Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-12-08 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, December 8, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN VAC 03-13.00: Vacation (Brandon Mall, pp 135) Forwarded to City Council Page 3 LSP 03-60.00: Lot Split (North St. Mini -Mart, pp 405) Approved Page 4 RZN 03-38.00: Rezoning (McGowan/Candlelight North, pp 367) Tabled Page 10 RZN 03-39.00: Rezoning (Lyndell Thomas, pp 372) Withdrawn By Applicant R-PZD 03-06.00: Planned Zoning District (Benton Ridge, pp 527) Forwarded to City Council Page 11 R-PZD 03-07.00: Planned Zoning District (Brophy Condominiums, pp 290, 29 1) Forwarded to City Council Page 17 PPL 03-18.00 Preliminary Plat (Salem Meadows, pp 245) Approved Page 36 CUP 03-29.00: Conditional Use (Calloway, pp 571) Approved Page 38 LSP 03-59.00 & LSP 03-62.00 (Calloway, pp 571) Approved Page 38 LSD 03-42.00: Large Scale Development (Calloway, pp 571) Approved Page 38 CUP 03-28.00: Conditional Use (Smokey Bones, pp 174) Approved Page 41 LSD 03-39.00: Large Scale Development (Smokey Bones Restaurant, pp 174) Approved Page 41 Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Don Bunch Alan Ostner Loren Shackelford Jill Anthes Alice Church Sharon Hoover Christian Vaught Nancy Allen (left at 6:55 p.m.) James Graves STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Suzanne Morgan Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Kit Williams Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 3 VAC 03-13.00: Vacation (Brandon Mall, pp 135) was submitted by Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Gary Brandon Enterprises, Inc. for property located at the northeast corner of the Northwest AR Mall, west of Hwy 71B. The property is zoned C- 2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request is to vacate a portion of an existing utility easement in the subject property. Hoover: Welcome to the December 8`h Planning Commission meeting. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were nine Commissioners present. Hoover: Thank you. We have two items on the consent agenda, the minutes from the November 24`h meeting and VAC 03-13.00 for the Brandon Mall for property at the Northwest Arkansas Mall on 71B. Would anyone like to move these items from the consent agenda? If so, please say so now. If not, do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? Bunch: So moved. Ostner: Second. Church: Madam Chair, I need to recuse on these items. Hoover: Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 8-0-1 with Commissioner Church recusing. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of eight to zero with Commissioner Church recusing. Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 4 LSP 03-60.00: Lot Split (North St. Mini -Mart, pp 405) was submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Tom Peevyhouse for property located at 742 W. North Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial, and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 8.35 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 0.57 and 7.32 acres respectively with approximately 0.46 acre right-of-way dedication. Hoover: We do have one item that has been removed from the agenda. That is item number four, a rezoning for the intersection of Hwy. 45 and Crossover Road. That has been removed from tonight's agenda. Item number two of new business is LSP 03-60.00 for North Street Mini Mart. Suzanne? Morgan: This Lot Split was submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Tom Peevyhouse for property located at 742 W. North Street. This property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 8.35 acres. The request is to split the parent tract into two tracts of approximately .57 and 7.32 acres with a right of way dedication of approximately .46 acres along North Street. The proposed tract lies within the 100 -year floodplain and by ordinance any lot platted so that the entire lot lies within a special flood hazard area shall contain a minimum of one acre. There is a currently a Mini Mart, laundry facility and gas pumps located on the proposed .57 acre tract. Right of way to be dedicated is for a total of 55' from the centerline of North Street, which is a state highway designated as a principal arterial. This item was heard at the subdivision Committee meeting on November 26, 2003 and staff recommends approval with five conditions, the fourth being Planning Commission determination of lot size less than one acre located entirely within the floodplain. Staff is unable to make necessary findings to support a variance and recommends that the lot include a minimum of one acre pursuant to § 168.04 of the Unified Development Code. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward please? Reid: Hi, my name is Alan Reid, I will be here this evening representing Mr. Peevyhouse on this proposed tract split. While we agree with everything we have heard from staff and we have tried to meet all the ordinances and rules regarding this split the one we can't seem to get to work is the one acre minimum. We would really like to get the split approved with a variance on that one acre minimum. I think you probably have a letter that I wrote to Suzanne in your packet trying to explain what we were doing and maybe our reasons behind why we couldn't meet that one acre. Obviously, it is a floodplain issue. The FEMA map shows that this property is definitely in a floodplain. One thing that we are not sure about is that just east of this proposed split is a 30' concrete culvert that was installed by the city to relieve flood damage along that section of the creek. Wherever you see this split, this laundromat /mini mart, there is a Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 5 concrete culvert directly on the property to the east which extends the whole length of the east line. The water basically goes underground, gets carried through a conduit and is discharged into the natural ditch just beyond this property. That doesn't mean that the FEMA map is wrong. I can't argue that point but I don't think that there is a problem with the flood as much as some people might think there is. We started out with eight tenths of an acre and by the time we dedicated the 55' right of way it brought us down to a little less than six tenths of an acre. The only way we can possibly get an acre would be to create a very odd shaped property which would in fact take in more of the creek land which is number one, Mr. Tune doesn't wish to sell and Mr. Peevyhouse doesn't want to buy land he could never use and it would take in where that culvert is. I believe the city may already have an easement on that property. I don't know if you can buy that property being constructed like that. What we want to do is split the property off, maintain it as it has been used for the last ten or twenty years as a Mini Mart. Mr. Peevyhouse would by no means be impacting anything on that property or on the adjoining properties. We don't feel it would be any type of hazard to the floodplain or any future development of land around there. All we are trying to do is take land out of one person's name and put it in another person's name, not change the use and not change the impact. I think we've met everything except for this issue of a variance and I don't know if we get that from you or if we go another step or how that works. Hoover: Thank you. At this time is there any member of the audience that would like to address this LSP 03-60.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. City Attorney, would you tell us, as Planning Commission can we grant that variance? Williams: Yes. The variance is discussed, I think they copied it on page 2.5. Although, it is hard to read there. It says floodplain variances shall only be issued if and there are three things that you must find. 1) There must be exceptional and extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved. You can probably meet that. It has been there a long time so it is extraordinary. Second must be a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant. Again, I think you possibly have some grounds there. I think the biggest difficulty that staff had, and staff can certainly respond to this is number three, a determination that granting the variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expanse to create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public or conflict with other provisions of the Code of Fayetteville. We heard the applicant say that he wasn't going to do anything on there. I didn't see the Subdivision Committee report. I would think before you could grant this variance you would have to have it as a condition that no further development be done on this property Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 6 whatsoever. Since it lies totally within the floodplain I can't imagine that they could do anything that would not increase the danger. If they did nothing, as the applicant just said, it is very possible that they have met the third requirement also because it talks about it will not result in increased flood heights, increased danger. If nothing changes whatsoever then they might be able to meet that third one too. That is left up to the Planning Commission to decide whether they meet all three of those requirements. Hoover: Thanks. I guess staff would you respond to that third item if they do not do any more development? Casey: The requirement would be the same whether they developed or not. If we did see a development on this site sometime in the future they still couldn't raise the water surface elevation or increase the risk. That would be reviewed as part of the floodplain development permit that would have to be issued for this development. Warrick: I think part of what staff is trying to do is review this, this is a new development request in that a new lot is being created. They are subdividing this tract of land. We have got a flood damage prevention code that addresses platting lots. It specifically states that a lot entirely within the floodplain shall contain one acre minimums. We are creating a new lot and initially it is important to look first to that regulation because that it is determined by the flood damage prevention code the minimum size of a lot that is entirely within that floodplain area. Another consideration that we tried to take into account is that if we are not able to create a lot that meets this ordinance anything that occurs on this tract in the future will require some type of variance. We don't want to basically create problems for ourselves and create situations where a project or a lot cannot be developed or modified in any way without coming before the Planning Commission for some type of approval of a variance. We were trying to avoid a variance in the future and also to meet that minimum lot size requirement that is stated in the flood damage prevention code. Shackelford: Dawn, you said one thing that caught my attention there. The further developed or modified. As I drove by this property it is totally paved at this point. I don't know what other development so I am questioning the modification side of it. If they wanted to do a remodel ten years from now and they come into the City of Fayetteville to get a building permit to change the fagade of the existing building it will have to come before the Planning Commission at that point is that what you are saying? Warrick: I think it would depend upon what was being changed. There are variances that can be granted for reconstruction or rehabilitation of an existing facility. That is the way that the code addresses variances in the flood damage prevention code. It talks about that variances can be issued Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 7 for new construction. They can be issued for rehabilitation of existing structures. We are not talking about new construction or rehabilitation. We are talking about creating a new lot. The variance section doesn't specifically address the creation of a new lot. Another portion of the ordinance does where it talks about minimum lot sizes. Shackelford: We are not really creating new development. We are creating a new lot but the development is already there and I guess that is my next question Matt. I am obviously not a flood expert. If the property is already 100% paved, what development could happen on this additional property that would affect the floodplain? Casey: If they placed any fill on the site or expanded the existing structure that would be taking up volume that would not be occupied by water in a large storm event and that would increase the base flood elevation. Shackelford: In order to do that though they would have to come back through your department for permit and if we noted it somewhere that could be picked up at that time correct? Casey: Yes. Shackelford: Thank you very much. That's all I have. Hoover: Commissioners? Anthes: A question of staff. This building already has some age on it. If we