Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-27 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on October 27, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN VAC 03-11.00: Vacation (Salazar, pp 294) Forwarded to City Council CONSENT LSD 03-36.00: Large Scale Development (Meyers Learning Center, pp 212/213) Approved CONSENT CUP 03-25.00: Conditional Use (Red Robin, pp 174) Approved Page 6 LSD 03-25.00: Large Scale Development (Red Robin, pp 174) Approved Page 14 PPL 03-17.00: Preliminary Plat (Stonebridge Meadows Ph. II, pp 608) Approved Page 17 CUP 03-26.00: Conditional Use (Fayetteville Athletic Club, pp 138) Approved Page 22 LSD 03-37.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville Athletic Club, pp 138) Page 22 Approved LSD 03-38.00: Large Scale Development (Stearns Apartments, pp 136) Approved Page 42 CUP 03-24.00: Conditional Use (Cliffs Cabin, pp 488) Page 53 LSP 03-54.00: Lot Split (Cliffs Cabin, pp 487) Page 53 LSD 03-35.00: Large Scale Development (Brandon Mall, pp 135) Page 56 VAC 03-12.00: Vacation (Combs St Church of Christ, pp 524) Page 59 LSD 01-39.10: Large Scale Development (Combs St Church of Christ, pp 524) Page 59 CUP 03-27.00: Conditional Use (Arkansas Oaks, pp. 294) Page 62 Approved Approved Approved Forwarded to City Council Approved Approved Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT Don Bunch Alan Ostner Loren Shackelford Jill Anthes Alice Church Christian Vaught Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Suzanne Morgan Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT Sharon Hoover STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 3 Shackelford: Good evening and welcome to the October 27"' Fayetteville Planning Commission. We are going to begin this evening with a presentation so if it is ok I will refer to our Mayor at this time. Coody: Thank you. Bob, come on up here. Mr. Bob Estes has been on the Planning Commission for a long time. In appreciation for your hard work and dedicated service as a Planning Commission from 1997 to 2003, it is a great honor to present you with this award. On behalf of the citizens of Fayetteville I would like to thank you for the time and effort you have volunteered in making some very difficult decisions for the benefit of the city over the past six years. The leadership and experience you have provided to fellow commissioners, city staff and to the citizens of Fayetteville are very appreciated and you will be missed. I would like to go on to say that most folks out here in the real world don't understand the trials, tribulations and the time that it takes for all Planning Commission members to do your work. It has to be the hardest voluntary job for anyone in the city. You've got more courage and tenacity than a lot of us do and we appreciate all of you. Bob, you have been the chair of this Planning Commission for a long time and you have been an active member for a long time and you've always brought a professional perspective and good articulation to arguments and ideas and you have been steadfast and resolved to the point that Fayetteville is a better town because of you. You guys, every meeting that you make you are building a city. Over time we will see what kind of results these decisions make and we look forward to Bob's return so we can get you back on the Planning Commission one of these days. Thank you Bob. Estes: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I like to think that I accept this not personally but on behalf of us together for the work that we have done. It, at times, has been challenging but has always been enjoyable and has always been interesting. Mr. Mayor, I thank you and the Council for the opportunity that you have given me to serve. These are truly unique times before the Fayetteville Planning Commission. There are opportunities before you that have never been experienced and that you can seldom expect to experience in the future. With particular attention to the Downtown Master Plan which will require each of you to actively participate and will require citizen participation and will have long term effects on this community and this city that we so much enjoy together. Thank you. It has been a pleasure, it has been an honor. Goodbye and god bless. Shackelford: Thank you. For the record, our chairman is not available to attend the meeting tonight, Mr. Estes was our Vice Chair. Since that position is vacant I will be serving as chairman tonight so bear with me as we muddle through this. I think we can get through it though. Let's go ahead and start with roll call. Renee, if you would do that for us please. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 4 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were seven commissioners present with Commissioner Hoover being absent. Shackelford: Two things. First of all you might note that on Conditional Uses it takes five affirmative votes, there are only seven members here. I want everybody to be aware of that. It is a little different than a normal situation. We will try to remind you of that as these items come up but there might be a situation that you will have the opportunity to table if you would prefer to wait until there are some more Planning Commissioners here. We will remind you of that as we go through. We will start with, staff, Dawn you mentioned that there were some things that the staff had recommended going on the consent agenda? Warrick: Yes Sir. After the agenda session on Thursday the Planning Commission did request that VAC 03-11.00, a Vacation for Salazar for property located at 2721 Shadybrook Cove be placed on the consent agenda. There were no objections to that vacation from any of the utility companies or surrounding property owners. Staff has also added item number eleven, the Large Scale Development for Meyer's Learning Center, LSD 03-36.00 to your consent agenda. This is a Large Scale Development that has no requests for waivers or outstanding issues. Shackelford: Great, thank you. First of all, one thing that we typically do at this point is vote on the minutes from the previous meeting. Those were handed out to the Commissioners just prior to the meeting. I think what we probably should do is table that until next week and approve the minutes from our last meeting. If I could have a motion to table that. Anthes: I move to table the minutes of the previous meeting. Allen: I second. Shackelford: We have a motion and a second to table the minutes from our previous meeting. Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table the approval of the minutes was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries seven to zero. Shackelford: Great. We have two items that have been placed on the consent agenda. The first is number three, VAC 03-11.00, the second is LSD 03-36.00, does any member of the audience or the Planning Commission wish to pull those items off the consent agenda? Seeing none, I will entertain motions for approval of the consent agenda. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 5 Bunch: I move that we approve the consent agenda as read. Anthes: I'll second. Shackelford: We have a motion and a second. Renee, would 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 October 27, 2003 Page 6 CUP 03-25.00: Conditional Use (Red Robin, pp 174) was submitted by Brent K. O'Neal of McClelland Consulting Engineers on behalf of Alex Kanapilly for property located east of the intersection at Van Asche and Mall Ave.; Lot 17D of Steele Crossing. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 2.03 acres. The request is to allow excess parking than that which is allowed for by ordinance. Shackelford: Under new business our first item tonight is CUP 03-25.00 which was submitted by Brent K. O'Neal of McClelland Consulting Engineers on behalf of Alex Kanapilly for property located east of the intersection at Van Asche and Mall Avenue. Jeremy? Pate: Yes Sir. We will be reviewing items one and two together tonight, the Conditional Use for Red Robin and the Large Scale Development for Red Robin. They are conditioned upon one another, they will require separate votes however. The subject property is located on Lot 17 subdivision of Steele Crossing, two lots east of Olive Garden. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and planned for Regional Commercial on the Future Land Use Plan. It is surrounded by commercial uses and zoning including the Olive Garden and approved and recently permitted Marriott Courtyard and vacant commercial lots. The site is located in the Overlay District and has two right of way frontages along Fulbright Expressway and the as of yet constructed Van Asche Drive. Van Asche is slated to be constructed with the Preliminary Plat of Lot 17. That does include street, sidewalks, street lights, water and sewer lines and other things associated with the Preliminary Plat. The applicant's request is to construct a 6,256 SF Red Robin restaurant. The restaurant will have approximately 257 seats with a waiting area for 35 people and approximately 35-40 employees during a maximum shift. The applicant is proposing a total of 125 parking spaces to serve customers, waiting patrons and employees. They plan to be open for lunch and dinner seven days a week and anticipate being at capacity during both lunch and dinner. Shared parking within a multi -use site is not available in the immediate vicinity, and parking will not be available on Van Asche Drive, with is to be constructed at 28 feet wide. The proposed structure has been sited to preserve an existing stand of trees to the southeast of the property. Parking in excess of the amount allowed by ordinance is requested by Conditional Use, which needs to be heard by the Planning Commission along with this Large Scale Development. As I mentioned, Van Asche Drive is being extended to the east with the approved Preliminary Plat for Lot 17. These improvements are required to be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Should the construction of Van Asche Drive not occur as approved with the Preliminary Plat the applicant tonight shall be responsible for constructing that street extension. A two way access easement is to be filed with the lot split which created this lot and has already been approved at the Subdivision Committee level to ensure adequate ingress and egress to the subject lot. In your staff report on page 2.2 of the Large Scale Development I have listed the Design Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 7 Overlay District requirements. I won't go over all of them. There is a waiver request for wall signage. The applicant is requesting a variance to incorporate three wall signs as opposed to the two allowed by ordinance. By code, all side illumination is to utilize indirect lighting. The applicant is also proposing to utilize internally lit signage. The curb cut is utilizing the curb cut that was approved with the Preliminary Plat for Lot 17, which was a waiver of the Design Overlay District requirements. The applicant has indicated compliance with the lighting requirements and elevations have been submitted for all four sides of the building. Approximately 40% of the site has been left in open space including tree preservation area. The current parking ratio ordinance requires one parking space per 100 sq.ft. of gross floor area. The minimum required for this project is 63 parking spaces. The ordinance allows for a maximum number of parking spaces, 30% more than what is required, the maximum is 63. Therefore, with the 30% number, 82 parking spaces are allowed by ordinance. The applicant is requesting a total of 125 parking spaces, which is a Conditional Use request for 43 more spaces than that permitted by ordinance. The application and site plan for the Large Scale Development has been submitted with the proposed parking and is being reviewed for compliance with all other Unified Development Code ordinances. There is information in your packets, the applicant is basing the number of parking spaces on recommended numbers by Red Robin. As I mentioned, there is information in your packet, including minutes from when additional parking was approved by the Planning Commission. Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use subject to one condition. That is Planning Commission approval of the accompanying Large Scale Development plan with all conditions of approval as stated. Staff also recommends approval of LSD 03-25.00 subject to the following conditions: 1) Planning Commission determination and approval of Commercial Design Standards. Staff finds the submitted elevation drawings to be in compliance with Commercial Design Standards. 2) Planning Commission determination of Design Overlay District requirements, including the sign variance request. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Design Overlay District requirement for number of wall signs permitted, which is one (1) wall sign per street frontage. With two right-of-way frontages, Red Robin is allowed two (2) wall signs. The applicant is requesting a third wall sign, due to site visibility constraints associated with preservation of tree canopy and natural drainage patterns (See attached letter from applicant). Staff is in support of this request. 3) Planning Commission determination of the appropriateness of internally-lighted monument signage. The Design Overlay District requirement is for all signage to utilize indirect lighting. 4) The accompanying Conditional Use request for excess parking shall be approved by Planning Commission prior to Large Scale Development approval. Should the Conditional Use not be approved by Planning Commission, the plat shall be revised in accordance with ordinance requirements and resubmitted for approval by the Subdivision Committee. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 8 5) The accompanying lot split to create Lot 17D, the subject property, shall be filed of record prior to issuance of building permits. 6) The applicant shall dedicate right-of-way to fulfill Master Street Plan requirements for a Collector Street, 35 feet from centerline, for Van Asche Drive. 7) Should the extension of Van Asche Drive and Final Plat of Lot 17 not occur, the developer of the subject tract shall be responsible for extending Van Asche Drive with a 28' width, with curb, gutter, storm drains and six-foot sidewalks to City standards to the north property line of the subject property. Items eight through 13 are standard conditions of approval. Shackelford: Thank you very much. It is obvious as he talked through this, we are looking at two items, a Conditional Use and a Large Scale Development together. It will take separate motions to approve but they are closely related so we will talk about both of those at the same time. Is the applicant here tonight? If you would come up please. Hunter: Good evening, my name is Wendy Hunter, I represent Red Robin Gourmet Burgers. My business address is 1195 Scarlett Drive in Lucas, Texas. We have a lot of things to talk about tonight and I will try to be as brief as possible. Staff has done a tremendous job in working with us and we have tried to be as cooperative as we could be. We have worked with the developer's design guidelines for building materials as well as the City of Fayetteville standards and have put together a building that we think is quite attractive and hope that you feel the same. We do have the property owner's approval of those elevations. The siting of the building on this particular piece of property was taken with great pains to try to preserve a group of trees that does exist that the city has indicated a desire to save. In doing so, we have repositioned the building so that the patio actually faces the trees so that the people that are sitting on the patio get to sit under the trees. Instead of just saving a group of trees we tried to incorporate them into the way that we have designed the site. In doing so, we did pull the building back on the site so that it is isolated. We cannot get full circulation around the building, which is something we normally try to do. Again, we wanted to make those trees an integral part of the way the site was designed. In preserving those trees we have ended up with quite a retaining wall. We have about 445 linear feet of retaining wall that we are going to be building in order to save those. We do feel that the site works well with the trees over the patio. We like the way it sits. Our request for a Conditional Use Permit for the additional parking is just based upon years and years of experience. Red Robin has been around since 1969. It started up in Seattle, Washington and we have approximately 202 stores total nationwide, which is a combination of both corporate stores as well as franchise stores. We have found through years of experience that we need enough seats to handle not only the patrons that are dining, those who are waiting and also our employees. Unfortunately, our employees generally come from individual homes so carpooling doesn't work very Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 9 well there. Very few of them ride bicycles, which we would love to encourage, but it doesn't happen. We need at peak dining time we need approximately 35 to 40 parking spaces for employees. At full seating capacity with 257 seats, which does include the patio, we average approximately 2.3 patrons per car. If you take the number of patrons if we're full plus our employees we are already over 110 to 115 parked and that doesn't include anyone who is waiting for a table. If your city is anything like where I live we wait anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour for a seat, especially on a Friday or Saturday night. We respectfully request that you consider the additional parking for us there. In terms of the additional signage, I would like to show you a site plan if we can. I think in your packet you have a reduced version of the site plan if I could ask you to take a look at that. The trees, as I said, are located on the southern fagade of the building, which, again, is the patio elevation. Access on this site or the visibility for this site coming along the Fulbright Expressway visibility will be totally blocked for that building coming north on Fulbright until you are basically past the building and looking at the rear fagade of the building. If you are coming south on Fulbright Expressway you will be able to see the north fagade of the building, which is actually our service yard, and then you will come into visibility with the rear of the building. The rear of our building is not a service yard, the rear of our building is actually a dining area that does have windows off it, it is a full fagade as you can see. It is the third elevation down is the rear of the building. The bottom elevation is the north elevation, which is where we're requesting the variance to put the additional sign. Based on the sign code, my understanding is that we are allowed two signs, one where we have visibility on the road way. We would be allowed a sign on the front of the building and also one on the rear of the building, which faces Fulbright. We are allowed 20% of the overall fagade. The rear fagade of the building is 1,700 sq.ft. so we would be allowed 150 sq.ft. The sign that we will actually be putting on the rear of the building is only 64 sq.ft. and the sign that we are looking to put on the north elevation of the building, which is where we need the variance, is also 64 sq.ft. Basically, what we are asking for is if you allow us the square footage that we're allowed by code but we would like to put it on two facades. We ask this because we really have worked hard to try to work with the trees on the site, work with the site itself and we would like to allow ourselves maximum visibility. I will be happy to answer any questions you have. Shackelford: Thanks Ms. Hunter. I am going to open it up to public comment at this point. I am sure we will have questions for you at a later time. If anybody in the audience would like to address us regarding either the Conditional Use Permit 03-25.00 or the Large Scale Development 03-25.00 please do so at this time. Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Planning Commission. I would like with Commissioner Bunch, if you would, give us a report from Subdivision Committee regarding this. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 10 Bunch: Most of what we talked about at Subdivision Committee was issues that are shown in the conditions of approval. Parking, we looked at the building design standards and also we discussed at length the sign issue and variations and also the work that the applicant has done with working with this site to preserve the natural features of the site and it has created difficulty in their design and they have worked quite well to modify their prototypes and to fit our conditions as well as the site. Shackelford: Thank you very much. I will open it up to the other Planning Commissioners for questions or comments. Allen: Just one comment regarding other things that were said at the Subdivision Committee meeting was that the colors that we have in our packet are not very true as you can see from their material board there. It appears that the patio is orange. You might want to go over those with us please. Hunter: Try as we might to get computers to emulate real life it doesn't really happen. These are the actual materials of the building. This is the brick color that is shown as bright orange. This is the tan that you see here. This is stucco. Ostner: Of the conditions of approval, page 2.3 in our packet. I don't think we had conditions of approval on the Conditional Use. Warrick: There is just one condition on the Conditional Use and that is the conditions that are associated with the Large Scale would apply. Ostner: I did not have many issues except with the internally lit sign and my other issue was with the parking. Currently our ordinance requires 63 spaces and we allow 30% over that. They have gone 98% over that. With as much parking and development that's going on in that area I just question whether going beyond three times our overage is necessary. I understand they have written us a letter and it states their case well. I am not convinced 125 spaces are necessary. They have developed 60% of their lot, which is the maximum. I think I could see going to 60% to 70% overage, which would be around 101 or 105 parking spaces but I can't quite see building that big of a parking lot. The staff did a great job and gave us a bunch of minutes from other meetings on page 1.21. There was a meeting back in July, 2002 where we broke down the other parking in town that has asked for Conditional Uses. I went ahead and changed it because these numbers reflect our old ordinance. I changed them to the new ordinance. By our new ordinance Golden Corral is only 47% beyond the minimum. Rio Bravo is only 54% over. Ryans comes to 107% over. Olive Garden is only 86% over our minimum. Red Lobster is 68%, Dixie Caf6 is only 4% over our requirement. The others are in that range. Some of them are very high and some of them center around 70% or 80% overage. I'm struggling with that. I'm not convinced that 125 parking Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 11 spaces is quite necessary. Just four or five city blocks to the west there are four or five out lots that could have shared parking with big department stores, which is something the city has been trying to do a lot. We wrote this parking ordinance to try to do shared parking in places where retail developments could share with restaurants because they don't tend to compete. They have different hours of operation. I wish that could happen in this case instead of Red Robin having to build 125 parking spaces. I just wanted to share that with everyone else. Church: I would like to know from staff, I think we've seen what's happened with Olive Garden and I would be interested to know if they are utilizing all of the parking spaces that they have. Do you have any idea about that? I would think that that would be more of a comparison than with a Ryan's or one of those other restaurants. Warrick: What I can tell you is the number of spaces that the Commission approved. We didn't poll various restaurants to determine what their standard occupancy or seating rate was to give you a direct answer I don't know if they are fully parked during the average day. There are typically vehicles in the parking lot just from observation of that area. When we did update the parking lot ordinance, one of the considerations was that we were seeing a tremendous number of requests for variances from restaurants specifically, but also from banks and from other types of uses. We wanted to take a comprehensive look at our ratios and determine if we were off, if we were off based on industry standards, if we were off based on averages from other similar communities in size and in content basically. Communities that compared to Fayetteville. What we determined was that our standard at one per two hundred square feet was off and that what we were averaging based on the chart that you've got in your packet and the data that is compiled there, our average calculation was 14.9 spaces per thousand square feet for restaurants. Those are Fayetteville numbers. Those are based on the restaurants that we utilized for putting this data together. With that, those restaurants that were similar to this particular request that were even higher than that 15 per thousand square foot ballpark average, we looked at Chili's which is parked at about 35 spaces per one thousand square feet; Rio Bravo at 18.3; Ryan's Steakhouse at 21 and Olive Garden at just under 19, 18.7. If you compare that to this particular request, it is relatively similar in that this applicant is requesting just under 20 spaces per one thousand square feet. Their request is for 19.98 spaces, if you use that ratio comparison. Which does put them in line with several similar restaurants in Fayetteville and similar to what the Planning Commission has approved for those restaurants. That doesn't mean that it changes any of the circumstances but it is also important I think in this case to point out that when you do look at additional parking spaces it is not just parking spaces for the sake of spaces. We are also achieving the additional landscaping that is required anytime you add for instance, 12 parking spaces there is a requirement for Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 12 a landscape island. It is additional pavement but we are not doing that without keeping in mind our other requirements for improvements such as landscaping. This property is located within the Overlay District and there is a maximum coverage allowance in the Overlay District of 75% of the site. This proposal accommodates that and provides about 40% open space, 60% of the site is covered with parking and structure. Therefore, there is adequate open space, even excess if you look at the bare minimums for this particular site with regard to greenspace that remains. We knew that when we modified the parking lot ordinance it wouldn't accommodate every situation. There is still of course the provision in there for a Conditional Use. That is why it is a situation that the Planning Commission has some discretion in determining whether or not it is appropriate. In this particular case, staff felt that the information provided by the applicant did reflect the needs of their business and it also reflected a site plan that was consistent with what we see as appropriate development with regard to providing the required landscaped open space and other amenities that we find desirable and are required for Fayetteville. Vaught: I would be personally in support of this. When I look at the comparison I look at the number of seats. That's how many people you are going to get in this restaurant, not the square footage. In that, Olive Garden has few seats but a lot bigger building so therefore, their variance isn't a bigger disproportion, they are more efficient with their space in this building. To me it is more comparable to the likes of Chili's who we provided 180 spaces to. Chili's has 250 seats and I know from my experience Olive Garden is pretty busy and most of those spots can fill up on a Friday night, especially when there is a long wait. I personally would be in support of it. I know the ordinance is addressed to square footage but I question that a little bit because it doesn't really accurately reflect the activity in that restaurant I don't think. Personally I would be in support of the variance based on that criteria of the number of patrons that are expected. Shackelford: Thank you. I concur with that. If you look, they are requesting 125 parking places for 257 seats. That is just a little over two to one ratio if you look at the chart on page 1.21 there is a significant number of restaurants that are in that two to one ratio. I did have one question of staff. Commissioner Ostner made the point about shared parking and the potential for shared parking in the four to five block radius of this area. Would that be an acceptable distance for shared parking if this was looked at from another area of town? Warrick: We typically look at about 600' as the distance that people are willing to walk or use a shared facility. It might be a little bit distant but I don't think that it's beyond reason that people would shop in that area and still walk to restaurants that are located on the other side of Mall Avenue. I think certainly people who park at the far reaches of the mall parking lot Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 13 walk further than that. Shackelford: Thank you very much. MOTION: Church: I think this is a wonderful addition for Fayetteville and because of that, I have seen the restaurant in Dallas. I would like to make a motion to approve CUP 03-25.00. Shackelford: I have a motion by Commissioner Church. Vaught: I'll second. Shackelford: A second by Commissioner Vaught, are there any other questions? Ostner: Is there anyone interested in the sign issue? Shackelford: We are looking at the Conditional Use, we will look at the Large Scale as soon as we make this vote. Ostner: Ok. Shackelford: Are there any other questions? Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 03-25.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-1 with Commissioner Ostner voting no. Thomas: The motion carries six to one. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 14 LSD 03-25.00: Large Scale Development (Red Robin, pp 174) was submitted by Brent K. O'Neal of McClelland Consulting Engineers on behalf of Alex Kanapilly for property located east of the intersection at Van Asche and Mall Ave.; Lot 17D of Steele Crossing. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 2.03 acres. The request is for the construction of a 6,256 sq. ft. restaurant with 125 parking spaces proposed. Shackelford: That was for the Conditional Use for additional parking. Now we will take comments from staff and Planning Commissioners in regard to LSD 03-25.00, which is the accompanying item. Commissioner Ostner, this is where if you would like to begin discussion with the monument sign the floor is yours. Ostner: I'm not sure they are requesting a monument sign but the issue of three signs on three different sides of the building. I appreciate the negotiation of reducing square footage, it seems like a good middle ground. Personally in the past I've not been in favor of adding another sign. I think it is highly prominent piece of real estate and I think it is a great location for your business. On the sign issue I wish they could set up shop with two signs, I think they would do a great business there. Shackelford: Commissioner Ostner, I apologize, I thought your question was in regards to the internally lighted monument sign was what your issue was. I apologize for that. Anthes: I might have an issue with the internally lighted monument sign. Because the Design Overlay District requirement for all signage to use indirect lighting I would not be in support of the internally lighted sign in that area. Shackelford: Ms. Hunter would you like to address us on these issues that are coming up regarding both the wall sign and the internally lighted monument sign please? Hunter: I'm a little off guard on the internally illuminated monument sign. I will say at this point that the Olive Garden does have a sign that is illuminated from behind the letters. We would be happy to create that sort of sign if that would please the Commission. I didn't realize it was a regulation and I apologize. Anthes: Thank you. Shackelford: Commissioners, is there any other input on the wall sign issue? Commissioner Ostner has voiced an opinion about the ability for a third wall sign if I could have some more input from the other commissioners I would appreciate it. Bunch: Normally I'm not in favor of additional wall signs particularly in the Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 15 Design Overlay District, however, this is a little different layout, a little different set of parameters and because of the reduced size of the third wall sign I will be in favor of allowing a third wall sign because of the tree preservation area. Another thing is that the whole site has been shifted towards the Fulbright Expressway and one of the things that we have, even though it is not technically the front of the building, one of the things we have discussed in our design standards is not having parking in between the area where you drive by to have the parking in the rear of the building. They have done that. Some of the different factors that are involved with the tree preservation, the relocation of the site with the parking more or less in the rear I would be in favor of the third wall sign but I would also be opposed to an internally lighted monument sign. An indirect lighting I think would be sufficient on the monument sign. Shackelford: Thank you Commissioner Bunch. Anthes: I would concur with Don as long as we are for sure that the combined area of those two wall signs would still be less than we would allow for the second wall sign, staff, is that true? Warrick: If the numbers that Ms. Hunter read off previously are accurate then yes. Anthes: Thank you. Shackelford: Commissioners, are there any other questions or comments? Vaught: I have one question. On the Olive Garden sign that you referred to is that considered an indirectly lit sign that Olive Garden has approved? Warrick: Yes, that monument sign is an indirectly lit sign. Vaught: So they would be allowed to do that if we passed it as is? Warrick: Yes. Shackelford: Are there any comments or questions regarding commercial design standards on this Large Scale Development? Are there any more questions or motions? MOTION: Bunch: I move that we approve LSD 03-25.00 for Red Robin with the condition of approval, permitting a third wall sign with the square footages as described and that we do not allow an internally lit monument sign. Their monument sign must utilize indirect lighting. Shackelford: We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch to approve LSD 03-25.00 Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 16 subject to all conditions of approval with the finding to allow the third wall sign as indicated in condition of approval number two and disallowing the internally lit monument sign which is addressed in condition number three. Do we have a second? Ostner: Second. Shackelford: Are there any other questions? Renee, if you would please call the roll. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-25.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries seven to zero. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 17 PPL 03-17.00: Preliminary Plat (Stonebridge Meadows Ph. II, pp 608) was submitted by Tom Hennelly on behalf of Bill Meadows of Meadows Enterprises for property located south of the intersection of River Meadows Dr. and Goff Farm Rd. The property is zoned R -A, Residential- Agricultural, and RSF-4, Residential Single-family 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 59.26 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 154 lots proposed with an adjacent out lot shown for future development of Phase III and park land. Shackelford: The third item on the agenda was approved with the consent agenda so we will move onto the fourth item, which is PPL 03-17.00, Stonebridge Meadows Phase II. This was submitted by Tom Hennelly on behalf of Bill Meadows for Meadows Enterprises for property located south of the intersection of River Meadows Drive and Goff Farm Road. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agriculture and RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 59.26 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 154 proposed lots with an adjacent out lot shown for future development of Phase III and park land. Suzanne, I think this is yours. Morgan: Yes, thank you. This subdivision adjoins Stonebridge Meadows Phase I and abuts Stonebridge Meadows Golf Course. The surrounding land uses are R -A, Residential Agriculture, RSF-4, Single Family Residential, four units per acre and the Planning Area as well as the golf course. Water and sewer will be extended to serve the proposed subdivision and at 154 lots on 59.26 acres there will be a total of 2.6 units per acre. Right of way to be dedicated for Goff Farm Road is to equal 70' total where Stonebridge Meadows borders both sides of the road and 35' from centerline where the subdivision is adjacent to the south side of the road to fulfill the requirement of the Master Street Plan, which designates this street as a collector. 50' of right of way is to be dedicated and built to city standards for the following roads: Cherry Hills Dr., River Meadows Dr., Doral Dr., Pumpkin Ridge Dr., Troon Dr., and Oakmont Dr. Staff is recommending a minimum of 14' from centerline including curb and gutter, storm sewer and sidewalk along the entire length of the property, including the portion along the existing golf course. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board accepted a land dedication on June 2, 2003. The park land dedication for 153 single family lots is 3.67 acres. Those numbers have been updated from the staff report and there was a handout given at the beginning of the meeting regarding this. The two acre tract consisting of lots 144-148 was dedicated to the City of Fayetteville in 1998 as Eagle Park with Phase I. A request has been made to abandon this park and rededicate it to the east. At the time of rezoning this property RSF-4, the 2.0 acre tract of land was dedicated for park land and subsequently retained its R -A zoning. Currently, the applicant proposes to dedicate 5.62 acres to Parks to satisfy parkland requirements for Stonebridge Mountain Phase I (1.95 acres) and 11 (3.67 acres). The remaining 6.68 acres will be labeled "Out lot", proposed for future phases and parkland dedication. The existing tree Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 18 canopy is 1.13%. Required canopy is 1.13%, preserved canopy will be .45% and mitigation required is $12,375 to the City of Fayetteville tree fund. Staff recommends approval of PPL 03-17.00 with the following conditions: 1) The following corrections shall be made to the plat: Right- of-way dedication to match finding; A note shall be added to the plat which will prohibit the construction of any type of barricade along public easements to park land; Note # 7 on the plat shall be corrected to reflect current park land proposal; The remaining 6.85 acres shall be labeled an "Out lot"; Indicate clearly on both site plan drawings which trees are proposed to be removed and those proposed to be preserved; Trees proposed for preservation should not be located within areas likely to be built or disturbed from construction activity. 2) Tree canopy on the eastern edge of the subdivision needs to be placed in preservation with protective measures shown on the tree preservation plan (lots 84 — 88). 3) The City of Fayetteville will be shown as an owner on the plat and will sign as an owner of 1.95 acres of the proposed subdivision on the application. 4) Prior to submittal of construction plans, City Council shall grant approval for the rezoning of the 1.95 acre tract of land dedicated as Eagle Park in 1998. If the City Council denies the rezoning, Stonebridge Meadows Phase II shall be resubmitted as a preliminary plat showing the 1.95 acre tract zoned as Residential Agriculture with one single-family residence allowed. 5) The existing Eagle Park (1.95 acres) must be exchanged in a manner approved by the City Attorney for land contiguous to the Phase II dedication. 6) Park property must be defined and approved by Parks Staff before signing of final plat. 7) Right-of-way shall be dedicated with this plat to provide necessary lot frontage and access for lot 144, park land. 8) Within two years of final plat approval, if Phase III has not been constructed, a permanent cul-de-sac is to be constructed, located outside of dedicated park property. 9) The perimeter description shall include the 6.68 acre out lot proposed for future park land dedication and Phase III. 10) Planning Commission determination of offsite street improvements to include Goff Farm Road. Staff recommends a minimum of 14' from centerline including curb and gutter, storm sewer and sidewalk along the entire length of the property, including the portion along the existing golf course. 11) Proposed right-of-way shall be dedicated with the Final Plat. 12) All street names shall be approved by the 9-1-1 Coordinator. Items 13 through 17 are standard conditions of approval. Signed conditions of approval have been received. Shackelford: Great. Suzanne, before I let you get away, I believe that there was an error in our packet regarding the park land dedication 4.10 shows that the 148 single family lots requires a 3.55 acre dedication which had a total, and then the handout that you gave us shows a 3.67 which brings that total to 5.62, can you clarify what is correct? Morgan: The 5.62 acres for dedication for Phase I and Phase II is correct. It was previously calculated at 148 single family lots. However, there are 153 Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 19 single family lots which brought the total dedicated park land up. Shackelford: Great, thank you very much. Is the applicant here tonight? Hennelly: I'm Tom Hennelly with Tomlinson Asphalt Company, the engineer for this project. Shackelford: Do you have a presentation or are you here for questions and answers? Hennelly: Believe it or not I understand all of the conditions of approval and have signed them and don't have a problem with any of them. Shackelford: Thank you very much. At this point I will open it up to the public if anybody would like to comment on PPL 03-17.00. Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Commissioners? MOTION: Bunch: I will move that we approve PPL 03-17.00 for Stonebridge Meadows with the conditions of approval as listed and the addition of a condition of approval detailing the total land dedication to be included in lot 144 of 5.62 acres and 1.95 acres of that represents Phase I dedication and 3.67 acres representing Phase II dedication. Shackelford: We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch for approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to all conditions with a 18`h condition that furthers define the park land dedication from the previous conversation. Is there a second? Vaught: I will second. Shackelford: We have a second by Commissioner Vaught. Is there any other discussion regarding this Preliminary Plat? Ostner: At Subdivision Committee there were some neighbors who had some concerns, did you meet with them? Hennelly: I did. I met with Mr. Mayo and we discussed his concerns. I am not sure whether or not they are to his satisfaction but we have agreed to discuss further any other concerns he may have or whatever mutual agreement we can come to to address them. Ostner: Was he concerned about the drainage at the southwest? Hennelly: Exactly. Ostner: Ok. That was my question. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 20 Shackelford: Ok, great. Commissioner Anthes? Anthes: A question for staff, Suzanne, I don't quite understand conditions four and five. Warrick: This has to do with the configuration of the property with Phase I three was a 1.95 acre tract that was identified as desirable in communicating with the Park Board when the applicant decided to dedicate land as opposed to requesting money in lieu. They, together, picked out this 1.95 acre piece of property, which was dedicated through that Final Plat process at the time of that Final Plat process for Phase 1. When the applicant chose to move forward with Phase II of the project the extension of the subdivision into this Phase was going to basically wrap around that 1.95 acre parcel and land lock it to some degree behind lots and it was desirable to relocate that original park land dedication into an area that it could be combined into a larger tract with the dedication requirement for Phase II. Staff and the Parks Board are very much in support of that. It provides a larger greenspace and a more useable piece of property for park land and the location that they have chosen for it can also be expanded when and if Phase III comes in if additional park land should be dedicated with that. There is opportunity for it to again grow with additional units being developed within the subdivision. The tricky part comes into the fact that that 1.95 acres, because it was dedicated to the city with Phase I, is owned by the city. It was left out of the legal description when this Phase II was going through the rezoning process. Therefore, that 1.95 acre tract is owned by the City of Fayetteville and is currently zoned agricultural. The applicant needs for it to be zoned appropriately for single family development and consistent with the rest of the subdivision. It also needs to be conveyed back to the land owner and exchanged for the larger tract that would combine the two dedication areas for Phases I and II. The timing on that is going to be a little bit tricky. We are working with the City Attorney's office in assuring that we transfer title in the appropriate manner at the appropriate time. We feel like we can do that. It is going to happen at the time that this project is Final Platted. When it comes back through the process and the Final Plat is before you or the Subdivision Committee, before it is filed of record with the Circuit Clerk's office is when that transaction will have to take place. They will get their 1.95 acres back for platting within Phase 11 and the city will gain the total acreage for the park land dedication for Phases I and II combined. Anthes: Very helpful. Thank you. Commissioner Bunch, on condition of approval number ten does your motion include staff's recommendations regarding the off site street improvements? Bunch: Yes. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 21 Anthes: Thank you. Shackelford: We have a motion and a second. Is there any other discussion from any of the other Planning Commissioners? Seeing none, I will call for the vote. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 03-17.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries seven to zero Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 22 CUP 03-26.00: Conditional Use (Fayetteville Athletic Club, pp 138) was submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Bob Shoulders for property located at 2920 E. Zion Road. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 7.95 acres. The request is to allow for the expansion of the existing Recreational Facility in the R -O and C-1 districts. LSD 03-37.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville Athletic Club, pp 138) was submitted by Jorgensen and Assoc. on behalf of Bob Shoulders for property located at 2920 E. Zion Rd. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and R -O, Residential Office. The proposal is to construct a 10,800 sq. ft. gymnasium, a 2,550 sq. ft. tennis pro shop and 6 full size tennis courts. Shackelford: Next on our agenda is CUP 03-26.00 which was submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Bob Shoulders for property located at 2920 E. Zion Road. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 7.95 acres. The request is to allow the expansion of the existing recreational facility in an R -O and CA district. Jeremy, this is yours? Pate: Thank you Commissioner Shackelford. The Conditional Use and item number six, the Large Scale Development for Fayetteville Athletic Club, I will go over those at the same time but again, it does require separate votes. The Conditional Use is a request to utilize a recreational facility in C-1 and R -O zoning districts. The C-1 zoning district on this site is located at the southeast corner and the R -O, Residential Office portion of the site, that district surrounds that C-1. Recreational facilities are allowed only by Conditional Use in both of these zoning districts and that is why we are hearing this as a Conditional Use tonight. For the Large Scale Development proposal the applicant is requesting to expand the existing Fayetteville Athletic Center. This is at the intersection of Hwy. 265 and Zion Road. The expansion includes six new tennis courts, a 2,500 sq.ft. tennis pro shop, a 10,800 sq.ft. gymnasium, associated new parking and improvements to the existing parking lot with the installation and planting of numerous parking islands. This upgrading of the existing parking lot, staff has worked on numerous occasions with the applicant and the applicant's representative to establish an acceptable amount of improvements to upgrade the existing non -conforming lot. This is required by ordinance when you are expanding a parking lot that is non- conforming. Right of way being dedicated from centerline includes Zion Road, which is a collector, 35' from centerline. Hwy. 265, a principal arterial, 55' from centerline and Randall Road, a local street, this is being improved only with 6' sidewalks located at the right of way line and street trees every 30 linear feet, that's staffs recommendations. Hwy. 265 is not proposed to be improved at this time with the exception of street trees and a continuous row of shrubs being planted. The new access drive along Zion Road will connect to existing curbs. Sidewalks will be constructed west in that location along the property boundaries with a 6' sidewalk, Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 23 street trees and shrubs along the entire length of the property to screen the parking lot. That is an ordinance requirement. Mitigation required for tree canopy preservation is 25 trees, those are all proposed to be planted on site. The existing canopy is 4.13% and preserved is 1.77%. The subject property, the Fayetteville Athletic Center. Randall Road to the north is a less traveled local street whereas, Hwy. 265 and Zion Road, as we know, are both busy collector and arterial streets. Randall Road is not recommended to have curb and gutter at this time. It is only servicing a few single family residential and agricultural lots in that location. The proposed expansion does require the existing non -conforming parking lot to be improved. The amount of required improvements is based on percentage of structure being added in this Large Scale Development. Nine landscaped islands are proposed to improve that as well as trees and shrubs along Hwy. 265, Randall Road and Zion Road. Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use subject to three conditions. 1) Planning Commission approval of the accompanying Large Scale Development. 2) Planning Commission determination of appropriate lighting for the proposed expansion. The applicant has indicated parking lot lighting would be full cut off shielded fixtures directed downward away from adjacent property. Staff has not received information a this time for the lighting regarding the proposed tennis center but I believe the applicant or the applicant's representative is prepared to speak to that tonight. 3) The existing trash enclosure, which is located off of Randall Road, shall be screened on all four sides of materials that are compatible with and complimentary to the building utilizing gates for access from Randall Road. The dumpster pad and adjacent sidewalk in this location shall be constructed to withstand the load of the Solid Waste Division trucks. Staff is also recommending approval of LSD 03-37.00 subject to fourteen conditions. 1) The Conditional Use request for Use Unit 4, Cultural & Recreational Facilities, within the R -O and C-1 zoning districts, shall be approved prior to large scale development approval. 2) Planning Commission determination and approval of Commercial Design Standards. The elevation before you is the south elevation that faces Zion Road that I believe is the gymnasium. In your packets you should have elevations of all of the remaining sides of the structure including a revised elevation for the north and south sides of this gymnasium structure. 3) The applicant shall dedicate right-of-way to fulfill Master Street Plan requirements for Zion Road (35 feet), Hwy 265 (55 feet, by warranty deed), and Randall Road (25 feet). 4) The proposed concrete dumpster pad in its existing location shall be constructed to concrete drive specifications, to ensure the approach and sidewalk does not fail. 5) The trash enclosure shall be fully screened and gated, with materials that are complimentary and compatible with the building. 6) A detailed Landscape Plan shall be submitted prior to building permit complying with all parking lot landscape requirements and those set forth in the Landscape Manual. 7) Parking shall be prohibited from occurring along Randall Road, and restricted to off-street parking lots. "No parking" Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 24 signage shall be installed at intervals along Randall Road, prior to final certificate of occupancy. Signage should be coordinated with the Transportation Division. Items eight through fourteen are standard conditions of approval. Shackelford: Great, thank you. Again, we have tandem items here. We have a Conditional Use and an adjoining Large Scale Development. If it is ok with the Commissioners we will take questions and comments on both at the same time even though they will require separate motions. Is the applicant here tonight? Hafemann: Good evening Commissioners. My name is Garrett Hafemann with Jorgensen & Associates. We are representing Bob Shoulders and the Fayetteville Athletic Club tonight. We fully understand and have complied with all of the conditions of approval. We have worked very hard with staff to meet and beat all of the ordinances and upgrading the existing non -conforming parking lot to a more acceptable standard for the proposed development and to match the new parking lot that is being developed. If you have any other questions I will be happy to answer them. Shackelford: Great, thank you very much. At this time I would like to open it up to the public for public comment regarding the Conditional Use to allow the expansion of the recreational facility. Sir, if you would come up and tell us who you are and share your thoughts please. Geise: My name is William Geise and I am hard of hearing and so I may cover some things that have already been covered because I can't hear well and I don't know what's been covered. My property joins the southwest corner of the property under discussion and my property is zoned Agriculture. I could talk to you for hours about lights and mankind's attempt to light up the earth but I won't. If you notice when you ride by my place there are no street lights in front of it. Street candle power causes poinsettias black to turn red the first of October. It is hard to sell poinsettias in October. The present facility of the Fayetteville Athletic Club has four light poles with two lights on each pole, even though the swimming pool is enclosed the lights come on after dark seven days a week, 365 days a year and stay until sunrise. From two of those light poles, my house is approximately 2,000 feet from the Athletic Club, I can read the newspaper on my front porch, my dining room kitchen and two upstairs bedrooms at 2:00 in the morning. I attempted to contact the original owner and even offered to pay several hundred dollars to have the lights adjusted by a professional that would serve his purpose and not light up my place but I was laughed at. I have planted over 500 trees in the time that I've been there for privacy but you wouldn't believe there's a 200' space that even though I sat 10 different plantings of trees in it they do not live. I read in the newspaper they are going to put lights around the perimeter. I had it Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 25 surveyed and due to the elevation and the terrain, the trees would have to be 60' tall if the lights were put on 10' poles. I do know that it is possible to light up an area without lighting up the adjoining property. If you look at the entrance way to Barbara Tyson's place, which is across the street from me, it is a very good example. It lights up her entrance way bright as day but you get 50' from it and you are in the dark. I am asking you, I'm not against anything anybody wants to do with any of their property as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights or infect the environment but I am against it. I attempted to contact the present owner. I have been unsuccessful. I even have 12 nice pin oak trees that are about 20' tall if it would help him, he can have them if he will pay for transplanting them. I ask you to consider requesting that the lights be for the area intended and not the adjoining property. Thank you. Shackelford: Thank you Sir. Is there anybody else who would like to make a comment on this? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the applicant. Sir if you would like to, obviously we are going to have a question about the exterior lighting. Hafemann: Certainly. I just wanted to make a quick comment. We are doing everything that the City of Fayetteville requires in the Unified Development Code to make sure that the lighting does not effect any of the adjoining property owners. We are using full cut off fixtures. There is a light study being done on the parking lot of our new proposed facility and no adjoining side will have more than 2 foot candles of illumination. We have worked with the city and we have put the notes on our plans and it is fully understood that we will comply with the city code as far as illumination is concerned. Shackelford: Can you go into a little more detail at this point about the lights that are proposed for the outdoor tennis area? Hafemann: The lights for the tennis area will be a typical 35' pole, they will be on the east and west side of the tennis courts and they will be facing inward on the courts and like I said, in the center of the courts there is going to be 30 foot candles illumination around the exterior of the courts no more than 2 foot candles. They are very directional lights and they are semi cut off fixtures. They are designed to eliminate light bleed off the sides. They will probably be more like it being illuminated from the parking lot fixtures which will be surrounding the tennis courts. Like I said, they will not have more than 2 foot candles at the exterior of the parking lot. Shackelford: Can you give us any idea about the expected hours of operation? Hafemann: I've been told by the owner that at 10:00 when the facility does close that the lights for the tennis court will be off. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 26 Ostner: The way I understand it we are basically talking about your new proposal. I think some of my questions have to do with the existing development and the light. I know that's not completely tied into what we're doing but since it is a Conditional Use I was interested in how tall those lights are, are they constructed of cut off and are they directed downwards, etc.? Shoulders: My name is Bob Shoulders, I am the owner of the Fayetteville Athletic Club with my wife Kathryn. We've had several discussions over the years with our neighbor regarding the pool lights, which is his primary problem that we've had over the years. I have explained, we're required by the Arkansas Department of Health to get a permit for the pool to have, rather than measure in foot candles we have X amount of wattage per square foot of both water, we've got about 6,000 sq.ft., two different pools equaling 6,000 sq.ft. of swimming pool water and then about another 20,000 sq.ft. of decking. The decking has certain requirements for light and the pool requires a certain amount of light wattage wise and it is not something that can be turned off after hours. The pools are still there. They are still considered an attractive hazard by the Health Department so as the pools are there all night and the decks are there all night the lights have to stay on all night. We are not, we're at the minimum believe me. We've got about a $10,000 a month electric bill and we don't like to burn those lights on that, we would love to be able to turn them off but that has always been the issue is those pool lights that seem to cause a problem for our neighbor. Shackelford: Thank you. Commissioner Ostner, do you have any follow up? Ostner: I guess not really. If the Department of Health is requiring, are those documents in here or is that just something that you know? Shoulders: Yes, when the pools were designed and the lighting requirements to get the permit for the pool from the State Health Department were designed we were given X amount of wattage that we had to provide for both the deck area and the pool area. I don't have that documentation with me but it is 300 watts of light for every I think 50 sq.ft. of water or something like that and we've got 6,000 sq.ft. of water plus an additional X amount of wattage per deck area and we've got 20,000 sq.ft. of that. It is bright out there. It is a requirement that we have with the State Health Department. Anthes: Mr. Shoulders, does the fact that we have tight leak out of this area have to do with the type of fixtures you have in place and are there other types of lighting standards that would provide the cutoff that would be requested by your neighbors while still providing the illumination at the pool area to meet your code issues? Shoulders: To be honest, I'm not sure. The lights are shielded, they are pointed at the deck and the pool area. They are the fixtures that were recommended Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 27 from the contractors and the pool people who built it for us so that it would provide the most effective way to light that. Anthes: I understand that it is an existing condition but I also understand that we are making requested modifications to parking lots in order to approve this and because it is a Conditional Use I feel like we are justified in asking these questions of you. I see that your contractor is here. Could you perhaps speak to the availability of lighting standards that could accomplish what your neighbors are asking and provide the light required by the Health Department? Swain: My name is David Swain with May Construction. We are working with Bob on adding to the facility. The parking lot fixtures will be the same as the current specified parking lot fixtures. We have measured those hot spots underneath those poles currently. They should have 10 candle feet under the poles and at the corner of the lot currently with 2 candle feet. There is no reason to think that the fixtures would throw any different for the new parking lot. You are looking at about 60 feet around the parking lot and along the edges maximum we are at 2 candle feet rating. The tennis court facility has lights pointed in a direction that don't bleed at all. They bleed but not like a light that is designed to throw optimum coverage. I want to pick up on one thing that was said. These lights and all o the fixtures will be installed by professionals, lighting professionals. I have kind of wallowed around there, I don't know if I've addressed your questions well enough. Anthes: It seems to me that if we could accomplish lighting a tennis court adequately without light bleed off of the site you might be able to do that with the swimming pool. Swain: I know that you will find that the fixture we have will achieve that. Anthes: I want to talk about the Commercial Design Standards. In our UDC talking about Commercial Design Standards we are talking about elements