Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-24 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 24, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 02-33.00: Lot Split (Kelly, pp 180) Approved Page 2 LSD 02-15.00: Large Scale Development (NWA Pathology Assoc., pp 212) Page 3 LSD 02-16.00: Large Scale Development (Arena Village #3, pp 521) Page 9 CUP 02-18.00: Conditional Use (Southwestern Bell Telephone, pp 484) Page 13 Approved Approved Tabled MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERSABSENT Nancy Allen Donald Bunch Sharon Hoover Lorel Hoffman Bob Estes Alice Church Lee Ward Loren Shackelford STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Kit Williams Tim Conklin Renee Thomas Ron Petrie Dawn Warrick Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 2 Hoffman: Good evening, welcome to the June 24, 2002 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call all eight Commissioners were present. Approval of the Minutes LSP 02-33.00: Lot Split (Kelly, pp 180) was submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of Gerald & Leona Kelly for property located on Gulley Road. The property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately 5.94 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 3.0 acres and 2.94 acres. Hoffman: We have four items on the agenda tonight. The first item is a consent item but before I get to that I just want to let everybody know that the Ice Plant item concerning the parking waiver has been withdrawn so we won't be hearing that tonight in case anybody had come down to talk about that. That is withdrawn from the agenda. The first item is LSP 02-33.00, which is a lot split. It is on the consent agenda, it was submitted by the Milholland Company for Gerald and Leona Kelly for property located on Gulley Road. Does any Planning Commissioner wish to remove this item from the consent agenda? Is there any member of the public that would like to speak on this item? Hearing none, I will go ahead and consider a motion for the consent agenda. Ward: Hoffman: So moved. I have a motion by Commissioner Ward. Shackelford: Second. Hoffman: Thomas: Hoffman: Roll Call: Hoffman: I have a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Renee, would you call the roll please? Madam Chair, does the consent agenda include approval of the minutes? Yes it does. Thank you. Upon completion of roll call the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thank you. Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 3 LSD 02-15.00: Large Scale Development (NWA Pathology Assoc., pp 212) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of NWA Pathology Assoc. for property located north of Longview Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 2.76 acres with two buildings proposed. Hoffman: Under new business our second item is LSD 02-15.00 which is a Large Scale Development for NWA Pathology. It was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of NWA Pathology Associates for property located north of Longview Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 2.76 acres with two buildings proposed. We have nine conditions of approval. Dawn, do we have signed conditions? Warrick: Yes we do. Hoffman. Thank you. I will go ahead and read those into the record now. 1) Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards including signage. 2) Planning Commission determination of the off-site street assessment for the extension of Longview Street to Plainview Avenue. As part of the Preliminary Plat approval for the Brookstone Subdivision, the Planning Commission required an assessment for each lot at the time of Large Scale Development. Staff is recommending that $9, 655 be assessed based on the projected traffic and the attached rational nexus calculations. In addition, staff recommends that this assessment be voided if the City Council overturns the assessment requirements for the Brookstone Subdivision. 3) Approval shall be subject to all conditions of preliminary and final plat approval of the Brookstone Subdivision. 4) No grading or building permits shall be issued until the final plat is recorded and 31 copies are returned to the Planning Division. 5) This lot shall not be sold separately until the final plat is recorded. Standard Conditions of Approval: 6) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 7) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with Cityis current requirements. 8) Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 9) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Project Disk with all final revisions d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 4 surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by .158.01. Dawn, would you like to fill us in on any staff comments or background before I take the applicant's presentation? Warrick: I will cover a couple of items. The first is that this evening we did pass out the referenced memo from the Landscape Administrator with regard to tree preservation on the site. Also, under the main items of conditions of approval to discuss, is the commercial design standards. In your packets you should have elevations for both the main structure and attached to that the utility building, which is at the rear of the site. I think those are also displayed on the board below. With regard to item number two, the offsite street assessments, just general information on that. The Preliminary Plat for the Brookstone Subdivision has been appealed to the City Council. That is scheduled to be heard at their meeting of July 16`h. That is with regard to the overall assessment for that subdivision, of which this project is on one of those lots. With regard to those calculations, if you have any questions on that I'm sure that Mr. Petrie can better address those. Hoffinan: Ok, thank you. Is the applicant present? Jorgensen: My name is Dave Jorgensen. I am representing the developer and the owner on this. We are in agreement with all staff comments. Hoffinan: Do you have a presentation or do you want to wait and answer questions later? Jorgensen: I will be glad to answer questions. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Is there any member of the public that would wish to comment on this Large Scale Development? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Planning Commission and to the applicant. Williams: I just wanted to make sure that the agreement with the Planning Commission under the second condition is that if in fact the appeal that Washington Regional Medical Foundation has now before the City Council is accepted by the City Council and the decision of the Planning Commission is reversed, that that would automatically void the requirement to pay the $9,655 here. I just don't want to see a second appeal for them to preserve their rights. Hoffman: I agree. I think any motion considered should include specific wording to that affect. Ward: I would like for the applicant to go ahead and kind of give us, since there are Commercial Design Standards involved here, Dave, please give us a little bit of what you are talking about as far as materials, colors, etc. Jorgensen: I wish the architect were here to help on that. That question did come up at Subdivision Committee. It was brought up that this doesn't exactly fit the Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 5 rest of what was referred to as "Emerald City." There are green roofs and red brick in that area. There