grant this Lot Split and somebody comes back to redevelop and they are going to tear down this building and put something else there, can you see any case that since there is not the one acre minimum lot size that would render the parcel undevelopable and therefore, be more of a hardship on the applicant than buying extra land now would be? Warrick: I think obviously it would depend on the project. It would seem to me that if the will and the finances are there sites and projects can be mitigated to comply with regulations. Again, I'm not sure. I think that there are always opportunities for people to mitigate situations like that through alternative development methods maybe. They might be able to compensate for the size of the property that they have by elevating the structure or some other means of mitigating the situation. I'm not sure exactly what those development practices might be. I wouldn't say that it is impossible. Shackelford: Let me ask the same question in a different way. Assuming that we were looking at a request today to tear down this building and rebuild it in the Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 8 same footprint, same size as it is currently a new building would staff be in support of that? Warrick: If we were looking at a new development it would need to comply with our regulations. It would need to meet the minimum standards for the floodplain regulation in that area. No rise to the base flood elevation is generally the goal of complying with those regulations. It may require a variance. Hoover: I feel more compelled to grant this variance because this is an existing condition. I can understand our regulations if we were doing a lot split that nothing was built on but these are already existing buildings and I just don't see, to me this qualifies as a hardship in this case. Shackelford: I concur with that too. I am getting comfortable with the waiver request based on the conversation that we have had. My only concern is what are we doing to the potential land owner if we put this requirement that the City Attorney is recommending that no further development be allowed on this property going forward. My question is that something that is going to be a detriment to the deal between the landowner and the proposed owner at this point? Hoover: Matt Casey had a comment about that. I thought when they come to get their permit. Casey: Any redevelopment of the site would still have to meet the no rise requirement. If they did redevelop the site we would still have to ensure that condition. Williams: I guess I would modify my recommendation. I would say without subsequent Planning Commission approval. Obviously, they could come back for another variance that another Planning Commission could hear and determine whether or not any development beyond what is there right now would be allowed. I think if they increase the footprint of their building at all it is going to be impossible to meet this variance. If they did not increase the footprint of their building they might be able to meet the variance requirements. MOTION: Shackelford: With that being said, I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve LSP 03-60.00 subject to the conditions of approval as they are with the specific finding in favor of granting the waiver regarding the size of the lot. I think as we have had this conversation, this is a pretty exceptional situation, extraordinary situation. The lot is developed. They are land locked and there are restrictions on each side. I think that by Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 9 requiring the one acre would cause an undue hardship and the fact that this is a development that is in place and there is no new development that is being proposed at this time I think this is a waiver that I would support so I would go ahead and make a motion that we approve this Lot Split as presented. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford. Bunch: Second. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there more discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 03-60.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of nine to zero. Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 10 RZN 03-38.00: Rezoning (McGowan/Candlelight North, pp 367) was submitted by Pat McGowan for property located at the northeast corner of Gregg Avenue at Elm Street. The property is currently zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. The request is to rezone the property to RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre to allow for the development of a 52 unit apartment complex. Hoover: Item number three on the agenda is RZN 03-38.00 for Candlelight North. It is for property located at the northeast corner of Gregg Avenue at Elm Street. Warrick: The applicant has requested that this item be tabled until the January 12th meeting. They wish to set up a meeting with the neighborhood to further discuss this item before it comes before you. Hoover: Do we need to vote to table this? Warrick: Yes Ma'am. Shackelford: So moved. Ostner: Second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Ostner. Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table RZN 03-38.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 11 R-PZD 03-06.00: Planned Zoning District (Benton Ridge, pp 527) was submitted by Crafton, Tull and Associates, Inc. on behalf of Long LLC for property located on the east side of Crossover Road, north of Huntsville Road and south of Wyman Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 8.34 acres. The request is rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District, with a total of 43 dwelling units on 23 lots (20 Two-family, 3 Single-family) Hoover: Item number four has been withdrawn, that was RZN 03-39.00 so we are on to item number five, R-PZD 03-06.00 for Benton Ridge. Pate: Madam Chair, as you mentioned, this is a request for an R-PZD, Residential Planned Zoning District for Benton Ridge. The proposal is for a residential subdivision with 23 lots, 18 of these lots are proposed to be constructed with two family dwelling units. Two lots are proposed to be developed with one four unit multi-plex which expands that lot line resulting in a total of four dwelling units for those two lots. The three remaining lots near Crossover Road are proposed to be single family lots. This results in a total of 43 units and a total density of 5.2 dwelling units per acre. The applicant has provided both this graphic and within your staff report and on the plat the corresponding lots with the elevations and the site plans to be placed on each of these lots. These site plans and elevations are binding to this approval through the covenants and through the Planning Commission and subsequent City Council approval if you and City Council choose to do so. This site is located on North Huntsville Road on the east side of Crossover Road. It contains approximately 8.34 acres. There is a waiver request for the maximum 500' length in cul-de- sac that has been formally submitted by the applicant that a 965' length be allowed. In previous submittals a looped drive was utilized. Staff was concerned within a PZD they are required to look specifically at environmental considerations. There is a significant grove of trees in that location that the Landscape Administrator was looking at trying to preserve and save on this site, as well as a natural drainage way which the applicant has also proposed to remain on the site. Tree preservation areas as listed in your reports are to be placed in a protective easement and there are two or three lots that are conservation easements that would be protected in perpetuity. I have included also a project history that is for the Planning Commission to peruse. We have been contacted about this specific project with the applicant since the 25`h of June of this year from it's initial meeting with the applicant. What we have today is similar but is also very different than what was initially proposed. Just for a little background, initially there were commercial lots on this site. There were also four plexes at one time. The density was quite a bit higher at one time and there was also quite a bit lower percentage of tree canopy preserved. Staff has worked diligently I believe with the applicant to try to address some of these issues. A lot of those have disappeared from our Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 12 conditions of approval as we have gone through several of these meetings. A lot of them never made it to the meeting that you see here. It was tabled just previously. It has been to Subdivision two or three times for review and Technical Plat just as well. The applicant did conduct a neighborhood meeting and I believe the results of the people who attended that meeting are in your packet as well. Staff recommended that as well as did the Planning Commission to hopefully address or alleviate the concerns of the neighbors. Specifically, some of the concerns addressed were setbacks to the north and to the east. The applicant has changed those setbacks. Within a PZD the developer is able to vary setbacks. However, the Planning Commissioners were concerned as were the neighbors about the closeness of this development to their homes. I believe on the north and east side all setbacks are now 20', which is more consistent with a single family residential dwelling unit type of development, which is allowed in this district by right at the current time. The applicant has submitted a draft of covenants as well addressing proposed PZD responsibilities and maintenance of future open spaces, landscaping building types and heights. The final draft shall be submitted with this and the Final Plat that has to follow this development. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed PZD with a number of findings as listed in your staff report. The 15 conditions of approval that staff is recommending are indicative of some of those issues. Specifically, lot 20 is currently not identified with a corresponding building footprint and elevation. That does need to be identified prior to the Final Plat approval for this project. Also, Planning Commission must determine tonight and recommending for or against the waiver for the cul-de-sac length. I will be available for questions. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward with a presentation? Zimmerman: Hello, my name is Julie Zimmerman with Crafton, Tull & Associates and I am representing Long, LLC for the Benton Ridge PZD project. Jeremy pretty much hit all the points that I also came up with. Basically, the property right now is zoned for Residential Single Family, RSF-4. We are proposing a PZD with 18 two family lots, three single family lots and two multi -family lots with one building which spans lot one and two but there will only be two units allowed per lot. This comes up with a total number of units of 43 with a density of 5.2 units per acre. As a background, also, originally we did have a looped street that created a horseshoe pattern and I brought along some before and afters to pass around. This is just to show you how we have come along. Originally we were proposing 22 two family lots with two Residential Office lots adjacent to Crossover, which had a total units of 46 with 5.5 units per acre and there was also one lot for a detention pond. Originally we had proposed a 24' back to back street with a 40' right of way and now we have a 28' back to back street with a 50' right of way. Originally we did not preserve the natural drainage way, nor did we preserve very many trees. The second sheet in the packet I Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 13 handed out is where we are today. As you can see, we have a long cul-de- sac street so that we can stop right before we hit a large group of pine trees, which make up the conservation easement and lot 25. That is why we are requesting the formal waiver of the 500' cul-de-sac length. Some areas of tree preservation, lot 25 is a conservation easement. It is a large grouping of pine trees and a large elm and it is west of lot 18. Lot 26 is a conservation easement and we are preserving some existing cherry trees, some elms and willows. This lot is on the southeast of the property and it is also an area where we are preserving the natural drainage way. Lot 27 is a conservation easement, which is west of lot 21 and lot 28 is kind of a small conservation easement and it is just south of the cul-de-sac. In addition to the conservation easements, we also have areas of greenspace which there is a 13' greenspace along the north property line to preserve a row of existing trees there. There is a 20' greenspace along the east property line. There is a 20' greenspace north of the cemetery and a 15' greenspace along the south property line which is north of the driveway to the cemetery and west of the cemetery. The conservation easements are areas of common property that will be maintained by the P.O.A. and the greeenspaces will be owned by the lot owners but also maintained by the P.O.A. per the covenants so that the trees will be preserved. Also, there is a 40' greenspace in between lots 16 and 17 and lots 19 and 20 and this is to preserve an existing ditch that runs through the property so all those trees that are existing along that ditch will also be preserved. One of the requests from the staff was to provide you with the colored drawing you have in your packets. We showed the building footprints and we also had elevations to help everyone see what we were proposing for each lot. The driveways are also shown on that. We did hold a meeting with the property owners around the project and with some discussion with them, originally we had some varying setbacks along the perimeter of the property, some of them were as small as 8' so we have changed them all to a minimum of 20' along the north and the east property line. They also had some concerns about a couple of our footprints. One of them was Creek stone Way, which was a huge building and it was two story and since talking with them we have changed it to Cooper Lake on lots 9 and 10 which is a single story duplex. We have also changed, we did have some 5' setbacks along the street, which we changed to a 20' utility easement. That area was in front of lots one through five. We have worked quite a bit at this project. I think that we have pretty much addressed most of the concerns from the staff and adjacent property owners so I will just answer any questions you might have. Hoover: Thank you Julie. At this time I will open it up to the public. Is there any member that would like to address this Planned Zoning District 03-06.00? If you would come to the podium. Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 14 Isaacs: Hi, I'm Ilsa Isaacs I live at 2665 E. Travis. I would like to note Mr. Clanton is here today and Mr. Clemens is here today. Both of them said they wanted to say something and address this issue. Just a couple of quick comments. I am going to ask, I don't know who is best to address for this, one of the old sticking points was Creekside Way backed up to lots 9 and 10 and the material I got from Renee Thomas on Friday still has Creekside Way building and the lower profile building not shown on page two. I don't know if that is an over sight. It is a matter very close to my heart since my property abuts three of these properties. Whom should I give this to? Pate: Madam Chair, that is an oversight. Ms. Zimmerman made me aware of that today. That should be changed in our staff report to reflect what is on your current color drawing I believe. The Cooper Lake for lots 9 and 10. Isaacs: Your saying that puts it on the record, is that correct? Pate: Yes Ma'am. Isaacs: Alright. The other thing I want to say just as nicely as possible is the density issue, which is one of the primary issues of all the residents who wrote letters has not been greatly changed. It has been changed, it hasn't been greatly changed. Apparently the parking issue has been modified to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission. Maybe I shouldn't ask, that will come out in the discussion no doubt. I'm going to repeat myself but all teachers repeat themselves, it is one of the requirements. When the just position of the new zoning placed in the old zone is so different there is bound to be a lot of ruckus and there are bound to be a lot of accommodations that are necessary. I would suggest to the lovely young people who work so hard at this, I would suggest to them that the new zonings blend, articulate, melt with the old neighborhoods somewhat better, not quite so extreme, maybe bazaar isn't the right word, but not in such an extreme manner. That said, I will say that it's not the happiest thing that ever happened in my life but I'm going to withdraw my objections. I won't give it my empery mature but then I'm not the pope. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the public that would like to address this Planned Zoning District? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Would someone from Subdivision like to give us a report? Julie and Jeremy did a good job. Bunch: I guess in looking at the historical record of this project it has been to Subdivision several times as well as Technical Plat and staff and the applicant have worked on it and reworked it and fine tuned and tweaked it. Some of the last issues that were discussed at the last Subdivision Committee meeting were delineating parking and setbacks to be more Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 15 commensurate with RSF-4 setbacks. The applicant has provided all of these things so the project has come a long ways and it has made many attempts to create compatibility, albeit a slightly greater density than it's previous RSF-4 zoning. Vaught: I have a question for clarification. The three lots with the single family residential, which ones are those? Pate: Lots 21, 22 and 23, lot 23 is identified as a cottage, that is a single family lot. Vaught: The footprint for that has two units. That is why I was wondering, at least from what I can tell. That is why I was confused. I just want to make sure it is 43. We are stating 43 and if there are 44 I want to make sure that got changed. Pate: Right. If that is the case staff has recommended consistently that all of those lots, 21, 22 and 23 be single family lots. Warrick: Correspondence from the applicant's representative dated November 19`h itemizes that as a cottage in their proposal, lot 23 was reverted back to a single family dwelling. That is in your packets on page 24. Vaught: On a PZD, my understanding is that when we specify these footprints, those will be set, that is what they have to build there. On that one we need to make a condition stating that will be designated single family before Final Plat or how would we do that? Warrick: As this goes forward this does still require City Council approval because they will be changing the zoning that is associated with this development project. Staff can ensure that that change is made before this goes forward to the City Council. Bunch: For the same line of questioning Commissioner Vaught was pursuing, in the covenants there is also a statement that lot 23 will be a two family lot but must maintain a single story single family look when viewed from Crossover Road. That also needs to be addressed just to have continuity within the packet. Pate: That was the intent of one of the conditions of approval to clarify one of the draft covenants before City Council approval and ultimately before Final Plat when they are filed with that Final Plat. There are some discrepancies in the covenants at this time. If you will note, on your plat on page two with the lot schedule, it does call out lots 21, 22, and 23 as single family unit eight lots. Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 16 Bunch: A question for the applicant. In your covenants you are calling out a 1,400 sq.ft. minimum and Sarasota Grove on lots one and two your prototype shows that that is less. Do you need to put an exception in or do you need to propose a different prototype? Zimmerman: We will propose a different footprint. Hoover: Are there other comments or motions? MOTION: Bunch: I will attempt a motion. I move that we approve and recommend to the City Council for their review and approval R-PZD 03-06.00 for Benton Ridge subject to the conditions of approval as stated and with the clarification of some of the discrepancies as reviewed tonight. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Bunch, is there a second? Shackelford: I will second. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there more discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward R-PZD 03-06.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 17 R-PZD 03-07.00: Planned Zoning District (Brophy Condominiums, pp 290, 291) was submitted by William Rudasill of WBR Engineering Assoc. on behalf of Ralph Brophy for property located east of College Ave, north of Township on Brophy Circle. The property is zoned RMF -40, RMF -24 and RSF-4 and contains approximately 6.01 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District with a total of 50 Residential dwelling units (25 Two-family units). Hoover: Item number six on the agenda is PZD 03-07.00 for Brophy Condominiums north of Township on Brophy Circle. Morgan: The applicant is requesting a rezoning and Preliminary Plat approval for a residential development within an R-PZD zoning district. The proposed use is a two family residential project with 50 units, 25 duplexes proposed to be built in three phases. Density for the entire 6.01 acre tract is 8.32 units per acre. The development encompasses an area with three zoning designations currently, RSF-4, RMF -24 and RMF -40. The site is located east of College Avenue and north of Brophy Circle and has extensive tree canopy coverage on hilly terrain. This item must be heard at City Council pursuant to requirements for a PZD. The units to be sold will be done in a horizontal property regime. There are currently proposed two lot sizes for the 25 units. 21 of these buildings are to be built at 35'x40' and four within a 40' x50' footprint. Seven different building styles elevations have been proposed. Styles one through three are proposed for the larger units and four through seven for those smaller ones. There is a proposed 5' area around each unit designated as a construction perimeter and also a deck/porch easement. Building height is proposed to a minimum of 35' above Finished Floor Elevations. Currently this tract is located in between commercial and residential office areas to the north and to the west is Thoroughfare Commercial. This commercial lines College Avenue, which is located to the west of this development. To the east is Residential Single Family and to the south is Residential Multi -Family units with the zoning of 40 units per acre. The applicant is proposing to construct 24' wide private streets with 4' sidewalks and 6' greenspace along both sides of the street. These private streets will connect to the north to an existing private drive which extends east from College Avenue as well as to the south to Brophy Circle, a dedicated right of way. The 24' private street shall be built to city standards with curb, gutter and storm sewer. Payment of parks fees are required in the amount of $19,650. The existing tree canopy s 58.4%, preserved canopy is 23.9% and that requires mitigation of $2,972. Open space for this project is 3.64 acres of the total 6.01 acres, which amounts to 60.6% of the project area, resulting in impervious surface of 39.4%. Some history for this project is that it was submitted on the 22nd of August, 2003 was it's first submittal. It was resubmitted on the 23rd of September after a meeting with the engineer. Several meetings followed after the first submittal. It was heard at Subdivision Committee on November 26`h and forwarded to the full Planning Commission. Staff is Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 18 recommending forwarding this project to the City Council with a recommendation of approval of the requested rezoning and Planning Commission approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat subject to 19 conditions. Planning Commission recommendation to City Council regarding the subject property with the conditions of approval as determined by the Planning Commission. Condition seven, Planning Commission determination of the request for 4' sidewalks with a 6' greenspace. Staff is recommending 5' sidewalks with a 2' greenspace in order to provide pedestrian access and area for greenspace as well as adequate depth for vehicle stacking and driveways. Hoover: Does the applicant have a presentation? Rudasill: She pretty much covered everything. I will go ahead and present what we've got here. The plans that are proposed, there are four units that are proposed on a 35'x40' footprint, those are these four here. They are cut back and worked so there will be a basement type situation in the hill. The runs that are on the up hill side we will use stem walls. The large lots, this is plan one, they are two story. Here is one with a three story and a lower level garage. We have had discussions with staff regarding sidewalks and their locations. The plan that we originally did was 4' sidewalks with a 6' greenspace. Staff feels that a 5' sidewalk with a 2' greenspace is more appropriate to assist in getting better pedestrian traffic behind cars that are stacked in driveways. We are in agreement with that. We have no problems with that. If there are any questions I would like to answer them. Hoover: Thank you. At this time I will open it up to the public. Is there any member of the public that would like to address this RZN 03-07.