is to build a 108 room hotel. Estes: The next item to come before the Commission is LSD 01-28.00: Large Scale Development submitted by Andy Feinstein of Engineering Design Assoc. on behalf of Marriott Courtyard for property located on lot 17 CMN Business Park Phase 1. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.95 acres. The request is to build a 108 room hotel. Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions of approval. Staff do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: No we do not. Feinstein: You should have. Those were signed and returned. Estes: Those conditions ofapproval are Planning Commission determination ofa requested waiver from the commercial design standards to reduce the required 15 foot landscape area along the front property line. The applicant is requesting a 10 foot reduction in order to provide only 5 feet of landscape area. You have a letter from the applicant that is included in your materials. Staff is in support of this waiver. The reason that staff is in support of this waiver is due to the change in the master street plan that occurred after the platting of this lot. Because the street is already constructed there will be a six foot green space between the curb and the sidewalk, a six foot sidewalk and an 11 to 15 foot green space between the sidewalk and parking lot. The 1 1 to 15 foot green space between the sidewalk and parking lot will consist of 10 feet of additional right of way dedication to the city per the master street plan. Condition of approval 2) Large scale development approval shall be contingent upon approval of the requested vacation of utility easements on this site. This item was heard at the August 13, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting and was recommended to City Council for approval. 3) Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver of Section 17201d3 parking ratios. The requirement is for one parking space for every room plus one additional space per employee. There are 108 rooms and six employees which makes the requirement 114 parking spaces. The request is to provide five fewer parking spaces than required, or 109 parking spaces. 4) Planning Commission determination ofcompliance with commercial design standards including signage. 5) Plat review and subdivision comments to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representatives and all comments from utility representatives. 6) Staff approval of final detailed plans specifications and calculations where applicable for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets public and private, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. 7) Large scale development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 8) Approval ofthis project does not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available at time of construction. 9) Prior to the Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 35 issuance to a building permit, the following is required, grading and drainage permits, separate easement plat for this project, project disk with all final revisions and completion of all required improvements or placement ofassurity with the city as required by Section 158.01. Is the applicant present? Do you have a presentation that you would like to make? Feinstein: Briefly, I would to just thank the Staff for working with us on this. The client is very excited about coming to Fayetteville. I don't know if anyone caught the press conference with the Mayor last week to make that announcement. He is very excited to be moving into Fayetteville and hopes he can get in here before too many more games come and go. I'm here to answer any of the questions. There is some clarification on these parking numbers. Tim do you want to go over the last few changes we made or do you want me to make a try at it? At subdivision committee meeting there was a request that we investigate cross parking agreements or opportunities with Proctor and Gamble to our north and the owners are willing to do that. The folks at Proctor and Gamble are willing to do that. You should have a letter in your packet stating their interest to do something along those lines. To accommodate this and to provide a pedestrian access between our two facilities I'm asking that we reduce our parking count to 108 spaces on our site. Thus we would be looking at a cross parking agreement of 6 spaces with Proctor and Gamble. Those numbers are slightly different than what is shown on these plans. Other than that there are no problems with the conditions of approval. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Thank you Andy. Is there any member of the audience that would like to provide public comment on this requested LSD 01-28? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion, comments, motions. Commissioner Church. Church: 1 had a question about the parking. I'm sure you have done studies to see what kind of capacity you can expect. I don't know a lot about hotels but I'm wondering is the hotel going to be full most of the time or what percentage would you expect? Feinstein: These types of facilities are very rarely at capacity. It would be probably those few occasions when there is a home game or a fair situation, that sort ofthing. The numbers that I'm getting through my client that the Courtyard by Marriott have generated is that their minimum is .99 parking spaces per occupancy unit. The city's requirement are actually more rigorous in requiring one per room plus employee parking. That is the best 1 can answer that based on the Marriott organization which spends a lot of time studying this. They are comfortable with the ratios that we have presented here. We had quite a reiterative process here trying to adjust the size of the parking to fit the site and maximize the number of rooms. • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 36 Estes: Marr: Feinstein: Conklin: MOTION: Marr: Estes: Hoffman: Estes: Bunch: There was quite a bit of back and forth between the architects and our staff and the owner to come up with what you see here. Commissioner Marr. Just so we have some information on findings on this, could you speak to the actual materials that will be used. Certainly it's not a boxlike structure, but in terms of the point on the blend of that facility with surrounding property in this location. I'm not sure if we really did. This is the view as you would see it from plain view looking towards the northwest so Proctor and Gamble would be almost behind you at this point. 1 don't really recall what Proctor and Gamble looks like, what their facade is. I know we spent some time trying to match the roof colors with some of the medical park facilities down the street west on Millsap. I think there was a dominance of green on those colors. Mr. Chairman, there are many different colors out there in the CMN phase one. Ifyou look at some of the new office buildings they have used red brick. Other developments have used more beige type colors. 