Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-29 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A rescheduled meeting of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on April 28, 2003 in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain at 5:30 p.m. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN VAC 03-08.00: Easement Vacation (Wallace, pp 295) Page 3 VAC 03-07.00: Drainage Easement Vacation (Bencor, pp 523) Page 3 ADM 03-11.00: Administrative Item (Harris, pp 370) Page 4 CUP 03-11.00: Conditional Use (Church of the Nazarene, pp 286) Page 7 CUP 03-12.00 Conditional Use (Butterfield Trail Village, pp 175) LSD 03-15.00: Large Scale Development (Butterfield Trail Village, pp 175) LSD 02-26.10: Large Scale Development (WRMC Medical Arts Pavilion, pp 251) Page 11 LSD 03-10.00: Large Scale Development (Campus Properties, pp 520) Page 14 C-PZD 03-2.00: Planned Zoning District (Lowe's, 557/596) Page 28 Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Approved Approved Not Heard Not Heard Approved Approved Forwarded to City Council Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 2 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Bob Estes Christian Vaught Jill Anthes Sharon Hoover Don Bunch Loren Shackelford Nancy Allen Alice Church Alan Ostner STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Tim Conklin Sara Edwards Matt Casey Renee Thomas David Whitaker Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 3 VAC 03-08.00: Easement Vacation (Wallace, pp 295) was submitted by Johnny Hardcastle on behalf of Terry and Cindy Wallace for property located at 3704 Chatsworth Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.41 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of a utility easement along the eastern side property line for a swimming pool. VAC 03-07.00: Drainage Easement Vacation (Bencor, pp 523) was submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Keystone Consulting Engineers on behalf of BENCOR for property located at the northeast corner of 6`h Street and S. School Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request is to vacate a 318 sq.ft. drainage easement. Hoover: Welcome to the Monday, April 28, 2003 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were seven commissioners present with Commissioner Ostner and Commissioner Church absent. Hoover: On the consent agenda we have the approval of the minutes from the April 14th meeting and two items, VAC 03-08.00, an easement vacation and VAC 03-07.00, a drainage easement vacation. Is there any member of the audience or of the Planning Commission that would like to remove these from the consent agenda? Seeing none, do I have a motion? Allen: I move for approval of the consent agenda. Bunch: I will second. Hoover: Ok, there is a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Bunch. Renee, will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of seven to zero. Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 4 ADM 03-11.00: Administrative Item (Harris, pp 370) was submitted by Judy Harris for property owned by Ray & Linda Plack and located at 1997 Greenview Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.15 acres. The request is to appeal certain conditions of approval for CUP 03-8.00: Conditional Use (Harris, pp 370) allowing a child care facility in R-1 (Use Unit 4). Hoover: Before I forget, there are two items that have been tabled. That is item five, the Conditional Use on Butterfield Trail and item number six, the Large Scale Development for Butterfield Trail. If you are here for either item number five or six, those will not be heard tonight. Item number three is ADM 03-11.00 submitted by Judy Harris. Dawn, will you present this? Warrick: Sure. This is an administrative item, it is a request to appeal a condition of approval, which was required by the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use was to convert an existing single-family residence to a child care facility located at 1997 Greenview Avenue. The project was heard by the Planning Commission on April 14r'. The report from that meeting is attached with minutes as well. During that meeting the applicant did state her intent to appeal the condition for the sidewalk assessment. Staff has relooked at that and has made an amended recommendation for an assessment for contribution in lieu of sidewalk installation of $720. Hoover: Would the applicant come forward? Do you have a presentation? Harris: No we don't at this time. We will agree with what we have talked to Tim about. The $720, we can do that. We are willing to go ahead and give that contribution of $720. Hoover: Ok, thank you. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this administrative item about reducing the amount of contribution in lieu of sidewalks on this particular piece of property? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Planning Commission for comments. Shackelford: Dawn, obviously we heard this the last time and there was a lot of conversation, I being one who supported revisiting this number. Could you tell us how the number of $720 was achieved, what we based that on? Warrick: Well, you have a memo in your packet from the City Attorney. The issue is rough proportionality and I will be more than happy to have our Assistant City Attorney advise us a little bit more. Staff did look back at this. The ordinance as well as legal information that we have been provided, nothing provides a specific equation or method of determining what is roughly proportionate to the impact so staff made a judgment call Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 5 and we determined that the impact was an increase, not a new impact completely because the structure is already existing and has been occupied formerly as a single-family home. It is vacant currently. Therefore, the complete amount of the impact is not being born by this particular change in use. It is just increasing the impact of the development. Therefore, requiring some type of contribution based on the need being created for improvements to sidewalks and extending city sidewalk connectivity. Shackelford: Thank you very much. Based on staff comments, I am in support of staff on this recommendation. I will make a motion that we approve ADM 03- 11.00 as presented. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford, is there a second? Vaught: I will second. Hoover: There is a second by Commissioner Vaught, is there anymore discussion? Anthes: The $720 appears to be equal to what we would request if the project was a duplex so you are saying it is an increase of use and that would mean from single-family home to duplex? Warrick: Again, it is a judgment call and I am not saying that that equates to exactly what a duplex would provide. We just felt that that was roughly proportionate to the impact of the development. Anthes: Ok, so you have not made any allowance for the fact that we are going from a residential to a commercial use? Warrick: It is becoming a business. That is the proposal and that is what was approved by the Planning Commission. This is an assessment that the Planning Commission needs to determine to be appropriate. This is staff's recommendation and we felt like the $720 as an increase in impact from the change of use that is being proposed would be appropriate. Again, according to the appeal section of the ordinance it is based on rough proportionality, the Planning Commission has the authority to change the assessment. If you feel that staff's assessment is either too high or too low then it is certainly up to you to make a requirement with regard to this. Anthes: Thank you Dawn. Hoover: Dawn, what is a daycare center a use by right, in what zoning? Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 6 Warrick: It is a use by right in the C-2 zoning district and I believe probably C-3 and C-4 as well. It is under Use Unit 4, which is Cultural and Recreational facilities. Hoover: If we were going in and doing a new facility what would the applicant be asked to do? Warrick: The applicant would be asked to go in and install a sidewalk adjacent to the street frontages for the property. Hoover: Do we usually accept waivers in those cases? Warrick: Not when it is a new build situation. Hoover: Do we have any precedence to follow on this one? Warrick: Not much. We have had Conditional Uses for daycare facilities in the past. The Commission did ask specifically about the head start project that was on Wood Street I believe and a sidewalk was required for that particular Conditional Use. Hoover: Thank you. Is there anymore discussion Commissioners? Seeing none, we have a motion and a second. Renee, will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 03-11.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of seven to zero. Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 7 CUP 03-11.00: Conditional Use (Church of the Nazarene, pp 286) was submitted by Craig Hull and Nathan McKinney on behalf of PD Properties, LLC for property owned by the NWA District Church of the Nazarene located at 2434 Deane Solomon Road. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 2.00 acres. The request is for a professional office for chemical engineers in the R-2 zoning district. Hoover: Item number four on the agenda is CUP 03-11.00 for the Church of the Nazarene. Dawn? Warrick: This project is also a Conditional Use to convert an existing structure to a new facility. The proposal in this case is to reuse the structure located at 2434 Deane Solomon Road. Currently it is a church facility. The applicant is proposing to convert it into a professional office for chemical engineers. It is basically a research and development type firm. The zoning on the property is R-2, which allows for professional offices with a Conditional Use approval. Currently property to the north is vacant, it is also zoned R-2. To the south, also in an R-2 zoning district there is another church. East of the property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial is the Williams Ford Tractor development and to the west is a subdivision of duplexes, which is zoned R-1.5. The area contains a variety of different uses. The property is designated on the General Plan as mixed use. Therefore, the application is consistent with that designation. Staff is making a recommendation in favor of the request with seven recommended conditions. You should have before you this evening that indicates seven conditions, there were previously six. If you would like I will go through those conditions. Hoover: Please. Warrick: A view -obscuring fence or view -obscuring vegetation, or a combination of the two, shall be installed along the north property line between the proposed commercial activity and the adjacent R-2 zoning district. 2) Installation of landscaping along the front property line (between sidewalk and parking lot) to include one tree per 30 linear feet of frontage and a continuous row of shrubs in compliance with § 166.10(C) and §172.01(F)(4)(b). A tree shall be added to the existing_landscaped island within the parking lot. 3) The applicant shall comply with any guidelines from the Solid Waste division necessary to appropriately dispose of trash generated by this facility. Any dumpster pad installed to meet this condition must be adequately screened (on three sides) and constructed (reinforced concrete pad). 4) The gravel overflow parking area currently on the site shall be removed and reestablished with vegetation as a part of the yard. 5) Construction of a 6' wide sidewalk along Dean Solomon Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 8 Road. Sidewalk shall be located on the west side of the right of way line as determined by the Master Street Plan for this minor arterial street (45' from centerline). 6) Signage shall meet the City's sign ordinance for residential districts and shall be restricted to wall signage or a monument sign. 7) Staff will review the structure for compliance with Commercial Design Standards when a building permit is requested for additions or alterations (interior or exterior). One of the items that the Planning Commission requested that we look back at when we approached this item on tour was the application of Commercial Design Standards for this type of project. I did look back at that. The Commercial Design Standards section of the code is included in your staff report starting on page 4.9 and in looking back at this information and the site itself the staff's recommendation for the installation of landscaping along the property line is in keeping with the Commercial Design Standards requirement for site development. We also have requirements for structures. They are generally tied to a building permit of some type. That is where staff went back and added condition number seven. We felt like it was appropriate when and if modifications are proposed to itself that we relook at Commercial Design Standards and see what improvements we can make to the structure to bring it more in line with the current regulations that were not in place at the time that the structure was originally built. Hoover: Thank you for that addition. Would the applicant come forward? Warrick: I do have signed conditions on this item. Hull: I am Craig Hull, I am the agent for the buyers of this property. The applicants are a local outgrowth of your own success here in the Genesis Center and they are looking for a home in this community. The proposed use after much search, is the local situation with that church lends itself to their use because it has a large undefined space in the middle and we were looking at office buildings that had a lot of chopped up space that was going to be a problem for them with their particular situation with an open free thought area for their engineers. It will be a high end employment. There is plenty of parking. They will actually be less intensive as far as the neighborhood impact then the church was I would imagine because they don't have near as many people coming to them. They will only take FedEx deliveries and that is about it. There may be some meetings or conferences or something like that but you are still talking about within the capacity of the existing parking lot and the applicants have agreed to all of the conditions of staff. Their intent is to come up with a Wainscoting treatment and some type of E.I.F.S. treatment over the building at some point in time but right now they are just trying to open the doors and get going. When they have to pull a permit they will be in compliance with all the things that staff suggested. Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 9 Hoover: Is there any member of the audience that would like to respond to this Conditional Use? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Are there any comments? Bunch: Since this is two acres when it comes back through for any modification would it require a Large Scale Development? Warrick: Only if they are making an addition to the structure of 10,000 sq.ft. or larger or if they are making changes that would require the addition of 25 parking spaces or a new curb cut. You would see it under those conditions. Shackelford: Is there any reason why we are seeing a Conditional Use request in an R-2 instead of a rezoning request to R -O? Warrick: The surrounding property is also zoned R-2. Rezoning it would probably result in a spot zoned situation. A Conditional Use allows the Planning Commission some control and some more understanding of the project. It allows for some of these conditions that would probably not necessarily be applicable if it were a completely rezoned property. It is a way of looking at this without changing the land use and allowing the applicant to go through a stream line process, a shorter process, to get an approval. It also assures the Planning Commission that changes would go through another process so that you would understand what changes were to occur in the future if it were to change from this professional office type use to some other use you would see it again. Shackelford: The conditions talking about screening and parking and that sort of thing, are those in line with what we would see if this was a rezoning request to R -O? Warrick: At the development phase, yes. Shackelford: Thank you. Estes: With the addition of condition of approval number seven that staff will review the structure for compliance with Commercial Design Standards when a building permit is requested for additions or alterations interior or exterior, I would move for approval of CUP 03-11.00. Shackelford: I will second. Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 10 Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Estes and a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there anymore discussion? Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 03-11.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries seven to zero. Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 11 Hoover: Items five and six have been pulled. We are at item seven, which I will be recusing from and Commissioner Estes will chair. LSD 02-26.10: Large Scale Development (WRMC Medical Arts Pavilion, pp 251) was submitted by Peter Nierengarten of US Infrastructure, Inc. on behalf of Washington Regional Medical Center for property located at 3215 N. North Hills Blvd. The request is to alter the approved large scale development to include a reconfiguration of parking and an alteration of the building facade. Estes: Warrick: Estes: Warrick: Estes: N ierengarten: Estes: Item number seven is a Large Scale Development request for Washington Regional Medical Arts Pavilion. It is submitted by Peter Nierengarten of US Infrastructure, Inc. on behalf of Washington Regional Medical Center for property located at 3215 North Hills Blvd. The request is to alter the approved Large Scale Development to include a reconfiguration of parking and an alteration of the building facade. The staff findings are contained in your packet Commissioners. The staff recommendation is approval subject to the following conditions of approval: All of the conditions of approval from the original large scale development shall remain in effect. 2) Planning Commission determination of compliance of Commercial Design Standards. The proposal has changed since the original Planning Commission approval. Dawn, are there any additional conditions of approval? No Sir. Do we have signed conditions of approval? We do not. Is the applicant present? If so, would you come forward and if you have a presentation make that presentation for our benefit please. My name is Peter Nierengarten, I am with US Infrastructure and Thad Kelly, who is with Cromwell Architects, is here as well. We don't have a formal presentation but I would be glad to answer any questions that you have concerning the site and Thad can address any of the issues with changes to the outside of the building. If you will step aside I will take any public comment and then maybe step back up to the podium for any questions that the Commission may have. Nierengarten: 1 did fax signed conditions. Estes: Is there any member of the audience that would like to comment on this requested Large Scale Development? If so, would you please come Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 12 Shackelford: Nierengarten: Shackelford: Kelly: Estes: Kelly: Nierengarten: Estes: MOTION: forward, state your name, and provide us with the benefit of your comments? Seeing none, I will bring the request back to the full Commission for questions of the applicant, discussions and motions. For the applicant, if you would very briefly tell us the changes to the project, particularly the parking, and what facilitated these changes. The changes to the parking are very minor We have some parking on the southeast end of the building and it is the same number of parking spaces. We just rotated those 90° and we converted them from standard spaces to handicap accessible parking spaces. And the changes to the building? I am Thad Kelly, I am with Cromwell Architects and Engineers. The changes to the building were that it is almost the chicken in the egg. We had to get a design before we could get a plat and before we could get a plat we had to have the design. The building was undefined as far as its uses when we started. The second floor is now presently a lab. They require very few windows, we still have windows there. The original design, and you have it in your packet, had a window wall on the north fa9ade. It didn't work with the functions of the tenants that are going to be in there. The original design, since it was solely from the hospital, they wanted to match the hospital. When they finally had tenants the tenants said "Yes, we want to be complimentary to the hospital. However, we want to have our own identity." We kept the same language as the rest of the hospital. There is a round element that means entry, as the round elements on the hospital mean entry. We are not trying to compete with the hospital, we are trying to be complimentary. Is the south elevation visible from Appleby, the one with the flat, unarticulated wall surface? No, that is only visible from the hospital. The buildings are separated by 25' and there are some doors that line up between the two and a covered walkway that connects the two buildings. Commissioners, are there any other comments or discussion? Shackelford: I will go ahead and make a motion based on staff findings that we approve LSD 02-26.00 with specific findings in favor of Commercial Design Standards. I feel that this building is complimentary to Washington Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 13 Estes: Regional and would make a motion that we approve the changes as recommended. We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford to approve LSD 02-26 incorporating and approving the Commercial Design Standards, is there a second? Bunch: I will second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there any discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 02-26 was approved by a vote of 6-0-1 with Commissioner Hoover abstaining. Estes: The motion passes by a vote of six in favor, one abstention. Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 14 LSD 03-10.00: Large Scale Development (Campus Properties, pp 520) was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Campus Properties for property located north of Stone between Cross and Lewis. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 3.74 acres. A 78 unit apartment complex with 86 bedrooms and 114 parking spaces proposed. Hoover: Moving on to item eight is LSD 03-10.00 for Campus Properties. Sara, is this yours? Edwards: Yes. This was submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of Campus Properties for property located north of Stone between Cross and Lewis. It is zoned R-2 and contains 3.74 acres with a 78 unit apartment complex, 86 bedrooms and 114 parking spaces. Existing on this site are eight duplexes and one single-family unit, which are going to be removed. Surrounding zoning is R-2 and the use surrounding the site is residential. Water and sewer are available. Additional right of way is being dedicated as required by the Master Street Plan. Tree preservation, right now there is 18.76% canopy existing on site. The proposal is to preserve 9% with additional mitigation on site. We are recommending approval subject to the following conditions: 1) Planning Commission determination of required street improvements. Staff is recommending that Lewis be widened 14' from centerline with curb, gutter, pavement and storm sewer. 2) Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver from §166.13, which requires overhead utility lines to be placed underground. The electric line has been determined to be less than 12KV and staff is not in support of this requested waiver. The other conditions are standard. I would like to point out that Parks fees are due in the amount of $23,973. We are recommending construction of a sidewalk along Lewis and Stone with fees in lieu in the amount of $2,610 for Cross Avenue. Hoover: Would the applicant come forward? Jefcoat: I am Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Company. As far as a formal presentation, we would like to point out a couple of exceptions. We have not signed the agreement. We are asking for two waivers. We will address the overhead structure first. That is the burying of the electrical line along Stone Street. I believe you have got a response in your packet, if not, I have a copy of the letter I sent to Sara. It is my understanding that the electrical lines are 12KV line to line. I am not sure I know what line to line means but it also says it is a single-phase 12KV. Mark Beasley, who I have been talking to, told me that it is a 7.2 line to ground, which means service. I am not sure how that fits in with the ordinance other than that is what they have told me. I do know that the electrical company has given me a price in excess of $100,000 to bury that line. They are also indicating that there are two off site transformers and one on site Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 15 transformer that would have to be buried and that the corner poles on either side, the one on Lewis feeds down Lewis at that corner so that pole would likely have to remain. They have not done a complete feasibility study. The telephone company tells me that their cost to bury that line would be between $30,000 and $60,000 and the cable company has told me that their price would be around $32,000 so we are looking at nearly $200,000 to bury that line if in fact it should be buried because of the ordinance. Like I said, that is still sort of questionable as far as I understand. We are asking for you to waive that condition of agreement. If you will notice, there are three residential units to the west that are served off of this line and also the Fayetteville Housing Authority has lines that comes off of this so you are looking at a cost of approximately $2,000 per customer. If you have got a large plan you can see the lines that serve these other homes. We are asking for that waiver to be granted here tonight. The improvements on Lewis Street, the improvements to 14' of Lewis Street, that right of way on Lewis Street is 45' now. The pavement was built on the west side of the right of way so there is only 8 Z' of centerline roadway there to be paved. There is not a full 14' there. That all came up I believe in response to the impact that an entrance on Lewis Street had. Since the Subdivision Committee meeting based on comments received from adjoining neighbors and from the Planning Commission, that entrance has been removed so there is no entrance on Lewis Street anymore. We still have two on Stone Street of course and since we no longer have that entrance on Lewis Street we would ask that that waiver request also be granted for improvements on Lewis Street. We don't necessarily object to those improvements. We would work with the Engineering Department to make some improvements on that street but it would not be a full 14' because it is just not there. If you have any other questions I would be glad to answer them. That is what we are asking for tonight. Hoover: Thank you. At this time I would like to see if there are any members of the audience that would like to address this Large Scale Development for Campus Properties. There is a sign in sheet at the podium if you would write down your name and phone number. Albertson: Let me begin by thanking you for hearing me out tonight and apologizing for my appearance. I have been clearing brush and cutting trees all day. I have come to address this. This is the second meeting I have come to talk about it. Hoover: Would you give us your name please? Albertson: Robert Albertson. I have about 15 lots that touch on this development. I built my house there back 25 years ago. I am pretty familiar with the Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 16 character of the neighborhood. I am familiar with the traffic on the