Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-23 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, February 23, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN VAC 04-01.00: Michael Campbell, pp 60 Forwarded to City Council Page 3 CUP 04-01.00: (Wal-Mart/Mall Ave., pp 173) Left on Table CUP 04-02.00: (Wal-Mart/Hwy. 62, pp 557) Left on Table VAC 04-02.00: (Gilbrech, pp 525) Forwarded to City Council Page 5 ADM 04-07.00: (Persimmon Place, pp 438) Forwarded to City Council Page 7 LSD 04-02.00: (DOCS Professional Building, pp 138) Approved Page 10 PPL 04-03.00: (Grand Valley Stables, pp 103) Approved Page 21 PPL 04-04.00: (Grand Valley Estates, pp 104) Approved Page 24 PPL 04-02.00: (Salem Townhouses, pp 401) Approved Page 25 CUP 03-31.00: (Salem Townhouses, pp 401) Approved Page 25 ADM 04-08.00: (Amendment to Planning Commission Bylaws, Article II) Approved Page 44 Report from the Nominating Committee Alan Ostner, Chair Loren Shackelford, Vice Chair Nancy Allen, Secretary Outdoor Lighting and Hillside Updates Discussion Only Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT James Graves Don Bunch Loren Shackelford Jill Anthes Alice Church Sharon Hoover Christian Vaught Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Suzanne Morgan Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Kit Williams Leif Olson MEMBERS ABSENT Alan Ostner STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 3 Hoover: Welcome to the February 23`d Planning Commission meeting. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were eight Commissioners present with Commissioner Ostner being absent. Hoover: Can I have a motion for approval of the minutes of the February 9`h meeting? Shackelford: So moved. Bunch: Second. Hoover: Renee, cal the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes of the February 9, 2004 meeting was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. VAC 04-01.00: Vacation (Michael Campbell, pp 60) was submitted by the City of Fayetteville on behalf of Michael and Nandra Campbell for property located at 4843 Lavendon Place. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. The request is to vacate a portion of the water and sewer easement located on the property. Hoover: Two items have been tabled by the applicant, items number two and three, the Conditional Uses for Wal-Mart at Mall Avenue and Hwy. 62 so if you are here to speak about those, they remain tabled by the applicant until further notice. Onto item number one, VAC 04-01.00. Jeremy? Pate: Thank you Madam Chair. This property is located at 4843 Lavendon Place. The applicant is requesting to vacate a portion of a utility easement. There was a structure built over this utility easement without the owner knowing and once that encroachment was discovered the proper application and notification forms have been filled out and submitted to the city. There are no objections from any of the utility companies, nor the city. Staff has been actively working with the applicant determining the most feasible means to either relocate or encase the sanitary sewer line that is in this location. That is the condition of approval. Staff is recommending to forward this onto the City Council with the condition of approval that the method of relocation, encasement, etc., of the sanitary sewer main shall be determined by city staff and completed prior to vacating this portion of the easement. Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 4 Hoover: Would the applicant come forward and explain why you need this Vacation? Campbell: Good evening, my name is Michael Campbell, I'm the owner of this property on Lavendon. We purchased this property and built the house on it and at the end of the time the property was completed we found out that there was an encroachment to the easement that did not appear on the plat that we were given when we bought the property. We brought this to the city's attention at the first of December and have been working with them since then to try to come up with a resolution. Hoover: At this time we will open it up to public comment. Is there anyone that would like to address this VAC 04-01.00 at 4843 Lavendon Place? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Williams: I can say that I've had meetings with Mr. Campbell and his attorney and Engineering staff for the city trying to work on this. This Vacation certainly needs to be done although the resolution to this problem has not been determined yet. It is a difficult and expensive problem. Once that problem is resolved this Vacation needs to be approved so that Mr. Campbell will be able to sell this property. Hoover: Are there any Commissioner comments? MOTION: Allen: I move for approval of VAC 04-01.00. Church: I will second it. Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Church, is there anymore discussion? Bunch: Are we approving this at this level or are we forwarding it to the City Council with a recommendation? Hoover: We are forwarding it. Allen: I move that we forward this to the City Council. Church: And I second it. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward VAC 04-01.