Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-12 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, January 12, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN LSP 04-01.00: Lot Split (Dixie Development, pp 368) Approved Page 2 R-PZD 04-02.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Cross Keys, pp 438) Tabled Page 5 R-PZD 04-01.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Southern View 11, pp 519) Forwarded Page 6 CUP 03-32.00: Conditional Use (Mark Brewer, pp 411) Approved Page 30 ADM 04-02.00: Administrative Item: Sidewalk Waiver Denied Page 34 ADM 03-29.00: Administrative Item (Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance) Forwarded Page 37 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Don Bunch James Graves Alan Ostner Loren Shackelford Jill Anthes Alice Church Sharon Hoover Christian Vaught Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Suzanne Morgan Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas David Whitaker Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 2 Hoover: Welcome to the January 12`h Planning Commission meeting. Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were seven Commissioners present with Commissioners Shackelford and Graves being absent. LSP 04-01.00: Lot Split (Dixie Development, pp 368) was submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Dixie Development for property located at 2325 and 2539 N. Green Acres Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.02 acres. The request is to split the parent tract into two tracts of 0.23 and 0.79 acres respectively. Hoover: The first item on the agenda is LSP 04-01.00 by Dixie Development for 2325 and 2539 N. Green Acres Road. Jeremy? Pate: Thank you Madam Chair. This lot split is located at the intersection of Green Acres Road and Colt Square Drive. It is approximately 1.02 acres. The request is to split the lot into .23 acres and .79 acres. Typically Lot Splits are approved at the Subdivision Committee level. However, this was forwarded to the Planning Commission because there is a waiver request. The waiver request is from the flood damage prevention code requirements which are included in your staff report packets. Staff is recommending approval of this Lot Split with five conditions. One of those being the Planning Commission determination of a Variance request from the requirements of the flood damage prevention code. Item two, any new development within the 100 -year floodplain does require FEMA development permits. Item three, one ADA accessible space does need to be painted to fulfill the requirements of our parking lot ordinance. That issue was brought up at the Subdivision Committee to see if there was an ADA space available and there is not upon site visit. Item four, sanitary sewer service lines shall not cross property lines. The southern tract has indicated access to a public main. It does need to indicate that access on the plat prior to filing. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward? Jorgensen: Yes, my name is Dave Jorgensen and I'm here on behalf of Dixie Development to help answer questions and move this through the process. As Jeremy mentioned, we usually do have these Lot Splits approved at the Subdivision Committee level. However, as you all probably realize, there is an ordinance that when you subdivide or create a lot in a floodplain there are new rules and regulations that cause the lot to be a certain size. In this particular case the property is totally affected by the 100 -year floodplain in which case the ordinance states that you need to have a lot that is one acre in size. That is the reason that we are here and we are Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 3 requesting this variance. The property, as you also probably realize, was developed several years back. Colt Square, at which time there probably wasn't too much of a floodplain, at least it wasn't totally identified as floodplain and the buildings have been there for quite a while. In fact, the reason for the Lot Split request is for the Area Agency on Aging is renting and has been renting this small building that we are requesting the Lot Split there in the northwest corner of this property, identified as Tract 1, they have been renting this building for quite a while and they are getting tired of paying rent so they would like to own the building. That's the reason for this coming about so we are here to try to help this along. One of the reasons we don't think it is going to be detrimental to make this split is the pure and simple fact that the buildings have been there for so long there is not going to be any additional improvements so we don't think we are going to cause any increase in flooding, we are not going to impede the flow anymore than what it is right now. I suppose that we feel that it is not going to create anymore hardship and endanger the health and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood. I would be willing to try to answer any questions on that. I know you recently went through a project over on North Street that was kind of a similar situation so some of the same questions may come up on that right there. Hoover: Thank you. At this time is there any member of the public that would like to address LSP 04-01.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion, questions for staff. Vaught: When were the new floodway regulations implemented requiring the one acre size? I am just curious because we've seen two of these now. Warrick: We have had some type of flood damage prevention code since 1965. It was adopted under ordinance 2018. It looks like the most recent modifications occurred in 2000 and in 2002 we incorporated the flood damage prevention code as opposed to being an exhibit by reference we incorporated into the Unified Development Code. It looks like probably August, 2000 was about the most recent modification to the content of that ordinance. Vaught: Ok. I was just kind of curious. Hoover: Sure. Are there any motions? Ostner: I understand that our first condition of approval is our determination of a variance request from the flood damage prevention code. There are three parts of that. I do not see a problem with any of those three. This property is already developed, it is not going to increase flood heights. On II, a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 4 exceptional hardship to the applicant, they cannot sell it without granting this variance. I will make a motion that we approve LSP 04-01.00. Bunch: Second. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Ostner and a second by Commissioner Bunch, is there any more discussion? Seeing none, Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 04-01.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries seven to zero. Hoover: Thank you. I failed to address the minutes from the December 8, 2003 meeting. We need to approve those, can I get a motion for approval? Bunch: So moved. Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Bunch. Allen: Second. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Allen. Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries seven to zero. Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 5 R-PZD 04-02.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Cross Keys, pp 438) was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Charles Sloan and Sloan Properties for property located south of Wedington Drive at the corner of N. 46`h and Persimmon Street. The property is currently zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 38.48 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District to allow for the development of a residential subdivision with 108 single family dwellings proposed. Hoover: On to item number two on the agenda, R-PZD 04-02.00 Cross Keys. This is for property south of Wedington Drive at the corner of North 46`h and Persimmon Street. Suzanne? Morgan: The developer's engineers failed to comply with the notification requirements for this item and we are requesting that this item be tabled until such time that the notification has been completed. Hoover: Thank you. Do we need to vote on this? Warrick: In order for it to properly go through the process notification will need to be given in a different manner than it was originally and it will have to be heard again at the Subdivision level as well as Planning Commission. I think it is more of a procedural issue on the administrative side to ensure that it gets through that process properly. Mr. Whitaker, do you think that any additional action needs to be taken? Whitaker: I think that since it was read as an item of the agenda and folks probably were expecting to hear something about it a motion to table and a vote would be appropriate for the record. Anthes: I move to table R-PZD 04-02.00 to follow administrative procedures. Bunch: I will second with the comment that it be remanded to Subdivision as described by staff if that is acceptable with the motion. Anthes: It is. Hoover: We have a second by Commissioner Bunch. Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table R-PZD 04-02.00 to the Subdivision Committee was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries seven to zero. Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 6 R-PZD 04-01.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Southern View II, pp 519) was submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Lindsey Management Co. for property located at Futrall Drive and Old Farmington Road, east of I-540. The property is currently zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 6.713 acres. The request is to rezone the property to a Residential Planned Zoning District to allow for a mixed use development comprised of 102 dwelling units and 40,398 SF of commercial space proposed. Hoover: On to item number three, R-PZD 04-01.00 for Southern View Phase II for property at Futrall Drive and Old Farmington Road. Jeremy? Pate: Item four is a Residential Planned Zoning District for Southern View II located at Futrall Drive and Old Farmington Road east of I-540. This is directly south of the Southern View apartment complex which is known as Southern View I which was recently completed. The subject property is currently zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and designated Regional Commercial on our future land use plan. It contains approximately 6.7 acres. The request tonight is to rezone the property to a Residential Planned Zoning District to allow for a mixed use development comprised of 102 dwelling units and approximately 40,398 sq.ft. of commercial retail type space proposed. On page 3.1 of your staff reports, the first page, the staff has broken down the numbers of buildings and the number of bedrooms/units. Approximately 17 units per building with 31 bedrooms. There is a mixture of two bedroom and one bedroom units on primarily the second and third floors of each of the six buildings with a retail being along the first floor. There are 348 spaces required by ordinance, the applicant is proposing 302 which is in within the 30% +/- portion of the ordinance for parking requirements. The proposed density with 102 units therefore, is 15.2 dwelling units per acre. The development is proposed to have four means of access, two south onto Old Farmington Road, which is a two way going east/west, one onto Futrall Drive which is one way going north and then there is another entrance also into the Southern View I apartment complex which accesses I believe it is Stone Street, which is also two way going east and west. There is a waiver request with regard to access, the 250' required between an intersection and a curb cut in the Design Overlay District. That is along Old Farmington Road, I believe it is 110' approximately that is requested. Staff is in support of this waiver request from the Design Overlay District. Additionally, this entire site is in the Overlay District. A landscape buffer is proposed along Futrall Drive to ameliorate the impacts of the proposed parking lot that is on your site plan. Elevations, as you can see, have been submitted and I believe there are some revised ones. I'm not for sure if they have made it here yet. The ones on the bottom here in black and white do call out some of the materials of those structures. Surrounding properties are zoned a number of things. To the north, of course, is Southern View I which is RMF -18, Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 7 to the south is C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, this is Sines Auto Body Shop. To the east is the Fayetteville Public Schools which is P-1, Institutional and to the west is of course Futrall Drive and I-540. There are some phase lines shown on your plats as well with the dark dashed line. I believe it is buildings two and six I think if memory serves me correctly, that are being proposed to be developed in Phase I as well as all the infrastructure for all of this development with regard to streets and water and sewer lines. With regard to findings for the Planned Zoning District, in pages 3.7 through 3.15 1 won't go over all of those, a couple of pertinent ones are included. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan in a number of areas, including residential areas. It is utilizing some of the principles of traditional residential urban design to create livable and accessible neighborhoods, both in a vehicular and pedestrian manner. It is also citing residential areas accessible to roadways and alternative transportation modes, infrastructure, retail and goods. It also meets the guiding policies for community commercial areas and providing centers that are accessible and compatible with adjacent residential development. Again, as I mentioned, this area is designated Regional Commercial on the Future Land Use Map. I included some minutes from the initial rezoning of this project. There were some concerns by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. With regard to amount of commercial space which is being lost here and a site which is very visible and has access. There is 30,000 sq.ft. or a little more of commercial space proposed in this area. Just in comparison, a typical Watgreen's for instance, is approximately 15,000 sq.ft., a grocery store, for instance, like an IGA or Harps is around 40,000 sq.ft. The Lowe's approved west of town on 6th Street is about 130,000 sq.ft. and the associated retail was about 50,000 so that is just sort of giving you an idea the amount of commercial that is being proposed here. I included some traffic counts. I just handed those out. I believe there are approximately 1,180 vehicle trips per day on average of a 24 hour span. Commissioner Graves actually asked me to produce that for the Commission to see for the traffic amounts generated by this proposed development. It is broken up into a certain amount of square footage for retail, for office and for residential uses as shown on your printout there. Again, there are four ways in and out of this development. Old Farmington and Futrall and to the north to Stone Street, three ways. Staff is recommending approval of this Residential Planned Zoning District with 19 conditions, three of which Planning Commission does need to make specific findings on tonight. Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards for that portion of the site that is commercially developed. Item four, Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for a proposed building within the 100 foot setback of the 100 -year water surface elevation of the proposed detention pond. Item five, Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for the Design Overlay District requirement of 250' Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 8 between intersection and a curb cut. I would also mention condition number fifteen, the building permit process for Phase II of this proposal shall begin within one year from the final Certificates of Occupancy issued for Phase 1. Staff felt it appropriate that Phase II should follow after Phase I for the permitting process in a timely manner. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward please? Kelso: Thank you Madam Chair. My name is Jerry Kelso, I'm with Crafton, Tull & Associates, the engineer of record on this piece of property and on this project. Jeremy has pretty much went over the overview of the thing. I just want to make a few points. We started this project based upon meetings that we have had with the city and the city's leadership to develop this type of a project. Obviously, what you see is a true mixed use type development. Commercial is on the bottom floor with residential on the second and the third floors to make a true community where you have both residential and commercial on the same tract of land. We went through several iterations with the actual building itself along with the site plan to get where we're at today. We have worked diligently with the city staff. If you look at your site plan what we've done is we've tried to create a streetscape through the middle of this thing what buildings located on both sides to create that unique design that I think is the vision of the City of Fayetteville. A couple of things I also wanted to point out, we added since Subdivision Committee if Subdivision Committee members remember. We did go ahead and add the pedestrian access to the north that was requested. Between the buildings we have created a fence so it looks like we've got a solid row of buildings along with fences straight through. There at the corner between buildings three and five we've got the gazebo and tried to spruce it up with some gardens and kind of making a nice meeting area centralizing this development. Those are some of the things that we've tried to do along the way and work with city staff, the Planning Commission and the leadership of Fayetteville to come up with what we've got. I will try to entertain any questions that you might have. Again, Kim Fugitt is the architect on these buildings if you have any building specific questions. Thank you. Hoover: At this time we will open up this R-PZD 04-01.00 for public comment. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this project? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. I think we might go ahead, can we go ahead and start with the architect giving his presentation? I think that would be helpful. Fugitt: My name is Kim Fugitt, I am the project architect, did you have some questions? Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 9 Hoover: Well I guess if you would just like to tell us about materials and why you believe this meets commercial design guidelines. Fugitt: Alright. First of all, the materials package is all masonry, it is all selected brick. It is very colored. What our intentions are in this prototype, and this is a prototype, we've not done this so it is kind of a work in progress. It is a very fine tuning process obviously. What our concept was was to create a building block of commercial space on the ground floor and multi -family dwellings on the second and third floors but to have a repetitive module that we could build in numerous locations but have different facades that would be designed to fit those modules. Each one of these fagade designs then could be interchanged and interspaced with each module depending upon where it finds itself on the site. In looking at the site plan, what we hope to accomplish by this is to have a lot of variety on that site where no two facades would ever find themselves either next to each other or across the street from each other and still give ourselves the economy scale of having a repetitive module that we can easily reproduce in the field and take to other locations as well. You can see in the black and white drawings, these are actually working drawings. The construction documents are being put together at this time. The conceptual drawing to give an idea of the overall feel and context of the streetscape. Working in the actual detailing we are developing as it were as we go along. These working drawings that you see, one of the issues that we are having to deal with is obviously, how to get water off the roofs and we are trying to stay away from flat roofs. You can see on the end elevations, which this unit has a pitched roof in this direction. You can see that the metal roof line in the end elevation. The challenge on the interior units then is how to pitch that roof and get the water there. On this drawing you see rear elevations so you see the height of the parapet wall on this drawing and the parapet wall on these drawings. Our intentions would be for the rear elevations of those buildings to be towards the street. In your site plan when looking at building elevations, the further away form that building you get the more likely you are to see a roof, the closer you are to that fagade the less likely you are to see the roof on it. The lower elements will be interior to the streetscape there while the larger elevations will be those that face I-540. Hoover: Excuse me Kim, I guess in general I'm having a problem understanding which elevation goes to which building and which elevation is the east, west, north or south elevation of these. Which ones are the actual ones you are submitting tonight to us? I guess if you would just reference the ones that you are going to be using because they are going to be part of the documentation with this PZD. Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 10 Fugitt: Well, I cannot tonight give you the exact elevations to the exact buildings on the site. We just don't have all those details worked out. I just can't do it tonight. What we would like to do is as we are working through the details and working out that process if it would be possible to provide the actual working drawings that would be submitted for building permit approval that can be reviewed for those actual locations. That might be a possibility for us. At this time, like I said, these are prototypes. We are getting closer all the time. This is the initial prototype. What our plans are, you see the tower unit on this far end. We are going to use that three times in this particular proposal. My thinking there is the more often it is used the less uniqueness of that element is. In every two buildings you see these buildings are recycling how they work in pairs. In every pair we will use that tower element to break those up. We can indicate those on the actual site plan that is approved at that particular time for site plan approval or for Large Scale Development but I can't get it to you tonight. Vaught: I think that brings up a good question. To approve an R-PZD what documents do we need to have? I guess it's a question for the City Attorney and the staff. I think we've approved some with the actual drawings and some without. Hoover: I was going to say that what we've been doing on the smaller contained ones we have gotten exactly what we would get for Large Scale Development. That is what I was basing my thoughts on at the moment. Because this has commercial that we would consider it just like a Large Scale Development. The only one that I recall, I want you to fill in after this, the only one that I can recall that we didn't ask for specific elevations was springwoods and that was because we determine it was 300 acres and that was unreasonable to ask for that much detail at this particular point because they would be coming back with elevations on each individual project there. Here my understanding is this will be our only time to see it. City Attorney? Whitaker: I think my understanding is very similar to yours that on these where I guess the nearest comparison is the LSD I had been under the impression that a higher level of detail was expected and that is one of the flexible traits of the whole PZD process is that you get to look to the ordinance and then make a fact based determination on whether you feel it meets those. Hoover: Commissioner Bunch also had something to point out about springwoods, formally known as Wilson Springs. Bunch: When that project came through as a PZD it was done as a Preliminary Plat PZD as opposed to a Large Scale Development therefore, we would have no building drawings and elevations per say. It was just Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 11 configuration of the land which would not necessarily be what we are looking at here. We are looking at a Large Scale Development PZD as opposed to a Preliminary Plat. Vaught: I have further question for the Planning Commission on this, in our understanding of what we are approving, what we need. To me being able to see the footprints, we know what the elevations look like, we might not know exactly where they go on the site but we have a good understanding of what they are. I just hate to see them stop and have to come back. Is there a way for us to approve this with staff to review the elevations to meet Planning Commission's desires. If this is what we are going to hang up on, which it sounds like you are eluding to Madam Chair. You were eluding to, I was getting the vibe at least, go ahead and do something like that on the Commercial Design Standards or on the elevations. Put a condition in saying "subject to review of Planning Staff to meet the spirit of the PZD." Hoover: I'd like comments from Commissioners. Whitaker: I think it certainly would from a legal standpoint that one of the conditions of your approval would be that you get to see those again because the PZD is flexible enough to give you that sort of hands on guidance of a project throughout until completion. Certainly it could be a condition of approval. Hoover: You are thinking though that possible it would come back to us as it solidifies more that we vote for this conceptually, not specifically, possibly? Vaught: I would impose a condition that would allows staff to review and make that determination so it wouldn't have to come back to us necessarily. They are the ones that have gotten it to this point so I trust them that they are more knowledgeable in the urban design standards than we are. For me it is adequate for me personally. Anthes: A PZD has to be forwarded by the Planning Commission to City Council and I believe it is our responsibility to make sure that when we forward that PZD that we have approved it in total and have all the items that are required in order to make that assessment and that approval. I recall recently Mr. Milholland was in here asking us to make a partial approval pending some other approval on something before it went to City Council and we, as a Planning Commission, decided that that was beyond the scope of something that we could do, that we needed to have the package in place and complete before we could forward it to City Council. It seems to me that we have a similar condition here. Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 12 Vaught: I see a difference because he was asking us to approve it and hang in the middle with no conditions on it, it is just approved and ready to go, until the study gets done a month or two down the road. What I'm saying is we put conditions on things all the time subject to review of staff to meet the requirements. I would feel comfortable putting a condition in here for the elevations to be with staff approval. I feel that is something that the City Council could vote on because it is defined to give the staff an ability to just take care of it. We have a pretty good idea of what it is, it's not like we are shooting in the dark here. Anthes: I don't really mean to rebut except I'm worried that we send Planning Commission tasks to City Council for them to determine and I don't want us to put them in that position. It is up to interpretation. Vaught: To me it wouldn't be asking City Council to make a finding on that issue. Ostner: I was about to say what Commissioner Anthes said. Condition of approval number three is that the Planning Commission determines the approval of Commercial Design Standards. I would agree that this does seem like a detail that I wish the staff could handle. I don't think it is possible for the Council to receive this and when they wonder if we have approved Commercial Design Standards there is a little star that says actually that staff did. I think it is up to us. At Subdivision I thought this was it. I thought we were seeing what was being built. Maybe I misunderstood something. I didn't understand that it was conceptual. I like what I see, I would like to approve this but I thought this was exactly what was being built and if this is an idea, if it is real close I'm not sure I'm ready to vote for or against it. Fugitt: When it comes to splitting hairs, I can assure you, I know your experience with building and construction that any drawing that we provide you that is approved will not exactly wind up being built. There will be details in the field that will come about. There wilt be details between now and the time that we begin construction that we will think through that we will come up with different alternatives to so I don't know how far we go with that. It is a work in progress, we haven't done it before, we want to make sure that we get it right when we start. Ostner: For me if each of these prototypes, as Mr. Fugitt referred to them, had a number and on our site plan if those numbers were mixed and matched, if there were eight numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 and on our site plan we had those eight laid out and then a building across the street that said buildings two, three, seven and eight and the others said seven, six, three, two, that is the kind of detail that I'm asking for. We are seeing this, it can Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 13 be combined, mixed and matched but something specific. I don't think I can vote for it if these are prototypes, I don't think I can approve that. Church: I just have a question because I want to understand the whole process that the developer is going through. Is the reason they are subject to change based on the tenants that you are leasing to or why is it that they are subject to change at some point? Fugitt: It is not because of the tenants. I think we have built in enough flexibility, the only thing that the tenant change would be would be signage primarily. It is simply the fact that in the design process you reach a point where you have a conceptual design and then from that point you have to get into all the little details about how gutters work and where you put air conditioning units and all those small things. Each one of those solutions usually creates another situation that a solution has to be defined. That is the process that we are working through right now. For me to stand here and guarantee you that that particular elevation to that particular detail will be constructed I can't say that because of the fact that there may be a detailing issue that may come up that we may change the size of a window to a certain degree or move it over 6" so that a wall lines up on the inside. It is simple things like that. It is just too early for us to be able to do that. Church: Part of the confusion to me is this whole PZD process and us not understanding how it works. I don't think that should work against the developer. I feel like we are getting into engineering their project too much again. I would just like to hear from staff because I think they are the ones that are most intimately involved in the process of the PZD at this point and get their take on if this is the way it is supposed to work or if you feel like you need more involvement in the approval process or how that should work. Warrick: This particular PZD is a combination of a land use request, zoning and a Large Scale Development. Under Commercial Design Standards, and again, there are degrees of changes that can occur in projects through the development and construction process. With regard to Commercial Design Standards there is a section that refers to build out. Upon approval of the Large Scale Development or issuance of the building permit build out of a project shall conform to the drawings, information and plans approved. Under that section it does state "Amendments: Amendments to the drawings, information and plans shall be submitted to the Planning Division. Amendments which are determined to be insignificant or minor may be approved by the Planning Division. Significant amendments shall be approved by the Planning Commission when approval was given through the Large Scale Development process." Depending on what types of amendments are proposed or modifications are brought forward with a Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 14 project that you have seen as a Large Scale Development, this section gives staff the responsibility of determining whether or not it is a minor amendment or something that requires Planning Commission review based on your approval. With this particular project staff has recommended in the conditions of approval item number fourteen, that each building be constructed to provide a mixture of facades as viewed from surrounding drives and streets. We believe that it is important that these facades be mixed within the six structures so that there is continuity and compatibility but also variety. With those two things, again, it is the Planning Commission's determination if you have enough information and you are comfortable with the materials, the elevations, the concept that is being proposed. If any one of these eight sections of structure were presented staff would believe that these do meet our Commercial Design Standards. Again, it goes back to how much of a change might occur between this drawing and what is submitted for a building permit. If staff were to determine that what is being submitted is a significant change it would be required to come back to the Planning Commission. We typically take those to the Subdivision Committee as a major modification to a Large Scale Development. Bunch: Dawn, in addition to the Large Scale Development specifics that you just gave us isn't there also something in the PZD that specifically addresses a percentage of change and what is a minor and major modification? Warrick: The PZD ordinance does go into that. Bunch: Where we would have the latitude to accept this as say a conditional or conceptual with a statement as some of the Commissioners