1 think these colors that they are proposing are compatible with the surrounding development in that area. It's nothing that is far off from the type of color scheme that you see along Millsap and Longview drive. Mr. Chair, I would like to move for approval of LSD 01-28 allowing the waiver from the design standard requiring the 15 foot landscaping down to 5 based on the recommendations of the City Staff and the changes as a result of the master street plan after platting of this particular lot. I'd also like for my motion to include the waiver for parking requirement under ordinance 172-01 d3 based on the fact that! believe that the document provided to us tonight on letterhead from Proctor and Gamble allows what the subdivision committee requested in order to have adequate parking and that the commercial design standards have been met and are consistent with the area. We have a motion by Commissioner Marr to approve LSD 01-28. Is there a second? Second. We have a second by Commissioner Hoffman. Is there any discussion? Commissioner Bunch. This question is for Andy and possibly for Staff. I'm aware that in CMN Business Park phase II across the highway there are covenants for design standards in addition to our City standards and also I'm aware that this is just outside of the overlay district so we don't have to be concerned with that, but does phase I of CMN Business Park have a set of covenants • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 37 that must be met? Feinstein: Not that I'm aware of. Bunch: Tim, are you aware of that? 1 know we have it for Steele Crossing and CMN Business Park II across the highway. Conklin: There are some restrictive covenants however 1 believe they are Tess than what our standards have for this area. So if they are meeting our standards they should be meeting the restrictive covenants. Bunch: I guess that's our job is to make sure they meet the covenants of the business development. I think that is probably the property owner's group that has that responsibility. Feinstein: Would that be referenced on the final plat? Bunch: Probably be referenced on the purchase of the lot. On the final plat. Conklin: When they do the final plat they do file the restrictive covenants. We do try to make sure • developers are aware of those and recently started to ask questions on our building permits and certificates that we sign. We want to make sure people are aware of those covenants. Typically our standards are going to be at a higher level on a commercial subdivision. • Marr: Mr. Chair, I guess a comment that I would make to Commissioner Bunch too, is that I'm not sure that we want to get into having conditions relevant to the requirements ofa developer or of subdivision because I'm not sure that we want to be held as a regulating or legal body of that. Nor do 1 want to be in court doing that on a regular basis. We haven't done it to my knowledge in my three years on the Commission relative to residential development. Feinstein: 1 took the comment as a concern that if there are covenants more restrictive than the City, 1 might have to have a redesign. And I want to assure that what you see is what we want to go with. If I could state that if there are covenants that require changes, you will see them. Estes: Marr: Bunch: Is that acceptable to you Commissioner Marr? It is. I'm uncomfortable including it in my motion because I don't think we should be involved in that. My point was not necessarily to include it in the motion but to make sure that we have, as we get into the situation where we have more and more of these covenants we need to make sure that everyone is aware of them so we don't have to go through this process multiple times because one set of covenants or regulations may be more stringent than the other and Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 38 Estes: to have it delineated so we can work in concert on these and look at the project.' ust one time and save money on the developer and the property owners and be conservative ofCity Staff time and our time also. Just to be aware that covenants may exist and to look a the covenants at the same time that we look at the city design standards and the overlay district standards. Mr. Williams, I have a question. At agenda there was some discussion regarding a shared parking and cross pedestrian access and we are presented for the first time this evening with what has been represented to us as a shared parking agreement. In paragraph three the first sentence reads from Proctor and Gamble, we would need the right to revoke such an agreement at any time, is that language permissible under a shared parking agreement? Williams: I would say that it would make an agreement unilateral (TAPE ENDS. GOING ONTO TAPE 2) Estes: Mr. Feinstein and I had a visit today regarding the shared parking agreement. I'm looking at it for the first time. My concern is that tomorrow morning this may be revoked. Feinstein: We would entertain any other suggested language. Do you have examples that we can get in front of these people and see if they can agree on the language that the city would like to use? Hoffman: Mr. Chair, I have run into this before and you really can't require someone to dedicate a parking lot in perpetuity. I would suggest to you that the share area has at least six parking parallel spaces available and that either the site plan be redesignated to show those parallel parking spaces or that a note be put on there that valet parking will be used during overflow conditions. We are only talking about six spaces. Estes: You are talking about six spaces. Commissioner Marr, it's your motion. Marr: I'm comfortable with that if the applicant is comfortable with that change. Feinstein: Help me again. You are saying that if we present a plan that shows parking within the portacachair area? Hoffman: You can either stripe off some parallel spaces within the portacachair area or provide valet parking when necessary. It's up to you. Feinstein: Our understanding of the design criteria was if we have a two way drive isle it has to be 24 feet. That's what we are trying to indicate there. Hoffman: Then valet parking may be the other alternative. • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 39 Feinstein: It may be the only option available to us. Can 1 suggest that we also entertain an option of an agreement that has language that is agreeable to the city. If they don't want to go with valet parking can we try and revise this and make this a condition of approval? Williams: Correct me if I'm wrong,Tim, but isn't the Planning Commission empowered by themselves to grant a waiver of the six spaces and say that they can go below the minimum six spaces even without a shared parking agreement? Conklin: Yes. Keep in mind this area, Proctor and Gamble to the north, it's an office building and was built as an office building and will continue to be used as an office building. Our ordinances encourage applicants to share parking when it's available and we do have an agreement here that is stating that they can share those six spaces as long as it doesn't cause problems with their employees. We are building the Marriott Hotel next to an office building. I personally can't see any problems in the future with regard to these six spaces. Estes: Perhaps I should take some responsibility for this entire issue. At agenda 1 was the first one that mentioned it. My concern is that there will be times that this property will be at or near full capacity; football games, crafts fairs. There are going to be people there and those people are going to park somewhere. They are going to park in the Proctor and Gamble lot in all probability and walk across the grass slope and if it's wet they are going to fall down. I want to address this issue of shared parking and cross pedestrian access. 