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 5 VAC 04-02.00: Vacation (Gilbrech, pp 525) was submitted by the City of Fayetteville for property located between lots 1 & 2 of the Rodgers Place Subdivision. The request is to vacate a 20' portion of a platted alley and to retain a utility easement within the vacated property. Hoover: Items two and three, Conditional Uses for Wal-Mart at Mall Avenue and Wal-Mart on Hwy. 62 are remaining tabled so we will move onto item number four, which is VAC 04-02.00 for property between lots 1 and 2 of the Rodgers Place Subdivision. Dawn? Warrick: Thank you Madam Chair. I first want to apologize for getting this information to you somewhat late. The reason that we are looking at this particular Vacation request has to do with the history behind it. In August, 1993 the Chancery Court of Washington County, in an effort to quiet title on a property dispute, there was a Consent Decree issued that involves this particular piece of property. The City of Fayetteville was involved in that issue as one of the defendants and part of the settlement through this Consent Decree included vacating a portion of an alley platted within the Rodgers Place subdivision, which is the subject of this request. After that Consent Decree was issued, or around the same time, the Fayetteville City Council through Resolution 8593 accepted the settlement through that action. In researching this particular issue, which was brought to the attention of staff through the attorney for the Gilbrech's we could not locate any ordinances that affected the action that was accepted by the Council to resolve this title dispute. We needed to process the proper paperwork and get the official Vacation completed which is why we are requesting this Vacation at this point in time. The City is serving as applicant on behalf of the Gilbrechs in this particular case. Staff is recommending approval of the requested alley vacation in accordance with Resolution 85-93 and the Consent Decree, which was issued by the Washington County Chancery Judge, John Lineberger. The condition, which is also included in the Consent Decree, is stated as the portion vacated shall remain in a general utility easement. Hoover: Thank you Dawn. Would the applicant come forward please? Warrick: That is really me. Hoover: Is there any public comment for this VAC 04-02.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Shackelford: If I read this right it looks like we are basically taking action to follow up on an agreement that was made by previous City Council. Based on that, I will make a motion that we recommend for approval VAC 04-02.00. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford. Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 6 Bunch: Second. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Bunch, is there more discussion? Seeing none, Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward VAC 04-02.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 7 ADM 04-07.00: Administrative Item (Persimmon Place, pp 438) was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of the developer of Persimmon Place Subdivision. The request is to amend item 7 of the Bill of Assurance to allow a wood and masonry fence. Hoover: Item five on the agenda is ADM 04-07.00, It is to amend item seven of the Bill of Assurance for Persimmon Place. Jeremy? Pate: Thank you Madam Chair. As you mentioned, this request is to amend item number seven of the Bill of Assurance to allow a wood and masonry fence as opposed to the concrete fence required with the originally filed Bill of Assurance. You will find on page 5.7 of your staff report the original item says that a concrete privacy fence shall be installed along Persimmon and 46`h Street. The amended version is on page 5.4, it says a decorative masonry and wood privacy fence shall be installed along Persimmon and 46"' Street. The applicant is attempting to coordinate his development with the development across 46`h Street from that property. The applicant's development is Persimmon Place, the one across the street is the Cross Keys Subdivision, which is a Planned Zoning District that the Planning Commission recently heard. The subject concrete fence is not required by the Planning Commission or the City Council in approvals of rezoning. Rather, it was offered by the developer to appease some of the concerns from neighboring residents. The developer did comply with that Bill of Assurance with the Preliminary Plat proposals for Persimmon Place. As of this time staff has not received any comments from any neighboring residents regarding this issue. Staff is recommending forwarding this Administrative item to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward? Bracket: Good evening, my name is Chris Brackett, I'm with Jorgensen & Associates, I'm here representing the owner tonight. Like Jeremy was saying, there were some comments when Cross Keys went through that maybe some coordination can be had between that developer and this developer that maybe the fence since it is right along the right of way could be similar. In meetings with both developers we have come up with this new plan and we have spoke with the neighbors including the original people that we dealt with on the original rezoning and we have heard no negative comments. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Hoover: Thank you Chris. We will open it up to public comment now for this ADM 04-07.00 for the Bill of Assurance for Persimmon Place. Is there any member of the audience who would like to address this? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 8 Anthes: We had a comment on previous meeting minutes that talks about a concern about wood because of the deterioration and I see to recall at our last meeting we talked about the POA would be responsible. Can you just talk about that to ease that concern? Brackett: There will be covenants for this subdivision and we will set the POA and they will be required for not only the maintenance of the fence but any maintenance of the right of way. There is actually, so the fence won't be in the right of way, there is a 2' gap that will have to be maintained by the POA also. MOTION: Anthes: Thank you. I believe that this figure is right from previous meetings, this would be over 2,600 linear feet of concrete lining the street and I think that it is better to allow a softer, lighter appearance in airflow and saying that, I would move to approve ADM 04-07.00. Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Anthes. Allen: Second. Hoover: Is there more discussion? Bunch: Does this have to go to the City Council? Warrick: Yes Sir it does. The fence for Persimmon Place was included as part of the Bill of Assurance when that property was rezoned and that was an agreement between the developer and the City Council at that time so we will forward this to the City Council. Bunch: That being said, I would like to ask the motioner and the seconder if they would rephrase their motion to recommend for approval by the City Council rather than approval at this level. Anthes: That's fabulous. Hoover: Commissioner Allen? Allen: Certainly. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ADM 04-07.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 9 Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 10 LSD 04-02.00: Large Scale Development (DOCS Professional Building, pp 138) was submitted by David Gilbert of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Randall Oates for property located on Crossover Road (Hwy 265) at Hillside Terrace. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 2.10 acres. The request is to allow the development of an 11,088 s.f. Medical/Dental office building with 32 parking spaces proposed. Hoover: Item six on the agenda is LSD 04-02.00 for property located on Crossover Road at Hillside Terrace. Morgan: For this property the applicant has requested to construct a two story office building located on Crossover and Hillside Terrace. The building will be two stories, 11,088 sq.ft., it is a triangular shaped lot and access will be provided from Crossover and Hillside. The access will be to two parking lots, one north and one south of the building. The use of the building will be for both medical and professional offices with a maximum of two practicing doctors. There will be 32 spaces provided and these 32 spaces is the minimum allowable for this lot. Land to the north includes C-1 and R -A zonings with the Fayetteville Athletic Club and single family residential homes. To the south is vacant with some single family homes zoned R -O and RSF-4. To the east is Residential Agricultural zoning with single family residential homes and to the west is vacant with Vista Health and a commercial outlet with a zoning of R -O and C-1. The zoning of the property is R -O. Existing canopy on site is 89% and the applicant proposes to preserve 24.5% canopy. Public comment has been received regarding traffic concerns as well as using this lot as a cut through. However, the most recently submitted plans have eliminated cross access from Crossover to Hillside Terrace based on staff s recommendations. Staff is recommending approval with twelve conditions. Of which, Planning Commission determination and approval of Commercial Design Standards. Staff finds that the building elevations are in general compliance with Commercial Design Standards. Second, Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for a retaining wall greater than 10' in height. The retaining wall is proposed to be 12.5' and it is located to the south of the building. Staff is in support of this request. Third, Planning Commission determination of offsite street improvements. Staff is recommending improvements with a minimum of 14' from centerline of Hillside Terrace to include curb, gutter and storm sewer. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward? Gilbert: Good evening. My name is David Gilbert, I'm with Jorgensen & Associates, here to represent my client, Dr. Randall Oates. We have spent a significant amount of time working with the staff massaging this project to develop something that we believe will be pleasing to everyone involved. A little bit of the history on this, Dr. Oates and his business Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 11 partner, Mr. David Powell, both live in this neighborhood. Dr. Oates lives about two lots east of this project, Mr. Powell lives about two lots south of this project. In addition to that, my boss, David Jorgensen, who did the initial site layout for this project, lives about four houses to the east of the project on Valerie Drive. These are gentlemen who are very familiar with the neighborhood. In fact, the purpose of Dr. Oates and Mr. Powell to develop this piece of property, I know you've been on the property and can see it is a very nice piece of property. They hope to preserve this as a very nice piece of property to protect the character of their subdivision. That is really their principal interest in developing it, so that they can develop something that will be nice in appearance that will play to the neighborhood that will be within the scale of their neighborhood, that will preserve a significant amount of tree cover and in fact, will be providing some additional trees beyond the percentages listed. I will get into that in just a moment. In addition to living in the neighborhood Dr. Oates and Mr. Powell will both be working in this building. This is a place that not only are they going to have to live with as they drive to and from their homes, they are going to be there all day everyday. They really want this to be nice. That's their main purpose in taking this piece of property to develop something compatible with R -O, it is on a commercial corridor. Everybody knows Crossover Road and what's involved there. That's really their main interest in this. The building will be used for a mixed purpose. There will be a small medical clinic in there. Dr. Oates and Mr. Powell, while Dr. Oates does practice medicine, their primary business that they do together is to develop software used in medical offices. The principal purpose of the building will be the development of software and that's the reason for the office use. That's that portion that is going to be designated as office. In addition to that, because they are developing software for use in a medical office, they need data and approving ground for the