to avoid or minimize include square, box like structures and large, blank, unarticulated wall surfaces. I realize that there has been some attempt to modify the elevations originally presented but it does appear to me that we have a long south elevation that is facing a main artery that is fairly unarticulated. Can you talk to us about that? Hafemann: If I may defer to the architect for this one. I would like to answer your question Ma'am, but I just don't know that much about architecture. Fugitt: I'm Kim Fugitt, the architect on this. The south fagade, this additional structure is what we call a kids gym. It is a gymnasium and after school facility for smaller children. The building you see there, the center part there is a gymnasium so the ground floor is a basketball court, hockey type Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 28 court that will have a great deal of activity there. To place any kind of glass there or openings there would be a functional problem in that there will be a lot of activity. You can imagine what would go on in a gymnasium like that. What we have done along the top there is create a band of clear windows with a metal awning above those to offer some articulation along that southern fagade. Also, the brick and block pattern that you see there to match the existing building, it is a split faced block with 8" modular brick that will be laid in a basket like pattern to help articulate that fagade as well. I think it is more the function of the building that limits us to the openings on the south side. On the east side is the main entrance, where the corner is cut out and also the connection is made to the existing building. On the west side we have added a series of openings to the west side in revisions to respond to your comments on earlier requests. Anthes: I understand the use of the building is dictating a lot of the exterior treatment and I appreciate that you have added the windows. I'm looking at the landscape plan and I'm wondering whether there is something to be done there that would perhaps soften the effect of this building and be more in keeping with the commercial design standards for the UDC and wondered what other commissioners thought about that. Shackelford: Commissioners, is there any input regarding commercial design standards and in particular the south elevation and your thoughts regarding potential landscape options? Allen: I agree with Jill that additional landscaping would help to soften the exterior. Is that something that is possible? Hafemann: It is absolutely possible. We have to submit a full landscape plan to the Landscape Administrator before we're issued a building permit so the placement of the trees and the shrubs you see on the plan before you are, although semi permanent, they certainly can move to accommodate a more buffering effect if that is what you are referring to. There will be a full landscape plan submitted before building permit. This is simply a generalized layout of how it will work as far as the landscaping is concerned. Shackelford: Commissioners, are there any other questions? Ostner: On our drawing there is a building, I believe it is called a pro shop but I don't see an elevation. Hafemann: You're talking about the pro shop between the two tennis courts? Shackelford: I might point out too Commissioner Ostner with the location of it on the site it doesn't really face anything other than existing or proposed Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 29 structures on the property. Ostner: Before I looked at the elevation I didn't know how tall it was. It could've come up above easily. Shackelford: I understand. Commissioners, are there any other questions? Allen: I guess that I'm not clear yet as to whether or not there are any other options with the lighting and perhaps staff can speak to that. I'm concerned for this neighbor situation and I wonder if there is a way to accommodate both people. Vaught: Commissioner Allen, are you speaking about the lighting around the pool and possibly getting that changed? Allen: Yes, right. Warrick: I think as this is a proposal to expand an existing Conditional Use you need to address the impact of this proposal on adjacent property. I believe that what I heard is that a lighting study is underway and that no adjacent property will have more than two foot candles of illumination. That is something that after installation is easily checked. Staff has a light meter, we can go out and we can measure it if that is something that the Planning Commission feels is an appropriate measurement or condition I believe that since it has been stated by the applicant it would be appropriate to be listed as a specific condition of approval and that should that condition not be satisfied we would need to revisit it or have that modified by the contractor in the field at that time. I think certainly with that regard that's something that the applicant has already stated through their representative tonight. We've talked a little bit about the tennis courts having lighting that will be directed towards the center of the court from the east and west sides. There is an opportunity I believe to further screen adjacent residential properties by installing additional landscaping on the west side of the tennis courts, which is a part of the project that we are considering tonight. That may be an option that the Commission wants to explore is installing additional evergreen plantings along that elevation along the western edge of the tennis courts to hopefully mitigate some of that additional light spillage that may happen. Those two things I think are certainly options to pursue. Allen: Thank you. Shackelford: Commissioners, are there any other questions or comments? Vaught: I'm of the opinion that the new building will help provide some of that screening I would think from the pool area and I'm assuming, please correct me if I'm wrong, is the tennis court going to be surrounded by a Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 30 tall fence with basically that green tennis court material that is semi- transparent but pretty dense? I would think that that would help provide some additional screening from not only the tennis court lights but the pool lights. I have a question for staff. The two candles per foot measurement, that requirement would include the existing lighting on the site? Swain: We have measured the existing parking lot and we have a two foot candle measurement, directly below the poles is 10 foot candles. Vaught: Including the lighting for the pool? Swain: That is correct from where we measured below the poles. Vaught: I guess I understand the concerns but if the lighting meets our codes that's where I have the problem. I know it is an inconvenience. This area is becoming more and more the middle of the city and we do wish to accommodate both. I know it is a Conditional Use so we have a little more control but if it meets the code I would lean toward being in favor of the design as proposed. Especially with those other things and them stating that their readings will not measure over two foot candles at the corner of the site. Shackelford: Dawn, we have obviously had a lot of conversation regarding a pending light ordinance, would this, can you just briefly update us, would this comply if the lighting ordinance as it is proposed now was in effect? Warrick: It has been a while since I ready the proposed outdoor lighting ordinance. However, the statements contained in condition number two that the lighting fixtures would be full cut off, shielded downward, directed away from adjacent properties, that is very consistent with the outdoor lighting ordinance. I believe that the most current revision of that outdoor lighting ordinance does not specifically address foot candles but specifically talks more to the type of fixtures and the direction in which they are manipulated so that they protect the spillover and protect adjacent properties from light spill over. We will be continuing our saga with the outdoor lighting ordinance and hopefully get that to you all in the near future so that you can see that and we will have something more definitive to work with. This being a Conditional Use, as Commissioner Vaught stated, the Planning Commission does have some more discretion and it is important as a Conditional Use that compatibility is addressed. That is really why it is viewed as a Conditional Use instead of a use that is permitted by right. That's why conditions such as item number two we feel are important and expanding that even to address some of the comments that the applicant and their professionals would also be appropriate so that there is a degree of measurement and that we can hopefully gain additional compatibility through conditions like this. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 31 MOTION: Shackelford: I concur with that. I have a little different look. I think we are looking more at a Conditional Use and Large Scale Development. The way that I approach a Conditional Use is that the proposed improvements that we're looking at and what effect that it will have on the adjoining property owners. As I look at this, I'm not so sure, I don't think that we are doing any further harm to adjoining property owners. If anything, we very likely could be helping them by adding some additional screening, some additional buildings and that sort of thing. I like the fact that they are addressing the type of parking lot fixtures even though we don't have that regulation on our books a this point. They are going ahead and doing that. I think just to get this thing on the table I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve CUP 03-26.00 so that we can get onto the Large Scale Development side of this. Geise: Can I make one other comment please? Shackelford: Sir, I'm sorry. We take public comment once and then it is closed. Geise: I saw that the other people have been back and forth. Shackelford: They are part of the applicants, I'm sorry. Bunch: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the applicant. When you were speaking of the two foot candles was that two foot candles per square foot on your flux density? Two foot candles read how? If we incorporate that into a condition of approval. Swain: I believe it is per square foot. Hafemann: From everywhere I've seen it is measured per square foot. Bunch: If you will entertain a friendly amendment to condition of approval number two to limit light escaping the site to two foot candles per square foot at the perimeter I will gladly second your motion. Shackelford: Staff, do we have the ability as a city to measure that requirement if we put that? Warrick: Yes we do. Shackelford: I will gladly make that a condition of approval. Anthes: A point of clarification, we're talking about the entire site or the new part of the site? Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 32 Bunch: What the applicant told us, that they would limit it to two foot candles on the entire parameter of the site. Shackelford: Commissioner Ostner? Ostner: Seeing as the west and the north are both R -A, Residential Agricultural, they are fairly undeveloped, they will probably go to residential as the Future Land Use Plan describes. Under §166.14 Commercial Design Standards I don't think this passes muster. They have made great steps, it is not unarticulated, they have done a lot of things but I believe it is box like. I think there are a lot of great things about this project. I don't think the box like is a good thing for the area. That is why I won't be voting for this. Shackelford: A point of clarification, the motion and second on the floor is for the Conditional Use only at this point. The Large Scale Development including Commercial Design Standards will be the next thing that we address but I appreciate your input at this time. Are there any other questions or comments regarding the Conditional Use? Warrick: When we are talking about condition number four to limit the light at the perimeter, the two foot candle measurement, am I to understand that that is to be taken at the perimeter of the entire site? There was a statement that at the base of the poles the measurement is 10. We are talking about the perimeter of the entire site having no more than two foot candle measurement is that correct? Bunch: This is what the applicant expressed to us. I realize on the east side, we might modify that to accommodate the east side and the south side because both of those are in commercial districts with street lights and it would be rather difficult to measure but on the north and the west it is measurable. We could rephrase that to take into account the street lighting. Shoulders: One of the problems that we'll have with that perimeter measurement is that the pool sits right on the north perimeter of the property on Randall Place and there are light poles that give that wattage requirements for the Health Department's permit. It gets pretty bright right there and it sits on the utility setback. Church: I would think that maybe staff could contact the Health Department. If that is a requirement of the Health Department there is really not a lot that the applicant can do about it. I would think that it would be good even for future reference. I'm sure that this will come up again and it will be good that we know what the requirement is for lighting for a swimming pool. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 33 Anthes: A question for the City Attorney. Because of the nature of the Conditional Use, I would like some clarification about modification to existing structures such as the light poles on the north side. Is that allowed to be considered as part of this requirement for extending the Conditional Use to more acreage? Williams: I would agree with our City Planner and also the person that is designated in the Unified Development Code to give you that kind of interpretation who is Dawn Warrick when she said primarily that you need to look at the new development and it's possible effects on the other development. That question is really more for Dawn. She is charged under the Unified Development Code to interpret the UDC. Anthes: Ms. Warrick, I believe that I heard you say that you thought it was appropriate for the Planning Commission to make the statement that we could require a two foot candle limit at the perimeter of the entire property, is that correct? Warrick: I think that once that has been done and it has been approved. I am not sure how in depth the discussions were at the time of the original Conditional Use with regard to lighting, I'm not sure if that was even an issue at the time. What I feel like we need to do is be very specific that we are talking about the impact of this project being expanded and if that impact is compatible, if there need to be conditions placed on the project as a whole that would mitigate the impact of this expansion then yes, I think it is appropriate to look at things like that. Does that answer your question? Anthes: I think so. I think you are making this kind of the site plan issues and now it gets to you are looking at rehabilitating a building and if you rehabilitate X number percentage of the building then you need to bring the entire building up to code. It sounds to me like you are saying like if we are extending a certain degree of this Conditional Use then we can make some requirements that relate to the development as a whole on the impact of the neighborhood, is that correct? Warrick: I think you can. Expanding a Conditional Use expands the amount of impact that the whole project will have. It is certainly appropriate, especially because we are looking at a Large Scale too to look at the specific development proposal that is accompanying this Conditional Use. It is expanding the activity that is permitted by Conditional Use in a certain location and the impact of that development and that addition to the development on the surrounding properties. If you feel that the addition of this gymnasium and tennis courts makes worse a situation that is already existing then you can address it through this Conditional Use process. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 34 Anthes: For that reason I would be in support of the motion the way Commissioner Shackelford has it crafted with the two foot candles at the perimeter on the north and east sides as it stands. Shackelford: Let's let David Swain jump inhere Swain: Just as a point of as much as I applaud the ability to check that we are not bleeding into our neighbor's space with the light, we have a fundamental problem. If we include the entire existing lot those parking lot lights are on the property line. To follow the letter of he law which we are about to set in place, one could measure the light directly under the light on the property line and not meet your requirement. Does that make sense? Shackelford: Are you talking about the swimming pool lights? Swain: I'm talking about the parking lot lights along the property line and there are two sections of that property that lights have to be on the property line to throw on the parking lot. Anthes: Right, but we exempted the south and east sides to allow for street lighting. Swain: I shouldn't have a problem then. I just didn't want to write that in and be able to meet our requirements. Williams: When we did the noise ordinance and all of that, we always measured not from the property line of the establishment that has music or whatever but from the next adjoining property line so instead of we think measuring the light you are not concerned about what kind of light spills on their property, you are concerned about not letting the light spill on the adjoining property. I think that it shouldn't be on their property line. It ought to be on the adjoining property line, that would be across the street in some circumstances or across the setback or whatever. I think that might take care of this problem. Shackelford: Let's finer tune then if we can then. Condition number four that we will add will limit the light escaping the site to two foot candles per square foot on the north and east side of the property at the property boundaries, I'm sorry, north and west side of the property at the property boundary. Bunch: How far does your existing parking lot extend along the south frontage? We can modify this a little bit on that north frontage because your existing parking lot lights on that northeast corner. Also, there is nothing really there to be bothered by it since it will be commercial across the street. We might say that on the north side, west side, and south side west of the existing parking lot. The north side west of the existing parking lot. The south side west of the existing parking lot and the west side. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 35 Shoulders: On the southwest side, which is our Zion Road curb cut, that is as far as the parking lot extends on the west side and the south. Bunch: Currently. Shoulders: You were talking about existing parking, correct? Bunch: One of the problems expressed is the pool lighting which will be minimized by the gymnasium and also we've had a request for some landscaping on the south side of the gymnasium. The tennis courts will modify the lighting somewhat and then the landscape plan on the north side since you are showing a row of trees immediately to the north of the existing pool shouldn't be too difficult to work with the Landscape Administrator to put some evergreens in there similarly in the southwest comer particularly around the detention pond or something like that to use some evergreens, use natural features in addition to the technology to limit it. Shoulders: We do have a couple of neighbors on the north side and on the northwest area where Barbara Tyson's property is that our other neighbor made reference to and we have never had any complaints with them about the light. Bunch: Does that help to say on the perimeter on the west of the existing parking lot on the north along Randall Road and to the west of the existing parking lot on the south? Shackelford: I will defer that to staff. Would that help you as far as defining your check points for this condition of approval? Warrick: Yes. Shackelford: Ok, then we will incorporate that into the third try at a fourth condition of approval for CUP 03-26.00. Now that I'm thoroughly confused, does anyone else have any questions? Vaught: I just have one question. Are you just basically talking about around the outside perimeter of the new development? Shackelford: The new parking lot. Bunch: The new parking lot plus along that north perimeter all the way up to where the parking lot is in the northeast corner to the existing parking lot. Vaught: The whole Randall Road frontage. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 36 Bunch: Yes. Not penalizing for that ingress and egress in the northeast corner. Vaught: Is that something that the applicant will agree to? Shoulders: We are fine with that. Shackelford: We have a motion and a second regarding the Conditional Use Permit only. Are there any other questions or comments at this time? Renee, please call the roll. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 03-26.