1 do not want to grant the waiver. Williams: You are certainly within your right not to grant the waiver. Broyles: Good evening. My name is Hank Broyles. I'm with Broyles Commercial Funding. I've been acting a consultant to Long and Cox properties and Hotel Development LLC. I've also been in direct contact with Flake & Kelley who is the owner of the property and owns the two Proctor and Gamble buildings. The reason for the last part in the third paragraph was that Proctor and Gamble built that building specifically with the intent that ifthey wanted to expand they could. There is more parking than is necessary even for the expansion. However, the reason for that third paragraph was that if in the future the City of Fayetteville increased its parking requirements and that increase caused a potential denial of the expansion of the current Proctor and Gamble building then they would need to void the cross parking agreement ifthe City was not going to let the Proctor and Gamble building expand. Does that make sense to you? Did 1 say that correctly? Estes: That makes sense. Broyles: They are in agreement with doing it, they only wanted to have the possibility ofrevoking the agreement in the event that the City was going to prevent Proctor and Gamble from doing an expansion. They changed the current parking requirements. Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 40 Hoffman: Mr. Chair, a question for the architect or the designer. Would it be possible to add six more spaces in by utilizing compact design or dimensions? Feinstein: At one point when 1 suggested that to the architects, they said they are prohibited on Marriott jobs. If you study the plan, you can see I do have some compacts on here already. 1 think we have squeezed this one down as far as it can go. What I'm hearing is that everybody is interested in coming to this sort of agreement, we just need to get there. If it's a matter of language in this letter being changed to satisfy those concerns I think that is a surmountable obstacle. Estes: Commissioner Bunch. Bunch: If 1 can direct everybody's attention to the August 16, 2001 subdivision committee which is where this issue was first raised. Traditionally Marriott Courtyards are a business mans type facility where their primary occupancy is during the week as opposed to weekends and knowing the way Fayetteville and northwest Arkansas operates we were trying to offer our knowledge of our area to them to help in their design process when we were speaking to the home football games and to War Eagle craft fairs and such and the increased occupancy on weekends which normally a Marriott Courtyard does not see. It was suggested to the applicant at that time to investigate a shared parking agreement not as a condition but as a suggestion to alleviate weekend situations knowing that Proctor and Gamble probably would not have full occupancy of their parking lot on weekends nor in the evenings. 1 think that the letter also reflects that this would primarily be staff parking to further increase control of it. At times when they are close to 100 percent occupancy it's anticipated that it would be a management function to where the staff would be the ones utilizing the parking lot of Proctor and Gamble building. 1 do believe at that meeting that you, Andy, mentioned a pedestrian cross connection. Have you come up with anything on that? Feinstein: Yes. That's what Dust mentioned at the beginning. The extreme northwestern parking area there I would want to take out one more parking space from my site to accommodate a sidewalk between the two facilities. Bunch: That's right next to the drive thru? Feinstein: Yes. It would be parallel to that drive isle. Estes: Commissioner Marr. Marr: Mr. Chair, when 1 looked at the letter, 1 looked at it as the gap being five to six spaces and the control of that being the Marriott staff and if they were willing to do that then we met the agreement. 1 also happen to office in this part of town and do believe that the availability will be there in the evenings even on a Monday thru Friday work week. I share your concern on the walking access between the two. Particularly if there is employees there. We deal • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 41 Estes: Marr: with some of that now with our own staff parking across the street as we too have some parking issues. My intent is that 1 believe it's addressed the gap that would get us in compliance with the requirements of the ordinance and that that is controlled more thru the direct employees of Marriott Hotels as opposed to guest random parking in another lot. We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and a second by Commissioner Hoffman to approve LSD 01-28. This motion does not include the waiver of section 172.01 d3 but does incorporate the shared parking agreement as recited in the August 27, 2001 letter from Proctor and Gamble that we have received this evening. Is that correct Commissioner Marr? That is. Maybe 1 need to reword my motion if you are making a valid point. I guess I'm going to amend my motion or change my motion if the second will concur, to waive the parking requirement 172.01d3 with my finding being that 1 believe the 109 spaces are adequate with an employee agreement that may exist to allow for the deficiency and with the ratio ofMarriott's .99 which includes both staff and rooms, they are in the hotel business and it meets their requirements and 1 certainly think it provides enough parking in this situation. Estes: Does the second accept the motion as stated? Hoffman: Yes 1 do. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr to approve LSD 01-28 and a second by Commissioner Hoffman. Is there any other discussion? Ward: Mr. Chairman, I'm definitely going to vote for the motion to approve this but one thing I have a little bit of problem with this is one of the standards we look at is commercial design standards. It's really hard building a five or six story building using only one material to give it a lot of articulation. Using brick and stone and E.F.I.S. and a combination of maybe some of the rough cut blocks I think would have helped it a lot in my case. Especially on the first floor. But, it's a very nice looking structure. 1 don't have any problems with it. By using other materials to start off with, it would have been a lot better project and a lot easier to maintain over the next 30 years instead of using all one material. That's the only comment I have. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and a second by Commissioner Hoffman to approve LSD 01-28. Any further discussion? Dawn, would you call the roll please. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion to approve LSD 01-28 passes by a vote of7-1 with Commissioner Estes voting no. • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 42 CUP 01-20.00: Conditional Use (Crandall, pp 484) was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Marc Crandall for property located at 110 N. School. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.28 acres. The request is fora multifamily dwelling (use unit 9) in an R -O zone. Estes: The next item to come before your Commission isa Conditional Use request 01-20 submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Marc Crandall for property located at 1 ION. School. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.28 acres The request is for a multifamily dwelling (use unit 9) in an R -O zone. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use subject to certain conditions. Tim, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: No we do not. Estes: I) Conditional use approval shall be contingent upon the Board of Adjustment approving a thirteen foot variance of the required ninety foot of lot width. The subject property is 77 foot wide and for three or more units 90 foot of frontage is necessary. 