have requested, of numbers of times that the different facades show up and that minor variations would possibly be covered in the PZD codes. Since this is something that goes forward to the City Council. I remember when we crafted the PZD ordinance that that was a concern that we not have to have everything completely nailed down that there could still be a little bit of latitude in there to accommodate construction and alterations of. Warrick: Let me find that particular section so that we can talk specifically about it. Fugitt: Each one has the same skeleton. It may change in some of the detailing that we do, somehow the way the parapets are handled, how the window treatments are handled. There may be a 10th, 11th or 12th facade that we can add to our catalog to intersperse throughout the site. That is what my thinking would be that once we nail all of that down then we have production drawings and we are going to actually get with the contractors out in the field. He will have to have that on this type of drawing at the time of building permit and it will have to be labeled buildings, one, two, Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 15 three and four and to convey that information to the contractor. There just needs to be more study I think done before we can make any promises along those lines. Bunch: In a sense, all these facades will be using comparable materials, a percentage of brick and stone and that sort of thing may change a little bit depending on window treatments or a door arch or something like that but we are looking at floor plans that are repetitive and just interchangeable fronts placed on those floor plans. Fugitt: That is correct. Bunch: Dawn, did you ever find that section? Warrick: No Sir. Bunch: Maybe it's my imagination but I thought that we had something in there that addressed a little bit of latitude on changes. Warrick: There is a section under Large Scale Development, and this may be the section that you were thinking of, it is called Modifications. It does specify minor modifications and major. Under minor modifications it states "The Zoning & Development Administrator may authorize minor modifications in an approved Large Scale Development. Minor modifications shall include, but not be limited to, substitutions of one approved structural type for another or minor variations in placement of buildings in such a way that the overall limits of approved floor area, open space or rooms per acre are not increased." Under Major Modifications it states "In the event that the developer wishes to make a major modification to an approved development such modification shall be submitted to the Subdivision Committee in a form which compares the approved submission with the desired changes. After submission the Subdivision Committee shall approve or disapprove the requested modifications at its next meeting." Bunch: Thank you. What I'm wrestling with here is the deal about sending it to Council not nailed down. How does staff feel if we were to potentially give you a direction saying that we approve these eight interchangeable faces and then give you the latitude to make a determination if the additional modifications that come in are minor or major and if you feel that they are major then to return it to the Commission for its determination. At this time we could accept or reject each individual facade and then give the developer and builder the latitude to mix and match those facades. Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 16 Warrick: In essence with every Large Scale approval the Planning Commission does give staff the latitude, the ordinance gives staff the latitude to consider modifications and to weigh them. My interpretation as to whether or not I believe them to be minor or major modifications. Those of you who sit on the Subdivision Committee probably see more modifications than you would like because I'm pretty critical in determining that threshold of major verses minor modification. The eight sections that are shown here, staff believes that those comply with Commercial Design Standards and if we were to be requested to sign off on a building permit for those, as long as the Planning Commission had approved those, we would be able to do sol. If we are brought additional elevations that add to the repertoire of this project I would take those to the Subdivision Committee. Even if they are similar they are different elevations. Another thing about this is the color variations that are shown are what we would expect to see called out on a final plan and built on site with the various colors that are distinctly different as shown in this color rendered elevation. Like I said, if it were this eight and the Planning Commission was comfortable with these eight being interchanged we could do that, we could apply to that to a Large Scale project. I believe that we have enough information with what is shown on these boards and what has been discussed to be able to do that. If it were additional elevation drawings beyond this eight I would bring that to the Subdivision Committee. Bunch: One additional question. On a regular Large Scale Development it would come back to the Subdivision Committee and not to the full Planning Commission and the Subdivision Committee would rule on it. Since this is a PZD would it then again have to go to Council since it is an ordinance? Warrick: Under the Planned Zoning District ordinance, it does state that all Planned Zoning District applications shall follow the procedures of a Large Scale Development as set forth in §166.05 which is the Large Scale Development section. If there is a subdivision of land the subdivision approval process under that same chapter applies. The land use is the component of this project that the City Council is asked to review and approve. The development with a recommendation on the land use are the components of the project that the Planning Commission is asked to review and recommend on, approve the development, recommend the land use. Like I said, it is a Large Scale Development for your consideration and approval. It is also a land use change which is under the jurisdiction of the City Council. Bunch: Thank you. Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 17 Hoover: Commissioner Allen, you had something to say? Allen: I did. I wasn't there for the Subdivision Committee meeting and I wondered if thos4e that were there are seeing something different being forwarded to us than they had anticipated seeing. Ostner: Well, yes and no. These are pretty much the same drawings that we had at Subdivision but during Subdivision, here again, maybe I misunderstood, but I was under the impression that that was exactly what was going to be built withstanding minor modifications. More or less, those were the facades. I was even expecting them to be mixed and matched. I thought that we would get a mixed and matched plan as we did with Southern View and lots of other developments. That is your answer. I'm a little surprised tonight that they are saying that this is a work in progress, I didn't understand that. Anthes: I would hate for something that we did tonight to stop Mr. Fugitt from adding additional facades and variety to a project for fear of having to go through another step. That being said, I think what Ms. Warrick said combined with Commissioner Bunch's questions allowed him to add the facade and have those approved at Subdivision with a quick approval without having to go all the way through to Planning Commission and Council. Warrick: Yes Ma'am. Anthes: That's good to hear. Is that how everybody else understood that? Hoover: I think I'm confused on that. You are saying if we approve as is subject to some change then the change will definitely come back to Subdivision or only if staff thinks it needs to come back to Subdivision? Warrick: It would come back to Subdivision if new elevations are proposed or if staff determines that there is a major modification to these eight elevations, any of these eight, in the final proposal. Hoover: I'm not sure what change would constitute that. What do you consider enough change to bring it back to Subdivision, can you think of an example? Warrick: I would say if I saw an elevation drawing for a building permit approval where there was no variation in brick color between the four components of that structure, I don't believe I would be comfortable with that. I think that is a major change to what is being shown because these are distinctly different components that are reflected in these elevations. I think if I Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 18 saw, I'm not sure what else. That comes to mind immediately because I know that in order for this type of development to read the way it is meant to read that it really needs that kind of variation. If I saw elevations that every single one of the four components on one street elevation were the same that would not comply with what's being shown here nor the intent of the project as I understand it, as I believe it has been presented. If materials changed, if any one of these buildings became something other than a masonry structure then that is a significant change. Again, I lean very much towards the conservative view when it comes to major verses minor modifications because I believe that development approval at this level is the Planning Commission's responsibility. I would not want to approve something administratively that was not compliant with your intent and your understanding of what you were supposed to see on the site after construction. Bunch: If additional facades were presented those would come to Subdivision and would not necessarily have any of the rest of the project with it, it would just be that facade standing alone to come to Subdivision for approval or rejection, just a menu of facades. The question then becomes at what point in time is there a cutoff? Since all the building footprints are identical and the facades are interchangeable would we allow after construction permits for somebody to come and say 'Oh, wait a minute, we want to put this facade in.' As far as facade D instead of facade F or something like that. Where would be the cutoff line as far as determining which facades are approved and also just bringing up one other factor, this is a phased project. Phase I could conceivably go in with 8 facades and then Phase II could come in with a choice of four additional facades for 12 facades or something like that. How would that work? Would Phase II be subject to re -review after new facades came in or would we just accept or reject a particular facade with mix and match or how would that work? Warrick: If you were reviewing the facades you would have control over how they were applied. Like I said, if there was a new proposal from the applicant it would come to the Planning Commission in the form of the Subdivision Committee. If you felt that they were appropriate and could be incorporated into the project that would be your choice at that time. Whitaker: If I could just reiterate that at least on this one question the idea of what constitutes a major modification or a minor modification, this particular part is not new. This is the kind of determination that the Zoning and Development Administrator and the City Planner before her made every time a LSD came through. While the whole PZD environment is different, I am just reassuring you that this is the same process that LSDs go through all the time. That same determination and weighing and balancing that they do will be the same. Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 19 Allen: I would like to make a comment to Mr. Fugitt, we had a significant discussion the last time you were here regarding boxes and I think the case could be made that those are also boxes but I wanted to commend you for the diversity of materials, even though they can be interchanged and cookie cuttered, that the variation in rooflines and the modifications that you have made and the kinds of materials would make that a project where I would be able to locate where I lived. Fugitt: Good. We talked about massing too if you remember, boxes and massing but I appreciate that. Thank you. Vaught: I just have a question for the City Attorney on a R-PZD verses a C-PZD. It is my understanding that they default to, does a residential PZD default to a residential type approval process? Whitaker: Not 100% and probably staff who works with it everyday could give you some of the nuisances of it but in general. If it says R you tend to default to C. I know that one of the things that Craig and I were looking at when we were discussing some things on tree preservation for example, the idea of bringing PZDs into the whole tree preservation regime one of the things was in a R-PZD obviously you default to a residential preservation percentage. Staff who works with it everyday could give you any nuisances where it was very different and residential wasn't the default but that's been my understanding from the beginning. Vaught: I guess in specific the question relates to commercial design standards which aren't present in a R-PZD. We have had R-PZDs come through, the one that we just did on Crossover, which had no elevations. We had them but we didn't have materials and things like that. Warrick: I think I can address that Madam Chair. Under the Planned Zoning District §166.06 of the Code there is a statement regarding commercial design standards and it states "All PZD developments that contain office or commercial structures shall comply with the commercial design standards as set forth in §166.14, Site Development Standards and Construction and Appearance Design Standards for commercial structures." Wherever there is a commercial activity we require that commercial design standards are applied. In this case the commercial and the residential happen to be in the same structure. Therefore, we need to look at the whole structure. Vaught: I just wanted to make sure because we've talked about something for hours before and then found out. Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 20 Warrick: Most of the PZDs that we have seen to date have been residential. We don't have residential design standards but we do have commercial and therefore, we apply them when there is commercial activity. Hoover: I have one more comment on this topic before we move on. This is definitely a positive, this is a good project and it has got some good things going on to it but I feel like there is a little too much confusion for me to understand exactly what's going where. In respect to what we ask other developers. I am trying to think of how to be consistent with what we've asked other people to do. Unfortunately, I appreciate your honesty but at the same hand when you say that things could keep changing and evolving and evolving for the better it makes our job more difficult because we have asked everybody to have set elevations. Are there any other last comments before we move on? I was going to go down the conditions because we have some other issues to talk about. Vaught: I have one more. On what is a major change verses a minor change, I guess this is for Dawn. The changes that he pointed out with dealing with drainage and a little bit of roof line to deal with that and adding that brick line across one of the elevations, are any of those major changes or would those be minor changes that you would approve in a normal process? Warrick: It helps a whole lot more to see the two side by side, what was approved and what they're proposing. That is generally a much better guide for me to make a determination than just assuming that I understand what somebody is telling me about a change. I don't know that I can fully answer that. Most of the things, just the way that they were mentioned seemed rather minor but again, I would have to compare them side by side. Vaught: I guess I fall on the other side where I see the changes that have been made and as long as they continue on those, of course, a lot of minor changes can add up to a major change so I guess it depends on how many renditions come back through for minor changes from the original. I guess we can always compare those to the original but I feel comfortable, I want to give the developer flexibility in a project like this because it is unique. I think it is neat how they can take advantage of the economies of scale, mix and match and it becomes more economical for them. This is a lot better alternative than a lot of the other things that we have seen that work on economies of scale. I am more inclined to say approve these eight, the newest renditions of these eight, with them going through the normal LSD type process and coming back with minor changes as tong as there is nothing major. The fact that they can submit new renditions to come to the staff and come to the Subdivision only. It is my understanding at the time of issuance of a building permit that these have Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 21 to be set correct and cannot be changed correct? Warrick: Yes, that is correct. Vaught: I think I'm comfortable on the commercial design standards aspect of it. Anthes: I concur with some of the comments that have been made this evening about the fact that Mr. Fugitt is being clever about how to deal with a repetitive module, as he calls it, without it being quite as repetitive as some of the other projects we've seen come through. I would like to submit by way of comment that real main streets are not built on repetitive modules or building blocks but there actually is a lot more variety in a main street. As you are looking at a main street concept having the same mass building repeated six times on a site is not necessarily in keeping with that main street as it would've evolved over time in a natural way. That being said, my comments at Subdivision are that interior corners or a corner where the streets turn a corner is usually a place where you can get extra rent for your commercial space because you have two frontages. Because of the fact that these are repetitive modules you've been forced to leave a corner open that I believe is a missed opportunity on this site. However, that being said, the end facades that are shown here this evening that face that park have a solid wall with a central door from a double loaded corridor I am assuming that open on to that public park space. I think that is the one issue about our Commercial Design Standards and how it relates directly to the site plan that I take issue with as far as approval tonight. I have a question that is kind of beyond our scope that I'm sure you guys will straighten out and that is regarding the fact that these are walk up buildings and your first floor living units are on the second floor and we might have an ADA issue that needs to be addressed. I suppose we are going to talk about these permitted uses later in the discussion? Hoover: Yes, we will get to those. Anthes: Thank you. That's it. Hoover: Are there any other final words on this portion of our program? Bunch: One quick comment. Dawn, if you have a conceptual drawing in color up above and the working drawing down below where the soldier course was added, would you consider that a major or minor change to the facade? This is in line with what Commissioner Vaught was asking where you do have in front of you a variation that you can compare the two. Warrick: Welt, I would say that if the Planning Commission is concerned about a Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 22 soldier course and how that is going to affect this facade I need to know now so that I can bring changes like that to you. Bunch: Personally I'm not that concerned about alteration of soldier courses. It was just in keeping with the question that Commissioner Vaught had asked and that you had responded to about the two side by side right there and then one on top and one on bottom instead of side by side, is that enough that you would consider a major or minor modification? Warrick: I have not had an opportunity to get up there and look at it Commissioner Bunch. I'm sorry. I really am not going to answer that question. Bunch: Ok, I'm through with this portion. Hoover: Commissioner Ostner, did you have a final word? Ostner: Yes. It seems to me that the salient issue, for me, is whether this passes commercial design standards. For me this does. However, the developer has asked us for sort of an open end modification that may be minor, may be major, we will deal with it when things come up and this gets hammered out. I understand this is an ongoing process. I do not recall a Large Scale Development that we have passed, approved, that we have given that latitude with. If I divide the two issues of zoning and Large Scale Development for me it is not ready. I would like to vote on it but I don't think it is ready. Kelso: Can I add this for a second? What you see here is 8 different facades. These 8 different facades are the ones that we are asking for approval tonight. The architect has mentioned that we may have some additional facades but we are approving tonight these 8 facades mixed and matched throughout the site. We have made the statement that no two facades are going to be side by side, which is what we've shown. There won't be any two across the street from each other. That is our proposal, that is what we are proposing. Maybe you are wanting us to show exactly which facade is in each place, if that is the case then we may have some more work to do. It gives us the flexibility to mix and match these facades and if a whole new facade comes about or if we change something we will have to come to Subdivision Committee anyway. That is a typical Large Scale process and what you always do. That is why we are asking for these eight facades, the site plan as shown and Ms. Anthes I can appreciate your opinion on the center but we have met diligently with city staff and some of the leadership of the city that has a different opinion than you do. What you see is what we are presenting. We ask for your approval of that and that's what I've got. Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 23 Hoover: I would like to make one final remark and then I'll be done on the subject. I did forget to point out, I am assuming the small elevations are the end walls and those appear to be all the same so there would be 12 of those that look the same except that they are lacking articulation on the lower level. I don't believe, especially the one without the door, really meets our commercial design guidelines. Are there any other last words? Seeing that, I am going to move it onto the next item we need to discuss. Matt, would you comment on this the waiver request for the 100' setback for the 100 -year water surface elevation from the proposed detention pond? Casey: Yes, one of our requirements are that with a detention facility that holds water continuously that there be a 100' building setback from that 100 - year water surface elevation. We have seen this come up on several of the Lindsey projects, the one directly north of this, Southern View Phase I had this waiver request also as well as the Stearns Street apartments that just came through recently. It has not been an issue so far as far as safety concerns. Normally we see a fence associated with this waiver request but I don't believe we are at this point, is that correct? Kelso: That is correct. Hoover: Are there any comments about that? Does anyone have an issue about the detention pond being closer? The next condition of approval is the issue about the Design Overlay District requirement of 250' between an intersection and a curb cut and on this project we have 110'. Staff, would you address that please? Warrick: The portion of the site which adjoins Old Farmington Road is the narrowest end of the site. There is a relatively unique condition adjacent to this site where Futrall Road is a one way outer road along the I-540 bypass which runs north only. The two access points along Old Farmington Road provide access into the main center portion of this development and a secondary access into an area that provides additional parking for the projects along what is fronts but can function also as the rear portions of the site in order to provide adequate parking for the mix of uses. Staff felt that the configuration of these curb cuts was somewhat driven by the narrowness of the site as well as the one way outer road and that they were located in a configuration that provided enough distance for safe ingress and egress to the site. Therefore, we recommended approval of the request. Hoover: I guess the spirit of the Design Overlay Ordinance and selecting 250' between the intersection, is that for safety? Warrick: It is for safety as well as aesthetics. The Overlay District is along the Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 24 bypass. Therefore, there is expected to be increased traffic in that area because of people trying to access those intersections that will provide them the ability to gain access to the interstate. Ostner: From Subdivision, we discussed this a little bit and the western curb cut is definitely less than 250' and the conversation that we had is that that curb cut besides normal ingress/egress also promotes the Main Street theme. Without this street, so to speak, this can't be accessible to vehicles. The fact that Futrall is one way to the north makes this basically a lot simpler intersection in a way. People will come into Old Farmington and exit but no one will come south on Futrall to try to turn in. Hoover: Are there any other comments about the curb cuts? I guess if the Commissioners would read through these and see if there are any other ones that you would like to discuss. I am going to 19, just for clarification. Overhead electric lines 12kV and under shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall be located underground. Is everything going to end up underground or are there some that are over 12kV? Kelso: I don't think there is anything over 12kV there so everything will be underground. Bunch: What about the one on the eastern border? Kelso: I don't think so because I think we lowered that when we did the other phase up there at the north. We put that underground. I would like to make one clarification for the record. We have the numbers a little bit off here. Actually there are 12 two bedroom units and 7 one bedroom instead of 14 and 3. Parking space requirements is still the same, it is 31 spaces per building so that is the same, I just wanted to be sure to get that on the record because we had those numbers off a little bit. Hoover: Thank you. Bunch: If we are more or less through the conditions of approval, on page 3.16 there is a listing of the Use Units. Previously at the applicant's request Use Units 8, 9, and 10 were removed. Staff is recommending that Use Units 19 and 24 be removed as well. Jerry, could you respond to that? Use Unit 19 is commercial recreation small site and Use Unit 24 is home occupations. Have you considered that in your package? Kelso: No. What we were trying to do is just keep our options open on what is going to go there. Obviously, it is rental for a tenant. We have got one ownership that is going to own the whole thing so he is going to have Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 25 control on what goes in and what doesn't go in there. I guess I would have to have a definition on what these are if staff doesn't mind. We can make that determination on whether we want those in there or not. It may not make any sense to put those in there, I don't know. Bunch: That was just something that was dangling that I wanted to clear up because it is a recommendation that staff has made but it was buried more deeply in our packet. Kelso: I didn't notice that, I just looked at the conditions of approval and agreed to them. Pate: Use Unit 19 Commercial Recreation Small Sites in our Use Units included uses are billiards and pool parlors, bowling alleys, slot car tracks, skating rinks, video arcades, indoor theaters. Use Unit 24, as mentioned, is the Home Occupation. That basically consists of businesses for which financial compensation is received conducted in a dwelling unit and generates motor vehicle traffic to that dwelling unit. Kelso: I can see that most of that wouldn't apply but it depends on the interpretation of something. If you have somebody that may want to rent space out and have a few pool tables in there. Bunch: I wondered about the Use Unit 19 but Use Unit 24, home occupations, could you address that? That would be a renter having a business on the second or third floor. Kelso: We can delete that one if we need to. Fugitt: In looking at our options, I think that we were reluctant to rule out anything at this point. My only thinking is that I know one of the issues when we first started this was the amount of residential and commercial. Down the line I could see if this did turn out to be as popular as we all hope it could be that if a professional services, for instance, accountants, attorneys, architects, engineers or whatever, found this area attractive and it was viable to make some of that second floor space into office space for that type of use, that is not at all what we would expect but that is a possibility. I don't know that we would want to restrict ourselves in that situation. Vaught: On that it reminds me, for those that went to Mud Island, and we toured that residential multi -use area where they did have some professional offices on the second and third floors because that was what was demanded. I thought it worked well. I liked the character it portrayed so that doesn't bother me. That is not a home office, that is more of a Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 26 commercial item. On a PZD how does it run? Are they limited by what we are passing on what they put on each floor or how does it work? Whitaker: It has to do with gross floor area within the development. "In no instance shall the residential use area be less than 51% of the gross floor area within the development." Vaught: So they could put commercial on the second floor as long as it doesn't go above 51 %? Whitaker: That is my understanding. If Planning staff has a different understanding. Fugitt: The way that the units are structured there are no interior bearing walls so an individual could take a second floor apartment and gut it and create office space there. Ostner: That is something that you all would be amenable to considering? Fugitt: Yes, I think that we would consider it. Ostner: You are well below the 51 % threshold, there is a lot of room. Fugitt: I would just say that we would like to keep our options open. We would foresee this facility functioning exactly how it is designed but who knows what will happen five or ten years down the road. If it does take off like we all hope it does there may be the demand for that. Warrick: I would just say with regard to that, the specific use unit is for a home occupation. If they were going to convert, for instance, a second floor apartment to an attorney's office that would not be a home occupation, that would just be an office use on the second level as opposed to the first. Staff would not be opposed to that. That fits into this type of project. Again, we were talking about whether or not it would be appropriate for the Use Unit that is titled Home Occupations where someone lives and works within the same four walls and whether or not those needed to be included as Use Units. Staff is recommending that they be removed but it doesn't really shift the nature of this in either real direction. Home occupations in a residential district require a Conditional Use approval. The Planning Commission would see them because this is an R-PZD and therefore, a R district, a Home Occupation would come before you. They would be permitted under the conditions of a Conditional Use under that review process. We just felt like in a Planned Zoning District where it is a mixed use if there is going to be an office on the second floor then it is going to be an office as opposed to a residence combination of a residence/office. Again, that is not something that is going to sway the Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 27 nature of this project nor our recommendation. We still feel like we are recommending approval on it and should the applicant not remove that Use Unit that does not change our recommendation. Anthes: First, when we talk about a vibrant situation the fact that somebody might be a tailor and run that out of their home in this kind of situation or an architect that happens to draw houses for a living out of their spare bedroom seems to be part of a mixed use kind of vibrant area so I'm less bothered by that. I don't know how that affects parking requirements and whether that sort of thing would make us want to see it as a Conditional Use just so we understood and could keep a handle on that. The fact that this is planned to be one owner however, makes me think that that owner will mediate any troublesome complaints from any adjacent residences and would not introduce something in there that would be distasteful to an adjacent resident where it might be if it was an owned unit. I am personally less worried about it and don't have any problem leaving that Use Unit in as a use by right. Ostner: Would you like to add that to the packet formally? Anthes: That is my comment. Bunch: What about the ADA issue on the second floor? Anthes: I think Inspections has to deal with that. Hoover: I don't believe that is our jurisdiction frankly. It is a good question though because it could change the design. One issue that we haven't discussed tonight that was provided for us was the trip use generation. Staff would you just give us a little summary of that? One of the findings that we have to make is that we are not increasing congestion. Warrick: The trip generation report indicates, and this is using the Institute of Traffic Engineers Microtrans Software, on 24 hour two way average weekday volume between the apartment units would generate 676 trips. With regard to the mixed use portion, we took a guess at a reasonable breakout of space and assigned 15,000 gross square feet to general office and 25,000 to specialty retail. That may or may not be exactly what goes into this space but we felt like it was