software. That's the reason for the clinic. Basically, what you will see on a daily business is that somewhere between one to three hours Dr. Oates will see patients in this facility. He is doing that to continue his practice but also to develop the data and to use the software in a real setting so he can test it out. From time to time he will bring in another physician or a programmer or something like that, so that they can come in and test out the software. It is always better in these cases, if you use software at all you know that sometimes when the programmers get through with them they are beautiful but they don't do what you need them to do so there is a check in place there for that. These are the only uses anticipated for this building. There is not going to be any lease space, there is not going to be anything beyond this business that they are going to conduct there. As far as the tree numbers, the way that the trees have to be calculated presented us with some interesting issues. You will see on your Large Scale Development plans a tree preservation of 24 Y2%, that is the area of the site that will be preserved in existing trees. In other words, nearly a quarter of the site will not be touched. In addition to that, by the Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 12 time we get through planting street trees and landscaping trees the number gets even higher. Those numbers are before you, I apologize, I don't have that right in front of me. You can see those numbers there, by the time that we plant the site out we are up to about 33.8% in canopy cover. In addition to that, along Crossover Road, because Crossover is a major corridor and because of the utility needs of a city like Fayetteville, we needed to provide a utility easement across there so that anything that needs to go in can go in. Highway corridors become utility corridors and it all kind of goes together. That's why that is there. If we had a preference in a perfect world we wouldn't put a utility easement there but that just doesn't reflect practical real life in an urban setting these days. It is there because it needs to be there. We intend to preserve the trees that are in that utility easement. You can see that as part of the large tree preservation area. There is a strip there of a couple of hundred feet, maybe 300' in the middle of the project where the tree protection fence is pushed up against the back of the sidewalk. We are going to leave those alone, we are going to protect those. That's about 3% of the site in addition to what we've been able to count. We cannot count those because due to the way that utilities are governed in Arkansas, they don't really have to be worried about taking those out. If they feel the need to come down through there and put a line through basically they get a pass on the tree ordinance and they do work with the city, I don't want to make it sound like they are the bad guys. That's the reason we can't count them. If the necessity arises those trees can be removed by the utility companies, we are going to save those. If they get taken out later they get taken out but the actual tree coverage by the time you get through figuring all of this, that we intend to show on this site once construction is complete is about 37%. I know that is not a number that you can count on for the tree preservation ordinance but that's really what you are going to see in place. Dr. Oates is an avid fan of trees. Dr. Oates on his lot just east of this place, he told me this morning that several years ago he got 2000 trees and planted them on his piece of property. This is not a really huge piece of property, the man is a great fan of trees. In fact, what we are showing on the plan is what we intend to put on the ground when it's done. From what I know of Dr. Oates though, he is probably going to come back and put more trees in there after we get done. He likes trees. We have worked with the Landscape Administrator to do some preservation of an existing buffer of trees in the old fence line on the east boundary. That's the reason that the sidewalk is not out any further from the road than what it is off of Hillside. We have moved it out closer to the curb so we can leave those trees alone which will help screen the neighbors in the immediate future rather than having to wait until the vegetation grows up once it is complete. I would like to speak for a moment as to the retaining wall. As you are aware, your ordinances require that retaining walls have a maximum height of 10' unless you receive permission to do otherwise from this body. In looking to try to maximize tree preservation we've Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 13 tried to keep everything fairly compact. In a normal situation where we had all the room in the world to work with rather than doing a 12 '/2' wall we might do a 6' wall or a 6 ''/2' wall. What you do then is you build a 6 /2' wall and then you step back 5' and you go up another 6'. That meets the requirements of your ordinance. If we do that we will have to pull the building forward and it will encroach on the tree protection area. All of that for 2 '/2' seemed like maybe it would not be the best return for the trees that that would cost. That's the reason we've gone with that wall. This site has about a 13% to 14% natural slope which makes it kind of hard to build anything on. Rather than try to force things in and square cut and push buildings in a place where they square up with the rear property lines, what we have tried to do is to orient the long axis of the building to where it is parallel with the contours of the ground. What we want to do is you've seen the Japanese rice fields on the mountainsides or anything like that, where you've got the terraced effect. You have a parking lot and you step down and you have a building and then you step down