was some discussion regarding that and it was generally talked back and forth and there was no consensus other than the fact that we got the feeling that this was somewhat separate from Northwest Medical facilities in general and there was some opinion that some thought that maybe it ought to be green roofs, red brick and others thought that it was separate enough. That is a matter of opinion. The architect and the owners on this Northwest Pathology are interested in what they refer to as a utilitarian type building and they thought that this would have a very attractive exterior to it. Kim called me today and did mention that there was still some concern that the building in the back would be seen and suggested that we could put up evergreen plants along the west boundary line where we called for Red Maple and Red Oak. We thought that was a good idea. That would be a year round view obscuring barrier right there along our west boundary line. That is about the only place that you could see this building, is in the back. We agreed to that and all the rest of it we feel like we're abiding by all of the requirements as far as everything else on commercial standards. Allen: Mr. Jorgensen, I am really having difficulty not seeing this as a box like structure. I wondered if you could help me with that. Hoffman: Commissioner Allen, we have two buildings, which one are you referring to or are you referring to both? Allen: Both. Jorgensen: They did provide different elevations on each end to hopefully take away from that somewhat. You still have the box like character to it and I can't help you other than this is what the building looks like and this is the architect and the owner's idea of what they wanted to build. Hoffman: I wonder if somebody on the Subdivision Committee, Sharon, could tell us more about the discussion at the Subdivision Committee level? Hoover: Lee can help out too. I will just voice my opinion, which is not I don't think everybody's at Subdivision, I don't know if you agreed or not. I guess I didn't have, it might be on this Nancy, I think part of it is it is not showing shadows very well. I don't think it is as boxlike, they are boxes hooked together. It is not one box, at least not on the front building that borders the road. The building in the back, I agree, it looks just like it is a basic box. The only reason I was thinking that this, I appreciated that they used the same materials all the way around on this box like building, but the other thing is that this building is really lower down in elevation and I don't think it is going to be viewed very well because it is such a drop-off in elevation right there and then there is a preserve of trees on the east and north side. Otherwise, if this was up next to the street I would have an issue with it that it is a boxlike structure right up on the street but I am saying that since it can't be seen as well from the public road, which is usually what I'm looking for, Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 6 the appearance from the road that the public sees. Allen: We did drive by there on tour on Thursday and I agree that the rear elevation would have minimal vision. What are you telling me? Hoover: Let me look on the floor plan, and I have to be guessing at what he described to us at Subdivision, there is a curved part that comes out over the front door here and it looks to me like this part juts out toward the street, so it is not a straight facade and there is another mass back here. I think there is another rounded section also to it. I am not sure why I am defending the architect here. Jorgensen: The back is rounded off too. Hoover: So it does have some interplay. I guess the other thing too are the materials are continuous around on all four sides. They don't change materials. Lee or Don, can you add anything? Bunch: The elevation of the land also comes into play with the front, back and sides and with the way it fits into the topography of the land. Hoover: A lot of these are retaining walls. Hoffman: So was it the Subdivision Committee's consensus that this was meeting minimum Commercial Design Standards? Hoover: It was in my opinion. Ward: Yes. I think they used a combination of materials as far as brick, glass, metal and concrete and so on, and it has some articulation and some curves where it juts out in a few places. The little back building, which is going to be for storage, is basically just a storage building. They used all the same materials on it but I really feel like because of where the building is going to be situated, unless you drive back there, it is going to be out of anybody's vision. Hoover: The issue also came up if this would be a theme for the rest of the subdivision and where does the theme stop. I was thinking that actually when I have looked at these subdivisions, if there is not a public road that bisects it, I think that then you might say that now you've got something that needs a theme, when you have got a complex. For instance, the Kohl's and the Target and the other buildings that are right there next to it. I can see that being a theme but on this we've got a road that is going straight through the whole subdivision and I don't quite know if matching this building up to that building, the Assisted Care Living building, would be really the right thing to do. Allen: It is hard to tell on this map, how far is it from the "Emerald City" area? Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 7 Jorgensen: I wouldn't say 1/4, more like % possibly. To echo what they just got through talking about on that back building, the creek that runs through there runs on the west boundary line and it is very heavily vegetated with trees and vines. You are not going to see very much from that corner right there. It has got a tree preserve on the east side and then the north side is more trees and it goes back. This front building blocks that back one. Really, the only place you can see that back building is as you are driving up the incline along the street and you glance off in a northeasterly direction, you will see that back building at that particular time, only as you cross the entrance into this new building right here. Allen: I agree with you on that. That is the way I saw it too when we were on tour. I do have some problems with the design of the front of the building. Jorgensen: The back or the front or both? Allen: The front building. Estes: We are told in the Commercial Design Standards to avoid or minimize square, box like structures, and large, blank, unarticulated wall surfaces. Both of those design features are present in this project. With that said, I give great difference to the owner's preference. The Commercial Design Standards are of course subjective by their very nature, and I don't want to impose my subjective standards but at the same time I will abide by the Commercial Design Standards. I agree with Commissioner Hoover, this meets the Commercial Design Standards in my opinion but it barely gets over the bar, it is the very minimum. I will vote for the LSD but I want to state that it is marginal at best. Jorgensen: In talking with the architect... Estes: Allen: I suppose that giving great weight to the owner's preference is the reason I am weighing in the balance the owner's preference and the Commercial Design Standards is a subjective issue for me and I will vote for it but it is minimum. Almost for the same reasons that I