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of 7-0-0. Shackelford: Let's talk more about the LSD 03-37.00. Obviously, Commissioner Ostner has raised some issues regarding the Commercial Design Standard and particularly some elevation, I believe the south elevation is one, I agree that this may not be the typical building that we look at as far as an elevation in this area of town. I guess I will start with throwing my two cents worth that we have a pretty unique situation here in that we have a gymnasium. The specific use of the property really, in my opinion, limits what we are going to be able to do with the exterior of the building with regards to glass and other options. Obviously, we have some differing opinions which is one thing we're pretty good at here. I will go ahead and open it up at this time to some other comments regarding commercial design standards and any other issues of the Large Scale Development that you would like to discuss at this point. Anthes: I agree with Commissioner Ostner that we have a box like structure that appears not to conform with the Commercial Design Standards. I would point you towards the Methodist Church building off of Dickson Street to show you that you can build a gymnasium that doesn't look like a box. I am sympathetic with this property and as actually out there looking at it the other day in order to join so it is nothing against this property. I am looking forward to the fact that there would be improved facilities there and yet I don't think because of particular building use we can make exceptions to our commercial design standards. Those are standards for a reason and buildings need to be modified in order to meet the ordinance. For example, a pitched roof or something like that. I'm not proposing to design it for you. I'm just saying that, as it is currently designed, I do not believe it meets the commercial design ordinances nor do I feel that I can support it just because of it's building type. I would be voting against that. Thank you. Shackelford: Let me back up one second if I may. Obviously, we have two different sets of elevations and there have been some changes on this since the Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 37 Large Scale Development meeting. If it is ok with you guys I would like to just kind of back up a minute and ask Commissioner Bunch to update us on the Subdivision Committee and any other issues that were discussed. Particularly, the Commercial Design Standards. Bunch: I think that one of the things that was done was one of the elevations, the west elevation was altered. We heard from Commissioner Ostner that some of the things that were stated at the Subdivision Committee I would defer to Commissioner Allen. I think Commissioner Allen and Commissioner Ostner lead most of the discussion at Subdivision concerning the design standards. Shackelford: Commissioner Allen, can you enlighten us with your input please? Allen: I have basically the same concerns as Commissioner Ostner. This is a highly visible area and it seems to me like there would be ways that this could be modified so that it would be more pleasing. Bunch: I voiced the same concerns about the Boys and Girls Club and I was told by several others that it had to do with the changes in shape more than what appeared to be a blank, unarticulated wall in one small view. If we look at this whole line up we have the existing club and then we have this south elevation that is thrown in that appears to be a little bit unarticulated at this time but when you add the tennis courts to the side of it on the west side you have three different structures in a row. Also, if you look at your site plan you will see that the gymnasium protrudes further south than the existing building. With the addition of the tennis courts that off set with this one element of the south elevation of the gymnasium and then add in the existing building I think that there is sufficient diversity from one end to the other. If you just pick one little piece out of the whole line up of buildings yes it does look like an unarticulated box like structure. When it is in conjunction with the other parts of the total design it works with them and it does not give that effect. This elevation that we are looking at here has the tennis courts deleted and it makes that building appear to be more box like than the total design would speak to. Vaught: I was thinking the exact same thing as Commissioner Bunch. If we are going to look at the whole site for other improvement purposes I think it's only fair we look at it for the commercial design standards as well. The two buildings are different. They have provided some articulation with the block, more than what we've had other people do I feel like. Especially when we get to some of the bigger stores. As a whole, I think it would meet the standards given the fact that the buildings are different with the tennis court on the other side, adds to the diversity. The applicant is more than willing to plant some of their trees along that wall. I agree with the comments made earlier about it softening up and I definitely would be in support of commercial design standards as it is because of that Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 38 diversity as a project on a whole. Shackelford: I am also going to concur with those thoughts. The UDC asks us to minimize unarticulated walls and box like structures. I look at this project from beginning to end to include all facilities, all improvements on the site. I think that they are making an effort to minimize the box like structure and unarticulated wall if you look at it as conjunction with all of the other parts of development on the property. Given that and the somewhat limited ability to do much different with the gymnasium I don't have a specific problem with the commercial design standards at this point. Ostner: Here again, back to the box like structure. The example in our code has a little drawing and it is a box a lot like this one. It just talks about don't do this. Large box like structure. That's my only issue is box like. They have articulated well, their colors dialogue with the first building. There is a change but if a huge retailer were going to build a building that didn't comply with our design rules next to a different retailer who did I don't see looking next door to the retailer who is compliant as reducing the problem. I think these are good rules we have. I don't think I have yet voted against, maybe once, that I've voted against something for the design standards. I feel like this is box like and the surrounding residential use is important to me and it makes a difference. It is not in a commercial district, it is not in our larger commercial districts that we have. That's my issue with the box like. Vaught: I have a question for the applicant. On the overall site plan, are the comers of this building kind of 45° instead of the 90°? Hafemann: Let me make a clarification on that. There is a 45° corner on the southeastern corner. That would be near the entrance I believe. There was a change between the architectural plans and the site plans kind of mid stream and unfortunately, I don't believe it was represented on your site plan that those corners were eliminated on the other side. It is my understanding that we have one 45° clip corner at the southeastern corner and that is all. Vaught: I guess with my comments, I disagree, I think this has more articulation and is less box like than say the Wal-Mart off of Mall Avenue when you approach it from the back and all we require from some of those bigger retailers is just one single line of bricks in some cases to break up the wall partly because of the nature of the beast, the big box retailers. I feel like they've done their best. Could they come back with a different design? Probably so. Would it cost a lot more? It could. If some screening can be done with landscaping at a smaller cost I feel like the applicant has worked with us in coming back with new elements, adding windows and doors on the west, which was the only wall I was really worried about to Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 39 start off with. If you can screen that front wall with some trees below those windows I feel like it could be a really attractive building and you wouldn't notice the box like structure as much. I think there is more articulation and design in this than there are in some of our other projects we have approved. Allen: The Wal-Mart building was built prior to these design standards correct? Warrick: Yes it was. I believe that it went through the review process in early 1996 and the design guidelines were adopted in October of that year. Allen: Thank you. Shackelford: Commissioners, are there any other questions, comments or motions? MOTION: Church: I will make a motion that we approve LSD 03-37.00 subject to the conditions of approval. Shackelford: We have a motion by Commissioner Church for approval of LSD 03- 37.00 subject to all fourteen conditions of approval, do I have a second? Bunch: I will second if the motioner will accept a friendly amendment to soften some of the south fapade of the gymnasium with landscaping to alter the landscape plan to take into accounts the concerns of the commissioners on Commercial Design Standards. Church: I agree with that. Shackelford: We have a motion and second on LSD 03-37.00, is there anymore questions or comments? Ostner: With the motion and the accepted change to the second to guide the Landscape Administrator in my concerns if this passes tonight, I would suggest since we already do have a pretty good landscape design, larger caliper trees. To plant larger caliper trees adds five years to the growth and that can make a big difference. That is just a suggestion to be specific on that. Shackelford: Staff, help me out here. The Landscape Developer has the final say in this and minutes from our approval process will be reviewed in that process, is that correct? Warrick: The Landscape Administrator will review a final landscape plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. Staff will review all of the conditions of the Large Scale Development in the final review before permits are issued. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 40 If the desire of the Planning Commission is to utilize landscaping to soften the south fagade with increased landscaping, it is very important that you give staff enough direction that we can issue a building permit for a project that you will drive by later and find acceptable. I would remind the Planning Commission that landscaping is not an item that is stated under the five criteria of Commercial Design Standards. If we are looking at landscaping to make a project compliant with Commercial Design Standards I think that's a reach. I think that it is important for the Planning Commission to apply screening requirements where screening requirements are required by ordinance. That is just my observation. If the Planning Commission feels that a condition to increase landscaping would provide necessary screening or would mitigate a situation we need direction as to how to evaluate that at the time of permit. Shackelford: My take on the conversation is that we are not relying on the landscape screening for compliance with Commercial Design Standards. It is more offered as a compromise among some descending opinions on this board. Obviously, if that is the direction you want, I didn't make the motion or the second so it is not my place to do so. If that is the direction you want we can definitely ask the motioner and the second to entertain that. Church: I guess I don't feel like it is up to us to engineer the applicant's landscape plan. I would trust that the Landscape Administrator can work out something that is acceptable after seeing our comments. I'm ok with the motion the way I made it. Shackelford: Ok. Williams: I agree with Dawn on her comments on that. I will note that the Planning Commission in the past has in fact used screening, for example, the Johnson Floor Covering building at Township to help screen a long wall that wasn't directly facing Township. I think that the Planning Commission has done that in the past in order to help arrive at a final result that was satisfactory with everyone. Shackelford: Thank you. Vaught: My take on it is that it is more just direction from us and what we desire to see out of the applicant in putting it as a condition leaving it up to them and the Landscape Administrator to do something in a good faith effort. I guess my question would be for the applicant if you want to address what we're talking about. Are you willing to make a good faith effort to adjust your landscape plan to help soften that fagade using trees and other elements? Shoulders: Yes. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 41 Vaught: Great. Shackelford: Do we have any other questions or comments before I call for the vote? Vaught: What are the conditions again? Shackelford: We are voting on the motion that is made based on all fourteen conditions as presented. Church: Including the comment that Commissioner Bunch made about softening the fapade with landscape. Shackelford: With a good faith effort from the applicant that we will try to soften the south elevation with landscaping. Renee, call the vote. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-37.00 was approved by a vote of 4-0-3 with Commissioners Allen, Anthes and Ostner voting no. Thomas: The motion carries four to three. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 42 LSD 03-38.00: Large Scale Development (Stearns Apartments, pp 136) was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Stearns Street Apartments Limited Partnership for property located at the southwest corner of Vantage Dr. and Zion Rd. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family 24 units per acre, and R -O, Residential Office, and contains 23 acres. The proposal is to construct an apartment complex with 276 units. Shackelford: Next on our agenda is LSD 03-38.00 submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Stearns Street Apartments Limited Partnership for property located at the southwest corner of Vantage Drive and Zion Road. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi - Family, 24 units per acre and R -O, Residential Office. The property contains 23 acres. The proposal is to construct an apartment complex with 276 units. Jeremy? Pate: As you stated, the applicant is requesting to construct an apartment complex within an RMF -24 and R -O zoning district comprised of 276 units. This would be 460 total bedrooms and 23 buildings. Also, a 1250 sq.ft. club house. The Residential Office parcel was approved by the Planning Commission in April, 2003 as a Conditional Use to allow multi- family residential uses with a maximum density of 18 units per acre. Conditions of approval specifically addressed a requirement for a mixture of building sizes and facades which would provide the appearance of a more diverse community of residential uses. Elevations which were required to be submitted at the time of Large Scale Development review, installation of sidewalks on the subject property, on and off site improvements and a maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre. Building elevations have been submitted for review. They were reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on October 16`h. Based on the comments received from these two building elevations the applicant revised the site plan to reflect three different building footprints with six different facades including the club house. Those should be in your packets. The Conditional Use is applicable to only that portion of the site with the R -O zoning district. However, the applicant has continued the mixture of facades and footprints into the RMF -24 portion of the fact in keeping with the spirit of the requirement. Surrounding land use and zoning includes R - O, R -A, C-2. Zion Valley Estates is to the east which is RMF -24 and vacant lots to the west. Right of way being dedicated with this proposal includes Vantage Drive, 70' for a collector. Stearns Street, a 50' local street and Shepherd Lane, 50' local street. Stearns Street and Shepherd Lane both require Master Street Plan amendments for lesser dedications of rights of way. The street improvements included with this proposal include Vantage Drive proposed to be constructed with a boulevard cross section including bicycle linkages and a 10' landscaped median. Shepherd Lane, the interior collector street that in the future connects Vantage Drive with Frontage Road is proposed to be a local street with 50' of right of way, 28' wide with paving, curb and gutter and 6' sidewalks on both sides. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 43 Stearns Street is an off site street to the south and is proposed to expanded with 50' of dedicated right of way with a 28' street cross section. Staff is in support of both of these lesser dedication of rights of way and Master Street Plan amendments for Stearns Street and Shepherd Lane. City Council passed a waiver to the park land dedication ordinance, § 166.03(K) in October to approve money in lieu of land in the amount of $108,468. Tree preservation, existing canopy for this site is currently at 47%. Preserved canopy by the applicant is 21%, required in this zoning district is 20%. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Staff is recommending approval of the Large Scale Development subject to fourteen conditions of approval. I will read those into the record for you. 1) Planning Commission determination of compliance with CUP 03-10.00 Conditions of Approval as stated in the attached minutes, including: review of on - and off-site improvements; sidewalk installation; mixture of building size and fagade to provide appearance of a more diverse community of residential uses; submittal of building elevations; and maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre. 2) Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff finds that the applicant's proposed street improvements meet those required by a developer for on- and off-site improvements, including Vantage Drive (50 feet wide, with landscape median, bike lanes and 6 -foot sidewalks, Stearns Street (28 feet wide w/curb, gutter and storm drains), and Shepherd Lane (28 feet wide with curb, gutter, storm drains and 6 -foot sidewalks on both sides.) All streets are to be constructed in accordance with City standards. 3) Planning Commission determination of the Master Street Plan Amendment proposals to reduce Stearns Street and Shepherd Lane, both Collector streets, to Local Streets. The two Master Street Plan Amendments shall be considered as separate items by City Council. Staff is in favor of the proposed amendment to reduce the Collector Streets to Local Streets. 4) Planning Commission determination of a variance request for the 100 -foot building setback from a water surface in the pond area. Staff is in support of this variance request. The applicant intends to install a 4 -foot wrought iron fence around the pond for safety. 5) Street names shall be approved by the 9-1-1 Coordinator. 6) Parks fees are assessed for 276 multifamily units in the amount of $108,468. Fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. 