2) Project shall comply with tree protection and preservation requirements for the RO zoning district. A tree preservation plan shall be approved by the landscape administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3) The retaining wall along School Street shall be reconstructed to eliminate the dirt and debris which falls onto the sidewalk. The engineering division must approve plans for any retaining wall prior to the issuance ofa building permit for the project. Material for this wall shall be decorative stone or block. Standard CMU shall not be permitted. 4) Access to the rear ally shall be built to provide one 24 foot wide ingress, egress drive to the parking lot for this parking lot for this project. 5) The size and location of the dumpster shall be reviewed and approved by the solid waste division prior to the issuance of the building permit. This facility may need to be relocated to provide direct access from the ally for pickup. The dumpster pad shall be screened on three sides with adequate privacy fencing or vegetation. 6) The structure shall be built using materials compatible with surrounding properties. Elevation drawings of the south and west building facades shall be submitted for review at the time of building permit application. Materials shall include metal railings and stairs and a predominance of brick on these facades which will be very visible from the School Street right of way. 7) Any out door lighting installed in the parking area or on the building shall be shielded and directed downward and away from adjacent residences. 8) The parking area shall be screened from adjacent properties. The applicant shall install a wooden privacy fence six feet tall or a continuous row of shrubs between the parking lot at the rear of the proposed structure and the adjoining properties to the north and south. Is the applicant present? Do you have a presentation that you would like to make at this time? Crandall: My name is Mark Crandall. I'm the proposed developer of this project. The basic thing is that we want to take down the old building that is there and put in a nice looking six unit one bedroom apartment complex in an area that I think is an excellent place to live. I think the • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 43 proposed development will improve the area that exists right now. I'll be happy to answer any questions. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Thank you. Is there any member of the audience that would like to provide public comment regarding this Conditional Use request 01-20? If you would come forward please and state your name and provide us with the benefit of your comment. Zurcher: Good evening Planning Commission. Thank you for allowing us to comment on this. I'm here tonight not as a City Alderman, but as a neighbor. This proposed development is right down the street from where 1 live. I guess, just looking at the project and I've seen the proposed building and what it's going to look like, I guess I feel like we should really try to stay with the existing character of the neighborhood. If you look around where this development is proposed, there are several houses that date back to the early part of last century. I believe there are many other issues but I would say that would be my main one. Beside the fact that it's a beautiful little pocket area. That ally that goes back there is used quite a bit by the residence there. 1 think that this development will put in a whole lot of concrete that will just change the character there of the neighborhood. Thank you. Estes: Thank you Mr. Zurcher. Terry: My name is Melissa Terry and I live at 101 North Locust which the rear of my house will be facing the entrance to the proposed apartments. 1 want to thank you guys for being here and sending us the notices. That's really helpful. I have a letter from one of the homeowners on our block. She's elderly and ill and wasn't able to be here. If it's appropriate I would like to pass that out to you at this time along with some pictures of the neighborhood. Her name is Charlotte Travis and she lives at 322 West Meadow. Briefly to go over her letter. It says to whom it may concem, Due to health reasons 1 am unable to attend tonight's Conditional Use Hearing. I do have several concerns which I would like to have heard. I do not want to see the loss ofanother single family home in my neighborhood. This has already happened across Meadow Street from my home and has had a negative impact on the quality of our neighborhood by removing older homes which have an inherent quality and charm about them. The new structures most definitely lack. How will these newer cheaply built units weather the test of time? I believe they will negatively effect the property value and visual quality of my neighborhood. I'm also concerned about the planned six parking spaces for the six unit apartments. Where will the guests park? What happens when the tenants are a couple and each have a car? Parking is already an issue in the ally due to the apartments closer to Spring Street where they have the required number ofspaces but their guest cars often spill out into the neighboring homes and business parking lots. My third concem is that the lot is not large enough to contain such an apartment. I'm against the variance being granted due to the lot being too small according to our own City Planning rules and regulations. Believe this lot would be better suited to remain within the prescribed • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 44 planning rules, a single family household or duplex would be far better for our neighborhood's longevity and sense of pride I take in where I have made my home. Sincerely, Charlotte Travis. That was her view. One of my views as a homeowner on that street and that block is that similar to Alderman Zurcher, the character of that neighborhood is very charming and that's why we bought our house there. When we bought that house six or seven years ago, it too was a dump. We fixed it up and have worked on it and we have improved the property value because we cared about investing in what was there. Our house was built in 19I 0 and it's still there. When we bought it there wasn't a door upstairs. Dogs had been living downstairs and we cleaned it up and it looks good. Those are some of the pictures. 101 North Locust is the house we repaired. I'm just concerned that a unit that goes in that has an entirely paved parking lot that my back yard looks out onto is really going to bring down the quality of our neighborhood which has a mixed use feel, which I like. There are four offices that are on our block. Three of them are for rent. They are vacant. The salon is vacant. The store is vacant and 2 offices are vacant. A duplex would be fine or maybe it could be infill, because I agree that we need to work with growth issues by developing some of our downtown spaces and making them look nice. But in reviewing the proposed plan, don't feel like that drawing fits with the houses that you see pictured in front of you. I'm very concerned and would like to oppose this plan. • Estes: Thank you Mrs. Terry. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to comment on this requested conditional use? • Richter: My name is Flint Richter. I'm also the homeowner at 101 North Locust. 