enough of a reasonable guess to base providing some sort of traffic count on. For the office it would generate approximately 165 vehicle trips per day and for the retail 1,017 for a total of 1,858 vehicle trips on an average 24 hour weekday volume. Obviously, the retail is going to be the larger generator of traffic and again, with the variety of uses that are allowed within the commercial areas of this project they may not all be retail, they may all be retail. We assigned a larger Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 28 number to that because that would be a worse case scenario with regard to traffic generation. Those are the numbers that we generated for the breakout that we plugged into the software. MOTION: Bunch: I would like to move that we approve R-PZD 04-01.00 and recommend to the City Council for their consideration and approval with the addition to condition of approval number three that we have approved the eight presented facades for Commercial Design Standards and add the note that was presented to us by the applicant, that no two of the eight facades shall be next to each other and no two of the same facades shall be across from each other and that the tower fapade only be used three times within the development. Vaught: I will second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch and a second by Commissioner Vaught, is there anymore discussion? Anthes: I only have one question and that is because of the end facades. I don't want to hold up the project because of the end facades but I have some question as Ms. Hoover does that the base of those end facades, and the fact that we've got the air conditioning units on them may not meet the design standards as well as everything else you have on the other eight proposed facades. I also am very concerned about the ones that open out onto the park. I wouldn't want that to come back to us, I would want that to be worked out with staff. Would you be willing to look at those? Fugitt: Certainly. That is the sort of thing that we are doing as we speak. It was not until we actually got the site plan nailed down and resolved those issues that we realized that there were some end elevations that could be opened up to our advantage. These end elevations, we have end elevations that will face this alley type situation where we perceive all the dumpsters and transformers and all those negative type things are and so we will close those areas but the end elevations I can see ways, and that is something that we are working on right now, to be able to open those ends and have windows and fenestrations in that ground floor on those ends that face the outside. Anthes: That would be great. Ostner: That was going to be my two fold comment. I was going to ask about the ends and with Mr. Bunch's additions to condition number three I can see voting for this and I will vote for this tonight with the understanding that Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 29 with fenestrations that the ends should look more like the fronts because the ends are very prominent. The fact that no two elevations face each other and no two are going to be side by side makes a big difference to me. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward R-PZD 04-01.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 6-1-0 with Commissioner Hoover voting no. Thomas: The motion carries six to one. Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 30 CUP 03-32.00: Conditional Use (Mark Brewer, pp 411) was submitted by Bill Rudasill of WBR Engineering Associates, P.A. on behalf of Mark Brewer for property located at 3501 Whippoorwill Ct. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre and contains approximately 4.9 acres. The request is to allow for a tandem lot. Hoover: The next item on the agenda is CUP 03-32.00 for property located at 3501 Whippoorwill Court. Jeremy? Pate: Thank you Madam Chair. This Conditional Use was submitted by Bill Rudasill on behalf of Mr. Mark Brewer for property located on Whippoorwill Court and Whippoorwill Lane down to the southwest. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 4.9 acres in total. This is part of the Gaddy Acres subdivision that was platted in 1990 I believe. In your packets on pages 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13 there is sort of a dated time line of how this lot has changed from what it was platted in 1990 at 2.45 acres. In 2000 the property line was adjusted to 1.26 acres still with some 25' of frontage onto Whippoorwill Lane down to the southwest and the proposal before us tonight is to create a tandem lot of .71 acres out of Lot 17 which would allow for the property of Lot 21 to abut the right of way on Whippoorwill Lane as well as Whippoorwill Court up to the northeast. Just as a point, with the 2000 property line adjustment there was also an access easement so that the property owner of this lot, Mr. Brewer owns both of these lots, the property owner did have access, he is just adjusting the property line. Again, a property line adjustment is an administrative action and that is approved at staff level. The request tonight is to create the tandem lot. In the findings the applicant has complied with specific rules governing this individual Conditional Use request. The tandem lot will have access to a public street by way of a 20' private drive with a 25' access easement. That is within the conditions of approval that staff is recommending. The proposed access is an existing drive within an easement off of Whippoorwill Lane through Lot 21. The drive is required to be expanded to a minimum of 20' wide at the time of building permit for that Lot 17. A minimum of 25' from Whippoorwill Lane is also required to be paved. Some findings particularly with regard for Conditional Uses for tandem lots that staff is required to make, parking shall not be located on the drive at the time of development on Lot 17. All residential carts and recycling bins have to be taken out to the street. There have been some plat revisions that have been addressed here in some of these comments. The terrain in this area does slope and varies significantly. With the original platting of this lot there were I think 5 to 6 to 7 tandem lots actually platted with the subdivision because of terrain because of the impact of city streets on this lot. When we visited the site I believe most of the Commissioners realized that was a very important factor in platting the subdivision. Therefore, staff finds that it is compatible with the Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 31 surrounding lots. Staff is recommending approval of this Conditional Use subject to six conditions. Just briefly, a tandem lot again, shall have access to a public street and that does need to be widened to a minimum of 20' to allow for fire access to that lot at the time of building permit. I believe I have mentioned everything else. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward please? Fox: My name is Kevin Fox, I'm standing in for Bill Rudasill. There is a seventh condition. Casey: Yes, there is one condition that we would like to add to the conditions of approval and that is that an 8" sewer main be extended to serve Lot 17 and that a 20' utility easement be dedicated to facilitate that line. Hoover: An 8" sewer line be extended to Lot 17 and what else? Casey: And a dedicated 20' utility easement for that. Hoover: Ok. Thank you. Fox: I will answer any questions that you might have. Hoover: Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this CUP 03-32.00? Seeing that there is no one left I assume not. I will bring it back to the Commissioners. MOTION: Bunch: I move that we approve CUP 03-33.00 with the added seventh condition of approval for an 8" sewer main to be extended to Lot 17 and a 20' utility easement dedicated. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Bunch. Ostner: Second. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Ostner, is there more discussion? Ostner: Yes Madam Chair. I believe this is CUP 03-32.00, I want to make sure we are all voting on the same issue. Bunch: Motion amended to say CUP 03-32.00. Hoover: Is there any other comment? Renee? Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 32 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 03-32.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries seven to zero. Hoover: Thank you. Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 33 ADM 04-02.00: Administrative Item: Sidewalk Waiver submitted by Kathy Parker Mastalerz for property located at 811 Huntsville Road. The request is to waive the requirement for a sidewalk and required fees -in -lieu at the subject property. Hoover: The next item on the agenda is ADM 04-02.00 a sidewalk waiver request. Warrick: This particular request is to waive the sidewalk requirements for a new single family home. The site was created through a Lot Split which was approved by the Subdivision Committee unanimously on June 12, 2003. The purpose was to allow the construction of a new single family home on a separate lot of record. The Unified Development Code does state that for any new structure construction of a sidewalk is required at the time of lot approval or certificate of occupancy for a new structure. The ordinance does allow for a waiver of the construction sidewalk to be granted by the Sidewalk Administrator with a fee in lieu of construction being paid to the city for construction of sidewalks within the quadrant of the city where the subject property is located. For a single family home that fee has been determined by the City Council based on rough proportionality to be $630. The applicant is requesting that that fee be waived. There is a memo in your packet from the Sidewalk Administrator. We did also include a letter from the applicant making the request and the Lot Split staff report from June with staff's findings as well as the minutes of the actions taken on that. The method for requesting a waiver of this particular requirement goes to the argument of rough proportionality. The applicant is required to meet the thresholds as defined in § 155.06. We have included that section on required dedications and improvements in your packet on page 5.4. Basically, it states that the owner or developer who is aggrieved by the requirements of the Unified Development Code for land right of way or easement dedication, construction of on site or offsite improvements or payments in lieu of any dedication improvements which are in excess of the rough proportionality of the impact of a development on a city's infrastructure or services may appeal such requirement to the Planning Commission. That is what is before you today. Under Subsection B in that same area the Planning Commission shall determine after a public hearing whether the required dedications and improvements meet the rough proportionality of the impact of a development on city infrastructure and services. If the requirements are in excess of the rough proportionality the Planning Commission is empowered to modify or reduce such requirements to achieve a rough proportionality. Staff is recommending denial of this waiver request. Hoover: I guess I will ask if there is any member of the audience that would like to address this ADM 04-02.00. Seeing none, I will bring it to the Commission. Are there any comments or motions? Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 34 Vaught: I have a question. In looking through this, you guys attached the original approval which had specified the parks fees but the sidewalk fees were not specified. Is that something that we would normally specify in conditions of approval or is that something that just falls into this additional conditions? Warrick: The sidewalk requirement does not come into play until a building permit is requested. At the time of Lot Split that is not part of that consideration. When a building permit was requested for this project the Sidewalk Administrator is required to review that building permit and make a requirement. Under Code §171.02 the application of provisions, the provision is the requirement of a land owner to construct a sidewalk applies when any new structure is being built and therefore, the requirement for a sidewalk was applied to the building permit. The applicant chose not to build the sidewalk. The Sidewalk Administrator agreed that it was a reasonable situation to apply the fee in lieu of construction on this particular project. That goes back to the section of that ordinance that states to facilitate administration of this ordinance for certain recurrent types of development the City Council has determined that the city will accept as the roughly proportionate impact the amount shown below for a single family home that amount is $630. Vaught: My question is just because we see them all the time where they have as a condition of approval construction of sidewalks or fee in lieu in the conditions of approval and we don't here. That's what my question was because they were saying they had no idea of this fee. I am just wondering why we do include that sometimes but not all the time. Warrick: I don't know if I can answer that question. There is not a specific reason that it would be left off or included. Hoover: I read the same item and was wondering the same question and then I wondered that maybe we should just add it onto everything so it is consistent and no one ever has any questions. That might be something to consider in the future as a standard condition. Other comments or motions? MOTION: Ostner: I just wanted to respond. I understand the applicant wrote a letter and I would concur that it does seem silly to put a sidewalk there and Mr. Rutherford has agreed that it is not proper to put a sidewalk in front of this house. However, part of the reason for this fee is that it will be used for a sidewalk nearby in this neighborhood that is needed. That is part of why Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 35 the payment instead of building the sidewalk is an option. If it is not used within I believe it is one year there is a threshold, it is returned to the payer. There is a reason for it and I think it is a good reason. I would like to make a motion that we deny ADM 04-02.00. Hoover: I have a motion to deny, is there a second? Bunch: I will second and with the added comment that when the $630 amount was arrived at it was taken into consideration the rough proportionality and it was based on the minimum frontage for a single family, RSF-4 development. It is just based on the square feet at a specified amount that is already in the ordinance and it was taken as the minimal figure rather than actually rough proportionality. It is just the minimum of what it could be. Hoover: Thank you. A second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there anymore discussion? Church: I would like to know, I don't remember that we've ever made an exception to this. I guess I would like to know if staff remembers a time that we've ever made an exception. Warrick: The only time that I can remember an exception to the requirement for either a sidewalk or a fee in lieu was before the rough proportionality amounts were determined by Council for single family homes and duplexes. That was because we came across a corner lot. There was a single family home that was a comer lot that had hundreds of feet of frontage and the calculation for the fee in lieu was in excess of $1,500, maybe it was more than $2,000, I don't recall exactly what it was but that was the only one that I can recall that the Planning Commission has granted. As a result of that, the Sidewalk Administrator and staff developed a proposal taken to Council at which time they determined the appropriate rough proportionality for a single family and a duplex, as Mr. Bunch stated, based on the minimum lot width requirements in a RSF-4 zoning district. That calculation for $630 was based on a 4' sidewalk with a linear distance of 70'. That is the minimum lot size in that single family zoning district. Vaught: One more question. They were informed at the time of building permit issuance of this fee? Warrick: Yes. Vaught: Was it later? Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 36 Warrick: No, at the time of building permit issuance the requirement is determined and placed as a part of the building permit. Vaught: They knew before they started construction of the home that the fee would be due? Warrick: Yes Sir. Vaught: It is just not something that came about when they went to get their Certificate of Occupancy and was just sprung on them or something like that? They knew before construction started? Warrick: Yes Sir. Vaught: I would repeat Commissioner Hoover's concerns, I don't know what we need to do on that but it just seems fair that we see some where it is spelled out and some where it is not, we need to go one way or the other I guess. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to deny ADM 04-02.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries seven to zero. Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 37 ADM 03-29.00: Administrative Item: (Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance) An amendment to Chapter 167.04 establishing standards and requirements that would allow subdivision developments the option to mitigate on-site for the removal of trees. Hoover: ADM 03-29.00 the Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance. Carnagey: Thank you Madam Chair. I believe you have my report on this amendment to Chapter 167 so I would just like to offer a brief overview. Currently under Chapter 167.04 all subdivision developers who plan to remove trees below the required minimum percent canopy threshold are required to pay into the city's tree escrow account. The city is then required to use this money to plant mitigation trees within those subdivision developments. Last October both the Planning Commission and the City Council approved a variance to this section of the ordinance to allow the developers of Legacy Point Subdivision to submit the city a plan with guarantees to plant their own mitigation trees. Since this time several more subdivision projects have stated interest in doing the same. The amendment before you tonight addresses this need to provide developers an option toward meeting their project's mitigation requirements. The amendment incorporates planting and maintenance standards with guarantee to be required from a subdivision development project before approval of Final Plat. The significant points of this amendment are as follows: 1) An application plan shall meet or exceed the required number of mitigation trees prescribed for their development. 2) All mitigation plans shall include a binding three year maintenance and monitoring plan. This plan shall include an Irrevocable Letter of Credit equal to the estimated cost of materials and labor for planting and maintaining all trees. Upon completion of this three year period an inspection will be performed by the city to determine that no less than 90% of all required trees planted are healthy and viable. If such a finding is made the Letter of Credit will be returned to the applicant. Otherwise, the applicant will be requested to replant lost trees or the city will use the necessary dollar amount from this Letter of Credit to replant those trees. 3) The applicant will establish a bonefide Property Owner's Association with a Bill of Assurance and Protective Covenants sufficient to ensure the continued health and viability of the mitigation trees planted within the subdivision. 4) Developers requesting mitigation trees be planted along a street right of way within a subdivision shall submit a separate street tree plan that complies with the standards outlined in the city's tree and landscape manual. A method for tracking the development of individual lots to ensure these trees are planted at appropriate times and out of harms way from construction activities will be included with this plan as well as an annual schedule of initial structural pruning with the name of an ISA Certified Arborist hired to perform this work. Number five simply removes some language from this section not applicable if this amendment Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 38 is adopted and describes the terms for refunding the developer's money paid into the tree escrow account if those funds have not been used within a specified time frame. Another addition to this amendment proposes that the insertion of the word park land when describing how to calculate tree canopy be included. This insertion reiterates language found in other chapters of the UDC that describes park land as being separate from tree preservation areas and not to be included when calculating for preserved tree canopy. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward the amendments to Chapter 167 for adoption by the City Council. Hoover: Thanks Craig. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this administrative item? Dollar: Good evening, I'm Bill Dollar, I'm the Chairman of the Tree and Landscape Advisory Committee. I just want to let you know that as a committee we have met on a couple of occasions with Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Carnagey and the whole committee has reviewed this amendment on two meetings that I know of and on several occasions and have really looked this over. I just want you to know that the committee does recommend that you accept this amendment. We are all for it so that is what I'm here to let you know. Thank you. Hoover: I appreciate it. Seeing no other members of the audience, I will bring it back to the Commission. MOTION: Allen: I would like to move for approval of ADM 03-29.00 to be moved forward to the City Council. Anthes: I second. Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Anthes, is there any other discussion? Bunch: Just a comment. I would like to thank Bill Dollar for staying through this lengthy meeting to give us his report. I think this is a good example of how real world situations get translated into tweaking and revising ordinances and it is a real good example of how it works and I will be supporting this administrative decision. Craig, thank you for your work that you put in on it. Hoover: I think we would all agree with Commissioner Bunch's comments. Whitaker: This is a direct result of your request during the Sloan hearing that Craig Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 39 and I work on it and it goes to show as yet another reassurance that if these tweaks don't work we will be back again. We assure you that this thing is never too far from my desk. Hoover: Thank you. I appreciate all the work. Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward ADM 03-29.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries seven to zero. Hoover: Thank you. Are there any other matters of business? Announcements Meeting adjourned: 7:42