a little bit, you can't go down too much because it has to be accessible to the people in wheelchairs, and you have another parking lot and you step down and you go on from there at the natural slope. That's the reason for this configuration. Dr. Oates and Mr. Powell have chosen this scheme for the building. The building, by the way, will hide most of this retaining wall. This wall that we'd like to have 12 %' high is going to be immediately behind this building. You can see from the elevations over here on the post in front of you that that building is tall enough that most of that wall is not going to be visible. In fact, the top of the wall is going to be just slightly higher than the elevation of the second floor in the building. That is one of the reasons there. In addition to that, while we normally don't like to do this in a cut situation because of technical issues and excavation requirements, at the same time, the last thing that we want to see in this setting is 12 %' of concrete wall. Our plan from the beginning is that this would be a segmental retaining wall product, keystone is a brand name you might recognize. It is the blocks that look like cut stone faces. That's the type of wall that we're looking for here. Frankly, 12 '/z' of concrete would just be too depressing and we don't want to do that to anybody. There are three walls on the project. We are specifying all three of those walls as a segmental product which we feel will give a much softer appearance to the whole site. The building itself was designed to be somewhat residential looking in character because this is a residential neighborhood. There is significant commercial presence on the west side of Crossover Road. All of that is to my knowledge single story, I don't remember seeing anything very tall over there. You've got the Charter Vista facility, which I believe is all single story, is the immediate neighbor to the west. By and large to the south and east this is a residential area. Our intention in developing this project and the way that the building was put together was to provide something, rather than trying to squeeze everything together where you have two floors of identical size. If you do Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 14 that you create what is truly a conventional two story building. We feel like that in this context would stick out, would not fit the character of the neighborhood so that is the reason they've done this. It is a two story building, it's almost though like a one and a half story building because the upper floor will largely be covered under the roof which would be there anyway. We believe that this will work well with the neighborhood. We believe that with the changes we have made, we want to thank the staff for working with us in getting some things ironed out and getting some potentially sticky situations resolved where we could go forward from this point. They have been very helpful to work with and we certainly appreciate that. We hope that you will agree with us that this is going to be a quality project for this piece of property and an enhancement to the city. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this LSD 04-02.00 on Crossover Road at Hillside Terrace? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Shackelford: Staff, do we have signed conditions of approval on this? Morgan: Yes we do. Shackelford: Can you comment if you would briefly on his comments regarding utility easements, was that required on this project? Warrick: Are you talking about the utility easement along Hillside or along Crossover or both? Shackelford: Both. Warrick: When these projects go through the development review process one of the stages in that process is a meeting with the Technical Plat Review Committee, at which staff, the applicant, and representatives of all the franchised utilities sit down and discuss the project. At that point in time the utility representatives request various easements necessary to serve the project. These easements were obtained by the franchise utility at that time. When it comes to calculating the tree preservation areas, as Mr. Gilbert stated, we don't calculate those areas that have been placed in easements because their future is somewhat unpredictable so that was the explanation with regard to why those areas are intended to be preserved but aren't calculated into that percentage. Shackelford: Thank you very much. Hoover: Can we start the discussion with were there any concerns at Subdivision Committee level? Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 15 Bunch: Mr. Gilbert has spoken to most of the concerns that we had at Subdivision level. One of the concerns of course was the retaining wall height and tree preservation. The drawing that we have before us now is different from the drawing that we had at Subdivision. There is a fire lane that has been eliminated and this changes the access situation and also improves the tree preservation. We did have a presentation by the architect, Mr. Gilbert has also gone over some of that. Pretty much what we talked about at Subdivision has been presented in the revised drawing and in the presentation by the applicant. Hoover: I guess maybe we better go item by item, can we discuss the Commercial Design Standards. Do we have a material board? Warrick: We have the required elevation drawings but we do not have a material sample board. Hoover: I guess I'm confused when we're getting material boards and we're not. Do we require them or we don't require them? Warrick: The ordinance does not require them. Hoover: When we request them is that because we have a question about the elevations we have? Warrick: Many times the applicant provides them voluntarily. When there is a project in the Overlay District it is a requirement that a sample board be submitted. For standard Commercial Design Standards submittal for a project outside of the Overlay District, color rendered elevations of the main fagade is what is designated in the ordinance as the required submittal. Hoover: I guess I have another question in general. This project has a lot of retaining walls and I was thinking about how that relates to Commercial Design Standards. I don't have my book in front of me, what do Commercial Design Standard guidelines say? Warrick: They don't address retaining walls. Hoover: What do they address, boxlike elevations? Warrick: Square boxlike structures, large unarticulated blank wall surfaces, large out of scale signs with flashy colors, metal dominating the main fagade, unpainted concrete precision block walls. Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 16 Hoover: Are there any comments about Commercial Design Guidelines for this project? I will move onto the second item, a waiver request for a retaining wall greater than 10' in height. Staff, would you tell us perhaps why 10' was selected to be in the ordinance and not 6' or 12'? Casey: I can't give you the history of why that was selected but our grading ordinance does say 10'. The reasoning behind my support of that was stated very plainly by Mr. Gilbert, he did a very good job of presenting his case I thought, the terracing of the wall was going to impact the site quite a bit, it would push the building forward as he stated, get into the tree preservation area that he and Craig worked so hard to try to keep at a maximum. That, and also the fact that the building is going to hide the majority of that. That's one reason we don't want to see these huge walls all over town. That is one item of consideration when these waiver requests come forward. For those reasons, that's why we are supporting the waiver request. Anthes: Can the applicant show us on the rear elevation how high the retaining wall will come? Gilbert: This shown here is the upper floor entrance. It is not a 12' high by 200' wide wall of concrete looking like something you could play handball up against. It will taper with the ground and actually go down to a height of one block, 6" to 0. That's out at the end. In addition, on the east side of the project where the slop of the ground down by Hillside Terrace goes down we are going to put in a three to one slope on the side to get back down to the level of Hillside and the wall will drop with that three to one slope. On that side it goes down very fast. On the west end of the wall the ground will be coming up very fast also in a three to one slope. It is going to have points on both ends. 12 ''/2' is the maximum height of the wall. The height may seem rather arbitrary as to why that was selected. We are trying to work with several issues here. We've got access onto Crossover Road, we've got access onto Hillside Terrace and then we've got this building pad which needs to be level. There is a great deal of grade change, both down Hillside Terrace, which has a slope of about 11% to the north it goes down about 11 %. If you have seen Hillside Terrace you know it is reasonably steep. At the same time, Crossover Road there is a lot of drop between Hillside at the south edge of the property and Crossover at the south edge of the property so we have to work the things out in that direction. We are constrained in certain areas. For example, once we set a floor elevation the parking lot has to be within 6" of the floor elevation where the parking touches the front sidewalk. The slope of the front sidewalk can be no more than 2%. The slope of the parking lot for the first 20' because of ADA guidelines can be no more than 2%. Beyond that point, we can steepen up the parking lot but anything over about 4% gets really interesting when things ice up. In addition to that, Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 17 there are limits to what we can do with the driveway from two standpoints. One is we do have to tie into Crossover Road and there is an elevation difference between the parking lot and the elevation difference for Crossover Road. If that gets too steep it can be interesting in dry weather, scary in wet weather and down right frightening if it ices over. We are trying to keep those relatively flat. My concern with getting in and out of these parking lots is more with getting out. If you are there at work and it ices up I want you to be able to get home. If you don't have to come to work the next morning that's great but if we can get people out safely that's really the main thing we're looking for in a facility like this. In addition to that, there are constraints with where the sidewalk can be placed on Crossover Road. There are transverse slope limits, how far the sidewalk can pitch towards the street that have an impact on that. There is the issue of tying a driveway slope into that sidewalk slope which is set so that you don't have a case, as with some of our buildings on College Avenue, where you go up real quick, flatten out to go over a sidewalk and then you go up real quick again Those are all some things that we are working with and we have had that with both parking lots. This is the best solution we could revise after several weeks of trying to iron out the grading on this. I wish we would've been able to get the retaining wall down to 10', we just couldn't find a practical way to do that. In fact, the upper parking lot is configured backwards from what I would normally configure a parking lot in that the spaces are across the drive aisle from the building. That was purely for the purpose of getting that driveway further down the slope on Hillside where we could lower this upper parking lot and reduce the height of that wall. Anthes: That was a great explanation. I understand that you have some complex topography and that you've worked hard with staff and with Craig. Now that you've explained