won't. I do think that he has some rights to design his own building but I have concerns about the fact that we are supposed to decide whether or not this is a box like structure and large, blank, unarticulated wall surfaces. I guess that is a subjective opinion, but in my subjective opinion that is the way this is. Hoffman: I will go ahead and throw my comments in. I think that what some of the Commissioners may be voicing is possibly a personal dislike for the design style of the building. This would not be what I would call my personal style, not one that I would choose. However, when do look at the minimum guidelines for commercial design standards and it says that we have to avoid square, box like structures. This does have some protrusions and so on that Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 8 Motion: Estes: Hoffman: Estes: Hoffman: Shackelford: Hoffman: Shackelford: Hoffman: Shackelford: Hoffman: makes it not a box in my opinion. The large, blank, unarticulated wall surfaces in my opinion, we have taken care of that because on every elevation we have a combination of windows, brick, and so on and so forth. We have a variation of windows on the west elevation of window sizes and roofing elevations. The same thing on the north elevation and the east elevation. The only thing about the east elevation is that it has a rather large brick wall with two windows in it for what I guess might be part of the stairs or something like that. I am not sure what it is. I want to be very specific when I elaborate why I will or won't vote for a Commercial Design Standard quality or attribute. That is my opinion on those. I do think that it is important that we go ahead and get an agreement with Ms. Hesse to plant the pine trees to obscure the view of the back of the building. I would move for approval of LSD 02-15.00 with the stated conditions of approval, that there is compliance with Commercial Design Standards including signage, that there be a $9,655 assessment based upon the projected traffic and rational nexus calculations, that this assessment is to be voided if the City Council overturns the assessment requirements for the Brookstone Subdivision. Does your motion include the planting of evergreen pine trees along the west property line to obscure the view of the utility building? Yes it does. I have a motion by Commissioner Estes. I will second. I have a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there any additional discussion? Madam Chair, did we call for public comment? Yes. Thank you. Hearing no more comment, Renee, please call the roll. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 02-15.00 was approved by a vote of 7-1-0 with Commissioner Allen voting no. Hoffman: The Large Scale Development carries on a vote of seven to one. Thank you very much. Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 9 LSD 02-16.00: Large Scale Development (Arena Village #3, pp 521) was submitted by Mandy Bunch, PE of EB Landworks, Inc. on behalf of Arthur Trumbo for property located in the 1100 block W. 6"' Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3.44 acres with a 9,200 sq.ft. building proposed. Hoffman: Our third item is a Large Scale Development, 02-16.00 which is for Arena Village #3, submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks, Inc. on behalf of Arthur Trumbo for property located in the 1100 block of West Sixth Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 3.44 acres with a 9,200 sq.ft. building proposed. We have seven conditions of approval. Dawn, are there signed conditions? Warrick: Yes. Hoffman: I will read those into the record. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards including signage. 2. The applicant shall install an eight foot wood board privacy fence along the southern property line in lieu of the six foot tall privacy fence shown on the plan. This is required in order to screen a commercial use from a residential district. Standard Conditions of Approval: 3.Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 4. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City+s current requirements. 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot sidewalk with a minimum ten foot greenspace along 6th Street. 6. Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Project Disk with all final revisions Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by .158.01. Dawn, do you have a staff presentation? Warrick: I would just add that along with condition number one, Commercial Design Standards compliance, that Planning Commission needs to determine, there are elevations in your packet and on the board down below that indicate their proposal for all four sides of this structure. This is a third structure in an existing development. There are two existing buildings, this is the third proposed to incorporate into that development Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 10 and match it to some degree. The other issue that staff specifically addressed with regard to this project was the privacy fence along the rear property line and that is to provide a screen as it states, between this commercial use and the residential uses beyond. Those residential uses are actually across the street, Indian Trail, which is between the residences and the railroad right of way, which runs along the rear of this property. Anything further, I will just answer questions if you have them. Hoffman: I have a question before we get to the applicant. The railroad right of way property, is that developable? Warrick: I am sure that someone may have a proposal to develop that strip of property. I think it would be very challenging. There is a lot of vegetation, as well as some floodplain in that particular area. It is hard to say that something is completely undevelopable. I think there is probably always some sort of opportunity. Hoffman: The reason I asked was because on our agenda tour, it appeared that that property would be able to act as screening for the rear of this building. Warrick: I think it certainly will function that way. If and when the property was developed, whatever was approved to be in that location, could provide that screening as well, depending on how it was developed and how it was configured. We understand that there is a need to have a screen between the residential uses and this particular development. Hoffman: Ok, thank you. Is the applicant present? Bunch: My name is Mandy Bunch and I am representing Mr. Trumbo on this development. As was stated in the staff report, we are planning on adding a 9,200 sq.ft. building which will bring the property to a total of 23,000 sq.ft. on the 3.44 acres. I am here to answer any questions. If I may address your developable question, I believe the setbacks would just almost entirely preclude development of this site. The widest part of the property, the property is shaped, it is 60' at its widest point. With your front setback without parking would be 25' so, that along with the actual conditions on the site, I feel like it is an area that has been subjected to regional drainage for quite some time and I don't really think that it is suited for any kind of development. I know that he doesn't have anything planned right now and it has taken him quite a bit of time to develop this building. I don't know if that addresses that concern. Hoffman: It does, thanks for those comments. Do you have more presentation or do you just want to answer questions? Bunch: I will just answer questions. I know that the main concern has been the Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 11 south elevation on the building. The developer has agreed to raise the fence height to 8' where only 4' to 5' of the building will actually be visible from Indian Trail, which is situated 60' to 70' south of the building. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Is there any member of the public that would like to address us on this large scale development? Seeing none, I will go ahead and bring the discussion back to the Planning Commission and to the applicant. Allen: Does your client own that property to the south? Bunch: Yes Ma'am, he does. Ward: Mandy, if you don't mind why don't you go ahead and tell us about the materials and colors and so on and why you think this meets our commercial design standards. Bunch: I am aware that the majority of you have seen the existing site buildings. I hope you agree with me that this is quite an improvement and quite a proposal for the owner to try to improve upon that and to meet the standards. Basically we have got two different colors of dryvit. I am not the building expert, I do apologize for that. They do have brick columns to break up the front of the building. There are also different heights on the parapet walls that are comprised mainly of two different colors of dryvit and some banding as well on the east and west elevations to break up those sides. The south elevation is proposed to be metal. Again, I know that has been a sticking point thus far. One thing that they did want to do and were trying to do was tie this more with the development along Razorback. We are located east of Razorback, but that is where the red brick and the different colors of dryvit are coming in to match more of the development that the University has done further to the north on Razorback to try to match those colors. That is basically what the proposal is that the architect made on those particular colors and those particular materials was to match that development, which was I think the most recent in the area except for the prototypical restaurant developments that have been directly to the west. Hoffman: What is the material on the south elevation? Bunch: It is metal siding. Hoffman: Is it gray like that? Bunch: Actually it is cream colored. It matches more of the dryvit on the front of the building. I am not sure if he ran out of that color of pencil or what Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 12 happened. Mr. Ward, I don't know if you remember, I think that the architectural representative was there at Subdivision Committee and showed the different colors of metal siding that they were looking at. They blend more with the cream colored dryvit on the front to kind of a tan, which would actually match the existing site buildings. Hoffman: Thank you. Motion: Ward: I will go ahead and make a motion that we approve LSD 02-16.00 for Arena Village and I do believe that the 8' fence that is being proposed will pretty much hide the back of the building. It will also kind of blend in with the other buildings that are already there with the same color and there is a lot of vegetation between the street and this particular building and it is mostly low lying swampy type of land so it would be hard to develop I believe. I really do believe this is a much nicer looking building with all the brick and the bands and so on than what is out there already. This should be a very nice project along Hwy. 62. Hoffman: I have a motion by Commissioner Ward. Allen: I will second that motion with the comment that this is not a box like structure and that there are articulated wall surfaces. Hoffman: Thank you Commissioner. I have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Allen. Is there any further discussion? Hoover: I just wanted to make a comment too about the screening. The 8' privacy fence that we felt was a more permanent screening than just the vegetation that is also there. That is why I am in agreement that this does meet our Commercial Design Standards. Hoffman: Thank you. Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 02-16.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: The motion carries unanimously Thank you very much. Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 13 CUP 02-18.00: Conditional Use (Southwestern Bell Telephone, pp 484) was submitted by Larry Bates of Canino Peckham & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Southwestern Bell Telephone for property located at 138 N. East Avenue. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and contains approximately 0.25 acres. The request is for an emergency generator, fuel tank and transformer (use unit 3). Hoffman. The fourth and final item on our agenda tonight is CUP 02-18.00 for Southwestern Bell Telephone, which was submitted by Larry Bates of Canino, Pekham & Associates on behalf of Southwestern Bell Telephone for property located at 138 N. East Avenue. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and contains approximately .25 acres. The request is for an emergency generator fuel tank and transformer which is a use unit 3. I need to inform the Commission and the applicant that I will need to recuse on this item because of a business conflict. Does anybody object to my chairing the meeting and recusing either from the applicant or the Commission? Seeing no objection, I will go ahead and continue to Chair. In our background material, staff recommends that the item be tabled to the July 8th Planning Commission meeting. This is to allow for adequate time for the review of the revised site plan which is going to be submitted at the Commission agenda session on Thursday, June 20`h. Dawn, can you fill us in on this? Warrick: Staff is recommending and requesting that the Commission table this item until our next regular meeting. A new site plan was received at the agenda session this past Thursday the 20`h. With that, we did understand that there were some changes to the site from the previous information that we received. Those changes included an increase in the size of the concrete pad that would hold the generator and the fuel tank, the location of the entrance into the parking area has shifted to the east, and there is an increase in the number of parking spaces that are proposed to be removed with the project. Other conditions that are also in the works with this particular project, this is an above ground permanent fuel tank for combustible materials and therefore, under the City's fire prevention code it is required to go through the City's Large Scale Development review process. We are working with the applicant's representative and getting that into process. It will go before our Technical Plat Review Committee this coming Wednesday and then be forwarded to the Subdivision Committee on July 11`h. That is still in the works and there are various divisions that will review that as well as utility representatives, and we want to make sure that those comments are taken into account with regard to the large scale as well as anything that may be an issue with the Conditional Use process that they are seeking approval from the Planning Commission on as well. The client has begun to address the comments and questions from this past agenda session with regard to landscaping, installation of a hose bib, location of water, and a screening wall to be