7) A complete and detailed Landscape Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Landscape Administrator prior to building permit, complying with all requirements as set forth in the Unified Development Code. Items eight through fourteen are standard conditions of approval. Shackelford: Great, thank you Jeremy. I guess we will first hear from the applicant. Kelso: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am Jerry Kelso with Crafton, Tull & Associates. We are the engineer of record on this particular project. I think staff has pretty much went over the project but I do want to point out a few things here if you don't mind. We are doing extensive street Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 44 improvements on this particular project. Vantage Drive is designated as a collector street. We are only required to build a 36' back to back curb and gutter street. We have committed to go ahead and build a boulevard section which is over and above what would be required of the developer. Shepherd Drive, of course will go through our project. We plan on building the full width of that with sidewalks. We are planning on constructing Stearns Street which will connect all the way to Joyce Street. We have got all of those connections and all of those street improvements, especially the boulevard that we are going to be doing. Tree preservation on the property, we do have a large area of tree preservation that would be between the apartments and Vantage Drive. I think you will notice that we did set those buildings back so we have a good buffer there. We have got over 50% greenspace on this particular project. Let me address some of the Conditional Use items on this thing. We talked about the streets. The Conditional Use actually splits the property. Just the west side of the property is the Conditional Use which would encompass about 11 '/2 buildings if I figured that right. Of course we've got 26 buildings total so only I1 Yz would be effected by the Conditional Use. With the Conditional Use we were required to produce different building sizes and facades. We have got three different building sizes, we've got six different facades that we have presented with this to meet the requirements of the Conditional Use. Not only are we doing those Conditional Use items for just the west side, we are going to do them for the whole project, even though that would not be required because where most of the buildings are at it is already zoned RMF -24. We are going to do the different facades for the whole project. If you notice on our site plan they have called out the different ones and there are no two buildings with the same fagade side by side. I think that's important. We've got more brick on these particular buildings than any other Lindsey project Mr. Lindsey has done in Fayetteville. There is more brick on these buildings than any other project in the City of Fayetteville. I think with all of those things that we are doing with the street improvements, the different building types and facades, we do feel like we meet the conditions of the Conditional Use. The architect is here so we will try to answer any questions you might have. Shackelford: Great, thank you. One thing, before we proceed Condition of approval number three is asking for a proposal to amend the Master Street Plan. I might ask Kit to help us out here. Is it our understanding that it takes five affirmative votes to make that part of this proposal to happen? Williams: I think that's correct. Also it takes city council approval. Shackelford: I just wanted to make you aware that it will take five affirmative votes to approve condition number three and possibly condition number one which Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 45 addresses the CUP on this as well. We are a couple members short and wanted you to be aware of that. Kelso: Ok. Shackelford: Great. With that being done, I will open it up to the public to see if anybody has any public comment regarding this LSD 03-38.00. If so, please come forward. Seeing none, I will close it and bring it back to the Planning Commissioners for questions or comments to the applicant and staff. Ostner: The first issue I would like to talk about and maybe this is a question for staff. Under street improvements it reads Vantage Drive is proposed to be constructed with a boulevard cross section to city standards with 22' lanes. I'm not familiar with that. I thought our city standards were basically 28' for two lane with on street parking. Warrick: I think the intent of that statement was that city standards being curb, gutter, storm drain, sidewalk would all be associated with that street section. Ostner: I guess more to the point then, why so wide? If we build streets in subdivisions where they are back to back why do we give one lane of traffic 22'? Kelso: What we're planning on is a bike lane, that's the reason for the extra width. Ostner: Like four bike lanes? Kelso: You would have one on one side and one on the other. Ostner: That is an 8' bike lane. It depends on what you require for the driving lane. There are other situations that I've driven here in town that it seemed way too wide with a median. Kelso: Keep in mind half the street is already built too. The east side of the street is already constructed. We are just constructing the west side so it is already 22' with curb and gutter on both sides. Warrick: I think the intent was to match what's existing on the ground. Ostner: Ok, I didn't understand that part. Warrick: The bike lane would actually be a painted on bike lane dedicating a strip of land for bicycle travelers on the street. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 46 Shackelford: Are there any other questions? Ostner: Whenever this Conditional Use was given I believe sometime this year, a couple of months ago, we were talking about how it would look and about the facades and what not and you have addressed that a lot tonight. Something I brought up is the issue of massing. For me that helped solve the problem of these buildings, which are very nice. That is a great fagade but when the massing all becomes the same suddenly they look very, very similar. When I voted for the Conditional Use in April, 2003 in the minutes I mentioned that I requested massing to be different. I don't see that tonight. Mr. Vaught asked me to define massing. General shape. These two are different and they are both very nice but they are subtlety different. The massing is the same. Three gables, pop outs on either end, the windows have the same rhythm, the stairs have the same rhythm. When I granted the Conditional Use I talked about massing because I did not count this as two different buildings. If I had seen these in front of me I would've said that's not two different buildings. There are a lot of other things that you all have done on this site that are terrific. Kelso: I will try to let Kim Fugitt the architect, talk about that a little bit. Fugitt: I'm Kim Fugitt. First of all, I would like to take a poll of the Commission, are you all comfortable with the city hall building that we're in, does everyone feel like this is good design? Can I get a show of hands? Good or bad? Never mind. In the minutes of the Conditional Use Permit we had explained in those minutes that I had before me here, the quote that we made here was that there would be similar to what we did there at Southemview along Hwy. 540 where we alternated or did three different building types along I-540. That was a comment that I made at that time. That was a first reference to Southern View. Another reference Mr. Kelso made, different size buildings as far as our floor plans, still have 12 units and two stories but different floor plans but they do make up the actual building footprints. That was a specific comment that Mr. Kelso made. Mr. Conklin also stated that if you want different number of buildings you need to be specific if that is what the Commission is thinking. He asked for specific comments at that time as to whatever your desires were. There were no specific comments made at that time or anywhere else in the meeting and then finally Mr. Ostner made the comment that I think there has been a concern about apartment complexes looking that way and you all have worked hard over at I-540 to do that. We took that comment to mean that what we had done at Southernview on I-540 was acceptable. That is why we have come through with these particular designs. As Mr. Kelso said, we have increased the amount of brick. I think what you will see that we've done at Southern View and we've done everywhere else, we typically have brick the first floor and use a siding material or dryvit Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 47 on the second floor. Here we have proposed to use all brick on not only the first floor but the second floor with just the siding accents as you see there. We've increased that by close to 40% in those terms. Going back to the minutes of the Conditional Use Permit, this is what we had agreed to, this is what we understood when we had that meeting based on these comments and that is where this comes from. I want to make another comment on the club house. It is an 8,000 sq.ft. club house. The 1,245 that was referred to I think is a building elevation but it is an 8,000 sq.ft. club house with a fitness center, business center, meeting rooms, swimming pool, all of those amenities. Ostner: Thank you. I just wanted to respond to what Mr. Fugitt said. Yes we did refer back to Southern View on April 14`h. However, nothing had been built. What I was referring to was the process. The dialogue and the promises, if you will, of Southern View changing facades and looking different. Nothing was built when these minutes we're talking about were taken. We were referring to the approval process, the meeting we had in here. Since you brought up Southern View, I think Southern View suffers from the same dilemma. The massing is the same. The changes that make them different as different is defined in the dictionary, are so subtle that a building that large most people can't tell the difference. Southern View is fine. It got approved, it's being built, it is a great project. If we are comparing this to Southern View these differences are subtle and they don't amount to enough to go back to the Conditional Use which is what I was hinting to share. Fugitt: I think the struggle that we have is the term different. That is a subjective term. Those are different facades. They are different building footprints, they are different sizes, they are different heights. To what degree they are different is a subjective issue and without specific guidelines that are provided to us by staff we have no idea. We can come back with another elevation and other plans and still not know if that were different enough. That's where we find ourselves. That is the struggle that we have. Ostner: That's where I was on April 14`h not wanting to go into all of these details of a brick should go here and a window should go there and that's why I brought up massing. Massing defines itself. You can have a twelve unit building that is one story. You can have a twelve unit building that is three story. Those are both twelve unit buildings. They might have a similar footprint but they have different masses. That is sort of a design term I suppose that maybe we used in the design field. That, to me, doesn't define different enough. Fugitt: Could you give me an example of where you might find that in apartment complexes in Northwest Arkansas? Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 48 Ostner: They would have to be two different apartment complexes. We also lead the state in a lot of these design regs so it is not like we can just turn around and refer to everyone else. There are a lot of smaller apartment units that have done different sizes, distinctly different masses on a smaller scale. Allen: Mr. Fugitt, by looking at the pictures here in our packet it appears that the brick is the same color but not on your drawings there and I wanted to know if you are using a different color of brick? Fugitt: No Ma'am. We intended to use the same color of brick throughout the complex. One drawing is a little older than the other drawing and has faded or has not used the same color there. We would intend to use a similar brick throughout the project. Allen: Thank you. Bunch: As viewed from a public street this is going to be much different than Southern View. If you view it from Vantage Drive you are looking at either the front or rear fagade of three buildings and the side of one building or the end. If you get down on the south end there is a tree preservation area that is between the public street and six of the buildings that are all in a row. I think that makes a major contribution to altering the massing. If you look on drawing number four in your packet, tree preservation plan, this is a highly wooded site. It has extensive tree preservation. The only public streets where buildings can be viewed will be Vantage Drive and Shepherd Lane. From Shepherd Lane the buildings are all turned different directions so there is quite a bit of diversity. Also, from Vantage Drive, again, three buildings, all of which are slightly different and then the edge of one building. I think that this accomplishes that. Yes, if you go down the interior streets I agree that after a while because of the size of these buildings they all do look alike even though there are subtle differences in them. When you look at the total project, look at the landscaping, look at the tree preservation areas, look at the lay of the land and the orientation of the buildings in relationship to the streets, I think that goes a long ways in modifying the appearance and the presentation of each individual building. Shackelford: Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments? Anthes: I understand that we do not have residential design standards in the City of Fayetteville and yet we have approval of a Conditional Use based on certain assumptions about what was going to be happening here. What, in looking at the Large Scale Development, how is a Large Scale Development approval process following a Conditional Use different than the standard Large Scale Development process? Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 49 Williams: You certainly have more discretion than you would normally. I think the main reason that Conditional Uses are allowed and you are allowed discretion is to protect neighboring property. I think almost all of the Conditional Uses are directed at protecting the neighbors. Because this land is not being developed as of right you, as a Planning Commission, especially if you hear from neighbors that are concerned about something happening on this land that might effect their land and their rights, can take appropriate measures to lessen that impact. Whether it be lighting overflowing onto their property or any other kind of Conditional Use of land that would adversely effect the neighbor's property. I think primarily that's what Conditional Uses were invented for is to give you that kind of protection for the neighbors. I would certainly defer to our Planning and Development Administrator, also known as our City Planner, Dawn Warrick, to go forward and give you her interpretation of what you can look for in a Conditional Use and what you can consider. Warrick: I agree with what Mr. Williams has stated. When staff was brought this Large Scale Development we knew that of course, there had been a Conditional Use approval for a portion of this property. We went back and reviewed the conditions that were placed on that project approval by the Planning Commission. It was approved on a seven to zero vote back in April with five conditions. We also read through the minutes. It was made very clear in the minutes, staff felt from that meeting, there was discussion about the sizes of the structures, the numbers of units, that there would be two story twelve unit structures and staff specifically asked that should the commission want to further specify massing, number of units in the structure, or any other conditions that they should be brought forward. The statement was that the project would still have twelve units and two stories. The structures would have twelve units and two stories and that there are different floor plans and things like that that can be done to make up the actual building footprint sizes. Staff made the statement that that is what we understood with different size buildings and asked the commission if you want a different number of units per building you need to be specific if that is what the Commission is thinking. There were no changes to staff's recommended conditions of approval. What we can go on when someone applies for a Large Scale as a follow up to a Conditional Use is the minutes and the conditions that were placed on the project through that process previous. Like you said Commissioner Anthes, we do not have design standards for residential structures. In this particular case we talked about different size structures with different facades. It was compared to the Southern View project. You are correct that at the time Southern View project had been approved and was in the development stage or the construction drawing stage and had not been actually built. It has been built now. Staff has taken photographs of every side of every building in the Southern View project and compared it to the Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 50 elevations that were submitted for that project. We feel that it is substantially compliant with those elevations and there will be some minor changes to painting on some of the facades but we feel that that project has been constructed the way it was approved. Driving by it at 70 miles per hour it looks like a whole lot of the same building but it is true to the elevations that were submitted by the applicant for project approval. With that, we did reference that project when we started looking at this Large Scale Development because it was discussed through the review process of this Conditional Use. Really, what we did was start with where we were on the Conditional Use and apply those conditions and the statements and the approvals by the Planning Commission that were in our minutes to give guidance to this applicant and to formulate staffs recommendations for the Large Scale. Anthes: Thank you. That was helpful. I was not at the April 14`h meeting. I appreciate your indulging me. Shackelford: It is probably worth pointing out at this point that the Conditional Use only addressed the R -O section of this property. A substantial section of this property was already zoned RMF -24 going forward. Are there any other questions or comments? Stanley: Chairman Shackelford and ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, my name is Roy Stanley, I'm with Lindsey Management Company. A couple of the things that I wanted to say have already been addressed since I came up here. Commissioner Bunch talking about the positioning of the buildings to break up some of what would seemingly be a uniform line. I just wanted to mention that half of the property, about 12 acres, is already zoned RMF -24. Twelve units per acre would allow 288 units to be built just on that half. By putting this other half with it, it allows us to have the room to spread out to have a little more greenspace, to manipulate the buildings so that they don't line up in such tight bunches. I do realize that your massing argument is valid. We do have three totally different buildings with six different facades. We think we've done as much as humanly possible to create some diversity within the site. The site is nestled down in that area behind what used to be the mall area with very little visibility except when you are in the development itself. We would appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Shackelford: Thank you Sir. Are there any other questions, comments or motions? MOTION: Allen: While I would probably need some of those 70's disco footprints to find my dwelling if I lived in this unit, I do think that Commissioner Bunch's observation of them being placed differently on the lot helps. I also Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 51 appreciate the boulevard. I think that will be a wonderful addition. I will move for approval of LSD 03-38.00 subject to the 14 conditions of approval. Shackelford: We have a motion by Commissioner Allen, is there a second? Vaught: I will second. With that I want to thank the developer for the efforts to preserve the large area of trees. I think that goes a long ways and in my opinion helping as Commissioners Bunch and Allen have stated, kind of setting it off and making it more unique and breaking up some of the monotony, I think trees can go a long way in doing that. Shackelford: Great, I just want to make one comment for the record. I was part of the vote on the Conditional Use Permit. I remember that conversation quite a bit. I guess I have a little bit different take on this. I think that this is pretty much in line with what my expectations were out of that conversation as far as I am obviously not an architect or an engineer but I see significant differences in the facades of these buildings. I agree with what our city staff said, if you look at it 70 miles per hour down an interstate it is going to be very hard to see anything other than large buildings. If you are in here walking around this facility I think you are really going to notice the architectural differences and the different facades and different buildings. I like this design, I like what we're doing going forward with the apartment complexes that are being built in Fayetteville. This spot in particular with the existing vegetation I think is going to be very attractive. I liken it to the Cliffs and the different elevations and topography that there is out there. They don't even have different facades but I don't think that you have the feeling of the mass building there strictly because of the trees and the topography. I think this development is going to have the best of both worlds going for it and I want to support it at this time. Ostner: I appreciate your comments. I do want to say several things. I think the location of this project is absolutely terrific. Locating this type of density near the mall I think goes perfectly with our plan for Fayetteville. The location is terrific. For the most part these facades are terrific. I am going to vote for it because I think it is a good project. I'm frustrated that back in April I wasn't specific enough and I will learn from that mistake. However, in those meetings I don't want to design someone else's project either. I don't want to say take a tape measure and if it is under 6' your windows, blah, blah, blah. I think that is something we need to work on. As I recall back in April we were very much into this discussion about apartments looking the same or different. Personally, I'm not sure that this is what we had in mind back in April, as a group even. It is not what I had in mind. For the most part, this is a good project and I don't see a reason to vote against it. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 52 Anthes: I hope that we all go home tonight and look up the word mass in the dictionary because I think that we are having a lot of discussion about mass that doesn't relate to mass. Seeing that those conditions were not made part of the Conditional Use Permit and in the absence of residential design standards and other ways for the developer to react any differently to our ordinances I will support this request. Shackelford: Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments? Renee, would you call for the vote? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-38.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of seven to zero. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 53 CUP 03-24.00: Conditional Use (Cliff's Cabin, pp 488) was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Cliffs III Limited Partnership for property located at 2099 Cliffs Blvd. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single -family -4 units per acre, and contains approximately 1.56 acres. The request is to allow for a tandem lot. LSP 03-54.00: Lot Split (Cliff's Cabin, pp 487) was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates for property located on 2099 Cliffs Blvd. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family 4 units per acre, and contains 36.77 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts of 35.21 and 1.56 acres respectively. Shackelford: Next on our agenda is item number eight, CUP 03-24.00 submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates for the Cliffs III Limited Partnership for property located at 2099 Cliffs Blvd. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 1.40 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. Jeremy, I believe you are up again. Pate: Yes Sir. I think for the third and final time tonight this Conditional Use is also associated with the next item, which is a Lot Split for the Cliffs Cabin. These items were submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates. The applicant is requesting to split the lot into two tracts of 35.21 acres and 1.56 acres respectively. The purpose of the split is to create a separate tax parcel for the existing historic homestead log cabin and out buildings on the proposed 1.56 acre tract. The subject 35.21 plus or minus acre tract is Phase III of Cliffs Planned Unit Development approved in November, 2001. The requested split tract of 1.56 acres is surrounded by the Cliffs Apartment development. Therefore, a Conditional Use request for a tandem lot is required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Surrounding properties are zoned RSF-4 and are substantially surrounded by the Cliff s apartment complex. Sufficient right of way has been dedicated by plat already. Staff is recommending approval of both the lot split and the conditional use subject to the following conditions: 1) The tandem lot shall have access to a public street (Cliffs Boulevard) by way of a private drive with a minimum width of 25 feet of equal and uniform width. The tandem lot owner shall be responsible for maintaining said 25 -foot private drive so that sanitation and emergency vehicles have safe access to the dwelling located on the lot. The tandem lot owner shall have title to, or a perpetual private easement in, the private drive. 2) No vehicles shall be parked at any time on that portion of a tandem lot utilized as a private drive. 3) The lot shall only be utilized for one (1) single family residential use. 4) Future development of the tandem lot shall comply with all Ordinance requirements as applicable. Item five is a standard condition of approval. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 54 Shackelford: For the third and final time tonight we will have a Conditional Use followed by an adjoining Lot Split so we will look at both although they take separate actions. Applicant? Kelso: Jerry Kelso again with Crafton, Tull & Associates. Basically, all we're doing here is the cabin that is actually on the National Registry of Historic Sites, we're taking that area along with the sheds that were built years ago and just taking it out of the overall apartment project to create a lot for it. That's it. Shackelford: Great. At this time I will take public comment if anybody has any comment regarding either the Conditional Use or the Lot Split that is being talked about at this point. Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for questions, comments and motions. MOTION: Bunch: The reason that the lot split was forwarded from the Subdivision Committee is because there is a Conditional Use attached for the tandem lot. I move that we approve CUP 03-24.00 for Cliffs Cabin. Anthes: I second. Shackelford: We have a motion and a second for CUP 03-24.00. Are there any other questions or comments regarding this action? Seeing none, I will call for a vote. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 03-24.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of seven to zero. Shackelford: That moves us to LSP 03-54.00, the adjoining item. MOTION: Bunch: Moving right along, I move that we approve LSP 03-54.00 for Cliffs Cabin. Anthes: I second. Shackelford: I have a motion and a second for the adjoining item, are there any other questions or comments regarding this motion? Seeing none, I will call for the vote. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 55 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 03-54.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries seven to zero. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 56 LSD 03-35.00: Large Scale Development (Brandon Mall, pp 135) was submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Gary Brandon for property located at the northeast comer of the Northwest Arkansas Mall on Zion Rd. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.78 acres. The request is to develop a 28,350 sq. ft. office building. Shackelford: That moves us up to item number ten, LSD 03-35.00 for Brandon Mall. Church: I need to recuse from this item please. Shackelford: Thank you very much. This item was submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Services on behalf of Gary Brandon for property located at the northeast corner of the Northwest Arkansas Mall on Zion Road. The property is currently zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.78 acres. The request is to develop a 28,350 sq.ft. office building. Jeremy? Pate: Thank you Commissioner Shackelford. The applicant is requesting to construct a 28,350 sq.ft. three story office building with sales and professional office use north of the Northwest Arkansas Mall. To create the subject lot a lot split has been processed and approved by the Subdivision Committee on October 16`h. The existing structure that formally housed Shoney's restaurant is proposed to be demolished and removed with the new larger structure proposed to be sited in the same general location. The existing parking lot is to be utilized with alterations. 97 parking spaces are provided which does meet the parking lot ordinance requirement of 119 with the plus or minus 30% allotment. There is no right of way required to be dedicated with this project nor street improvements. The only adjacent Master Street Plan street is Hwy. 71B, which is a principal arterial to the east of the site I believe. Existing tree canopy is 16.32%, preserved is 11.06%, therefore, ten trees are required for mitigation and they are proposed to be planted on site. Staff is recommending approval of LSD 03-35.00 subject to eleven conditions. 1) Structures shall not be built over existing utility easements. A request for vacation of the existing 25 -foot utility easement on which the proposed structure encroaches shall be processed and approved by Planning Commission and City Council. Building permits shall not be issued prior to easement vacation approval. 2) Planning Commission determination and approval of Commercial Design Standards. Staff finds the submitted elevation drawings to be in compliance with Commercial Design Standards. 3) Planning Commission determination of the greenspace reduction request from 15 feet to 5 feet along Hwy 71B. Staff is in support of this request, as existing topography and dense vegetation between the subject property and Hwy 71B act as an existing buffer. 4) The associated Lot Split shall be filed of record with the County prior to issuance of building permits. The rest of the conditions are standard conditions of approval. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 57 Shackelford: Thank you. Is the applicant present tonight? Moore: Good evening, I'm Brian Moore with Engineering Services, the engineer for the project. Gary Brandon is also here, he is the owner along with Brett Hash who is also here if you all have any questions of them or me we would be happy to answer them. Shackelford: Thank you very much. At this time I will take public comment if there is anybody here that would like to address the Commission regarding this proposed Large Scale Development? Seeing none, I will close discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions or comments. Don, do you want to start us off with the Subdivision conversation? Bunch: Not really. That was a pretty long Subdivision Committee and I've slept since then. One of the things that we talked about at Subdivision was the Lot Split and the easement situation and cleaning up the lot split documents so that it would stand on its own merit independent of the Large Scale Development and also we talked a little bit about compatibility of this design with the general design of the mall and we felt that that would be a good topic of discussion for the full Planning Commission to address the design standards. Shackelford: Thank you. Questions or comments? Allen: When we were on tour there was some conversation about an existing old Shoney's pole sign out there I wondered if that is on this property or what the plans are for that sign. Warrick: I believe that that sign is located on the mall property, which is not a part of the split creating the tract for the Brandon Mall project. Therefore, it remains as a non -conforming sign, it remains as a pole sign that exists on the mall site. It doesn't effect this particular project. Allen: Thank you. Shackelford: Are there any other questions, comments or motions? Ostner: I have a question about the exterior. Is this the roof, I'm wondering about the red on the drawings is quite bright, is that a roof tile sitting on the floor? Moore: Yes. Ostner: It is a lot less bright than the drawing. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 58 MOTION: Allen: I believe that the design of this building is very compatible with that of the mall. I think it will be an attractive addition. It will be nice to get rid of that old building and have this pretty one in its place so I move for approval of LSD 03-35.00 subject to the eleven conditions of approval. Shackelford: We have a motion for approval from Commissioner Allen, is there a second? Ostner: I will second. Shackelford: There is a second by Commissioner Ostner, are there any other questions or comments regarding this motion? We have a motion and a second, are there any other comments? If not, Renee, call the roll. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-35.00 was approved by a vote of 6-1-0 with Commissioner Church abstaining. Thomas: The motion carries six to zero. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 59 VAC 03-12.00: Vacation (Combs St Church of Christ, pp 524) was submitted by Steve Clark on behalf of Combs St Church of Christ for property located at 350 S. Comb St. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family -24 units per acre and contains 1.49 acres. The proposal is to vacate a utility easement along 4`h Street. LSD O1-39.10: Large Scale Development (Combs St Church of Christ, pp 524) was submitted by Steve Clark on behalf of Combs St Church of Christ for property located at 350 S. Comb St. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family 24 units per acres, and contains 1.49 acres. The proposal is to construct a 4700 sq. ft. expansion of the existing church. Shackelford: Item eleven was on the consent agenda so we move forward to item twelve, VAC 03-12.00 submitted by Combs Street Church of Christ for property located at 350 S. Combs Street. The property is zoned RMF -24, the request is to vacate a portion of the street right of way. Morgan: This Vacation request is accompanied by LSD 03-39.10 for Combs Street Church of Christ. The request for a vacation of a portion of the street right of way is due to the fact that the existing street was built north of the dedicated right of way. There are, and this is along 4th Street just north of the property, there are no objections from adjacent property owners that have been submitted to the city. The applicant has submitted the required notification forms to utility companies. There are no objections from utilities. Comments were supplied from water ands ewer and they are included in your packet. No comments were received from any other departments in the city. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed right of way VAC 03-11.00 subject to the following conditions: 1) Any relocation of existing utilities will be at the owner's expense. 2) The right of way to be vacated shall be replaced with a general utility easement for the entire area excluding the portion occupied by the existing structure. The Large Scale Development was submitted by Steve Clark on behalf of the Combs Street Church of Christ for the property located at 350 S. Combs Street. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -Family, 24 units per acre and contains 1.49 acres. The applicant requests to build an addition of 4,700 sq.ft. to an existing church with 56 parking stalls and the existing structure is 2,100 sq.ft. The surrounding property is zoned RMF -24 and Single Family residential in nature. The existing right of way along 4`h Street, as mentioned, extends further south than 25' from centerline. Thus, the applicant is requesting to vacate the existing right of way and dedicate 25' from centerline on 4th Street. Also, 25' of right of way from centerline on Willow Avenue and Washington Avenue is proposed to be dedicated. All of these streets are local streets on the Master Street Plan requiring 50' of right of way. Willow Avenue and Washington Avenue are listed as on street linkages on the alternative transportation and trail master plan. Tree preservation, existing canopy is 14.5%, required canopy is 14.5%, preserved canopy will be 2.9% and mitigation required will be on site of 16 trees. Staff is recommending Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 60 approval of LSD 01-39.10 with the following conditions: 1) Approval of Large Scale Development contingent upon City Council approval of right- of-way vacation and replacement with a utility easement. If vacation is denied, large scale development shall be resubmitted with appropriate modifications. 2) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 4' sidewalk with a minimum 6' green space from the curb along Washington Avenue, 4`h Street, and Willow Avenue. Replacement of a portion of the sidewalk along Willow Avenue and the existing Church entrance to meet ADA standards. 3) Plannin Commission determination of street improvements. Staff recommends 4` Street, from Willow Avenue to Combs Avenue, be improved to a 20' street section. The existing portion of roadway will be overlayed to provide a new pavement section for the entire 20' width. Curb and gutter are not recommended at this time. Signed conditions have been received. Shackelford: Thank you very much. Is the applicant here tonight? Clark: Good evening, my name is Steve Clark with Clark Consulting and I'm here representing the church. Shackelford: Mr. Clark, do you have a presentation or would you just like to answer questions? Clark: I will answer questions. Shackelford: Great. The first thing I will do is open it up to the public. Would anyone like to make public comment regarding either VAC 03-12.00 or the adjoining LSD 01-39.10? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for questions and comments. MOTION: Ostner: We're still on the first part of these two, which is the Vacation. At Subdivision it was basically explained what was explained here tonight that a long time ago there was a line on a map and someone didn't follow it. With that in mind, I would like to make a motion that we approve VAC 03-12.00. Shackelford: I have a motion by Commissioner Ostner, do I hear a second? Allen: I will second. Shackelford: Are there any other questions or comments regarding this Vacation request? Renee? Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 61 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAC 03-12.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries seven to zero. Shackelford: That brings us to LSD 01-39.10, which is item number 13 on our agenda. This is the accompanying Large Scale Development for Combs Street Church of Christ. Mr. Clark is here for this one if you have any questions or comments. I will open it up to the Planning Commission. MOTION: Ostner: I think this is a good project, I think it is good for the community. Some good progress was made on condition of approval number three instead of what I think was basically a waste of money doing a bunch of curb and gutter on one side of the street. City Administration, staff and Mr. Clark have worked it out to simply do better paving and leave the ditch profile. I will make a motion that we approve LSD 01-39.10. Allen: I will second. Shackelford: Are there any other questions or comments regarding this motion? If not, Renee, please call for the vote. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 01-39.10 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries seven to zero. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 62 CUP 03-27.00: Conditional Use (Arkansas Oaks, pp. 294) was submitted by Bill Helmer on behalf of Perry Butcher for property located at 2198 Bridgeport Drive. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single -family -4 units per acre, and contains approximately] 3.39 acres. The request is to allow continued use of the existing structure as a construction office. Shackelford: That brings us to item number fourteen, CUP 03-27.00 submitted by Bill Helmer on behalf of Perry Butcher for property located at 2198 Bridgeport Drive. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 13.39 acres. The request is to allow continued use of an existing structure as a construction office. Before we go any further on this, for the last time I am going to mention again, Conditional Use Permits require five affirmative votes. There are only seven Planning Commissioners tonight so it would be the applicant's option to table this if he so required. Jeremy? Pate: Thank you. As you mentioned, the subject property contains 13.39 acres, most of which is undeveloped pasture land located at the southeast corner of Mt. Comfort Road and Bridgeport Drive. The applicant is requesting to extend the granted three year use period for the existing construction and sales building for one additional year. A conditional use is required for temporary facilities including construction facilities and sales offices operating for the purpose of developing an underdeveloped subdivision. This Conditional Use was granted by the Planning Commission for a time period not to exceed three years in July, 2000. I have attached a copy of the minutes for you. The applicant was notified of the expiration of the time period for the temporary sales building by city staff in August, 2003 with a 30 day grace period to remove the building and any signage associated with it. The applicant is now requesting that the Planning Commission grant an extension of that time period in which the building may remain to serve the developing subdivision. I have included some numbers that staff gathered for completion rates. These are rough numbers for various phases of Bridgeport served by the subject structure. There are some findings that I will go over associated with this Conditional Use. Granting the Conditional Use will not adversely effect the public interest. This temporary facility was permitted as a Conditional Use by the Planning Commission for a time period set at three years to be reviewed annually to make sure the structure and property was maintained in an orderly fashion. The structure was to aid in the development of Phases IV, V, and VI of Bridgeport Subdivision. The structure is located at the primary entrance to the Bridgeport subdivision, easily viewed from both Bridgeport Drive and Mt. Comfort Road. Public comments from the Planning Commission minutes, as well as a letter (see attached) expressed concern regarding the appearance of this structure in its present location. The landscaping and screening required by the Planning Commission for the Conditional Use to some extent has not been installed. Signage, also, Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 63 as a specific condition of approval from the previously approved Conditional Use. Included the allowance of one sign no larger than 16 sq.ft. attached to the front of the structure. The sign does not exist on the structure. Rather, a sign has been erected near the road in violation of the Conditional Use approval. I've included some photos of the existing structure as of the 23`d of this month with the associated signage along Bridgeport Road. The structure is not generally compatible with other property in the district and is by ordinance a temporary structure only. Vegetative screening as required by the original Conditional Use, again, that has not entirely be installed. Staff recommended that the structure be placed for no longer than three years for completion of Phases IV, V, and VI. Based on these criteria, staff is not in support of the extension of the Conditional Use request. The extension by one year would enable the developer to continue using the facility for constructing additional lots in various phases of the Bridgeport subdivision along with the planned Arkansas Oaks subdivision. However, there is no guarantee that this development will be completed within the one year time frame. Planning Commission will most likely see an additional Conditional Use request for an extension. A Preliminary Plat has not been processed for the lot in which the structure