1 also would like to pass out some pictures of our ally. This is where the proposed access would be. The ally is very narrow. There are lots of trees which the homeowner next door is very particular about. I would like to start with the dumpster at the rear of the property. It says it will be screened. I don't know how they are going to screen it from my property which is directly across the ally. 1 look into this lot from my back yard from my studio. I'm an artist and my studio is right there. 1 live I 0 foot away from this property line. 1 have issues with the odors from a dumpster that would be right back there by my studio where I spend a good part of the day doing custom work. I really have an issue with how the truck would get in there. When I was building on my house 1 had a concrete truck come up there and he would not come up into the ally because of the narrowness of the ally and the trees. 1 had to haul the concrete by hand. I don't know if the trash people will do that also or what will happen. Parking is also an issue for me. The apartments next door have the stated number of parking spaces for the bedrooms that are there and they very often spill out into the grassy area next door which our neighbors, the law office, they spill out into their parking lots and sometimes they are parked there two or three days. They had two boats there. There are broken down cars. It seems to me that six spaces really will not be sufficient to handle the load of six tenants. What happens when a couple moves in? Can they only have one car? School Street is very hard to park on. There is only parking on one side. I'm a builder by necessity. The structure that is being proposed here is made mainly with the cheapest materials that can be bought. Cement, fiber siding, asphalt shingles, 4x4 posts. I'm concerned about that as • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 45 a homeowner. I'm only 32 right now and in 40 years when I'm planning to retire and planning to maybe sell my home, what will that apartment look like? Will someone want to move in there next door to it? I don't know. These are just questions I ask you. Would you want to have a rundown apartment next door? It also says the parking area shall be screened from adjacent properties. Applicant shall install a wooden privacy fence or a continuance row of shrubs. That doesn't help me much since I live to the east of this structure. There is no way to fence the parking area from my house so I will always be looking at a paved lot instead of a grassy and part gravel parking lot that 1 see now. 1 have also more concerns about the size of the lot. 1 don't really understand what the board of adjustments does and how if they need a 13 foot variance to get a 90 foot lot width. 1 don't know the rules and regulations that adjoin this but it seems to me that if the City has these rules about lot size and structures that go on there, why can't we stick with them? It seems this is an awfully large structure to be in such a small space. I guess 1 mainly wanted you to know that I'm concerned about my neighborhood. 1 bought this house in '96 and 1 live that neighborhood. 1 looked around Fayetteville and lived in my car for several months looking for houses in town and I love that neighborhood. 1 kept driving around it and finally found a house. I love the neighborhood because it had older houses and it had a charm about it which I didn't find in other parts of town. It was close to Dickson Street. Close to the square and I really loved it and 1 found a home there. I just want you to consider this and know that there are people who live there that are concerned about the future of this place. Estes: Thank you Mr. Richter. is there any other member of the audience that would like to provide public comment on this conditional use request? Miller: My name is Cathy Miller. My husband and I own the property adjacent across the street on North School Street. We too were concerned mostly about the parking. We have an overspill problem drastically from Dickson Street and anything that goes on at the square, we get the parking. We've had to call a tow truck numerous times because our driveways have been blocked and either us or our tenants can't get in or out. 1 have no problem with it being an apartment building because we own apartment buildings but we are just trying to make a living like I'm sure he is. They are Victorian type houses there and we've owned our building for about 10 years and it's a work in progress. We've put a lot of money and time into it and we would like to see the neighborhood stay with the same type structures. As far as the property, they way it sits it's kind of an eye sore. It could only be improved by whatever goes in there. If we can keep it where it goes good with the rest of the houses and the parking space problems can be taken care of. We have one bedroom apartments and we on occasion have had couples or even guests of the tenants, have no place to park. Like 1 said, on Friday and Saturday night, it's anybody's guess as to ifyou can find a parking spot or not. With the library going in up the hill ljust would like you to consider how hard it is to live down there where there are no parking. We have been told that it's in the works to take parking off of North School Street period. 1 hope that doesn't happen. That would cause all kinds of problems. WE have John Casablanca two doors down from us on Meadow street and we've fought with them over parking. It's just a constant battle. Ifyou don't live • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 46 down there, you probably don't realize how bad it really is. My husband and 1 have two cars and our tenants sometimes have two cars and it is an ongoing problem. Estes: Thank you Mrs. Miller. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this conditional use request 01-20? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none I'll bring it back to the full Commission for discussion, comments, motions. Marr: Mr. Chair. 1 have a question for the applicant. I'm looking at these pictures. Some are provided in our packet and some new ones given out tonight. I guess, when I look at the finding of general compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district, at least from these visual pictures, I have a hard time coming to that. Particularly when I look at the elevations that are in our packet and the drawings of the project. 1 guess I would like for you to explain to me from your perspective why you think this is compatible with the neighborhood and the adjacent property owners. Specifically, what appear to be adjacent properties. Crandall: I have taken a lot of pictures of the adjacent properties too. The original approach to this was brick facade building with wrought iron railings. Very attractive buildings and which is what a lot of the staff comments makes reference to in terms of having a brick facade. The generation of this really came after the subdivision meeting when I talked to the staff and they basically said some people are having some problems with what you are proposing on a brick facade, do you have any other ideas about what you could do. Basically; what 1 did was look at all the neighbors and changed the materials that are shown on the front of this drawing which reflect a narrow lapp type siding. We changed from wrought iron railings to more ofthe sculptured turned columns and from the wrought iron to the 2x2 wooden railings which really reflects what you see in the neighboring houses. The other side of the coin, if you look around the neighborhood, you do see Victorian type houses. But there is also a completely brick building. Around the comer there is more ofa straight