installed. Those are things that we expect to see additional information on Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 14 when this comes back to you. Staff is in the process of requesting and gathering additional information from Southwestern Bell with regard to the employee count in the building, their need for parking because parking will be eliminated, that is a big issue to determine what their current demand is, what their requirement under the ordinance is, and how we need to accommodate any reduction of parking. This particular project is located within the C-3 zoning district and so with the addition of a generator there is not necessarily an increased demand for parking but in this particular zoning district we are very careful about the removal of parking spaces. Whenever we process a project where the development is going to remove parking spaces, we have in the past always required that that developer replace those spaces either on site or through a parking waiver granted by the Planning Commission and any parking waiver in this zoning district requires a condition. That condition is either that a shared parking agreement is approved or that money in lieu is charged for each space removed. Staff is working on calculations to determine the impact of the spaces that are proposed to be removed with this generator facility. The issue of the noise ordinance was brought up at the agenda session on Thursday and staff has reviewed that. This particular facility does have a noise abatement that will reduce the decibel level of the generator when it is on to approximately 75 decibels. That is compliant with the City's noise ordinance in a Commercial zoning district. Those are things that we have been looking into and information that we are trying to gather. At this point we are recommending tabling the item because we are not to a point that we can make a recommendation based on that information. We still have lose ends. We did want to bring this to the Commission at this time so that you would have the opportunity to ask questions or make comments with regard to additional research that you may want to see or ask that the applicant's representative address any of your questions so that we can bring before you a complete packet at the July 8` meeting. Hoffman: I would like for the applicant to come forward and prior to entertaining any motion to table I would like all the Commissioners to voice their questions and comments so we don't have cumulative questions for you for the next meeting. Canino: My name is Bill Canino, I am the architect for this project and I'm the only architect that showed up tonight so there must be something that I don't know. This project is an important one to your community. This generator will power all of the electrical and air conditioning needs for this building in case of commercial power failure. If it doesn't come on all of your telephone service will shut down for Northwest Arkansas, including 9-1-1 service. Presently the existing generator in the building is about 1/3 this size and can't handle that load. Since September 11`'' of course everyone has been concerned about the ability for the building to continue Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 15 operation when commercial power is interrupted. This generator will provide that kind of service and continue to allow some growth into the future. Ms. Warrick's staff has been good to help us. I would also like to point out that this is a square box but with your permission we can remove that fence and add the brick screen wall that you asked us to do and it will no longer be one. We would be happy to do that. I will also entertain any questions that you may have. Hoffman: Thank you very much. If you are done with this portion I will go ahead and ask for public comment. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us? Yes, if you will come forward and tell us your name. Risk: My name is Mark Risk, I live at 409 Ila here in Fayetteville. My office is next door to Southwestern Bell's building. I am all for the progress and improvement that this generator will bring but there are a few things that I am not sure of and that I would like to ask questions about. I have lived next to this building and this generator, I have had my office there for 12 years now. One is the noise. When that generator kicks on it blows us out of our office. We hear it and it is very loud. If this new one will be muffled, I don't know what 75 decimal means, I don't know what the existing generator's sound is or if anyone knows what that generates now. Canino: I don't know but it is not muffled at all if that helps you. Risk: Ok. I hope this will be an improvement to what we have got. What is there now is very noisy when it kicks on. 2) There are fumes that come from that generator that literally the exhaust is blowing out into our office area now. Hopefully this will be alleviated by moving that generator to another site. I don't know. You've got some sort of diesel fuel, there are going to be fumes, what is going to happen with the fumes? 3) The other issue I have is access to the alley. I have not seen the site plans but just to bring to your attention, there is an alley that runs behind the building. It runs behind my building, their two buildings, and also the building on the corner of Meadow and East Avenue. This alley we use to access my back parking area and I would like to make sure that alley is not interfered with. We live with pretty well constant improvements at Southwestern Bell. They are always doing something over there. It has been non-stop the whole time I've been there. As bringing their equipment operations downtown or whatever, but that alley is important access for us and I would hate to see the alley blocked off permanently or changed or even if it is temporary that we are given some notification so that we know how to deal with not being able to get to the four parking places behind our building. I will say this, power failures are common downtown. That generator kicks on more than you would like to think and it is not because of bad weather. We had a power outing just the other day for no reason at Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 16 all, the power just goes out. That generator kicks on as soon as that power goes out, immediately. By the time we realize that our computers are going down, that kicks on. It is a fairly common instance where that generator is probably going to be kicking on. Those are the comments I have. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you. We will try to address your questions while we're here and then there will be another public meeting at a later date, July 8`h. Does the applicant want to come back up and respond? Canino: I can address a couple of those questions just in general term. His office is located directly across from the existing generator which is located in the building. This will move away from him a little over 100' or 150'. It will be enclosed with the masonry screen wall that the Commissioners asked for at the agenda meeting. That should resolve some of the noise. The exhaust will be exhausted straight up with a fan. The present generator exhausts just as your automobile does. There is no assistance to it so there is a chance for some fumes there. It is a diesel generator though. There should not be any fuel smell. The particular tanks that we are using are called convaults and they are recognized as very safe and even in a central business district fire zone they have had C -130s crash into them and they don't leak; they have had brick towers fall on them and they don't leak; they have had tractor trailer rigs hit them and they don't leak; they are two layers of steel and 4" concrete. The Fire Marshall here has accepted those tanks without question. I hope that answers some of the things that our neighbor has there. Hoffman: Can you address the alley access question? Canino: We are no infringing on the alley. As a matter of fact, that is one of the reasons that we lost two more parking places. We had to move the generator over 4'. The pad did get a little larger when we finally found the size of the access doors, they were 48" so we had to open those to gain access to that sound enclosure. That made the width get a little bit longer. The combination of the setback from the alley centerline and the new doors made the thing get wider, which lost those other two parking places. Hoffman: what kind of refueling arrangements are needed for this for fueling? Canino: This will be refueled annually assuming there is no run of it. It will be run about once a week and that doesn't use any appreciable amount of fuel. You will have the, I think the current tank is 8,000 gallons of fuel there. There are 1,400 gallons inside the building along with a generator and generator belly tank. So all of that will come out and the Fire Marshall usually likes seeing that stuff come out of the building so that should there Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 17 be any kind of accident all of it is exterior of the building. We have also changed, from your last submission Ms. Warrick, we had a 10,000 gallon tank, we've gone to 8,000 with a small 250 gallon day tank. I have a plan for that to give to you tonight. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Canino: You're welcome. Do any of the other Commissioners have questions? Estes: With regard to the parking, you are reducing the parking by 15 spaces, you are cycling out the employees and this is going to become an equipment venue, is that right? Canino: Yes. This building is continuing to grow with equipment. It has one office, sort of an operator operation there. If you call the operator that is the person that you will get. The long range plan is to phase all of those full time people out. I was amazed to find that there were 72 people assigned to this building. I don't know the numbers but I don't think there are 72 people in there. The day of the agenda meeting I was in there just before and except for those operators, which are about 10 or 15, there were very few people in the building. Most of those people come in, find out their work assignments I assume and then leave. Allen: Mr. Canino, when we visited on Thursday I certainly do understand the necessity for the generator but we talked a little bit about this being one of the primary routes to the historical business area and I expressed to you then some concern I had about trying to attempt to make a more attractive area right at the street with some sort of landscape. I wonder if you have had an opportunity to think about that. Canino: You asked us if we could provide a frost proof hose bib and a fire hydrant, you asked us to find the master meter or one of the staff did. We did find the water meter and we will provide that to allow the city to use that. As I told you then, there are no people on the staff that can provide maintenance for any flowering shrubs or landscaping and it has been our position in the past to make a small contribution to the city beautiful commission or to the city general fund if possible rather than plant something that will not live. The gentleman that operates this facility handles all of the buildings in the northwest corner of the state. His job description does not include any outside maintenance and I would ask you to consider that. We will do whatever you want but if you will consider that. We feel like we can give you that hose bib that you asked for and if I understood it right you had some city employees that wanted access to water and we can do that. We would prefer not to put the landscaping in. Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 18 Allen: Canino: Allen: If you will also remember, we said we would do whatever you want. I remember that and I appreciate your suggestion of donating it to the downtown area. In the case of Alma, we just did a project down there and we had the same problem and rather than spend the money for the landscaping and not have the staff to maintain it we would much rather prefer to take the same amount of money and let you improve some area of the city that needs some help that does have someone to take care of it. What I was suggesting is that this is an area that does need improvement since it is a main artery onto the square. I wondered if it would be possible to put a sprinkler system or something in there so that you could water some shrubs or a tree or a flowerbed or something that could add to the beauty of that particular artery onto the square. Canino: There is only about 50' available and it is all solid concrete now. There is only about 50' of frontage there. We had hoped that the screen wall that you asked us to put in would be sufficient to try to match the building. Again, it is very difficult for us to try to maintain living items. There is just no staffing for it so I would ask you to consider that when you finally make your decision. Allen: I guess I am just asking you to consider the other too. Canino: Well, we will put the greatest tree and grass arrangement you want but we have no way to maintain it. Allen: So it is not possible to put some sort of sprinkling system in? Canino: No, we have agreed to put the water hydrant in. I have nothing to sprinkle if I don't put the landscaping in. Still, even if you water it it needs to be pruned and maintained and there is no funding and no staff to do it with. If this were an office building there would be someone there but as I said, long range growth is going to be nothing but equipment and there is no one there. The one person that does maintenance is doing buildings in the whole northwest corner of this state. Allen: I certainly understand its necessity, I was just expressing some concerns that I had. Bunch: A question on your distribution of your staffing, I am assuming that since this is a key communications facility that the staffing that you probably have shifts around the clock and that might have a bearing on how we Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 19 determine the parking required. Could you provide us with that information? Canino: I might have to ask for assistance. I was surprised to find that there were 72 people assigned to this building. This is a 24 hour facility and that may be why the numbers look big because they are there. Bunch: Could you provide that information to our Planning Division which will help the distribution of the 72 employees on different shifts would have a bearing on the calculations. Warrick: Staff has requested that information from Southwestern Bell. Mr. Canino is the architect out of Little Rock for this project so we have been in contact directly with Southwestern Bell and we are expecting that information probably by tomorrow. Canino: Certainly by Wednesday. Bunch: Also, if you have a time table on