exists. At such time as the Planning Division does approve a subdivision in this location a construction trailer would be allowed to install necessary infrastructure. Based on that, staff is recommending denial of the Conditional Use. Shackelford: Thank you Jeremy. At this point I will open it up to public comment. Is there anybody in the public that would like to address us regarding this Conditional Use? Seeing none, I will bring it to the applicant. If you would, please come forward. Helmer: I'm Bill Helmer, I'm the project manager for Bridgeport Subdivision. I apologize Jeremy for not getting these to you earlier, I do have some supporting documents that I would like to give out to you if I could. First of all, I would like to address two or three things there that looking over the conditions of approval originally as far as the landscaping in particular. Number four said landscaping shall be provided on the north, east and south sides of the structure. I think that was just totally an error, when it said east side it should've said west side. The west side of the building is the street side. As you will notice, the west side is the side that has the little porch on it street side and that is the side where the landscaping is on the north, the south and the west side. The east side is the back side of the building and we had never intended to landscape that and I never understood it. I guess I didn't read that closely and we should've addressed it back then but we didn't. On the signage, I probably misinterpreted something there too. I think they said they took some pictures. We do have Bridgeport on our awning up there which helps us identify the building as a Bridgeport temporary building. The other sign Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 64 that they were talking about was just a sign that had information boxes on it that I had moved from another part of the subdivision as we were developing back there up there so people could pull in off the street and pick up information boxes. I was not aware that it was not admissible. After being notified of that, I have removed it. The other thing that I wanted to point out to you in your packet here, we are in the process of developing this property. Due to some problems with getting some information to the engineers and some problems that had to be sorted out in ownership we have been a little slow in getting started on this development. You do have a letter there in front of you that we do go before the Parks Board on the P of November and hen from there we will be submitting our Preliminary Plat. Yes, there was a complaint back when I first put up the structure before we ever even got our landscaping in place or anything. One of the residents expressed displeasure at having it there. I think you will notice that I have a letter from the Bridgeport Property Owner's Association supporting my request to extend this for a year as well as another letter signed by a number of individuals there. We've made every effort to try to keep it up and keep it looking nice. I felt like I was doing that because I thought I was being reviewed every year according to the original terms I remembered. That each year it could be I guess terminated if we weren't so we have made every effort to do that. Did I understand it to say that once the Preliminary Plat for that piece of property is through then we would have the right to have the trailer there? Warrick: Typically during the development of the infrastructure of the subdivision a construction trailer is on site. That is standard. That is not something that requires any additional approvals. Helmer: When we are looking at maybe two months to get started with that I hate to have to take it all apart and disconnect electricity and move it out and then move it back in two months. I would request that you allow us additional time. Shackelford: Thank you. I would like to start with a question of staff, I remember three years ago when we originally approved this there were a lot of concerns and pending complaints from neighbors and that's why we did all the landscaping requirements and that sort of thing. We did make it a Conditional Use so that we could maintain a chance to look at this over time. Do we have any recorded complaints from anybody on this specific building? Warrick: The one that we have in writing is included in your packets. I don't recall others over the three year period and we don't have other documentation in the file so that is the one that we did receive. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 65 Shackelford: Thank you very much. I will open it up to Commissioners for questions or comments. Anthes: I have a couple of concerns. As a temporary structure three years is quite a long time and in particular I am noting in the findings that there was a disregard for the conditions of approval during that three year time period in regards to the signage requirements and also with regards to the vegetative screening. Warrick: In regards to that, Mr. Helmer has a good point with regards to landscaping. There very well could've been a miscommunication in the east and the west because the west is the front of the structure that faces Bridgeport Drive. I don't believe that that is enough of an issue to really take issue with because they did do landscaping on the north, south and west sides of this temporary structure. With regard to the signage, I'm not sure when the freestanding sign was placed. Staff recognized that it was on the site when we did a site tour to review this request for the extension but it was not there for the entire three year time frame. Honestly, I'm not sure the exact time frame that it did appear. We have been out in that area several times looking at new developments and driving through the Bridgeport subdivision and I can tell you that that freestanding sign has not been on the site consistently during this three year period. Anthes: Regarding the construction trailer that would be allowed in a month or so if this is approved, what is that? Warrick: I'm curious about the time frame because a construction trailer typically would not get out on site until there was a preconstruction meeting and development plans have been approved through our City Engineering office. We have not seen preliminary plans come to the Planning Commission for another phase of the Bridgeport subdivision or Arkansas Oaks. In order to get through the Preliminary Plat process from submittal to Planning Commission hearing is 35 days. I don't know that it is possible physically for preliminary plans to be approved and for construction documents to be developed and approvals to be sought through state as well as the city to get under construction in a two month period of time. Anthes: What in your estimation is the amount of time that construction will last? Meaning, what is the duration of time that the construction trailer is sitting on the site? Warrick: It is going to vary for every project. It would depend certainly on the size of the project and the infrastructure that was being installed and on the contractor and the expectations of that company. We have seen standard size residential subdivisions go through the installation process of Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 66 infrastructure, basically the time frame between Preliminary Plat approval and Final Plat approval anywhere between one and five years. I wouldn't expect the end of that. What we are seeing now for a development time frame is about a period of three year from the time of conception to build out at least in the building permitting. That is really pretty quick. My understanding is that nationally it averages more around five years. Ostner: I have a question for the applicant. If we were to grant a three month approval Ms. Warrick is skeptical, would that be sufficient, do you think that you could have the plans in place where your trailer would be warranted. Helmer: If they go to Commission with the Preliminary Plat in December, which is what he is saying in his letter. Warrick: In order for construction plans to be in the approval phase and out for construction, all of the state approvals are required as well as the city releasing a project for construction. Staff Engineer is not here right now but I don't know if three months is a realistic time frame, even if it were to start in the Planning Commission review process right now for the Preliminary Plat approval which is what you start with in order to get the construction drawings to that part of the review. Helmer: I know that we've been somewhat frustrated because we had some other matters that needed to be settled before we could even start. Fortunately, everything on our end is settled. It is just a matter of the engineer getting the plans together and going through the process at this point. Ostner: Something I'm fishing for is some piece of proof or commitment if we did give a three or four month approval that it would happen and the trailer wouldn't sit around and be used forever. I don't know how to procure that. Helmer: Actually, I have very little use for it as far as Phases I through VI other than just supporting the homeowners that are there as they need a plat or lot size or covenants or something like that because we only have three lots left to sell, other than for our use in development of the other piece of property. Warrick: One thing that we have talked with the applicant about and that staff has seen other developers utilize, not necessarily a lot in Fayetteville yet but I expect it to be forthcoming, is utilizing a structure that is built by the development company as a model home for an office and for the use of holding as built drawings for contractors and developers to use during the construction process and then the model home being sold as a structure within the subdivision when it is ready. That is certainly an option. It Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 67 would not require a Conditional Use, let me take that back, it would require a Conditional Use, but it would be something that would be phased out and already be a structure that is compatible with those surrounding properties. It would be an option for anybody developing within the city to utilize that concept as a means to incorporate an office into a subdivision as it builds out. Shackelford: I have seen that in a couple of projects that I've financed and it does work. I don't know that we are in a position to really require that. Warrick: No, I think it would need to be presented as a request by an applicant but I think that it is something that we have been thinking about as an alternative to facilities such as this temporary one. Helmer: I will mention that we are interested in doing that once we get to a point of having infrastructure in place on the property where the temporary building is sitting. Of course, that is our actual infrastructure will start on the south side of the creek and this is on the north side of the creek but once we got to that point I have already talked to the owners about doing because it would serve a good purpose at that point. Shackelford: We have heard comments from Commissioner Ostner, I will go ahead and share a few of my comments. We have got a pretty unique situation here. We have a building that has been in place three years. We have no complaints regarding the maintenance or the location of this building over a three year period. Even beyond that, we have letters of support from the neighborhood association and property owner's association in support of this so this is a pretty unique situation. We talk a lot about developers working with their neighborhood and property owners associations and I don't think that this has been a burden to anybody. I think it has served the people out there. I understand where Commissioner Ostner is going, we would want to make sure that there is a sunset clause in this at some point and I think that is a very good idea that he has. I don't want to cut it so closely if we are two months out from having that in place where they can do that. This isn't a situation where we are getting a lot of complaints, this isn't a situation where you know, there's nobody speaking against this. I would like to see if we couldn't work at some sort of compromise to let this stay in place through the next phases. Church: I just want to clarify something, the thought is that this will serve as the construction trailer at the point the development starts again right? There won't be an additional construction trailer? Helmer: No. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 68 Church: My question of staff would be what time would be reasonable? Within six months, do you see it happening within that time period? Warrick: It is really difficult for staff to tell you what kind of time frame a developer's engineers will work under. I don't have control over their time frame, their work load or the review time and requirements for state agencies as well as our city engineers. I am very hesitant to even estimate a time frame. Mr. Helmer might be able to give you a better idea. I think that it will probably be a year before there is active full fledged construction going on creating new lots within this property. I may be extending that a little bit long. Helmer: I hope not. Williams: You hope it is going to be faster. Helmer: I hope so. Shackelford: Obviously, if we set a deadline and it is not met it is going to be back before this Committee again. My only thoughts are let's not waste city staff's time, let's not waste the applicant's time if we are going to try to put a sunset clause out there let's try to make it reasonable in which the improvements that we anticipate coming forward are brought forward. Vaught: I was thinking of doing something like wording it saying something like Conditional Use until the start of development or not to exceed one year. That way if something happens in six months the Conditional Use ends and it becomes a construction trailer. Mr. Williams, you might be able to point us in the wording of that. Would that suffice if we said a Conditional Use to the beginning of development or not to exceed one year? Williams: I think that sounds ok to me if that sounds alright to our City Planning staff. They are the ones who are going to enforce it but I guess that's pretty clear to everyone. Warrick: I guess I would just need to understand that there's an ending. Does the construction trailer go away when the Final Plat has been approved and lots are available for sale or does it become a sales office again? Williams: I think that would require a new Conditional Use. This Conditional Use would end when that became the construction trailer and then if you wanted it to become a sales office after construction then you would have to come back before the Planning Commission and get a whole new Conditional Use. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 69 Shackelford: It is my understanding from the applicant that you are at least considering the model home option that we discussed earlier once the Final Plat is done. I would recommend that we do it through Final Plat phase. If he wants to keep his trailer after that time it has to come before this committee. Anthes: I'm struggling with this a little bit because the applicant stated that they didn't want to pull a fax machine and a building off the site if it was just going to be a month or two because that wouldn't be cost effective for them. A year is a little bit different story for a structure to stand out there with a non -conforming freestanding sign. Helmer: I took the sign down. I apologize for that. I was not aware that it was non -conforming but the sign is down. Anthes: Thank you. To me, it is sort of like we would want to convey some urgency in getting his other plans through and started so that this isn't sitting out there for a year. To me it seems like we should look for a reasonable and yet tight time frame to get that accomplished. Vaught: My only concern with that would be there are a lot of unknowns in the construction process and there could be things beyond the applicant's control that cause the delay. I don't want to see this back in six months because we set a six month deadline. That's my only concern with setting it so tight. We could but there could be unforeseen things that prevent that from happening and I don't want to cause an undue hardship on staff, on us and on the applicant. Shackelford: I will concur with that. As someone who deals with developers and loan them money typically that interest rate clock that is ticking is their sense of urgency to get this thing developed and get it done so that they can sale their lots. I'm not sure that anything we do tonight is going to place any greater sense of urgency on a developer go get his subdivision ready to sale. Helmer: The urgency that we actually already have is that I have people who want to buy the lots now if I could just show them a plat they are ready to write contracts. Yes, we are very interested in getting that done. Bunch: Just a matter of clarification, when this first went through it was a combination of construction office and field sales office and the proposal now is for it to be a construction office or will it still be a field sales office? I am getting lost in the terminology. What is the function of office and I guess that has to do with the number of parking places and that sort of thing. How will this function if approved? Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 70 Helmer: The reason that we did that to begin with is that I am a multi -functional person. I oversee the development as the project manager but I also sale the lots. Obviously, if I'm there and a builder is wanting to talk about buying a lot I'll sale him a lot. The primary thing that we need it for there is to keep the construction plans and things like that to meet with the construction guys. Bunch: Ok. I know previously you explained that it wasn't a typical job site construction office and that is why it had limited parking with two to three places, you'd have a construction trailer at another location. My question is this application calling for it to become a construction trailer or would it be to continue the use as it has been? Helmer: I would say that we would continue to use it as it has been. It was my experience through the other phases that another construction trailer was not necessary. They never did put one on the site, the construction company did not. I would just meet with the construction foreman in the office there and we could take care of our business and they didn't need anywhere to store on site materials or anything like that. Bunch: Where is this in relation to the proposed Phase VII? Helmer: This is actually on the same piece of property except the construction trailer is on the north side of the creek and this phase would be on the south side of the creek. Bunch: So it sits on 13.39 acres? Helmer: Yes Sir. Allen: I have some difficulty with considering anything that is beyond three years being temporary. I just wanted to make that statement. MOTION: Shackelford: Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments? Seeing none, I think I'm going to go ahead and try to make a motion on this deal. Like I stated earlier, we've got a pretty unique situation in two different areas. First of all, we are getting no complaints about this as it is currently being used. Second of all, we have support of the neighborhood association behind the applicant. The third thing is I agree three years is a long time but there have been six, going on seven phases of this development. This is a very large development when you look at other neighborhoods that have been developed in our area. I think that warrants some longer time. Planning Commission October 27, 2003 Page 71 I like the idea of making this thing a Conditional Use, as we mentioned earlier, for a period of one year or until how did you say? Vaught: A Conditional Use until construction begins not to exceed one year. Shackelford: I like that idea. It is a Conditional Use until construction begins not to exceed one year. The sunset clause being at the time of Final Plat the Conditional Use is null and void. The applicant would have to come back with another request for either the model home or a new Conditional Use. I think this would be a totally different situation if we had people complaining about the maintenance of this building. The applicant has removed the sign which was an issue. I think he is operating in good faith on this. I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve CUP 03-27.00. Vaught: When is a construction trailer typically used? Warrick: Typically prior to Final Plat approval around the time that all of the punch list items are completed from the construction process. Vaught: The way that we just worded it the Conditional Use would end in one year when construction began or one year, then it would be construction trailer to be removed by the time of Final Plat? Warrick: Yes. Vaught: I will second. Shackelford: We have a motion and a second. Are there any questions regarding the motion on the table? Seeing none, I will call for a vote. Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 03-27.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-1 with Commissioner Allen voting no. Thomas: The motion carries six to one. Shackelford: That's the last item on our scheduled agenda. Is there anything else to come before this Commission? Announcements Meeting adjourned: 8:55 p.m.