streets that run on both sides of this development. That is my main concern at the moment. I was a school teacher for twenty years and I am very familiar with the characteristics of teenage drivers. This particular development is built between the high school and the junior high school and I have, since I settled there in the early 70's seen high school kids driving their younger brothers and sisters to Ramay Junior High School in time to get them there and then time to turn around and get back to class on time. If you know the characteristics of teenage drivers as well as the insurance companies do you can understand that that is the most dangerous kind of driver we have on the street and the streets in this part of town are the worst I think in any part of town. This is a very low economic area. I don't know how many people own their houses but they are all run down. The streets are not wide enough. If you go down Nettleship, it has no curb. It is about 15' wide and it has on both sides of the street a ravine, a ditch. The kids use that one to get past this development. Traffic will pick up on not so much Lewis but Stone Street, which runs right along this. It is just a concern that I think needs to be looked at. The last time I came to a meeting there was a whisper of perhaps the University running a bus line down through there. The presumption is that perhaps students will live in this housing project. I don't believe that that is going to happen. Mr. Lindsey built two story similar type housing to the west of my property. I would bet that less than 10% of the occupants are students. They are just your lower wage workers who don't make much money and they qualify to live in these places. Students, if they go to school, make too much money to live in these places. I don't know all of the details and specifics of that but I would like to suggest that students are not going to live there. Sometime ago in the 1960's perhaps, Lewis Plaza was built there to handle low income people. Lewis Plaza has been flashed up. It was rundown and it looks a whole lot better now than it did but I would suggest that this is going to be a Lewis Plaza 2003 and not a campus oriented, student oriented building. I would like to see, as someone who lives around there, and who has watched the traffic patterns and who has taught students who have killed people with their pick up trucks and with their cars loaned to them by their parents, to have the streets in that area straightened up and cleaned up and improved. That is what I came to ask you to think about and to consider. Main Street is crooked as a dog's leg and needs sidewalks, needs to be straightened out. Nettleship needs to have something done to it to make it less dangerous. Cross Street, which runs on the west side of this development would be much improved with a sidewalk and just a bit of straightening up. I think that is the city's responsibility to do it or to have the developers that want to develop this area do it. That is all I have to say other than somewhere I don't know if my daddy told me this or if I just learned this, but it is cheaper to do it Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 17 right the first time than to have to come back and do it right again later on. With that, I thank you for your time. Hoover: Thank you Mr. Albertson. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to speak about this Large Scale Development? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners. Could I ask the staff to address the right of way issue and I don't think you reviewed the traffic generation notes that you have in our packet. Edwards: Unfortunately I just noticed that. The right of way is required to be dimensioned from centerline and I don't see the centerline on here. The requirement is 25' from centerline. Which, if both sides had the 25' there would be a 50' requirement. Without having them show the centerline I can't say for sure if there would be enough right of way to build those improvements with the additional dedication. We maybe could ask the engineer if they have any knowledge of that. Jefcoat: The centerline is 9 1/' from this location south. The centerline is drawn, it is just not dimensioned. I would also like to mention that we are in agreement to sidewalks on both Cross and Lewis Street. The sidewalks that we are proposing to put in on Lewis Street is not on public property. The owner/developer has agreed to put it on private property on that side and we are paying into escrow for the sidewalk along Cross Street for when those improvements are made. The street in front of this complex, Stone Street, is actually wider than it should be. It is 15' from centerline instead of 14' so it is a 30' wide street instead of 28'. Edwards: There will be another 5' or 6' dedication that they need to dedicate to give us our total 50' of right of way. It just depends. With that, that would give them a total of about 15' from centerline to construct their 14' of improvements and we can let Matt address if he thought that would be feasible. Hoover: Matt, do you have an opinion? Casey: I am trying to figure out where the 8' and the 9' that Mr. Jefcoat was talking about. If I am following you correctly, there is not enough room to expand to 14' from centerline and still have all the right of way requirement, is that correct? Jefcoat: That is correct. Casey: I would be satisfied with just installing curb, gutter and storm drainage along with the sidewalk along Lewis Avenue. Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 18 Hoover: Casey: Hoover: Jefcoat: Hoover: Edwards: Hoover: Edwards: Hoover: Edwards: Hoover: Edwards: Warrick: Hoover: So we would eliminate the minimum dimension here that we have under condition number one and just leave it to say curb, gutter, pavement and storm sewer? That is correct. How wide is that street now? It is 20' and we would be in agreement with that. The other item was the traffic generation study, can you review that briefly? Yes. At the request of the Subdivision Committee I went ahead and ran some numbers. Just using general apartments the 17 units existing generate about 113 trips per day from that site. With the proposed development of 78 apartment units the average week day generation would be 517 trips per day. Did you say right now there are existing duplexes on this property? Yes. Is this over and beyond what is already existing? Right. There will be increased traffic from the proposal and what is existing. Of this amount? The difference between 517 and 113. I would like to go back to the right of way issue for just a minute. There is a requirement for Large Scale Developments to dedicate sufficient right of way to meet the requirements of the Master Street Plan. Therefore, there will be a requirement that this right of way be brought up to the minimum 50'. With that additional right of way dedication there may be room to install the improvements and the width of the street as originally recommended by staff. I don't know that for a fact but I know that there will be an additional right of way dedication because the existing right of way on Lewis Street in this location is 45' and the requirement is 50'. So you are saying that improvements will be to what it is right now but the right of way dedication will be a total of 50'? Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 19 Warrick: If they dedicate right of way the improvements could be located along the newly dedicated right of way. There is a specific requirement Large Scale Developments dedicate right of way to meet the Master Street Plan. Any lesser dedication would require City Council approval. Hoover: So you are saying if we want to change condition number one it would require City Council approval? Warrick: Condition number one doesn't address the dedication of right of way. That is an ordinance requirement regardless. If the right of way is not dedicated to meet that 50' minimum that would require the City Council approval. Within that 50' right of way once that additional area is dedicated condition number one may be possible. I would look to one of the engineers to verify that. The street is not centered on the centerline of the street. That is part of the problem. There is approximately 35' on the east side of the street and 15' or less, currently 10' maybe on the west. Estes: Dawn, should condition of approval number one be reworded? Warrick: I think that it maybe should be expanded to include the requirement for additional right of way dedication to meet the Master Street Plan. Estes: Should it read something like this? Planning Commission determination of required street improvements to Lewis Avenue be widened to provide a minimum 50' right of way, curb and gutter, pavement and storm sewer to be provided? Warrick: 1 think that is appropriate. Shackelford: Mr. Estes, if you would please restate that. A minimum of 50' right of way with curb, gutter. Estes: Let me make my notes here and then I will read it back. Bunch: While Commissioner Estes is formulating his amendment I have a question for Mr. Jefcoat. Would the additional dedication of right of way and the street and sidewalk improvements, what impact would that have on the building number one as far as setbacks and utility easements and that sort of thing? Is it going to require reengineering in order to accommodate this? Jefcoat: No, there is sufficient space there now for the extra 5'. The problem is that the client is somewhat objectionable and would like to state for the record that since removing the entrance we are really not impacting traffic Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 20 Estes: on that street. Our front two entrances are on Stone Street. Just for the record. Commissioner Shackelford, my note reads Condition of approval number one "Lewis Avenue be widened to provide a minimum 50' right of way with curb and gutter, pavement and storm sewer to be provided." Shackelford: Thank you. Estes: Warrick: Anthes: Hoover: Crandall: Shackelford: Hoover: Bunch: Is that correct Dawn? That is correct. Removing the 14' allows our Engineering Division to work with the applicant on the amount of actual width that will be provided within the space that is available. I will recuse myself from this vote. I just wanted to ask the applicant, for the record, as you have heard condition of approval number one stated would you be in favor of that condition? My name is Marc Crandall, I am one of the members of Campus Properties, LLC. I have no objection to doing it if we say we have to do that. My question has been that up to this point I was under the impression that the reason for the required improvements on Lewis Ave. was that we were putting traffic with an entryway out onto Lewis Ave. at which point I really had no objection. In response to staff and Planning Commission and concerns by the neighbors along Lewis about how small that street actually is we actually changed that. In my mind that should remove the mitigation that we have to do on Lewis. If we need to do it then we need to do it but I just don't understand the reasoning for that. Thank you. Can I ask the Subdivision Chair to give us the report from Subdivision? Did you have any specific comments that occurred? Primarily what we were concerned with, I think Commissioner Ostner was concerned with the Lewis Street entrance. We were looking at what the situation is on Main Street and whether or not Main Street would be feasible with curb, gutters, and sidewalks and that sort of thing along the right of way for Main Street. We also looked at the overhead power line situation. We took considerable public comment and many of the things that we looked at at Subdivision have already been addressed tonight. Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 21 Hoover: Thank you. Do we have any comments about the underground utility lines? Estes: I have several questions. Our Unified Development Ordinance provides that with new commercial developments the utilities go underground. Then there are exceptions. One of those exceptions is existing lines of 12KV and above. Our staff report tells us the electric line has been determined to be less than 12KV, the material that was presented to us this evening by the applicant tells us that line to line voltage is 12KV single phase and that line to ground voltage is 7.2KV. My experience has been that when we are dealing with requested waivers on putting the overhead utilities underground that two things happen. There is sometimes a discrepancy regarding existing lines and the voltage those existing lines carry. 2) There is sometimes a discrepancy when we have done our own due diligence and made our own inquiries regarding the cost of placing these lines underground. With that as a predicate, Dawn, let me ask this. In the staff report is the sentence "The electric line has been determined to be less than 12KV." That is salient because if it is, then the UDO tells us that it must go underground and we have no discretion so how did you decide that the existing line is less than 12KV? Warrick: At the Technical Plat Review meeting when this item was presented to the utility representatives the SWEPCO representative was asked the size of that line and his quote in the Technical Plat Review minutes, which is included in your addendum packet this evening, was that it is 8,000 volts, 8KV. Estes: Now may I ask the applicant, how did you determine that it was 12KV line to line? Jefcoat: Mark Beasley, who is an area engineer, gave me that information. I also confirmed that back with Newman. There is obviously some terminology differences in the way they describe their lines. Estes: The problem that I am struggling with is that if the utility company tells us that it is 8KV that is what I am going to go with. If it less than 12KV the UDO says we have to put it underground. Jefcoat: I understand that but there are exceptions to that rule and we have asked that that be considered. The expense being the hardship case. Estes: Another exception is that a single power pole near the exterior boundary can be allowed to provide connections for underground service. Have you considered that issue? Do you know what I mean? Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 22 Jefcoat: Yes. Like I said, in the packet of information that we provided you, all the service to the project would be underground. We are just asking that the existing not be changed. The pole on the Lewis Ave. end would have to remain and the one on Cross Street would have to remain I understand. You are looking at six poles down through there. Three of the six would likely have to remain. I am not sure about the pole with the transformer that serves the housing project as to whether that would have to remain. At least two, possibly three out of the six would have to remain and you are still looking at a cost in excess of a thousand dollars which makes this project become non -feasible and the other two are 60 and 30 thousand respectively. Estes: Because you are asking for a hardship waiver I need to make reference to the statement in the letter that you passed out to us this evening. It is also my impression that it is very expensive means and expenditure cost that could exceed $100,000. How did you calculate that cost? Jefcoat: Yes. There again, Mark Beasley and Glenn gave me that figure for the SWEPCO. Since then, I have gotten the figures, which are also in the packet from Southwestern Bell and Cox. Cox is $32,000, Southwestern Bell is $30,000 to $60,000. Estes: Because you are the civil engineer on this project did you do any independent inquiry, did you consult with a contractor and ask what is this going to cost? Jefcoat: No, strictly to the utility companies. Estes: Madam Chair, based on those comments I am not in favor of granting the underground utility waiver requested by the applicant. Hoover: Thank you Commissioner Estes. Can I ask staff, have we granted waivers for underground utilities like this in the past? Can you site any references? Warrick: We talked a little bit about this at agenda session. I couldn't come up with any specifics since this provision was placed in the ordinance allowing for those that are 12KV and above to remain and for the provision of one single pole on the property. Prior to that we did have several requests and I can't site any specifics for you but I do recall that the number of requests that we were getting for variances or waivers of this requirement prompted us to include this exemption section in the ordinance. It seems to be relatively effective because like I said, I am not coming up with any since we have done that that are similar. Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 23 Estes: Dawn, Mr. and Mrs. Pettus' project at the corner of St. Charles and Watson, did we allow a single power pole on the exterior, what did we do with that? Warrick: I don't recall for sure. Vaught: On this ordinance, the reason for us wanting them to bury the power lines, is that for a safety issue? What is our intent behind that? Warrick: The intent behind placing lines underground? Vaught: Yes. Warrick: It is aesthetic and it has been deemed important for the appearance of new projects that they be uniform and consistently have the lines underground. We have found that in ice storms, which we are prone to have on occasion that lines underground cause less of a problem. Vaught: For the applicant, would a detailed cost study of this be feasible? Could you provide us better numbers as to the additional cost it would incur? Crandall: Again, my name is Marc Crandall, I am one of the partners of the project. The best estimates since we found out about this thing, the people who have to do this are the utility companies and we have been trying as much as we possibly could for the past two weeks to get exact numbers from them. They basically won't give me an exact number because they have to do an engineering study and it is a long drawn out process. The best that they have been able to give me are ball park figures. Even at ball park figures we are looking at between 100,000 and 200,000 to do what the ordinance says we are supposed to do without a waiver. Which is why I am applying for a hardship. The bottom line is, regardless of which one it is, makes the project economically unfeasible, we cannot do the project with that additional cost tacked on, period, the end. Whether we find out next week that they are 12KV or they are 7KV or 8KV, I have to make a decision based on the pricing that the utility companies are giving me now in their ball park and to be honest, as a business person, I have to take the worst possible case because that is where we could end up. Even at the least possible case it just throws the budget out of the window. We can't do the project without the waiver, period. Estes: To be very candid about this, these are the same remarks that we hear time and time again whenever we have a requested waiver. Utility companies do not want to give you a good estimate in a timely manner and in a timely fashion because they don't want to have to put wire under the ground. It is easier for them to repair the wire when it is in the air than it is when it is Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 24 under the ground. We have this provision in the Unified Development Ordinance that we don't have any choice, we have to follow. I sympathize and I empathize with your place and position. You go to the utility company and say 'How much is this going to cost?' two things are going to happen, they are going to give you very vague estimates within a very wide range and they are not going to be timely and prompt in providing you those estimates. We sit here and we have to enforce those ordinances. Here we are, the utility companies want the wires in the air because they are easier to repair. They don't want to have to dig them out of the ground, they are not going to be real cooperative. We are sitting here operating under the direct superintendence authority of our City Council who passed this ordinance and we don't really have a whole lot of choice. I cannot recall one time since I have been on this Commission, which has been approximately six years, that we've granted one of these. Crandall: There is nothing I can say. You are basically telling me that I am stuck between your rock and their hard place. If you can't move them I certainly can't move them so basically you are wrecking my project because you are at an impasse with the utility company which doesn't seem very fair to me at the moment but that is all I can tell you. Estes: Let me tell you this from historic experience. When the job gets done and the wire gets put under the ground it is most often a whole lot less than has been estimated. Crandall: That may be very true but it is my dime that we are risking on this. You can say that but if you are wrong you are not the one that has a bankrupt project, I am. I can't address that. Hoover: Is there any other discussion Commissioners? Shackelford: A question for the City Attorney. We have heard lots of conversation about this waiver and whether or not it is an undue hardship. We have heard Commissioner Estes' statements that this is based on the UDO and we don't have any quivvel room, if you would, from that regulation. Can you tell us specifically what our obligation or opportunity is in reference to a hardship waiver from this situation? Whitaker: From my reading of it, unless you can make specific factual findings of an actual hardship beyond simply loss of potential profit and/or financial feasibility of the project as currently designed there is not any room. It clearly says all utility wires, lines, and/or cables in said developments utilized by electric and/or telecommunications companies shall be placed underground. Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 25 Shackelford: Whitaker: Shackelford: Whitaker: Shackelford: Estes: Hoover: Allen: Hoover: So even if we had, as Commissioner Vaught had mentioned, a cost analysis that more specifically spelled this out, the applicant could document that the cost to meet this ordinance makes this project economically not viable. In your estimation that is still not a definition of hardship in this situation? True. That being said, let me explain why I say that. A hardship would be something unique to the property. You also have to understand that this is not a new ordinance. One wonders why the project wasn't designed knowing that this was one of the requirements and making provisions on the cost benefit during the process. It is not a sneak attack, it is not anything unusual to the property. Indeed, it is suggested that this is how it always works when this requirement comes up and that the utilities themselves are not in favor of it. Yes, constantly there is cost involved. I believe back when the ordinance was debated and passed this was the key complaint against it. In answer to your question, a mere cost is not a hardship. My final question. If I am reading the information correct, if we follow through with this and the lines are placed underground, there are some existing homes that will be affected by that and those home owners will incur cost due to this. Could they have grounds for an economic hardship based on the fact that they have services already on existing properties that would be affected by this requirement? First of all, let me preface the remark by saying that based on what this says and again, my job is not fact finding, that is yours. For the sake of argument, if all these estimates were true I do not believe they would have grounds. Thank you very much. I would move for approval of LSD 03-10.00 with condition of approval number one to read Lewis Avenue will be widened to provide a 50' right of way with curb and gutter, pavement and storm sewer to be provided and denying the requested waiver from §166.13. We have a motion by Commissioner Estes, is there a second? I will second. Is there any further discussion and is everyone clear on what condition number two of the motion is? Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 26 Vaught: Warrick: Hoover: Shackelford: Warrick: Whitaker: Shackelford: Warrick: Shackelford: Warrick: I have a question, is this something the applicant could come back and request a waiver for with more detailed facts? The action is approval or denial of the Large Scale Development with the conditions as posed in the motion. The applicant could appeal that decision to the City Council within ten working days. Thank you. Is there any further discussion? I am confused on that statement. If this is approved as the motion and second has been made can the applicant appeal the request for waivers specifically to the Planning Commission? I believe what they would be appealing is your determination on conditions of the Large Scale and that would be an appeal to the City Council. That is correct. Just for public record if you could very briefly, the applicant has also mentioned that they have a point of contention with improvements to Lewis Avenue since there is no ingress and egress off of Lewis anymore. Can you speak briefly towards other projects in which we have required improvements on adjoining streets that did not have ingress and egress and how that decision was made? I don't know that I can pull out of my hat the specifics but with regard to this particular project you are looking at a project that adjoins four streets. We are requesting improvements to one. That street does not have access on it however, it is a substandard street. The proposal is for a project that increases the amount of traffic four fold or more based on trip generation software the existing development on the site generates approximately 113 trips per day on an average week day. The proposed project would generate approximately 517. I don't believe that it would be true to say that the cars going to and from this development will only access Stone Street because that is where the points of ingress and egress are located. I believe they will travel on the other adjacent streets including Lewis. To the best of your recollection we have had situations where we have required improvements to streets that are adjoining property and not specifically tied to ingress and egress? I believe we have. Shackelford: Thank you very much. Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 27 Hoover: Is there any other discussion from the Commissioners? Seeing none, Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-10.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-1 with Commissioner Anthes abstaining. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of six to zero with one abstention. Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 28 C-PZD 03-2.00: Planned Zoning District (Lowe's, 557/596) was submitted by Lance Mills of Ozark Civil Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. for property located at the southwest corner of Finger Road and Highway 62. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, R -O, Residential Office, and R-2, Medium Density Residential containing approximately 21.53 acres. The request is for a Commercial Planned Zoning District for a Lowe's Home Center containing 13.9 acres (133,532 sq.ft. building) and a retail lot containing 6.05 acres (53,876 sq ft building) with lot splits to create a 1.3 acre parcel and a 4.59 acres parcel of tree preservation. Hoover: Item nine on the agenda is PZD 03-2.00 for Lowe's. Sara, will you tell us about this? Edwards: Yes. What we have is a Commercial Planned Zoning District for a Lowe's Home Center containing 13.9 acres with a retail outlet containing 7.9 acres. There is also a lot split being proposed, which is lot 2B to be developed later. There are 4.59 acres of tree preservation proposed. A private drive with a traffic signal on the west side of the property is proposed. A cross connection to the east to access Finger Road is also proposed. They are providing parking, which meets our code. Surrounding zoning to the north is A-1, to the south is R-1, to the east is C-2 and the west is R -O. Water and sewer are available. Additional right of way is being dedicated according to the Master Street Plan. Existing canopy on this site is 69%, proposed preservation is 15%, the requirement in a C-2 zone is 15%. On site detention is proposed. It is for a regional detention pond to the south of the Lowe's store, which will serve this development as well as future development. There is wetland mitigation off site that has been approved by the Corp. of Engineers. We are recommending that this be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of approval for the rezoning and that the Planning Commission approve the proposed development subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report. I just highlighted a couple of them, there are quite a few. They are requesting a waiver for parking spaces wider than 9', they are requesting 10' wide spaces to accommodate contractor traffic. They are requesting a waiver to allow for wider truck aisles. The allowance in the UDO is 24', they are requesting up to 55' in width. They are requesting a waiver from the landscape island in the front of the building in order to place utility equipment. ADA spaces have been redistributed along the retail store as shown on the development plan. Number eight I would like to amend. We have reexamined the proposal at the developer's request and found the landscape island as proposed to meet the ordinance requirements with regard to the amount of landscape islands. Hoover: Sara, what does number eight need to read? Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 29 Edwards: It just needs to be deleted. It was requiring landscape islands near the ADA spaces. Also, sidewalk fees in the amount of $12,394.62 and that is for fees in lieu of sidewalk construction along the tree preservation area. We will require the tree preservation easement to be filed prior to any permits. A traffic signal is to be installed at the developer's expense prior to any occupancy permit. Street lights shall be installed along the south side of 6th Street every 300'. Number 15 has been amended with the new report you see and that is that all utilities shall be placed underground with the exception of an existing 14.4KV line that exists on lot 2A. Because it is over the 12KV that one is not required to be placed underground. I will skip ahead to number 20, which is Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. There are two signs that do not comply with the sign ordinance. The first is the Lowe's wall sign extends above the roof higher than allowed by ordinance and they are requesting a waiver from that. Secondly is the Lowe's free standing pole sign is greater than 75 sq.ft. The ordinance does limit the maximum square footage to 75 sq.ft. They are also requesting a waiver on that. Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards with regard to the signs on the building. I would also like to go over some findings with regard to a Planned Zoning District because it does include a rezoning. The General Plan designates the area as regional commercial and mixed use. This proposal is in conformity with that designation. The applicant has met with property owners adjacent to the site to insure compatibility. Loading areas have been located away from residential areas and tree preservation buffers have been proposed. A traffic study has been submitted, which adequately addresses the adequacy of street systems with the additional traffic from this development. There is an access drive from Finger Road to provide connectivity as well as a new private drive with a traffic light as well as a third entry into the site. We do find that the proposal is for a single use commercial development. The rezoning of this property to the Planned Zoning District may be deemed appropriate due to the measures taken to insure compatibility with adjacent properties. We have found that the proposal will not have a negative impact on the development of adjacent property. We have also listed standards which meet the guiding policies of the General Plan 2020 which specifies that retail business and service base be provided to enable Fayetteville to realize it's full potential as a regional market, that we encourage improvements and expansion of regional shopping and entertainment attractions, that we ensure our transportation network is meeting acceptable levels as well as commercial site be landscaped in a manner that preserves the aesthetic character of their surroundings as well as some other findings. This will require a Planned Zoning District ordinance be approved by City Council. We have found that this is an appropriate rezoning for the property due to the compatibility and the consistency with the General Plan. We are also recommending approval Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 30 of the rezoning based on those same principles, consistency with our policies and compatibility with adjacent properties. Hoover: Are you sure that's it? Edwards: Yes. Hoover: Ok. Can I ask the applicant to come forward? Shackelford: Just for clarification so we know what we are talking about, this may be a record, three pages of conditions for approval. It looks like mine are numbered one through twenty-three and then there is a twenty and twenty- one. Just for a clarification I think there were 25 conditions of approval, we deleted number 8 so there are now 24 conditions, is that correct? Hoover: Yes. Can I get you to do a presentation and also would you include a presentation from your traffic engineer? Millis: Yes Ma'am. My name is Mark Millis. I am the site development director for Lowe's Home Centers. I have several other folks with me tonight that I would like to introduce. Matt Cobb and Benny Westphal are the sellers of the property, along with their engineer Matt Crafton. Jack Butt is our outside council who has helped us through the development process and the agreement that I will speak to later. David Cummings is with Dorado Development Company who Lowe's has the option with. Lance Mills with Ozark Civil Engineering, he is Lowe's engineer. David Riddle is the environmental and wetland consultant from Adams Engineering. Greg Simmons with Ernie Peters & Associates, the traffic consultant. Forest Culpepper with MBM Architects who is Lowe's architect and Mark Nebble who is Dorado's architect. I also want to thank staff who have helped us through this process and had additional meetings with us. Being a first PZD I must say they made it a very smooth process. In addition, the Subdivision Committee gave us a lot of guidance and direction getting to this point so we do appreciate their help in that. I know Sara covered quite a bit of the details of this project but due to the complexity I did want to give a brief presentation and try to guide everyone through where we have been and where we are now. Following with Lance Mills who will discuss some of the waiver requests and then Greg Simmons with the traffic information. The entire development encompasses 89 acres, which is the entire property that Cobb and Westphal currently own. From that, Dorado Development put under option approximately 21 acres and Lowe's ended up with about 13.9 of that. From the beginning we knew that Dr. Leffler who lives in the southeast corner of the project had some interest in the land and previously his family had owned the land. We met with him and subsequently included the buffer area, as you see, shaded Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 31 around his property on three sides and the triangle across Finger Road as a buffer to protect him from the development. We shifted the site west, flipped the Lowe's building to put the loading docks on the opposite side from him. From the neighborhood concerns, we looked at traffic, which you will hear of later. Of course, the tree preservation for the entire 89 acres was done to include the Lowe's project and the remaining acreage when it is developed in the future. The wetlands delineation as you see in the dark black colors is what has been delineated by the Corp. and included the entire 89 acres as well, which the sellers felt pertinent to do on the front end. Since our meetings with Dr. Leffler and the neighborhood we have entered into a four party agreement between Lowe's, Dr. Leffler, Dorado, and Cobb and Westphal. That agreement encompasses the sale of the buffer tract back to Dr. Leffler upon completion of this project and Lowe's closing on the deal and/or a long term lease depending on how all of that unfolds. Lighting restrictions, which reduced our pole heights to not more than 30' and that no poles would be located within 100' of his property. Screening restrictions with fencing around the buffer area, rooftop screening on the eastern portion of the Lowe's building to screen the rooftop equipment from his property. What we are here tonight to show you is the PZD for the Lowe's and Dorado development, which does include a mass grading and drainage plan which includes the detention pond here which will serve the Dorado Development, the Lowe's Development, Phase I of the Cobb residential and the future commercial, which is that 6 acres located just west of the Lowe's development. Again, as I stated, the wetlands was incorporated into the entire 89 acres. Upon the development of the Cobb commercial tract Sherman Way will be dedicated as public right of way and it has been designed to meet the city street requirements today. In addition, there will be private agreements between Lowe's, Dorado, and Cobb and Westphal. There is a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions which talks about cross access and as an attachment to that there will be a pond maintenance agreement and easements that carry throughout the entire development. A site development agreement which determines who will build what and how people will be reimbursed and the building elevations, we have gone with an earth tone coloring to this building. The standard is a Lowe's light gray and dark gray. We felt this was a little bit more upscale. We have added screening to the dumpster from Sherman Way as well as added a tennis type screen mesh to the garden center to further obstruct view from Sherman Way. With that, if there are no questions for me I will turn it over to Lance to discuss the variance requests. Hoover: Thank you. Mills: I am Lance Mills with Ozark Civil Engineering. I don't want to take up a lot of time but I just want to briefly go over some of their variance Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 32 requests or waivers that we are asking for as Sara mentioned. Over in this area here there are 24 parking spaces, that is the contractor area. We like to designate these for our contractors because a lot of them typically drive the bigger dually trucks and we would like to allow for that little bit of extra room. The next one is in regards to the truck accessibility around the building. These aisles here, the largest one is 55' and that is for when we turn our trucks through here, we use a lot of 18 wheelers through here and we like to have that full accessibility without running into the curbs or running into cars and the truck drivers like it a lot better. The other item was the landscaped island in front of the building, which is going to be right here. This island we are requesting not be landscaped. We have several utilities located in here, a fire hydrant, a light pole, and several utilities which doesn't allow us to actually put landscaping in this area so we are asking for a waiver on that. The other is on item 20, which is in regards to the waiver on the signage, as you can see if you draw a line straight across there the Lowe's lettering extends above. Then on the pylon sign for the Lowe's we would like for you to consider, and I apologize for not having a better exhibit, but I think as part of your package you have this. As you can see, the actual rectangular part of the sign cabinet itself, if you figure the square footage on that it comes to 71.25 sq.ft. and that is the intent. We fully intended on meeting the ordinance but when you calculate the roof architectural feature at the top that is what throws us over the edge. We do have the option just to put the rectangle there and forget the architectural feature but this is a nice development and we want it to match the front of our building. That is what we are asking there. It is not so much a variance of the square footage of the actual sign cabinet but maybe another interpretation of the ordinance on how you calculate that square footage. The other item I would like to briefly address that was brought up in our meeting with the neighbors, was a concern, we have some residents here that had a concern about drainage. In listening to them, it was probably a very legitimate concern about some existing problems that they are having here. As you can see, this is the creek, this low area here and this is where it drains across the road. For the record, I would like to say that the development that we are doing, this detention basin is releasing not into that, it is releasing to this right here. For the record, our discharge pipe right here is releasing into this existing ditch which is restricted by this culvert. These individuals here, we are not going to be adding to that already bad situation. We won't be solving it. We meet the city ordinance on drainage, we are not exceeding the pre development flows. The detention pond will serve the Lowe's, this six acres will go here, the remaining of the Lowe's will go here, the Dorado development will go here, this acreage here that this pond is designed for and this future commercial. I think, unless you have any specific questions I will let Greg Simmons come up and talk about traffic. Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 33 Hoover: Yes, if we could get all of the presentations first, thank you. Simmons: Good evening Madam Chairman and other Commissioners. My name is Greg Simmons, I am with Peters & Associates Engineers out of Little Rock. We are the traffic consultants for this project. I would like to give you a brief overview of our traffic study. I am going to start with the methodology on how we arrived at our recommendations. We count to begin with, the existing traffic on the street on Hwy. 62 and on Finger Road during peak hours of the day, a.m. and p.m. and then we take those traffic volumes and using the same trip generation software that staff has, we generate projected trips for the new land use, being the Lowe's development and the retail. Those trip generation values that are generated in the software are then adjusted to account for what we call internal capture on the site. In other words, some of the people that go to some of the smaller retail areas will also go to the Lowe's site so they are not all single purpose trips coming to the site. They may visit more than one development on the site. Secondly, we also make some assumption based on historical data that some of the traffic that is coming to this site is already in the existing traffic stream. In other words, they are not all new trips coming to the site and that reduction is usually around 18% for that. Once we arrive at those numbers we assign driveway volumes at each of the individual access points and those driveway volumes are calculated for the p.m. peak hour, in other words, the afternoon heavy peak hour of the traffic, which would be the heaviest for the development as well as the adjacent street traffic. Once we have those values established for the access points then we run capacity calculations for each of the intersections and arrive at what is known as a level of service. I am sure that some of you have heard this terminology before, which is a measure of the operation of the intersection. Once we do that then we look to see what mitigated measures might be appropriate to arrive at the acceptable levels of service. Again, this is for the p.m. peak hour of a normal weekday, which is the typical analysis hour of the traffic study. In going through this process, we have recommended that a traffic signal be installed at the western most drive of the development, which I believe is referred to as Sherman Way on some of these figures and Hwy. 62. This traffic signal would be paid for by the developer. It would also be coordinated with the existing traffic signal at Finger Road and Hwy. 62, which in turn would be coordinated with the traffic signals at I-540. Staff has reviews this and is supportive of the installation of the traffic signal at this point. This study has been submitted to the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department to the district office and it is my understanding that this morning it arrived at the headquarters office in Little Rock for review there. I will be happy to answer any questions as we go through the presentation or now. Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 34 Hoover: Thank you. We will come back to you I'm sure. Is that all of the presentation? Thank you. At this time I would like to ask any members of the public that would like to address this PZD to please come forward. Yes Sir, would you sign in on the sign in sheet also? Leffler: I am Rob Leffler and I live at 1495 Finger Road, which is surrounded on the north and west sides by this proposed development. My grandfather, Charles J. Finger built that house more than 80 years ago and wrote about 40 books in that house and my mother grew up there and my brother and I grew up there for much of our childhood. As you could imagine, we had some serious concerns when this large project was proposed and many of the neighbors also had serious concerns. I will say that unlike some major developers in the past, these people, Lowe's and Dorado and Cobb and Westphal, have really come forward to try to address those neighborhood concerns in my view. As has been mentioned, there is going to be a buffer protecting the property and the traffic study was redone in response to neighborhood concerns. Runoff concerns I think were addressed. The truck turn around location was a problem at first and was addressed. My mother's old art studio and my grandfather's grave site will be able to be preserved because of this. To sum it up, we have been very pleased with the efforts that the developers have made on this and I think that the meeting with the neighbors was quite helpful as well. I am not speaking to any of the issues about the size of the signs, that is not something that we have made a part of the agreement, but with regard to the overall project it is ok with my wife Sara, me and my daughter as well. Thank you very much. Hoover: Thank you. Are there any other members of the audience? Wilkes: My name is Steve Wilkes I live at 4188 W. 6th Street, about a mile west of the current development and I would like to echo Rob Leffler's comments. I think that the developers and the engineers have all done a great job. I don't have a particular problem with this particular development. Although my wife does. She doesn't believe that we need anymore box stores in Fayetteville. I would like to address the issue of development in that corridor and to just put it on your radar screen that those of us who live on 6th Street, and have lived on 6th Street for many years, are very concerned about the level of development and more importantly the kind of development that we continue to build as we move toward Farmington and how we develop and what we develop. We are very concerned that as we build these large scale businesses like Lowe's, I think Lowe's is a great business and I look forward to shopping there, as we build Lowe's pretty soon the Ace Hardware and the Tractor Supply Store, at were where the commercial was, with the box stores and the fast food joints. It already is Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 35 there above the intersection, I certainly don't want to see it develop that way. That is a major concern. I am also concerned about the drainage. I believe that the drainage for this project doesn't affect me and I think it has been addressed very well. As we move down this corridor, Farmington Branch is the little creek that runs along and joins with Clear Creek and I believe ultimately the Illinois River, as this is developed, every time we pave one of those cow pastures that water runs a little faster and it runs right in front of my front door. To date it has cost me about $5,000 in remediation from the housing that was put in upstream from me. I really want to be on record in saying that it is extremely important that we pay attention to this, not just for my property although that is most important to me, but for the other folks who live downstream. I can't speak for the folks in Farmington particularly, but there are a lot of folks that live on that creek and as we develop that we need to make sure that the proper drainage is done and that we don't just shoot all the water into Farmington Branch as fast as we can. That really causes a lot of problems. I just had to have my section of the creek in front of my house re -channeled and it cost me over $1,000. I have lost retaining walls, I have lost a bridge. It has been very expensive to me. To date, nobody in the city will say "we are responsible for this problem." Although I have engineers that say "absolutely, that is what caused it." I want to make sure that going forward it doesn't happen again and that five or six or seven years from now I am not rebuilding those walls again because the velocity and the volume of water has once again increased. The last concern that I have is about traffic. I just want to address the fact that there are lots of folks that live there. There is a subdivision that is there now, there will be new subdivisions. Every time we add a street and we add a new group of houses, we have the children. I know that you can't do anything about the speed limit along there but it is 55 miles per hour. What that really means is that the people coming to work who are late, who live in Lincoln, Prairie Grove and Farmington, are really driving about 65 and 70. It is a death trap to pull out onto that little stretch of road right now. I am very concerned. I have seen in the past few days people actually running the stop signs that the school busses put out. The Fayetteville school busses have stopped on 6`h Street and people shot right through it. This is a big concern of mine. I am just concerned that as we build large scale developments, big shopping, hopefully some good restaurants, as long as we are building these things we really need to pay attention to the quality of life for those of us who live there now. Those are my concerns. Hoover: Thank you Mr. Wilkes. Are there any other members of the audience? Brooks: Good evening, I am David Brooks, I live up on Finger Road at 3142. I have lived out there since I was 9 years old and we were on up the road from Mr. Leffler. I am really concerned about the traffic also. I have Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 36 children that are presently in school and I have seen the road go from a dirt road, with Hwy. 62 going from a two lane to a four lane road and Wal- Mart moved out there to the old 62 drive in that I used to work out. I am very upset with the potential for the traffic hazards and the traffic congestion at that site at the end of Finger Road. Right now Wal-Mart, who I work for, has got that Murphy's Oil down there and now we have got a bank down there. People coming in on Finger Road off of Hwy. 62 decide that they want to turn into the entrance to Murphy Oil to your left, they will hold up traffic every time. People are trying to get across that intersection. With the influx of cars coming from Lowe's, peak times of the day it is just terrible. The gentleman did this traffic study but I am tempted to just film it on a regular peak hour during the morning and it is just unbearable. You will be backed up almost to the skating rink down there on Dinsmore Trail. That really concerns me with the traffic coming in. I know that Wal-Mart has a lot of sales and Lowe's will have a lot of sales and that traffic that is generated on the weekend when people are off and trying to get things done it is just going to be unbearable. The life off of Hwy. 62 is a little bit different than what is on there. I live almost a mile up the road and it is a very nice place. We have deer in our backyard and the whole nine yards. The large scale that is going to go down there I am sure will have an effect on the environment. I am not really satisfied with the way that they are doing the drainage because I can see the projections later on with residential areas coming in behind there on the other property. That is going to be a concern for the environment also. Even though I am not a very good speaker I just wanted to come up here and voice my opinions because I have spoken to some of the neighbors, we are not going to go into the store. I am not going to shop there. I don't want it out there, I didn't want it out there to start with. I didn't want Wal- Mart out there and I fought that but I lost that battle too. I just wanted to voice my opinion and I appreciate you all for listening to me. Hoover: Thank you Mr. Brooks, is there any other member of the audience? Moorman: My name is Barbara Moorman, I live on Finger Road. I think the concerns that have been voiced by the last two speakers are my concerns. They were very well expressed and I certainly concur. The only thing I don't concur with is anything nice that was said about this development. I am glad to hear that the staff made this a smooth process for the developer. I wish that you all could make it a smooth process for the neighbors. I think first of all that there is a problem with overall planning on the part of the City of Fayetteville. What will Hwy. 62 look like when the whole growth area is developed? It seems to me that that should be uppermost in your mind before you start looking at particulars. This development, if it was needed at all, which I certainly don't think it is, the place for it was at the intersection of I-540 and 6`l Street and when the Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 37 issue was raised about the Lindsey development, the apartments that are going in right now, there was an excellent talk that was given by a former member of the Planning Commission to the effect that that was a place for a commercial center. Out where I am at the corner of Finger Road, which as was just pointed out, just a few years ago was a dirt road. It has been used traditionally for walking. People walk their dogs, people ride bikes, children play. It is not appropriate to destroy that area which is getting to be quite unique. Getting back to where the commercial centers ought to be, I know your 2020 Plan says one thing. However, within my very short memory roughly 10 years ago the Planning Commission and the city was saying we weren't going to have any strip development west of the intersection of 540, west of the bypass. Then the Wal-Mart went in. You turn in and immediately the Wal-Mart went in and now we are talking about putting in this enormous 90 acre development. It is incremental. You can see your plan changes. The reason your plans change is you have no rational for your plans. You don't have a picture of what this area is going to look like and even if you do think you have that picture you have no rational to support why you think it is a good thing. For example, are you going for infill or are you going for complete development of the growth area? Getting back to more specific issues, traffic, this is just part of the big picture. Traffic is simply unbelievable on 6th Street. I know that you, when I say you please don't take it personally, when I say you I mean the City of Fayetteville, this is a generic plural you. Something is going to have to be done our there and I am sure that there are people, I'm not saying it is a conspiracy but it is a thought in