the reduction of the number of employees at this site with the increase in equipment. Canino: There is no time table on that. It is just the methodology. All of those central offices are really designated for equipment. Even in some cases, if the staffing didn't go down those people would be moved to another location so that there is room for equipment. The equipment for your phone system and the priority for the security of that always comes ahead of the personnel. The personnel will be found a new location within the Bell system and they will do a hot swap. They will be working on their computer one moment and their computer will be up and running in the next building the next. That space will then become available for phone equipment. It may not be a staff reduction as much as a staff move. It is all driven by how much DSL and how much telephone service you require. As you require more, that one central office is going to provide it and we have to put equipment in and so there is displacement of people. Bunch: One other question would be on the maintenance and test cycles. Do you currently perform those on day shift for your existing generators? Canino: Yes, I did check on that and they will be on the day shift. Estes: A question for Dawn. Dawn, is there any distinction in our U.D.O. regarding parking for staff occupancy as opposed to parking for what, if I understand correctly, is going to be equipment warehousing. Warrick: There is really not. The way that the parking ratios are distinguished, it is Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 20 based on the use of the structure. One thing that we can and will do is when we get more definitive numbers from Southwestern Bell with regard to the use areas within the structure. We anticipate being able to credit out those hallways or equipment rooms, things that are not utilized for human beings as an office area, as a different kind of space calculation. I guess the answer is yes to some degree and we will try to make sure that those calculations are clear so that in your decision as to what to do with the parking you understand where we're taking our numbers. Estes: Thank you. Canino: Mr. Estes, there are no equipment trucks to be parked here. It is all private vehicles. Hoover: I have a question for staff. When it comes to Large Scale Development, will there be any landscaping requirements in the parking lot? Warrick: This is in the C-3 zoning district and with regard to the parking lot requirements under Commercial Design Standards, as well as our parking lot ordinance, those perimeter and interior landscaping requirements are exempted in the C-3 and C-4 districts. Hoffman: Since this is a Conditional Use and I would like to try to get all of the Commissioners' view points and comments on the table before he comes back a second time, could I kind of poll the Commission on their feelings for screening and landscaping for the enclosure verses maybe a decorative pattern on the wall or something like that. If I could ask the Commissioners if you feel like it to give us your opinion. Church: How many facilities does Southwestern Bell have in Fayetteville total? Canino: Are you talking about central offices? Church: I am just curious if you have other facilities that are landscaped that require maintenance and who would take care of those. Canino: There are other locations but I can't give you a specific answer. Hoover: I would like to see the elevation of course and the screening. I think it is going to require a permanent screening. From what I understand, some type of brick wall is what has been offered. Canino: The Commissioners at the agenda meeting asked that it be a brick screen and that it match the existing building. Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 21 Hoover: Estes: Shackelford: Bunch: Canino: Bunch: Canino: Shackelford: Hoffman: Canino: I think that it is definitely going to have to be that. Also, I will need to go back there and look but I believe that it is going to need some landscaping. I am sorry that you all don't have anyone on staff but I believe other businesses probably get independent contractors to service their landscape needs. I guess I don't see that as being an obstacle, not having someone on staff in that building. Sony. I think given the location of it and with all of our downtown Dickson Street improvement we would certainly be looking for that. I concur with Commissioner Hoover's remarks entirely. Obviously I would like to see elevations as well. I am struggling a little bit with requiring brick screening and then landscape to cover up the brick screening. It looks like we are trying to do two jobs where one might do the same. I would like to see a proposal of maybe enough landscaping, if we require that, that the brick screening not be required. On the brick screening that you say was requested by the Commissioners, was that in lieu of a security fence that you already had on your plans? Yes. The security fence is what we originally proposed to the City and at that agenda meeting it was very clear they wanted a brick screen to match the existing building. There won't be a security fence. The brick screen will be 13'4" high. It will be more of a replacement for a security fence? Yes, it will become the security fence. I guess that brings my next question. A 13'4" high brick wall sounds a little intrusive on this location. I am not sure that we wouldn't be better off with some sort of fence and landscaping than building something that is not going to be in scale with the rest of the building. I am now done with my opinion. Obviously we have a diversity of opinion on the issue of landscape verses the brick wall and I would really like to get some more clarity for the applicant while we're here. I believe that we are in some sense doing Subdivision Committee work but I would like to send you away with some sense of what is going to be required. We would like to bring to you a drawing that is going to represent what you have asked for. Estes: My thinking regarding the brick was security more than anything. Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 22 Commissioner Shackelford mentioned landscaping in lieu of brick. Aesthetically that would certainly be a preference. Commissioner Shackelford referenced a brick security fence for a back drop for landscaping and didn't see the need for the duplicity. I agree with Commissioner Shackelford but if you need a security fence you are going to need a security fence. Razor wire isn't going to work. Canino: We would be willing to provide a security fence and put landscaping in front of that if that would be more desirable to the Commission. Estes: You need the brick for security because you are going to have to have security. Canino: It was only there in lieu of the fence that we first proposed. Bunch: On the landscaping would not be so much to hide the security structure fencing, brick, or whatever, but to enhance the area. Even areas that do not have security fences we still require landscaping. Just greenery to break up the monotony of the solid structure. I am not looking at extensive landscaping to hide a 13' security fence but to embellish the site and to improve the aesthetics of it. Canino: Maybe we can do a nice enough job of landscaping so that we can distract your eye so that you don't see the 13' fence. Bunch: I would concur with Commissioner Hoover to have some landscaping to enhance the