building with a hip roof. There are several very nice looking buildings in the area, but in general the area is very eclectic in terms of what the architectural style is. Immediately across the ally there is a cinder block building. There is a lot of variation within the architecture. What I tried to do here by changing the materials was to utilize the materials that are on the nicer buildings, change the column structure to reflect the diversity. I tried to pick what think would look nicest on the building and reflect it on an apartment type building. You also have to remember that this building is set back 35 feet behind the wall and behind the vegetation of the street. My major focus was on the front long part of the building where the tenants will congregate and sit and impact. Most of the building from the School Street side you will not see. Bunch: Mr. Crandall, you made the comment that this went before the subdivision committee? • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 47 Warrick: 1 think the applicant was referring to the agenda session on Thursday afternoon. Bunch: I don't recall at the time that we reviewed it at the agenda session. We had no drawing or materials period. The question was not a brick facade with wrought iron railings. We had nothing. Crandall: At that point had submitted some photos of what the building would look like. I went through this process assuming that the mayor concern was the use aspect of what we were trying to put on the site as opposed to the architectural look of the building. My focus was, is multi family use compatible with the normal uses that are happening in the area and I would have to say that it is. Most of the area is either multi family or retail, office uses. 1 was focusing on making sure that the use 1 was proposing was the proper use for the area and I didn't concentrate on the architectural aspect, which is why really all I dis was submit some examples of this is the type of facade that we would like to put on the building. It wasn't until after that meeting when some people expressed some concern about that, we basically, grabbed the architect away from his vacation and in two hours he whipped this out to try to give you an idea of what I'm thinking about in terms of materials that we are going to use. Which, contrary to what the gentleman said over here, are not cheap materials. This is hardy board plank siding that looks exactly like wood siding except it has a very long term, you don't have the rotting problem you have with wood. I've used it on homes and on condos and it looks very nice once it's painted. You can't tell the difference much from the wood. It's not a vinyl siding or some other material that you would use on a cheaper building. So, 1 take a little bit of exception to the fact of characterizing it to a cheap building. Marr: 1 guess the question for Tim, maybe, help me out here. When 1 look at the staff finding there are two things I'm flipping back and forth between. On page 6.15 I'm assuming that this building, and maybe I'm assuming wrong, this building is the type of apartment building that could or may have gone in since at the time we didn't have actual elevation drawings, when I look at that and go back to multi dwelling facilities in these pictures, I think there is a very big difference on neighborhood compatibility and character of neighborhood that is different between an apartment building complex and a home that has multi units within in, if you will. From the city report, could you speak to the evaluation ofthe compatibility ofthis unit in that neighborhood? Conklin: When we originally wrote the report we talked about having a facade that's visible from the School Street right of way and has railings and stairs and something more traditional that you would find in our historic downtown area. The facade facing west doesn't really match condition number six. Once again, those were conversations that staff had with the applicant about what his intentions were. These plans that we received on Friday at 3:00 is what we had and ended up having a better idea of what it would actually look like facing School Street. Traditionally in our downtown area you do have older structures that have been converted into multi family units. Even in the historic districts you have structures that were converted. From outside it's difficult to tell they are multi family. They have the traditional • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 48 Marr: elements of porches, railings and some articulation on the front where it's not just a flat wall. So to answer your question, it's a little different from what we originally thought it would look like. Mr. Chair, if could just make a comment. When these conditional uses come through and I'm looking at them from the finding on general compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in the district and compatibility and harmony with properties in the district, I agree that the use of multi family is probably compatible but I don't think that the design of it and the compatibility with the items there, 1 certainly wouldn't support this design. I guess I'm saying that to get a feel from the rest of the Commission. If someone else wants to speak to how it's compatible because 1 can't get there. Hoover: Mr. Chair, may I comment? I'm in agreement with Commissioner Marr. I think that the question is what tangible evidence can we put to a character of a building. I think those pictures show it really well. It's not just the materials. It's not just because it's brick or it's wood that makes it compatible. You have to look at the massing of the building. In those photographs, some of those houses have one story on the front, they stair step up with two stories or they might be a story and a half, where as this particular one is just one long massive roof that doesn't make any changes there. Window placement as we saw in the photographs, there are a lot of different types of windows. Different ways of putting them on the building whereas we see on this elevation, there are four on that front elevation just placed equal. If you compare them to the photographs, that's a big difference. Another thing are the types of porches in this area. There are a lot of different types of porches. You can see some of them where the two story structure comes out over them and sometimes there's a roof over them. On this one, there doesn't appear to be any variety in it to respond to the others. Overall it just seems like it's a larger mass of building than what the neighbors are doing. Marr: I think that Commissioner Hoover's comments are much more articulate than 1 did, but accurate and exactly how I feel. Estes: We have before us conditional use request 01-20. Is there any further discussion or is there a motion? Hoffman: Mr. Chair, I have two comments regarding the compatibility of the project to the adjacent properties. 1 think the lot width and the need for a variance from the Board of Adjustment is a negative in my opinion. I think that the architectural design could be improved upon. 1 know if we deny a conditional use it takes a year before it can come back. 1 really think there is a possibility that you might be able to reach a compromise with the neighbors by possibly downsizing that and changing your design. I'm saying I don't really want to cost him another year by voting it down. Is there another way to approach that Mr. Chair? Estes: Mr. Williams if the conditional use fails for lack ofa motion is that a denial which would • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 49 require a one year waiting period? Williams: 1 would interpret the way you have been using your procedure that that is in fact a denial. 