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Can we go ahead and have a Subdivision report? Bunch: Yes. Like the preceding Planned Zoning District, this one had considerable involvement with the applicant and the staff and staff is to be commended and the applicant on their coordination to work through a very challenging site. This site has not just location challenges but also topography and easements and any number of things and having a jumble of preexisting zoning districts. The applicant is to be commended on coming up with a design that works within all of those challenges. Basically, I think this came to Subdivision maybe twice. We worked with staff and the applicant on helping make this thing fit into the very tough parameters. It is a good example of how a PZD can be utilized to turn a very challenging piece of property into something that is compatible with existing areas and to be able to utilize a piece of land productively that otherwise might go unused. Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 19 Hoover: Thank you. I will start with a few questions for staff. One concern I keep having and if you wouldn't mind expressing what the requirements are and why this is a private street and not a city street? I'm thinking of Lindsey apartments there off I-540 was a public street. Bunch: Just one, that was to make the Stone Street connection. Hoover: Right. Bunch: The rest of them were private. Ostner: The rest were actually just parking lot. Warrick: The differences between private and public, this street will be constructed to city street standards. It is being proposed as a private street and can function that way without having to dedicate right of way there is an easier allowance with regard to setting the structures back from the street. The maintenance will be the responsibility of the property owner's association. Another difference is that private streets are not required to have sidewalks. Staff recommended them, the applicant is agreeable to installing them. This particular location is unique. It is connecting an existing public street and an existing private street. This is basically going to become an extension of a private street, which is located to the north side of the site and accesses College Avenue. The construction standards will be the same as a private street. The maintenance requirement will be the applicant's maintenance responsibility. Hoover: My other question would be a tree preservation plan. I guess I'm a little concerned because the view from College Avenue. There is a tree line along the edge of this property and when I'm looking at what trees are going to be removed many of those are going to be removed and it doesn't look like we are going to have much buffer on this western edge. Warrick: The double hatched area along the west side is within an easement and could not be calculated as preserved area. Hoover: I'm looking at the existing tree canopy and each tree on the west side and then I'm looking at it with the buildings on and the ones removed but they are out of the double hatched area. Are you saying that there are some trees in that hatched area that are not showing on this plan on sheet 6? Warrick: I will let Mr. Rudasill explain. Rudasill: There is a tree row in here, these trees are all existing. Hoover: You are saying that there are trees in here that are not shown individually? Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 20 Rudasill: Yes, if they are smaller than 6" or 8" in diameter. Hoover: Ok. Ostner: What sort of easement is that? Rudasill: It is an existing sewer easement. The utility companies do not plan on using those easements to extend to these units. They want to serve them all from the front so we will not be accessing those easements other than for a sewer tap and we will be very careful going into those easements to make those taps. There will be some narrow areas where we will go back and tap the sewer for those three or four units that are right there in that one area. As far as construction in that easement back there we will not extend into that area. There is canopy there but like I said, it is all smaller than 6" trees. Ostner: On this cross section you gave us, what is the scale on the horizontal? Rudasill: The horizontal is F'= 10'. Each one of those vertical lines is 10'. Ostner: Are you sure about that? Rudasill: I'm sure. It is a 1 to 10 exaggeration. If it were 1 to 1 you wouldn't see any slope at all. Ostner: Part of what I was wanting to see in the cross sections was basically the complete driveway and you kind of cut these off when it hit final grade which sends me back to the drawing which is confusing because that is part of why I asked for the sections was to get away from the drawing. Williams: May I ask, I see there is a letter from him asking for three waivers. The sidewalks were discussed, have you made any decision with staff not to pursue the other waivers? Rudasill: I'm interested in pursuing what the staff is recommending. No, we are not asking for a waiver from whatever the city wants. Williams: They talked about the sidewalks but you are no longer seeking the retaining walls? Rudasill: There are no retaining walls over 10' so that one is not required anymore. Williams: Keeping the above ground electrical lines? Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 21 Rudasill: We are disregarding that. We are going to go ahead and put them underground. Hoover: Thanks for clearing that up. Anthes: In reviewing the packet and we just now had the benefit of those cuts as opposed to the sketch. I am looking most specifically at your grading plan which I find rather unconvincing in terms of how these units are going to be graded. The grading plan shows pretty specifically how the streets will be graded but it isn't at a scale that we can see how the grading for the units is going to work particularly. My biggest concern is that I don't see a good mesh between the grading plan and the tree preservation plan so that when you look at the amount of cut and fill that you are talking about for these structures and then you talk about grading that out and then you are within very close distances to some of these trees that you are calling out to be preserved. I don't see a clear indication that we are not changing the topography level of those trees in this grading plan. Rudasill: The rear of all the houses will be cut into the natural grade. We will not disturb natural grade. It will be a vertical cut within that 5' easement. Anthes: You are saying within this 5'? Ostner: It is going to cut in and go straight up so you are essentially not doing grading for houses. It is either cut in or go straight up. Rudasill: Cut in and coming down. For the driveways on the up hill side we are staying at grade. Ostner: On the down hill side with retaining walls? Rudasill: We will have fill on the front and then retaining walls. There will be stem walls on those on the hill. Anthes: You are saying that you are not going to disturb any land within 5' of each of these building lines? Rudasill: We will cut within that 5' easement, yes. Anthes: Some of the trees that you are showing to be preserved, their canopies extend. Rudasill: No, those have been actually eliminated from the preservation numbers. Anthes: That's not what it shows on the plan I have. Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 22 Warrick: Our Landscape Administrator has reviewed this plan extensively in every iteration of this project. He has agreed to the plan and believes that it is adequate. There is a slight amount of mitigation that is required in order for this project to meet the ordinance minimums. Anthes: The drawings that we have in our packets for the tree preservation plan that has numbered trees who canopies extend over the rooflines of the buildings. Therefore, whose roots are going to be within 2' of these cuts that might be 13' cuts compared to some of these sections. Those have been removed from this plan? This plan is inaccurate or what? Rudasill: Let me answer that. What has occurred there is that all trees that there is more than a 20% encroachment in the canopy have been disallowed as far as preservation and they have not been included in the numbers. We are still going to try to preserve that tree but it is not going to be counted as a preserved tree. It is one that he would not allow but we are still going to try to preserve. In the easements there is currently tree canopy in all the easements that are present. If we can avoid doing anything in those easements we are going to avoid doing it. We want to save the trees that are in there. We could not count those as preservation either because they are in easements. They could potentially be destroyed by the utility companies if they have to do repairs or something. None of the easements and none of the trees that have been encroached on more than 20% have been included in the tree preservation numbers. There is a strong canopy underneath each one of those big trees also. It is a very dense wooded area and those specific trees that were 6", 8" and larger. Anything that was smaller we did not pick up. There are several 4" or 5" trees. You can't walk a straight line through that wooded area. We want to preserve that as our buffer between what we are doing and the residential up above. Ostner: I have a question. On your covenants on page 6.11 for us, the applicant has indicated in the submitted covenants that the height of each building shall not exceed 2 '/2 stories or 35' in height. Rudasill: That should be three story. It won't exceed 35'. Ostner: Ok. Rudasill: Actually what we will have is 8' ceilings, a 12" floor type situation so we will have 9' per floor, which is 27' plus your roof. Ostner: My question is when you walked around showing us which drawings were going where, I think you pointed a three story. Rudasill: It will actually set in the hill. Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 23 Ostner: My concern is this, the view from College is a severe angle up. There is no room to hide, it is not like looking level. Any tall buildings on your western edge, first off, you are almost adding a story when you build up the elevated garage to your new street level. I'm concerned the view is going to be some really big buildings. From the inside of your development they look like three story but they look a lot more like four story from College Avenue. Am I right that some of those western buildings are? I'm going to make that part of my motion or request, that these be shorter. I think you can live with that. Rudasill: We can do that. Ostner: To share, for the record, I was concerned about three story buildings on the western edge and Mr. Rudasill offered to make all the western buildings on this drawing two story, which would satisfy my concerns with the added basement it would appear like a three story from College making it a lot smaller. Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, and 21 and 22. Those are unit numbers. That has been one of my concerns. I am still concerned as is Ms. Hoover, that the screening is inadequate and I was going to request some evergreen screening on this western edge to help buffer this view. Rudasill: We can do that. There are some evergreens actually in there already along the back side of there. This is already evergreens. Ostner: With sewers getting tapped there is a lot of impact going on. I know you can be careful but those machines are big and holes get deep and soil gets pushed around. I would be afraid for any trees that we are trying to dodge around a sewer line. Rudasill: There should only be three taps to that existing sewer, which are those three units that back up to that easement behind here. These are all being serviced from the front with a new sewer. It is just those three units that will tap into that existing sewer. The rest will tap into the front to the new sewer that will be built at that road's edge. Ostner: That addresses my main concerns. Anthes: A question about condition of approval number seven, the request about the different configuration of greenspace and sidewalks. Generally a 2' greenspace is not well kept and tends to collect trash and not grow things very well, which is why a lot of people then end up paving it to the curb line in a lot of conditions in cities. I know you are not going to get as much foot traffic here as in other places, can you talk us through the rational for the change in the 6' plus 4' configuration? Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 24 Warrick: We looked at reducing it so that there would be additional stacking room behind the garages to allow vehicles not to overhang the sidewalk. That was one of the main concerns. We also did not want to push the structures back any further into the preservation areas that surround the outskirts of the site. We chose a 2' and 5' configuration so that there would be at least some greenspace to allow for the placement of mailboxes and anything that would be along the street edge and then to have a 5' sidewalk, which is adequate width for two people walking abreast. We do have some subdivisions in town where the sidewalks were placed immediately at the curb and when mailboxes were built they were built in the sidewalks, which is, I'm sure meeting the needs of the postal workers but they sure are safety hazards and they are not very functional when it comes to actually using the sidewalk. Some greenspace is what we were going for to allow for that. Planning Staff was asked at Subdivision Committee to make a recommendation. We felt that this was reasonable but we are more than willing to go with whatever recommendation that the Planning Commission wishes to see there. Rudasill: Also, please let me reiterate. This is a horizontal property regime. All of the greenspace outside of the units will be cared for by the P.O.A. so there will be a maintenance contract and there will be somebody in there maintaining it. Anthes: That is important information, thank you. MOTION: Shackelford: I just want to start out with saying that I concur with what Commissioner Bunch said earlier. I really appreciate the hard work that both the applicant and staff have done on this PZD to make this project work on a very difficult location. We've looked at this project several times. There has been a lot of conversation about tree preservation, potential grading and that sort of thing. We have Landscape Administrators, we have City Engineers in place to make those calls. We have professionals doing their jobs doing that. I would like to think we need to go ahead and support them and the decisions that they have made. With that being said, I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we forward to City Council with a recommendation of approval R-PZD 03-07.00 with condition number seven reading a 5' sidewalk with 2' greenspace will be required within the proposed development. I am in agreement also with staff on this as well. I think that the safety issue is more important with the stacking to get a safer sidewalk in that area and the fact that there will be a professional service that is maintaining those that we will be fine with a 2' greenspace in that area. Also, add as condition number 20 that units one through fourteen, 21, 22, 23 and 24 be restricted to two story buildings only. As far as screening, I know that that was talked about as well. I Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 25 don't have as big of a concern in that area. If you look at the existing street that is in place with the Brophy Circle and some of the three stories that are in there, I don't see that that is going to be an issue. Obviously, if that is something that you want to add then I would consider including that. My motion would be for a recommendation of approval based on those 20 conditions of approval. Graves: Second. Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Graves. Is there more discussion? Ostner: I would like to offer an amendment to the motion that we require evergreen screening along the western property boundary to ensure that the view shed from College Avenue be softened year around. Shackelford: Are you requiring screening along the entire western boundary? Ostner: I am requesting screening behind the units on the western edge. There is a portion with street only which I would not. Behind the same units that you just mentioned, one through fourteen, 23, 24, 21 and 22 I think it is fair and proper for the citizens of Fayetteville to have that up hill sight line be softened. Shackelford: Thank you. I needed clarification on that part of the western boundary that was not being developed. Bunch: A question for the motioner on the proposed amendment. We have already had a discussion concerning the 5' perimeter around the buildings of disturbed area and the question about existing trees. If there is a tree line existing and we are already encroaching on that tree line how can we require that evergreens be placed in an area that is already covered with trees? Ostner: We do it all the time. Bunch: We put evergreen screening in but not necessarily in areas that are already covered with trees. We have existing canopy there that is being preserved so the question I have is do we require the removal of existing canopy and the placement of evergreens? Just as a matter of clarification. Ostner: As a matter of clarification I would ask for a dialogue between the developer and our Landscape Administrator to catch as catch can, move a little here and shift a little there and use good sense. Mr. Rudasill has agreed that this would be amenable. I don't think it is necessary to tear out a tree to plant a tree. Using good sense if there is a spot where an Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 26 evergreen won't fit because there are too many trees of course nothing should be torn out. Warrick: Can I ask a question? I think that it is going to be critically important for our Landscape Administrator to understand what it is that you want to see when this project is finished. He is not here. We are just talking about that and there is not a plan. I need specific detail about the type of screening that the Planning Commission is expecting if this condition is going to be added so that we aren't looked to later to do something other than what we understood to be appropriate. Ostner: Back to my original concern about these buildings being higher, appearing higher from College. The point of my motion for screening was to soften the view shed form College Avenue instead of looking up the hill and seeing a concrete basement and a two story house perched on top of it that maybe with the evergreen screening you would see the two story houses on top. Warrick: Are we looking at a dense evergreen planting at the base of the structures or are we looking at intermittent plantings of evergreens to supplement the existing vegetation? Are we looking at a certain number of trees or shrubs? I'm sorry, I need to know so that we can do it the way you want it. Ostner: I haven't counted it up. Rudasill: Let me propose something here. For the frontage that we are talking about, because, like I said, that one area is already screened with pine. The other areas or areas that lack screening we can propose a large type pine on a 20' spacing, which is a typical spacing when you are trying to fit a screen. We will fit it between what is there. That is something that is doable. I am not going to worry about that. We can go ahead and do that. Really the only place that it would require is behind those three units because the other place is already pine screened. That area we are not planning on working in. That one area where we do have some deciduous trees, yes, we do plan on cutting three trenches in there to tap the sewers. They will be 12" wide. We may have to clear a little bit to get the backhoe down through there but outside of that we can squeeze some trees through there. That's not a big issue. Large white oak type trees on 20' spaces. Ostner: I'm thinking something more evergreen. Rudasill: I'm sorry, not white oak, white pine. Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 27 Shackelford: Would you consider reducing those requirements to the three units that are going to be affected by the sewer tap work instead of the entire western property boundary? My concern is two fold. First of all, the rest of this property is heavily wooded. I don't know how you are going to quantify screening if you put a small evergreen tree under an existing hard wood canopy. First of all, it is not going to grow. The second thing is if you go down Brophy, there are substantial numbers of three stories on the western side of that development that I think if you look from College the existing landscape has done a pretty good job of screening that. I could understand if we were talking about the areas in which there may be destruction due to putting in the sewer. I am not sure you are going to be able to quantify down the entire western property line. Ostner: I think Mr. Rudasill put it best when he said that part of the area is already evergreen screened, which would satisfy my request. The areas that are not evergreen screened he would make them that way. I do think there is a difference because below the road the buildings get taller. The buildings on the up hill side in essence get shorter. They are being built into the earth. There is a great deal of difference. 9' up and 9' down there is almost 20' of difference. Shackelford: We've already required a reduction in height at those locations by requiring to go from three story to two story. My concern is we are going to be taking out existing hardwood trees and replacing them with evergreen trees or if the evergreen trees are not going to grow in those areas. Ostner: I think that we've already gone over the fact that the point of this motion is not to remove trees to put in trees and I think good sense will prevail. Vaught: I guess I'm against making this another condition of approval. I understand the concerns. I also know the area, I drive by it every day going to work. I've looked at it this week just to try to get an idea as I drive by. We have an applicant that has bent over backwards I feel to work with us and is doing a number of things like sidewalks that aren't necessarily required. I appreciate that. If we could even do something, there is some mitigation required. If we could have him plant his mitigation in those areas instead of requiring additional screening on top of the mitigation is what I feel like we are doing. I just hate to keep settling expenses on expenses on developers for things that we would like. I think there is $2,900 payment into the tree escrow account, maybe that is something that could be worked in with that so we don't necessarily increase the expense. That is just my concern. I don't know what kind of expense we're talking about but planting trees along the whole property line is expensive. Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 28 Ostner: As Mr. Rudasill has said, part of it is already screened. We are only asking for screening. If it is screened today and no one has to plant it then it is satisfied. We are only talking a small section. We are probably only talking about three trees, maybe four or five. That would be fine with me if the mitigation were to include this. I didn't intend for this to be a big deal. As view sheds go up hill it becomes a big deal. People complained for weeks and months over cuts along Markham Hill four or five years ago. Looking at it on paper it didn't look like a big deal. When you add up the hillside and elevation it becomes a big deal. This is a simple solution. The applicant has agreed to it. I think it is a good idea, I think it is going to make a better project and that is why I made a motion for it. I don't want to confuse our Landscape Administrator even more by forcing his mitigation to go a certain way. I would like to leave that up to him if he can satisfy the screening. Warrick: The mitigation requirement for this is being satisfied by payment into the tree fund. Vaught: Could that amount be reduced by the expense of the trees being planted? Warrick: There is a certain fee applied to each different type of tree based on the plan. I believe that it can be reduced based on proposed plantings. It is a determination by the Landscape Administrator and I'm sure that he would be glad to consider that and review it. Vaught: To me that would be the only fair way to do it. We aren't going to make them pay twice for the same thing in my opinion if we require both of those. Shackelford: I concur with that. I can see if we are requiring it on the three units in which they are going to be destroyed. Otherwise, I would like to see it somewhat applied to mitigation. Ostner: I would agree it makes good sense if it is possible with our staff. Hoover: I have to say I'm confused, I've lost track. You made a friendly amendment, did Commissioner Shackelford accept the amendment and what is the amendment? Shackelford: That is one of the reasons I didn't tackle it because I didn't think I could quantify it. That is another reason why I was wanting to say specifically in these units. I think it is quantifiable, I think it is something our Landscape Administrator can handle. If you want to try to quantify this then restate it and let's go from there. Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 29 Ostner: I would offer an amendment to the motion that there be a requirement of an evergreen screen along the western edge of the project from units one and two to units 21 and 22. If an evergreen screen is existing it shall satisfy the requirement, if an evergreen screen is lacking it should be added and planted as the Landscape Administrator and the applicant can coordinate. Shackelford: If any such planting occurs then the expense of that planting be deducted from the tree mitigation that is addressed in the staff report. I will accept that amendment. Vaught: I've got a question. What about the areas with hardwood screening already there? You said specifically where evergreens didn't exist. What about where there is hardwood screening? Ostner: Hardwood screening is not an evergreen screen, in the winter we can see through deciduous trees. Vaught: So they would be required to screen in areas where they are using hardwoods? Ostner: Yes. Vaught: Even if there is complete canopy? Ostner: Deciduous canopy. Williams: May I ask the development administrator, I've been looking at the ordinance and the only kind of screening I can see that is required by our ordinance is §166.10 which is primarily commercial design standards. Is there screening required for residential developments? Warrick: We currently do not have screening requirements for residential developments. We do have screening requirements between commercial and residential developments. It is typically applied when a commercial development is installed after an existing residential development is there or adjacent to an existing vacant residential property. There is not a specific screening requirement for that application. Williams: In light of that, I don't think you should attempt to make a new screening requirement that is not found in the ordinance. I think that would be overstepping the bounds of the Planning Commission to require a residential developer to screen to a highway. Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 30 Anthes: May we then urge the applicant to use, in lieu of paying the mitigation fee, work with the Landscape Administrator to spend some of those dollars in doing the intent of what Alan would like to see there? Williams: I would just certainly urge the Landscape Administrator to look at potentially using some of the mitigation dollars if allowed under the ordinance to put the kind of screening in that the Planning Commission certainly would like to see here. That is a decision actually for the Landscape Administrator and not the petitioner I think. Ostner: That's ok with me. That's a good point. My question with that is we don't have rules in our ordinance for half the things that we are looking at on a PZD. They are not even giving us right of way. They are breaking all the rules with a sidewalk, there are no setbacks. My point or my question, since this is a PZD why not? Everything else has been put on the table and has been arm wrestled over. There are no setbacks, these buildings come and go. There is something in our ordinance requiring setbacks. My question to you is we are pushing everything else around. Williams: My recommendation would be, and I would have to ask the Planning staff this, if there is anything in this particular development that is in violation of our PZD ordinance we should not pass it period. We are bound by our ordinances, the City Council and the Planning Commission are bound by our ordinances. We can't just push around and arm wrestle. Certainly we can work with our developer but we cannot go beyond what our ordinances say and especially putting conditions upon them and upon we're not going to approve it unless you do this. I would imagine that staff in working with this developer has not violated any of our PZD ordinances. If they have in relation to setbacks or anything else then my recommendation is that you vote this down. I would ask staff if they have in fact violated any of the PZD ordinance in working with this property. Warrick: No Sir, staff does not feel that any ordinances have been violated. I would add that in the PZD ordinance there is a specific area that addresses screening and landscaping and it states that the Planning Commission shall require landscaping and screening to protect adjacent properties as a part of the PZD when screening and landscaping shall be provided as set forth in §166.10 Buffer Strips and Screening. It references back to the section that was mentioned earlier requiring screening between commercial and residential or any type of residential and non-residential development. Williams: To make this clear then, can or cannot the Planning Commission because of the PZD ordinance, require this developer to provide screening to College Avenue? Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 31 Warrick: I don't believe that we have the ability to require screening between a street right of way and a non-residential development. The code section that you mentioned earlier that you read from, §166.10 that requires screening around things such as outdoor storage yards or between commercial and non-commercial developments is applicable and it is specifically referenced in the PZD ordinance but only that is what is allowed under the PZD ordinance for screening. Shackelford: With that being said, on the advice of the City Attorney, I would ask that we vote on the motion as it stands without the requirement of screening. I understand the concern of Commissioner Ostner and what we are trying to do and think maybe that is something we need to think about as we go through the review of the grading ordinances as we proceed in that area. On the advice of the City Attorney I don't know that we need to proceed in this area with zoning requirements in a residential development. I wish we would've thought of that a little bit earlier. Is that acceptable? Ostner: That is acceptable. I would hope we could continue this because these buildings don't have setbacks. They don't have a lot of things required in our ordinance. I believe that a PZD is designed to be flexible. It is far reaching and it is supposed to let the developer do things that he can't normally do, it is supposed to let us ask for things we don't normally ask for, it is supposed to go both ways. That is what I meant about arm wrestling, nothing covert or illegal, simply give and take people working together as we should. With that said, I will withdraw the amendment. Hoover: I would like to make a statement now that you all are done with that. In referencing in our packets § 161.25 Planned Zoning District and it tells us what our goals are for a PZD and I want to challenge that this development to me does not meet several of the goals listed on here. One is harmony providing for an orderly and creative arrangement of land uses that are harmonious and beneficial to the community. I am not seeing that, referring back to some of the discussion here we have had on screening, the screening and the issue of the trees and grading. The second one I don't feel that it fulfills says that it should have no negative impact. "Does not have a negative affect on the future development of the area." I think that this is very likely to have an effect, there are a few other hillside projects we have had where most of the trees were removed and when you look up on the hillside all you see are the backs of the buildings. The third one is natural features that "...it has maximum enhancement and minimal disruption of existing natural features and amenities." I think these issues came up when we talked about the grading and how can you grade around these buildings and still save these trees that you have shown on here. I really find it hard to believe that you are going to be able to grade exactly at 5' and not affect this tree 104 and tree 92 and 13. I think a lot of these trees are going to be in jeopardy of that. Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 32 Also, I want to say that I'm not in favor of this project going back to, Planning Commission needs to determine if this reduced setback landscape reduction. I am definitely not in favor of that. 1 feel like if we have an existing condition and you could prove a hardship on why you could not move the buildings back I would be more sympathetic. Just because you placed the buildings and now we need to reduce that landscape strip so that you have enough room to get the car parked in there I think is your problem and not our problem. I am sorry, I'm not going to be compassionate on that. Consequently, looking at the whole thing I would say possibly it might be a little too dense to be built here. I am certainly in favor of the higher density, I think this is a compatible type use for this area but just this particular configuration I think has some problems. If we look at the Planned Zoning District that we just approved, they reworked their street so that they could save all those trees. They had some difficult terrain also. I'm just not seeing here that we've really saved, I know that there are some trees up to the east and I really appreciate that buffering to the residential district there but I think this edge along the west edge is just not enough existing tree coverage. Perhaps if on the plans you had shown that easement area and what kinds of trees they were but you said they were under 8" or 6" in size and it is hard for me to visualize, I've been out there and I saw them but I can't tell from the plan now. It looks like there is no trees there. I think those are pretty much my reasons. Shackelford: Obviously I made the motion so I'm in favor of this project, in response to a couple of the comments that you made. First of all, on the tree canopy, as I go look at this site there is basically 100% canopy on the location. I don't think there is any way that this property will ever be developed that we could save more trees than what this plan proposes. Anytime you have 100% canopy there are going to be some trees that have to be taken out for development. On the points of the PZD that you were struggling with, in particular, meeting with the existing neighborhood, negative impact and the preservation of natural features. One thing that I kept going back to is the current zoning of this property. A lot of this property is zoned RMF - 40, RMF -24, RSF-4, use by right with the current zoning you could come in without the grading ordinances that are being proposed at this point, we could see a much denser and a much more impacted development in this location without a request for a rezoning that would come through as a Large Scale Development. I think a developer could come in and meet the ordinances of a Large Scale Development and have a lot more impact on this area with the proposal of a multi -family traditional apartment complex than the current zoning would allow. Based on that, I looked at this R- PZD as a way of compromise between the developer to allow some development to happen on the property and the desire to maintain the integrity of the location as much as possible. That how I got to the agreement with the R-PZD on those specific findings. I think that it is an Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 33 impact but I think that it is a far less impact than what could possibly go in there under current zoning that is in place at this location. Anthes: Loren, I would have you look at the existing canopy is listed as 58.4%, preserved canopy is 23.9%. I don't think that is anywhere near 100%. The other thing is looking at the configuration of this land whether or not it is zoned RMF -40, I think it would be pretty tough to get 40 units per acre on this site. I would agree with Commissioner Hoover that I remain unconvinced about the grading plan and perhaps it's a density issue. This site is just very challenged topographically and we wouldn't be sitting here having this conversation if the site was nearly flat and it didn't have the restrictions that it has. That's all I have. Shackelford: My response, I don't want to have an argument but two things. First of all, this is in compliance with the grading ordinances as the City of Fayetteville has them right now. Second of all, the 58.4% tree canopy does not include any trees that are less than 8" in caliper and does not include any trees that are in any of the easements that are on this property. As I go out and look at this property, it has significantly more than 58% if you include the smaller trees and the trees that are in the easements. If I eyeball it, it looks almost like total canopy to me. Vaught: I am going to be in support of this project. I think it is a situation where it is hard site to build on. You are surrounded by a lot of multi -family and commercial. It is not an idea site for single family residential because of the proximity to the commercial below it and College Avenue. I appreciate the work the developer has done in trying to do things like create a 5' impact area around each building, trying to minimize the grading that is going into this site to try to make the best development possible. I think those are things that don't necessarily have to be done that he is offering to do. It is things that we can't necessarily see on a grading plan. I agree with Commissioner Shackelford. It is a hard site. There is not much to be done with it. I think it is a good compromise and I appreciate the work the developer has done with the city in offering a lot of things like the sidewalks with minimized grading, the private drives to allow the creative setbacks, which is another ordinance we are thinking about changing, the setback ordinance. I don't know, I just think it is a good project. Graves: I'm also in favor of the project. The staff has already indicated that it is in compliance with the ordinances as they stand. Whether someone may be comfortable or uncomfortable with it, it is in line with the ordinances and the developer has done a lot of things, a number of things that have been outline here to try to deal with the topographical challenges of the area and to make it a pleasing to the eye area and it does conform to the other uses of the property in the area. Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 34 Ostner: I appreciate that. Part of the difficulty I have with the PZD, Commissioner Graves, is our staff is stuck with something like number fourteen on page 6.10, view protection. The Planning Commission shall have the right to establish special height and/or positioning restrictions where scenic views are involved and shall have the right to ensure that the perpetuation of those views through protective covenant restrictions. That is very subjective. They do the best they can. When they present this to us I do not agree that we should necessarily approve it because it automatically meets the ordinance. It has met as much as possible for them to bring it to us. I understand number fourteen is requesting to ensure view protection through protective covenants, that can get complicated. That is why I wanted to do a screening along that edge. I still think that we can request that and I still suspect it might be proper. I too am having a big problem with this project. I think it is a little too dense when it comes down to it with the impact that is going on. I think in general it is a good project. I think in general the higher density ought to be placed on this site considering where it is located with College and with the development behind it. I disagree with some of the Commissioners before me that just because everybody has worked really hard that we need to approve it. Everybody has worked really hard and I think we might need to work a little bit harder to make it worth while. Vaught: Commissioner Ostner, that is not why I am backing it. I do appreciate the work everyone has put into it. Ostner: So do I. I have been at Subdivision and I've done a bunch of that work that has been put into it. Hoover: We have had a motion and a second, is there anymore discussion? Bunch: I will be in favor of this project. Admittedly, there are some weaknesses in it. It is a series of compromises. It is a very difficult location. Considering what our City Attorney has told us tonight I think much of the discussion we have had tonight have to do with design standards that are currently not within the codes of the City of Fayetteville. These are very good standards. They deserve to be considered. They deserve to be brought up in a proper manner and presented to the City Council for their inclusion into ordinance. Currently they are not in ordinance. We do have some setback considerations coming up, we have a hillside committee that has been formed and right now seems to be on hold. These are good places to address these issues. I think the history of Fayetteville, maybe our City Attorney can enlighten us on this, we have had a history of being sued by taking illegal action many times we thought it was a well planned action and something that seemed on the surface to be good to do and it was palpable and everyone wanted it but we did not have legal Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 35 background to do it and we have been sued any number of times as a city for overstepping our legal bounds. I do agree that these are quite attractive standards and I would implore the Planning Commissioners who have brought them up to put them into such a form and run them through the proper procedures so that they can be voted up or down and be included in our system of ordinances so that they may be legally considered. Hoover: Are there any other comments? Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward R-PZD 03-07.00 was approved by a vote of 5-0-3 with Commissioners Hoover, Anthes and Ostner voting no. Commissioner Allen left the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and was not there to vote. Thomas: The motion carries five to three. Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 36 PPL 03-18.00 Preliminary Plat (Salem Meadows, pp. 245) was submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Palmco Properties for property located north of Salem Village and west of Holcomb Elementary on Salem Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre. The property contains 39.95 acres with 103 lots proposed. Hoover: Item number seven on the agenda is PPL 03-18.00 for Salem Meadows. Morgan: With this project the applicant is requesting to create a residential subdivision on 39.95 acres with 101 single family lots proposed. One 1.84 acre lot is proposed for parkland and one lot is delineated for wetlands to be used for drainage and detention purposes. There is also an out lot of 4.73 acres proposed to be used for future development. Salem Meadows subdivision is delineated by Salem Road to the east and the future extension of Rupple Road to the west. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre. This project was heard at Subdivision Committee on November 26`" and surrounding the property to the north is the Planning Area as well as to the west. To the east is Holcomb Elementary School as well as single family residential uses. To the south is single family residential. Right of way to be dedicated is 45' from centerline on the planned section of Rupple Road as well as 35' from centerline for Salem Road with 50' of right of way for all interior streets. Tree canopy numbers, existing canopy is 8.2%, which also the required amount, preserved is 7.3%, with $13,950 to be paid into the city's tree escrow account. Parks fees in the amount of $13,505 as well as 1.84 acres of park land is required. Staff is recommending approval with 13 conditions. Planning Commission determination of off site street improvements for Rupple Road. Staff is recommending that Rupple Road not be constructed along the west property line of the project at this time. Staff is recommending that the developer pay for one half of a 28' wide street in the amount of $144,566.40. Also, Planning Commission determination of an off site assessment of Rupple Road bridge. Staff is recommending an assessment of $11,919 based on projected traffic volumes. I would also like to mention that the applicant is proposing from this subdivision two connections to the future Rupple Road as well as a connection to the out lots. I would also like to say that staff has received signed conditions of approval. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward? Gabbard: I will be happy to entertain any comments that you all have. I think staff has covered them all so let's just turn it back to the Commission. Hoover: At this time is there any member of the public that would like to address this Preliminary Plat for Salem Meadows? Seeing none, I will bring it Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 37 back to the Commission. Would you mind giving Subdivision report for us? Bunch: This is another one of the projects that has come through us before and has come back through with some modifications to the Preliminary Plat so it is not one with which we are unfamiliar. It is basically something that we have seen with some additions and then one of the things that came from Subdivision was adding another access to the Rupple Road area on what had been a cul-de-sac. Basically, it is one that we have looked at and gone over several times. Hoover: Are there other comments or motions? MOTION: Anthes: I move to approve PPL 03-18.00 for Salem Meadows. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Anthes, is there a second? Bunch: I will second. Hoover: Is there anymore discussion? Seeing none, Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 03-18.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of eight to zero. Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 38 CUP 03-29.00: Conditional Use (Calloway, pp 571) was submitted by David Gilbert of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Charles Calloway for property located at Lot 35 of Deerfield Place Subdivision. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office. The request is to create a tandem lot on this property. LSP 03-59.00 & LSP 03-62.00: Lot Splits (Calloway, pp 571) were submitted by David Gilbert of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Charles Calloway for property located at Lot 35 in Deerfield Place. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 0.93 acres. The request is to split the original lot into three tracts of 0.24, 0.28 and 0.41 acres respectively. LSD 03-42.00: Large Scale Development (Calloway, pp 571) was submitted by David Gilbert of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Charles Calloway for property located at Lot 35 in Deerfield Place. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains 0.93 acres. The request is to allow construction of 3 single-family dwellings. Hoover: The next three items we are going to hear together, those are items 8, 9 and 10. CUP 03-29.00, LSP 03-59.00 and LSD 03-42.00 for lot 35 in Deerfield Place. Morgan: The subject property is located on lot 35 of Deerfield Place subdivision which is located north of Huntsville Road and east of Deerfield Way. This property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and when the subdivision was approved a condition was placed on lot 35 that required any development to be approved as a Large Scale Development which would have otherwise not been required for a lot less than one acre. This lot is approximately .93 acres. On November 3, 2003 the applicant submitted a proposal to create three single family lots on the property and the proposed lots 35A and 35B have frontage on Huntsville Road. Lot 35C has no frontage and therefore, a Conditional Use was requested to create this tandem lot. The applicant is proposing to split the tract into .41, .28 and .24 acres. On each of these single family lots to create a 2,414 sq.ft. single family home on each of the lots. The applicant has proposed a 25' wide drive extending 250'. This is to be a concrete drive and each of the lots proposed will access this drive. Staff is in support of the creation of a tandem lot on the proposed lot 35C of Deerfield Place Subdivision and the result of this action will be that the property will be developed in harmony with the surrounding single family neighborhoods. In addition, I would also like to address that staff is in favor of the two lot splits, LSP 03-59.00 and LSP 03-62.00 to create the three tracts of land. Zoning to the north of this property is RSF-4 and R -A, Residential Agricultural and to the south is Residential Agricultural and Neighborhood Commercial. To the east and west are vacant properties zoned R -A and R -O. The adjacent right of ways have been dedicated in conjunction with the Final Plat for Deerfield Place and there are no existing trees on this site and a waiver of tree preservation requirement has been granted. Staff is also in favor and is Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 39 recommending approval for the LSD 03-42.00. All of these recommendations are with conditions of approval for the Conditional Use Permit staff recommends approval with seven conditions. For the Lot Split staff is recommending approval with five conditions for the Large Scale Development staff is recommending approval with a total of seven conditions. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward? Gilbert: Good evening, my name is David Gilbert with Jorgensen & Associates representing Mr. Calloway this evening. I believe Ms. Morgan has pretty much covered the high points. I would be happy at this time to take any questions that you might have. Hoover: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this Conditional Use, Lot Split or Large Scale Development? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners. Shackelford: A question for the applicant. Part of our documentation shows on the Large Scale Development that you are proposing three single family homes of 2,414 sq.ft. each, is that correct? Gilbert: Yes Sir. Shackelford: Is that consistent with the size of homes that are in this neighborhood now? Gilbert: It is a little bit larger than what is in there now. My understanding from Mr. Calloway was he owns several homes in this area, or excuse me, he developed the lots for several of them and built the homes. My understanding from him is that most of the homes in that subdivision are around 1,400 to 1,600 sq.ft. so these will be a little bit larger. Shackelford: Did you have any issues with setbacks on the.24 acre lot with a house of that size? Gilbert: No Sir, everything seems to fit very well. Shackelford: Thank you very much. Hoover: Are there any motions? MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion we approve CUP 03-29.00. Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 40 Shackelford: I will second. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Ostner and a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there anymore discussion for the CUP 03-29.00? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 03-29.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Hoover: Are there any motions for the Lot Splits? Bunch: May we have both Lot Splits together under one motion or do we have to separate them? Warrick: I think that the Lot Splits can be together. They are shown together on the exhibits. MOTION: Bunch: I move that we approve LSP 03-59.00 and 03-62.00. Shackelford: I will second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch and a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there anymore discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 03-59.00 and LSP 03-62.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of eight to zero. Hoover: The Large Scale Development. MOTION: Shackelford: I will make a motion that we approve LSD 03-42.00. Bunch: Second. Hoover: Is there any discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-42.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 41 CUP 03-28.00: Conditional Use (Smokey Bones, pp 174) was submitted by James Koch of CEI Engineering on behalf of Jack Degagne of Smokey Bones for property located on Lot 17 of Steele Crossing. The property is zoned C-2, Commercial Thoroughfare, and is in the Design Overlay District. The request is to allow more parking spaces than allowed by ordinance. LSD 03-39.00: Large Scale Development (Smokey Bones Restaurant, pp 174) was submitted by CEI Engineering on behalf of GMRI Inc. for property located on Lot 17 of Steele Crossing, east of the intersection of Mall Ave and Van Asche Dr. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 16.22 acres. The proposal is to construct a 7,567 sq. ft. restaurant with 118 parking spaces. Hoover: We are moving onto items eleven and twelve which we will hear together. CUP 03-28.00 and LSD 03-39.00 for Smokey Bones Restaurant, Lot 17 Steele Crossing. Morgan: The subject property is located in Lot 17 of the Steele Crossing subdivision. The entire lot is approximately 16.22 acres. Smokey Bones is proposed to be built on a 1.81 acre tract to be created with the Final Plat of Lot 17. A Preliminary Plat was approved on August 25, 2003 and the tract is located between Olive Garden and Red Robin. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and is planned for regional commercial on the Future Land Use Plan. The applicant proposes to construct a 7,551 sq.ft. Smokey Bones Restaurant. The restaurant will have approximately 261 seats. The applicant is proposing a total of 118 parking spaces to serve customers, waiting patrons and employees. Shared parking is not available within the immediate vicinity. The current parking ration per the ordinance requires 1 per 100 sq. ft. and so therefore, the total parking would be 75 spaces. The applicant is requesting a number higher than the 30% more than what is required. The maximum allowable would be 97 spaces and the applicant is requesting 118 parking spaces. Staff is recommending approval for a Conditional Use to allow more parking than allowable with the condition that the Planning Commission approve the accompanying Large Scale Development with the conditions stated. Van Asche Drive is currently being extended east with an approved Preliminary Plat for Lot 17 and street improvements are required to be completed prior to issuance of building permits. Should construction of Van Asche Drive not occur as approved with the Preliminary Plat, the applicant shall be responsible for constructing this extension. Currently building elevations have been submitted. Elevations for a monument sign however, have not been currently received by the Planning Division. The applicant is proposing internal lighting for signage. The site for this restaurant has no trees and a waiver for tree preservation has been requested and approved by the Landscape Administrator. Staff is recommending approval with a total of 15 Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 42 conditions. Of which, Planning Commission determination and approval of Commercial Design Standards and staff finds that planned elevations and material sample information are compliant with this regulation. Also, Planning Commission approval of the Conditional Use request for parking exceeding the maximum allowable by ordinance. The applicant has submitted a detailed letter describing the reasons for this request and staff is in favor. Also, Planning Commission determination of approval of Design Overlay District requirements. Staff finds that information provided with the submittal complies with these regulations. Also, Planning Commission determination of lighting for signage. The applicant requests a waiver from the Design Overlay District requirement of indirect lighting to use internal lighting. Staff is recommending lighting for signage be consistent with that which was approved with the Olive Garden and Red Robin Large Scale Developments. Hoover: Would the applicant come forward? Koch: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. My name is James Koch with CEI Engineering representing the Smokey Bones Restaurant. The first thing I would like to say to you ladies and gentlemen, is that if you want smaller size plans all you have to do is ask. Hoover: We will open this up to public comment. Is there anyone in the public that would like to address this Conditional Use or Large Scale Development? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners. Shall we discuss the parking issue first since that is the Conditional Use and see if anyone has issues with that? Shackelford: A quick question of staff, how does this Conditional Use request compare to the Red Robin that we looked at two weeks ago as far as overage over the 30% that is allowed? Warrick: This is a lesser increase than what Red Robin was approved for. The Red Robin lot was permitted a Conditional Use for 62 extra spaces. They provided a total of 125. The Olive Garden was granted a Conditional Use for 106 spaces. This request is fewer than both of the adjoining requests. Shackelford: Thank you very much. Hoover: Is anyone in opposition of this parking request? MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we approve CUP 03-28.00 if there is no further discussion. Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 43 Shackelford: I will second. Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Ostner and a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there anymore discussion? Seeing none, Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 03-28.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 44 Hoover: For Large Scale Development discussion can we have Subdivision's report on Commercial Design guidelines, were there any issues about that? Bunch: This was from Subdivision two meetings ago. One of the things that was discussed and I have a hard time remembering, was the dressing up of some of the more unarticulated sides of the structure because of the viewing and also to label the drawings so that we can tell which side faces which direction rather than just front and rear and side. I know that the architect was not at that meeting. That was one of the issues was just compliance with the Design Overlay District on the different sides and the dressing of that. Warrick: I would just add that the major changes that came out of this revision after Subdivision Committee, the entire structure was oriented in a different direction. The service area for the structure was previously facing Van Asche and it has been resituated to face west so that it basically lines up with the service area for the Olive Garden. They also modified the elevations to enclose the down spouts and incorporate them within the structure and to change the materials that screened the service area. They added some additional landscaping I believe also. Those were the major changes to the elevations between Subdivision and now. Hoover: Which is the rear elevation? Which is east/west/north? Koch: The rear is west. The front is east. This elevation would be facing the Red Robin lot. Bunch: Are those doors on that elevation, are those ingress and egress on either side? Koch: The ingress is actually facing Van Asche Drive. Bunch: Which one faces Van Asche? Koch: The south elevation would be facing here. Warrick: The one facing the bypass is the south elevation. Koch: The north is facing Van Asche. Bunch: The rear is going to be west facing the service area of the Olive Garden. Koch: Also, this is the cultured stone on the material board here. That material is basically stone and block wall. Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 45 Shackelford: I like the reconfiguration a lot. The reconfiguration has helped in this design quite a bit. I think there was concern about the south elevation which faced the interstate. With the reconfiguration that now looks like a lot less unarticulated than what was previously proposed. I think that the reconfiguration of the building has improved the Commercial Design Standards substantially. Hoover: Is there any other discussion or motions? Anthes: Condition of approval number seven, I believe staff said that they would like for us to consider what we allowed for Red Robin and other properties in the area, that would be indirect lighting and not internal lighting and that is what I would like to support as that condition. Warrick: I believe what we agreed to on Red Robin and Olive Garden was an indirectly lit monument sign. Olive Garden does have some internally lit wall signage. Koch: On this particular plan that you see before you I don't have a monument sign on that. That is going to be a separate item that we have to discuss. All of the wall signage here will be internally lit if it is going to be lit. Similar to what Olive Garden and Red Robin have. Anthes: I believe we had quite a discussion about this with Red Robin and we held them to the indirectly lit. Warrick: Monument sign with signage to be consistent with what was approved for Olive Garden. Olive Garden does have an indirectly lit monument sign and some internally lit wall signage. Koch: The wall signage would be on the exterior of the building with lights inside of it. Instead of having lights on the ground directed at the building which would light up the entire face of the building depending on what type of lights you have. Anthes: I would think an indirectly lit sign would also be like letters with lighting behind them rather than a plastic face with a light. Koch: That is internally lit. That is the light inside the actual mechanism that is going to be for display. Anthes: I thought an internally lit sign was a box with lights in it and a plastic face and the light came through it. Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 46 Koch: I guess that would be similar to a monument sign but the lettering that is on the building for advertisement would have lights inside it. That is what we are asking for tonight. Anthes: What I was saying was if that was indirect that would be a solid letter with a light bulb that would be behind it that would glow out behind it but the letter itself would not glow. That is the difference. Koch: My request is internally lit just like you see on the elevations here. This is what is proposed for approval. Vaught: The individual letters are separate. It is not a box. It is individual letters that are each lit up separately correct? Koch: Yes. The monument sign is something that I haven't brought before you tonight. Shackelford: Two questions of staff. Were there any wall signage on the Red Robin Large Scale Development? Warrick: Yes. Shackelford: Was it internally lit, do you remember? Warrick: I believe it is. Shackelford: What he is asking for, if I understand, is consistent with what was allowed at the Red Robin and the Olive Garden. Warrick: Yes Sir. Bunch: In fact, the language I believe that was used for the Red Robin was that it was to be comparable to the Olive Garden. Hoover: Ok, so we have the Olive Garden standard. Bunch: Regardless of whether it is internal or back lit or whatever, people seem to think that the Olive Garden sign lighting on the wall signs is acceptable so use that as an example. Hoover: Is there any other discussion or motions? MOTION: Church: I will make a motion that we approve LSD 03-39.00 with all of the conditions of approval. Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 47 Shackelford: I will second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Church and a second by Commissioner Shackelford, is there any other discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-39.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Hoover: Thank you. Announcements Meeting adjourned: 7:50 p.m.