people's minds, there are going to have to be other arteries cut through out there. Think about it, you are putting development down Finger Road past the Leffler's house. You are going to come up with the notion of widening Finger Road then you are going to come up with the notion, again, this is not you but the City will come up with the notion of cutting Finger Road through some other goofy way through to 265. It is a natural, it is going to happen. You ought to see all of that right now. I don't think that this should be an incremental thing. Five years down the road we are going to change our plans. You have a finite amount of space, it is encompassed by the boundary of the growth area. You can't go on with this foolishness, this madness forever. You are going to bump into somebody else's boundaries. I think you need to think in terms of a finite area and what are you going to do with the traffic on 6`h Street? Are you going to cut a north and south road or several north/south roads? Just a few years ago the Planning Department wanted to make Finger Road a collector street. Finger Road is a dead end that ends up at the top of a mountain and I think that when that idea was put forth that there was some other idea in mind about what to do with Finger Road. Nobody could've wanted to run it up to the top of that mountain. This sounds like it is far fetched I know to you but if you knew the area you would know that what I am saying Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 38 makes perfect, logical sense. This is an issue that is going to come up within the next few years. Getting back to the overall planning, I just don't see that you have any long range plans that stick because of the very lack of rational. One thing that the UDO says, and it is part of the 2020 Plan, is that you need to protect significant environmental features. The tree preservation plan looks very nice for this property but you may be losing sight of the fact that ten years ago, and I know that is outside the statute of limitations, that land was filled in my opinion it was quite illegally done, fill was taken from somewhere else and it killed all the trees that are on that property, the very property that we are talking about now when you are talking about tree preservation. Secondly, it was mentioned that part of your policy says that developments have to be in harmony with the aesthetic qualities of the surroundings. Well that is just outrageous because there is going to be nothing in harmony with the part to the south. There is no harmony whatsoever between this huge development and the mountains and the trees and the creek that are back there. How do you reconcile that? The only way you can reconcile that is through a pre -conceived bias that you walk into this with. It is all basically about money. That is what this room is full of, people who are here for money. I am talking about the environment and the quality of life. I really think I want to get back to my initial point, which is that you need an overall rational. You need some underlying philosophy that backs up what you are permitting. It should not be just money. The 90 acres that I live on is in a conservation easement. I have seven pages here of just the native species on this property and I am not an expert and this is absolutely not complete, I don't pretend that it is complete, but when you talk about being in harmony with the surroundings I don't think you are looking at it from all the possible angles but only from one and that is speculation, money and fear of potential lawsuits. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Do we have any other members of the audience? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Can I first start with can we get a report from the Subdivision Committee on this project? Bunch: The Subdivision Committee met twice on this. One of the things that was requested at the first meeting particularly after public comment, was an expanded version of the traffic report. At the second Subdivision Committee there was an expanded very comprehensive traffic report presented. Some of the questions were the concerns about Sherman Way being a private road or a public road and it will be built to public standards and at such time as was presented tonight, dedicated as a city street. Commercial design standards were reviewed and changes were made. ADA parking was redistributed to better access the retail stores on the Dorado portion. Public comment was taken at both meetings. Property lines were discussed and clarified as well as a concept plat was requested Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 39 between the first and second Subdivision Committee meeting so we could see how this project interrelated with the rest of the major block. Particularly since there were improvements that were shown that were on land but did not belong to this development. Some of the Cobb Westphal land I believe had the detention pond and also some wetlands. Also, one of the things that were brought up is some of the wetlands are lands that were created by materials that were dumped on this site from other construction projects. Again, the traffic was a major concern particularly with public comment. We did discuss signs and we forwarded basically everything to the full Planning Commission with the changes that were made by the design group. Hoover: Thank you Commissioner Bunch. Going back to a few notes through public comment, Dawn would you just give us a little summary of our 2020 plan? From what we can find on the map this area has been zoned regional commercial since 1995, or planned to be regional commercial, is this true? Warrick: That is true for a portion of the property. A portion of the subject property has also been designated as mixed use on the General Plan. Hoover: Thank you. Commissioners? Estes: I would like to respond to Ms. Moorman's comments, and I see that she left the room and I am sorry that she did because I would like for her to hear this. It wasn't raining when Noah built the arc. Planning is a good thing and this city has made an effort to achieve a certain level of urban planning that is consistent with growth. We have our 2020 Plan, which is our future land use plan. On that plan 6th Street is designated as a principal arterial. It is zoned regional commercial and then mixed use until the Farmington city limits. This plan was developed after extensive public hearings and offering of extensive comment, both by the general public and by professionals and it is the plan that we are mandated to follow. We don't make these decisions and we don't do these sort of things without any direction or without any guidance. We follow the 2020 plan. In response to where are we going and how are we going to get there, 6th Street is a principal arterial, it is regional commercial and then it becomes mixed use to the Farmington city limits. Ms. Moorman asked what you expect 6th Street to look like, I expect it to be regional commercial and mixed use to the Farmington city limits. With that said, I have several comments and several questions. I guess I would like to start with Matt, if you could help us out with Mr. Wilkes' concerns regarding the drainage, our requirement that post development flows not exceed pre - development flows, could you elaborate on that? Can you explain to Mr. Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 40 Casey: Estes: Mills: Estes: Mills: Wilkes what he can expect and maybe also some explanation for why he may be suffering the problems that he is. The concerns that Mr. Wilkes brought up are the reason that it is now the city's policy to require detention on all projects. The detention is designed to retain the water to match the existing runoff from the site, and in many cases it will reduce the runoff. It can also provide some sort of filter for the water if it is sodded coming off these pavement areas. We can't fix the problems of the past but we are trying to keep this from happening in the future. Thank you. With regard to the detention pond, some representative of the applicant, take your choice who wants to answer this one, the detention pond is on the northeast corner of the project and it is on Hwy. 62, what landscaping have you thought about? Landscaping around the pond itself? Yes Sir, could you talk to us about that? What we are proposing is some landscaping here and here is the pond. We have a species list if you are interested. Estes: No, I just wanted to develop with you that the detention ponds will be landscaped. Mills: We are landscaping here primarily anticipating the future residential here. We will be required to sod it. Estes: My next questions are your requested sign waiver. Again, whoever feels most qualified to respond regarding the requested sign waiver. Millis: I will step in on this one. Estes: Do you really need more than 18" above the roofline, and if so, why? Millis: As you can see, the roofline is the parapet wall. The facade that the Lowe's sign actually is on is just to scale with that architectural element. It is somewhat skewed to say that it is above the roofline because the roofline that the sign is on is separate from the parapet itself'. It has got it's own roofline that the sign is actually on. Estes: In terms of square inches is this sign greater than or less than the sign on the store across from the Northwest Arkansas Mall? Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 41 Millis: Estes: Edwards: Estes: Edwards: Estes: Millis: Estes: Millis: Estes: Edwards: Warrick: Estes: Millis: Estes: It should be the same. Staff, did we give a waiver on the sign on the store across from the Northwest Arkansas Mall? We did not. We have had a shift in interpretation of our sign ordinance over the past couple of months, which I think you all will remember we went through on Shake's. There has not, other than the Shake's, been a waiver granted for this reason. Is this proposed sign the same size of the sign on the store across from the Northwest Arkansas Mall? It appears to be to us. We didn't take exact measurements or pull a permit but it looks very similar. I presume these are cookie cutter prototype or sign address, does the applicant know are you using the same size here as you did on the store across from the mall? As far as I recall it is the same sign and same size. Let me ask you about the pole sign. Your neighbor to the east did a real nice job with a monument sign, have you thought about a monument sign? Actually we have, and we are willing to do that to match the building facade. Sara, with a monument sign what is the permissible square footage? It is 75 sq.ft. also. It is permitted to be a whole lot closer to the street right of way. That is one of the allowances if the applicant chooses to erect a monument sign, the setback from the right of way is 10' as opposed to 30' for a pole sign of the same size, sorry, 40'. Have you thought about a monument sign and you could move it out towards the street? We would be agreeable to a monument sign. That is all I have. Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 42 Shackelford: One comment and then a follow up question. First of all, I would like to concur with Commissioner Estes' statements regarding the overall development of this property. I too agree that this is in line with the 2020 plan. Although, I do understand the traffic concerns and share some of those, in particular, the speed limit on 6th Street in this area. I do feel that this is an appropriate location for this. It is on a five lane U.S. Highway within a half mile exchange of the interstate. I think it is properly zoned on the 2020 plan and I think we are following that plan. With that being said, one question to the applicant. I am obviously not an engineer but I want to make sure I understand this. Commissioner Estes had some very good questions regarding storm water runoff and the detention ponds. Is it my understanding that the plan and the detention ponds that are in place on this project address the overall project in addition to the development that will happen at a later date on this location? Mills: Yes, a portion of it. Phase I is what we are calling the future conceptual plan for this acreage here and this future commercial. It will be sized to accommodate the acreage there and there. It is in the report specifically what areas. Hoover: Thank you Commissioner. I would like to ask the Commissioners if anyone has any issues with any of the waivers in the first list of conditions of approval, number four and five, which is a waiver to allow the parking spaces wider than 9' and the aisles wider than 24', is there anyone who has any concerns about that that we need to discuss? Ok, did we discuss commercial design guidelines, does anyone have any comments about those or concerns about the commercial design guidelines in reference to this project? Allen: I wanted to ask Commissioner Bunch, you said that there were some changes made as the result of comments made at Subdivision and I wondered what kind of changes were made to commercial design. Bunch: Specifically I think there were some changes made to the Dorado development and one of the things that was more concern was that the Lowe's sign itself was part of an architectural element that helped break up a large, box like building. Even though it extended above the parapet it is in helping satisfy one part of our ordinance, it appears to be in conflict with another part. I do not recall if the changes of the screening on the landscape area, if that was an exact result of through the Subdivision Committee meeting because there were meetings with the neighbors that were going on simultaneously with this. With the two Subdivision Committee meetings and meetings with staff and the neighbors, there were a considerable number of changes that occurred in the total project, not all of them necessarily design standards. Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 43 Allen: I wondered if we could be more specific again about the south elevation and the east elevation. Hoover: Can the applicant come address that please? Millis: We are speaking of the Lowe's elevation? Hoover: Yes. Culpepper: What did you want to know of the south elevation? Allen: Landscaping. Culpepper: I don't know if I can answer that. Millis- The south elevation located here does have landscaping screen for when the future residential does occur. Along the east line of Lowe's there will be an 8' fence along the property line here and then everything to the east of that is tree preservation buffer area that will ultimately be Dr. Leffler's property. Allen: Then I had another question that was I wondered what hours will typically be delivery times for the Lowe's stores? Millis: Delivery times are 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday. Allen: Thank you. Estes: I have a question regarding the traffic study and to try to be responsive to Mr. Brooks' concerns. Your traffic study shows warrants for signalization and what you denominated as drive b, when that proposed traffic signal is in place and is synchronized with the existing traffic signal on Finger Road, will that help the traffic flow and will that help the traffic congestion that Mr. Brooks described and if so, how? Simmons: Let me back up just a little bit. Somebody suggested that we go out and film this. Well I have been out and watched this and there is some cue that backs up there from the existing Finger Road traffic signal. Presently that traffic signal, although the traffic system can remotely communicate with it, it is not actually coordinated with I-540 at this time. When this new traffic signal at drive b is in fact, inner placed and inner connected to the system it is my understanding from talking with the City traffic personnel that the new signal at drive b, the Finger Road signal, will then both be coordinated with I-540. It should help minimize the cues that Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 44 Estes: build up. I am not going to sit here and tell you that we are going to solve a huge capacity problem that exists right now. I will say that Lowe's contributes very, very little to the a.m. rush hour traffic that is coming in from that direction. Is that responsive? I think so. I just wanted to be sure I understand the traffic now that is running east on Hwy. 62 when the new signal device is in place, that traffic will cue up to the west of that device and then when that device releases it will go to Finger Road and then it will go to I-540. It should cue it in three separate cues. Simmons: It should spread the cue out that is there now. It is not going to totally alleviate it but it will provide a progressive flow that presently doesn't exist from drive b to I-540. Estes: Thank you. Bunch: I have a question for the traffic. I know this isn't probably a part of the study but maybe in your expert opinion you can shed a little light on it. What impact will this Lowe's have at the current Lowe's location? What level of relief do we think we will see as far as the traffic in the mall area and Zion Road and will this alleviate that any or will it just be it's own business? Simmons: Candidly, I don't know. Millis: From a customer based standpoint when we add a new store within the same trade area we usually look at 15% to 20% of that traffic coming to the new store. Bunch: One of the benefits of this, from the standpoint of long range planning, is that this project should help alleviate some of the traffic in the Joyce, Zion, North College area? Millis: It should, at least from the customers that go to Lowe's specifically, and that is how we track that. Hoover: I would like to pose a couple more questions to the Commissioners. Is there any discussion about the waiver from the requirement of a landscape island in front of the building? Does anyone have an issue with that? The last waivers were on the signage. Is there any issue with the sign extending more than 18" above the roof level? Commissioner Estes? Estes: I have no issue with that and would vote in favor of that specific requested waiver. Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 45 Hoover: I have been going through the findings here that we need to determine for a PZD and I believe we have discussed just about every issue in the list. Maybe with the exception of the covenants. When will those be placed? Warrick: The covenants will be required to be tiled with the Final Plat for this project. Shackelford: Commissioner Estes brought up a point. Visiting with the applicant about the waiver of a pole sign verses a monument sign. Obviously as it reads now if someone were to make a motion as it reads now we would be asked to grant a waiver on the pole sign. Is that something that the applicant wants us to do or should we try to work in the ability for a monument sign? I guess since Commissioner Estes started this conversation, how would you like to see that specific finding addressed? Estes: My proposal would be that the first waiver request regarding the extending more than 18" be granted, that the second paragraph read that two monument signs be allowed not to exceed 75 sq.ft. in order to comply with the sign ordinance. It is my understanding that the applicant is in agreement with that. Millis: Actually, Commissioner Estes, the one sign is a shopping center sign which has a different square footage requirement than the specific Lowe's sign so the wording would probably need to be different or separated. Estes: I was giving you two monument signs of 75 sq.ft. Millis: The ordinance allows for the sign that will be for the Dorado development to be 300 sq.ft. Warrick: That is an area identification sign and it does have a larger provision. Estes: Your next sentence is an area identification sign is proposed on lot 2b, which meets ordinance requirements. So you are ok with that but did you want two monument signs or just one monument sign? Millis: Just one. If we just go with one do we get the additional square footage? Estes: That is correct. Hoover: Is there anymore discussion? Warrick: I have a question. The last statement was If we just go with one do we get the additional square footage, so are we talking about recommending to Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 46 Estes: the Board of Sign Appeals a monument sign larger than 75 sq.ft. for the Lowe's store? That was not my understanding. My understanding was the one monument sign not to exceed 75 sq.ft. but then the area identification sign will be the larger sign. Is that correct, is that what you are thinking? Millis- That wasn't my thinking but I will agree with it. Bunch: Estes: Shackelford: Estes: Anthes: Estes: A question for Commissioner Estes, on our recommendation to the Board of Sign Appeals addressing the 75 sq.ft., is that to include just the naming portion of the sign or does it include the architectural peak at the top of the sign? I believe that the monument sign and pole sign both have been designed with the Lowe's theme peak on top of it that may make it exceed the 75 sq.ft. Commissioner Bunch, as I think Dawn or Sara explained to us, in the last couple of months there has been a re thinking of how we calculate the square footage and we are now including the architectural features, where in the past we did not. Again, my thinking is if the applicant will give up that pole sign and substitute a monument sign they can have their architectural feature in addition to their 75 sq.ft. I would concur with that, I think that is a great idea. Let me explain the reason for that. That is not a negotiation or a bargain that we struck here this evening. What that is is that we heard from the Chair of our Subdivision Committee that this architectural feature actually enhances the general overall appearance of the project and meets the commercial design standards. Rather than break it up I would defer with the Chair of our Subdivision Committee and go with the architectural feature on the monument sign. Incidentally, that is my reason for granting the 18" above the roofline is to allow you to have the architectural feature, which as Commissioner Bunch said Subdivision reports that it adds to the architectural feature of the building and meets the commercial design standards but yet conflicts with the sign ordinance. I believe that we just heard Mark state that he would accept the sign with the 75 sq.ft. including the architectural element, are we then going to go back and give him that in addition? That is what I have tried to explain. To have continuity in the architectural feature of the project I would say that if they want the architectural feature on the monument sign it is appropriate because it Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 47 Anthes: Millis: Hoover: MOTION: Estes: Shackelford: Estes: Edwards: Estes: Hoover: Edwards: carries over to the 18" above the roofline waiver that we are giving on the building sign. Did you plan to put the architectural element on as included in the 75 sq.ft.? 1 would agree with Commissioner Estes' last statement. Do we have a motion? I move for approval of PZD 03-2.00 granting the requested waiver to allow parking spaces wider than 9', that is a request for several 10' wide spaces to accommodate contractor parking. Granting the requested waiver to allow for aisles wider than 24' in width with the proposal being for aisles up to 55' to accommodate truck traffic. Granting the waiver of landscape islands to be added near the ADA spaces. Number 8 was stricken from the conditions of approval. I thought it was now a requested waiver from that condition, is staff just striking it? Yes. Ok, then deleting previous condition number 8 that landscape islands shall be added near the ADA spaces. Making the finding of compliance with commercial design standards, including signage. Granting the waiver of the sign extending more than 18" above the roofline and allowing the sign to extend 46.25 inches above the roofline. Recommending to the Board of Sign Appeals that this variance be accepted providing that there is to be one monument sign not to exceed 75 sq.ft. in area, not including the architectural feature with an identification sign proposed on lot 2b, which meets the ordinance requirements. With a finding of fact that each of the requirements of the PZD have been met. We have a motion from Commissioner Estes. Sara, do you have a comment? I just wanted to point one thing out to make sure that everyone understood. A monument sign is defined by being no greater than 6' in height. I wanted to make sure that the applicant knew that they were agreeing to a sign no greater than 6' in height. Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 48 Hoover: Estes: Shackelford: Estes: Warrick: Estes: Hoover: Warrick: Hoover: Shackelford: Hoover: Allen: Estes: Hoover: Anthes: Edwards: So noted, applicant? Your monument sign can't be anymore than 6' this way and you get the square footage going this way. Does that include the architectural design on the top of the sign? Sara, is it permissible for the architectural feature to go above 6' as long as it doesn't exceed what? It would require a variance from the Board of Sign Appeal. We are going there anyway. Is there a maximum height that the Commission feels to be appropriate? Let's leave it with the 75 sq.ft. and not to exceed 6' in height because the applicant is going to have to go to the Board of Sign Appeals anyway and they can adjust this and do whatever they want to there. Is that correct staff? That's fine. We have a motion by Commissioner Estes, do we have a second? I will second and I appreciate him making that motion. Thank you. We have a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there anymore discussion on this item? I just would like to know if architectural features are often synonymous with advertising. The only architectural features that I see on the building, or things that we are calling architectural features are signage. I think that architectural features are more often than not considered part of the trade dress. Ok, is there anymore discussion? On page 9.2a and on our original page 9.2 we have gone back and forth about the tree conservation area, whether it is on site or off site. This evening we heard that they plan to sell the property or lease the property to Mr. Leffler, does that change the text of this page in anyway? What we are looking at is the boundaries of the Planned Zoning District, which includes the tree preservation area and the off site detention. The Planning Commission April 28, 2003 Page 49 tree preservation area will still be within the boundary of the PZD although will not be owned physically by Lowe's or the Dorado development. Anthes: Ok, so the 9.2a as it is currently written stands? Edwards: Yes. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? We have already closed it to public comment, I am sorry. I do appreciate the public coming and the neighbors' comments. If there is no more discussion then Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve C-PZD 03-2.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Hoover: Thank you. Do we have any other business? Warrick: I have a couple of announcements. Just so everyone knows this is Sara's last Planning Commission. We bid her a fond farewell and will miss her. I will be introducing our new Associate Planner at the next Planning Commission meeting but we will miss Sara, she is headed to Springfield for her new job. Also, with our next agenda session and Planning Commission I have arranged for OMI, the management company who runs the Paul Noland Waste Water Treatment Plan to provide us with a presentation at the Planning Commission meeting on May 12`h. They have agreed to allow us to tour the facility and to assist in that tour during our agenda session on May 8th so that is going to be a part of our activities with the next meeting. I just wanted to give you a heads up that that is coming. Hoover: Sara, we are going to miss you and I hope that you go off to bigger and better places and do great things.