1 think you would have to actually table the motion. However, if the applicant came back with a four unit instead of a six unit, it certainly would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to decide whether that's a substantial change or not to allow reconsideration even if it was denied. The safer thing would be for the applicant to withdraw it at this point and time if he feels like he will not get five votes which is required for conditional use or to have one of the Commissioners move to table. Ward: Mr. Chairman, my take on this is that 1 think there is a need for some one bedroom units down there around the square. There is definitely various types of rental units along in this area. They are not all the same. 1 think if it came back with a much Victorian look, 1 guess, 1 don't think this one will work, but something a little closer to what the neighborhood is down there, 1 tell you 1 would be definitely for it because 1 know it will rent out and it would be a very desirable place to live for anyone. It's a great location but right now I don't think you will get the votes necessary to get this approved as the concept is right now. I don't think it has anything to do quite with materials it's just that it's not quite what the neighborhood is looking for. I have no problem with whether it's four units, five or six units as long as there is parking and we can provide all of that. I think it's going to have to have quite a bit different look for me to vote for it. Church: I had a comment. I do have a concern about the parking. I think just the reality of it is that six spaces are not adequate and I know that is what is required, but I think that chances are you are going to have a couple in at least one of those apartments and would just ask that if you do decide to redesign, you wold look at finding a way to add additional parking. Even a couple of spaces, I think, would help. Bunch: Mr. Chairman, in fairness to the applicant, will say at this time that in it's current form I can not support this project and I'll let you do the counting on seeing whether or not you need to withdraw this. There is no sense in penalizing you an additional year on being able to develop your property. 1 think you have a clear reading from the Commission and the neighbors that this is not acceptable and architecture and parking seem to be the major issues. 1 will say from my stand point I can not support this and 1 will let you again do the math and figure out whether or not you need to withdraw this. Allen: Mr. Chair, to help with the math, I have the same feelings. Crandall: 1 think the math is apparent. Can 1 say something? Estes: Yes. Crandall: First of all I would like to assure you that the need is there without a doubt. Also, I have • • • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 50 done, not a formal study, in the market but in the main what we are looking at is single people that get these kinds of units. I go to school with several of them that live in and around that area and almost all of them are singe. But 1 understand what you are saying about the parking. The other side of the coin is, I can see where we need to relook at the building but I've heard many times when I've sat through these meetings and watched them on TV that we need higher densities and infiII type development and bring more people back downtown to live and it's difficult to do in some of these areas because, the bottom line is, the prices are too high. Because of their potential ofhaving a retail or office space that you can pull pretty good money on, you really, in order to make it worth wile to put residential type units in there, you have to increase the density. So, 1 understand how everyone would love to have a little Victorian house that looks exactly like theirs next door, but the reality is in order to increase density and in order to get people back downtown, we are going to have to make some kind of adjustments. So materials and things like that are going to be important. It's not going to be a cookie cutter approach to design. But having said all of that, I really like to have the opportunity to bring it back so I will request that we withdraw it take another look at it. Estes: Your request is granted. • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 51 RZN 01-15.00: Rezoning (Carstetter & Glass Body Shop, pp 402) was submitted by Nick Vandenburg on behalf of Carstetter & Glass Body Shop for property located at 2530 Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R -I, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.76 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Estes: The next item on our agenda is Rezoning 01-15. This is a rezoning request submitted by Carstetter & Glass Body Shop submitted by Nick Vandenburg on behalf of Carstetter & Glass Body Shop for property located at 2530 Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R- I , Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1 76 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as a part of this report. Is the applicant present? Phillips: I'm Stanley Phillips from Carstetter & Glass. Nick Vandenburg had actually applied for this was out of town and had some mechanical problems and didn't make it back to town. So, he asked if 1 would come and sit in his place tonight. Estes: Do you have any presentation you would like to make? • Phillips: Basically Bust came to sit in and see if there are any questions that 1 might need to answer. • PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Let's see if there is any member of the audience that wants to comment on this then we will come back to you. 1s there any member of the audience who would like to comment on this requested Rezoning 01-15. COMM8ISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none I'll bring it back to the Commission for questions of the applicant, discussion, motions. Commissioner Allen? Allen: I'm dust simply looking at you. Estes: Commissioner Allen don't do that. Allen: 1 dust glanced your way. I'll try to keep my eyes straight ahead!! MOTIONS: Ward: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move for approval of Rezoning 01-15 for rezoning. Bunch: I'll Second. • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 52 Estes: ROLL CALL: We have a motion to approve rezoning request 01-15 and we have a second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there any discussion? Any Comments? Dawn would you call the roll please. Upon roll call the motion to approve RZN 01-15 passes unanimously by a vote of 8-0 and will be forwarded to the full City Council. • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 53 Growth in Arkansas prepared by University of Arkansas at Little Rock Institute of Government. Presentation by Mr. Hugh Earnest and Ms. Cindy Boland. Estes: The last item on our agenda is a presentation by Mr. Hugh Earnest and Ms. Cindy Boland entitled Growth in Arkansas prepared by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Institute of Government Earnest: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Let me go back, if I may, just for a second, because I'm going to say something that maybe you will be receptive to. I'm remembering back to my six plus years on the Planning Commission and at sometime after two and ahalf hours to close to three hours I got a little punchy. I can't