aesthetics of the site but also to keep a reasonable security fence because this is an important feature that we need. Hoffman: Ok, thank you. Does anybody else want to comment while we're here? Allen: What is the height of the existing building? Canino: It is 30 + feet. It is three stories but one of the stories is completely below grade. I would guess it is 24' to 28'. Church: Does the brick wall have anything to do with the noise part of it? Canino: No. They spent additional money to get an enclosure that goes around it. This generator could sit out in the open but they put an enclosure completely, it is a metal box looking structure that goes all the way around it and it is used to muffle that sound and also to aim the exhaust, as the neighbor said, the exhaust will be aimed straight up. Allen: You might explain why it couldn't go to the back of the building for those Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 23 who weren't there on tour. Canino: Yes. One of the questions at the agenda meeting is why we couldn't place it in the back of the lot and off the street. That puts it almost directly across from the neighbor with a generator that is three times the size he is seeing now. It also costs us significantly more parking because we had to get in and we didn't have any maneuver room to get the cars out. As it is, we are able to bring it out there, put it in a better location should there be any unforeseen problem with the firemen having to get to the thing. It is right there on the street and we were able to save more parking spaces. Hoffman: Is it the general sense of the Commission then that the landscaping is the more desirable of the two as opposed to the 13' high brick wall? I am just trying to be very clear. Hoover: I guess I will have to see an elevation but I am thinking that if it is going to have security fencing definitely the brick over the chain link Then given the size of it, 13' is really high and out of scale and the landscape will help buffer that from the street for a more pedestrian scale is what I am expecting the landscaping to do. Hoffman: I would assume that there are several different options available to him for security fencing other than chain link or brick. Hoover: I don't know what this actually looks like since I haven't seen the elevations. Bunch: I hesitate to say this because I don't want to get into the situation of designing. I think that maybe you have the wrong impression when someone said brick to match the building or to use a similar type of brick to continue the design theme. If a brick lattice work type brick or brick and wrought iron work or something like that would fulfill the security needs, I am sure that there are many ways that within your architectural expertise that you can come up with to provide the sufficient security and still have a pleasing architectural type rendering. I don't want this Commission to limit you in your design by saying just brick. The main thing here is to get something that serves the purpose and still blends with the community. Brick is definitely preferable to chain link. I will leave that in your capable hands as a designer to come up with something that is not limited. Better than chain link but not limited to brick. Canino: We will study it. Warrick: I would just add from being out there on the site, that there is a very limited amount of space that we're looking at as far as available area for Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 24 landscaping. We are not talking about an area that we can put a whole lot of evergreens that will completely block what is behind this because that area is directly at the street. It is at an access point from the alley and I am somewhat concerned about maintaining visibility for pedestrians and traffic coming and going from this alley with some landscaping there. I am not saying that it is out of the question. Absolutely I think it can work but I am interested in making sure that whatever landscaping is installed in this area, it doesn't provide some sort of conflict with regard to traffic movements and pedestrians in this area. Hoffman: Would it be possible to get Ms. Hesse together with the applicant to come up with suitable plant types and species? Warrick: I would certainly encourage that and we would make it a staff recommendation that they consult with our Landscape Administrator. Hoffman: Do you feel that staff will be able to work out the parking ratios given that you can deduct space for equipment usage? Warrick: I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the Commission would be hearing a proposal for either a shared parking agreement or money in lieu based on a waiver request but I think that we can work out to the extent that we're able, giving you appropriate numbers for the use areas within the structure as compared to what is existing and being removed from the parking area. Hoffman: Is there any other item or issue that is of concern to the Commission? Motion: Estes: I would move that we table CUP 02-18.00 in accordance with staff recommendation to be tabled to the July 8th Planning Commission meeting and look forward to the applicant's presentation at that time. Hoffman: I have a motion to table CUP 02-18.00 by Commissioner Estes. Ward: Second. Hoffman: A second by Commissioner Ward. Did the applicant want to further address the Commission on any of these statements before we take the vote? Canino: As I mentioned to Ms. Warrick and her staff, one of the things that we're under is a very tight time schedule and we have sort of come to an agreement that we will go ahead and submit plans to the City for review even though you are in the process of reviewing so that by the time the Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 25 Planning Commission makes a final decision we have a review for the building permit so with your clearance we will go ahead with that. Hoffman: So noted. Thank you very much. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 02-18.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-1 with Commissioner Hoffman abstaining. Hoffman: The motion passes on a vote of seven with one recusal. Thank you very much. Is there any further business? Williams: I think you all got my memo concerning the fact that we're now able to send out checks for certain of the cases that you decided on the refund of the sewer plant escrow funds. I would ask the Planning Commission to schedule the ones that were tabled maybe at your next meeting but we need to get moving on that and we need to make decisions on those so that the time can run and we can get the checks out to whomever you decide is the proper recipient of them. I would like as soon as possible for you to reconsider the several subdivisions that were tabled on the night of April 296 when we heard the other ones. We do need to get moving, we can't just hold this money in our escrow account. Warrick: Staff has already slated that for an upcoming meeting. Hoffman: How is the notification going? Warrick: I will have to check. I know that it is coming to one of the July meetings and we do have information out. The notification actually came through the Engineering Division. Our land agents did the research and information on those property owners and we're asking that they renotify those that are affected by the three items that were tabled. Hoffman: Thank you very much. We will stand adjourned. Meeting adjourned: 6:37 p.m.