speak for any one of you but I've talked to Ms. Boland and she is perfectly receptive to deferring this to a later date when perhaps the agenda isn't quite so long. The topic quite frankly and bluntly is very interesting, what she has done, and my role tonight was simply to introduce her. But what she has done is taken the data and further mined it to reflect the over sampling that we did at ULAR for Benton and Washington county. The topic is interesting and we offer to you to defer it to a later time when perhaps the agenda is not quite so long and we can have a little more time to be reflective on this. We are starting, as you know, plugging that again, a conversation on what smart growth is and certainly what Arkansans in general and people in this area think about the issue of growth is important and again we offer to you to defer it and discuss it at a later date. Estes: Thank you Mr. Earnest. Commissioners, what is the pleasure of the Commission? Commissioner Ward? Ward: Let's adjourn. Estes: Is that a motion? Ward: Yes. Hoover: I'll second Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Hoover. We have a comment by Commissioner Hoffman. Hoffman: I just want to thank the people to agreeing to do that because I do want to give it some time and understand it. • • Planning Commission August 27, 2001 Page 54 Earnest: Sure. We also have a book that if you don't have we will give you an extra copy of it. I do want to offer one comment with my hat on as urban development director. I want to concur with something that Mr. Williams said and some other people on the Commission said and that is the absolute necessity of the City following and leading in our won regulations and ordinances when we go through on projects. I can speak for mysel f and I know I can speak for Mayor Coody that we are going to lead by example every chance we get in following our own ordinances. I just wanted to mention that because I know there was some concern about this. It's a justifiable concern and something that we are committed to doing in the future. Estes: Thank you Mr. Earnest. We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Hoover, before we vote the motion, are there any announcements? Conklin: No announcement. Estes: Any new business? Conklin: No. Estes: Dawn, call the roll please. All in favor signify by saying aye. Commission: AYE Estes: All opposed signify by saying nay. The motion passes unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:20pm. • AGENDA FOR A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission will be held Monday, August 27, 2001 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Room 219, Fayetteville, Arkansas. The following items will be considered: Approval of minutes from the August 13, 2001 meeting. New Business: 2. ADM 01-35.00: Administrative Item (Mcllroy Bank, pp 401) was submitted by Chris Parton 1 of Crafton, Tull, & Associates on behalf of Mcllroy Bank for property located on the northwest corner of Wedington and Salem: The request is to revise the building materials of the approved large scale development. ADM 01-34.00: Administrative Item (Deerfield Place Lot 35, pp 571) was submitted by Jack Parrish for property located at 5548-5598 east Hwy 16. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.94 acres. The request is to waive the requirement of a Targe scale development for this lot. 4. LSD 01-29.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville Public Library, pp 523) was submitted by Garver Engineers on behalf of Fayetteville Public Library for property located at the - 0 southwest intersection of Mountain Street and School Avenue. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and contains approximately 2 43 acres with a 88,750 sq. ft. building and parking deck proposed. • 5 LSD 01-28.00: Large Scale Development (Marriott Courtyard, pp 212) was submitted by - '0 Andy Feinstein of Engineering Design Assoc. on behalf of Marriott Courtyard for property located on lot 17 CMN Business Park Phase I. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.95 acres. The request is to build a 108 room hotel. 6. SCUP 01-20.00: Conditional Use (Crandall, pp 484) was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Marc Crandall for property located at 110 N. School. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.28 acres. The request is for a multifamily dwelling (use unit 9) in an R -O zone. 7. RZN 01-15.00: Rezoning (Karstetter & Glass Body Shop, pp 402) was submitted by Nick Vandenburg on behalf of Karstetter & Glass Body Shop for property located at 2530 Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.76 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Growth in Arkansas prepared by University of Arkansas at Little Rock Institute of Government. Presentation by Mr. Hugh Earnest and Ms. Cindy Boland. • All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. A copy of the proposed amendments and other pertinent data are open and available for inspection in the Office of City Planning (575-8264), City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. All interested parties are invited to review the petitions. Interpreters or TDD for hearing impaired are available for all public meetings. 72 hour notice is required. For further information or to request an interpreter, please call Don Bunn at 575-8330. ORDER OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A. Introduction of agenda item - Chairman B. Presentation of request - Applicant C. Public Comment D. Response by Applicant/Questions & Answer with Commission E. Action of Planning Commission (Discussion and vote) NOTE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE If you wish to address the Planning Commission on an agenda item, raise your hand .when the Chairman asks for public comment. He will do this after he has given Planning Commission members the opportunity to speak and before a final vote is taken. Public comment will only be permitted during this part of the hearing for each item. Once the Chairman recognizes you, go to the podium at the front of the room and give your name and address. Address your comments to the Chairman, who is the presiding officer. He will direct them to the appropriate appointed official, staff member or others for response. Please keep your comments brief, to the point, and relevant to the agenda item being considered so that everyone has a chance to speak. Please, as a matter of courtesy, refrain from applauding or booing any speakers or actions of the Planning Commission. 2001 Planning Commissioners: Bob Estes - Chairman Lorel Hoffman - Vice Chairman Lee Ward - Secretary Nancy Allen Don Bunch Sharon Hoover Don Marr Loren Shackelford Alice Bishop • • • • • 1 8-27-01 2. ADM 01-35 Mcllroy Bank 3. ADM 01-29 Deerfield Place Lot 35 4. F {SD 01-29 yetteville ibrary Pub i 119 l fknmyK. op ALL MOTION 4. IV -- II D ) �!1tU J d - 1 o�w 1,1kg."1/4...) SECOND `114-4 d�t� et tl 1-4 11 tit LI 14 D. Bunch ?f kit H B. Estes 14 14 L. Hoffman gel- u [C S. Hoover 1'1 14 N. Allen 14 11 D. Marr a«¢aven Marr (4 A. Church I l4 Shackelforlj( '\ ---- 11 -0 . C L. Ward 11 tit ACTION 1\-Fria0.1Pkti al LS 'Forz_ Appian vuat_ , VOTE 7-D - O[Act� 61.0 - 0 MrsnON • • • 8-27-01 5. LSD 01-28 Marriott Courtyard 6. Crandall tU CUP t`YLIra1/4.4id 01-20 7. RZN 01-15 Karstetter & Glass Body Shop MOTION `"11L01-4-{ #1( P(, SECOND ti2.4-€ D. Bunch 1 t/ B. Estes t,I L. Hoffman _ 1 (41 S. Hoover111/ El N. Allen L4 D. Marr I I l l/1 A. Church Shackelforc / ! il` L. Ward LA LI ACTION A.Paott VOTE 1_I_0 8.d. a • op,,A 4 • •