however, that the retaining wall goes down to zero I'm more concerned with the rear elevation in terms of Commercial Design Standards. That back wall is basically an unarticulated wall surface as we have interpreted in other Commercial Design. When I thought that the whole thing was hid behind the wall it was less important for me to see that articulation, but now that we know that it goes down to zero I might ask for a change. Gilbert: The wall where it is parallel to the rear wall of the building will be at it's full height through there. Where it begins to taper, it has a straight section and it has wings on each side if you look on the drawing there. The wings are actually what will begin to go down. I believe that your initial assumption was and is still correct in that the rear wall of the building will not be visible from anywhere other than standing on top of that wall in the rear parking lot. The angle of the wings on that wall and the fact that they are still at full height basically as they turn the corner I believe will Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 18 conceal that back wall. In this case you've got the building hiding the wall and the wall hiding the building and it all works together. Anthes: When you have parking spaces up there and they have to traverse the bridge into the building, those people will see the walls right? Gilbert: Yes Ma'am, that will basically be Dr. Oates and his staff. I believe the medical facility is on the lower floor so there will not be any patients, it will basically be the people involved with the operation. In addition to that, there is only about 8' to 10' between this wall and the back of the building and it is relatively high and so the wall will conceal this from public view and basically, conceal it to everyone except the people who are walking across the bridge who will be basically the owners and employees of this business operation. Anthes: Thank you. Hoover: Is there any other discussion about the retaining walls? How about the improvements a minimum of 14' from centerline to include curb, gutter and storm sewer? Vaught: I have a question from staff. On the requirements, could you go over why we are requiring the sidewalks along Hillside Terrace? What I'm thinking is tree preservation is a key and we are going to require sidewalks that whole length, if we didn't require that sidewalk would we be able to save a large number of trees? How did you weigh that against the necessity of a sidewalk along that portion? Warrick: We have been able to work with the applicant to vary the location of the sidewalk along Hillside so that it will not detrimentally impact the existing tree cover in that area providing screen right now. We have the best of both worlds. We will achieve a sidewalk for pedestrian access, we will also be able to maintain the existing screening by varying where the sidewalk is installed. Vaught: We are currently not requiring a sidewalk on the Crossover side? Warrick: Yes we are. There is only a small tack of the property along Crossover at the very southwest corner of the site that due to topography we are asking that the property owner pay into the sidewalk fund so that when the property south of that develops, it will really depend upon the grade and how that property is built out as to how that connection can be made. We are requiring and they are showing sidewalk installation along all of the frontages for this project. Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 19 Vaught: The Crossover side we are just recommending to pay into the sidewalk fund? Warrick: Only for a small section at the very southwest corner. Gilbert: It may be difficult to see due to the amount of information on the plan but we are showing a sidewalk practically the full length of Crossover. As Ms. Warrick stated, there is a small area where it is unfeasible without trespassing onto adjoining property, the owner is in agreement to make a contribution to the sidewalk fund for the balance of that portion. The balance we are showing a sidewalk all the way up to the intersection of Hillside and Crossover. Hoover: We have the dedication of right of way. On your trash enclosure, does it have some type of door on it? Gilbert: Yes Ma'am, it will have a door. Hoover: Are there any other discussion items? MOTION: Shackelford: As I look at this project I think it is in scale with the neighborhood and development of this area. I think it is a good mix of a commercial building and a residential location. I really think that this kind of compliments the overall neighborhood. I am going to go ahead and make a motion for approval of LSD 04-02.00 with the specific findings that it is in compliance with Commercial Design Standards, granting of the waiver for the retaining walls based on the staff's support and comments by Mr. Casey and condition number three to read "required improvements with a minimum of 14' from centerline of Hillside Terrace to include curb, gutter and storm sewer. Other than that, it will be based on the twelve conditions of approval as they are stated. Bunch: Second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Bunch, is there any other discussion? Bunch: As we mentioned at the Subdivision Committee meeting, often times we have minimalist approaches to these types of installations. This one has not only met our design standards but has exceeded them. The applicant, the engineering company, and the architecture company, along with the city staff, have all worked together to produce a product that is not the normal office structure but is in good harmony with the neighborhood and for those reasons I seconded and will support it. Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 20 Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 04-02.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 21 PPL 04-03.00: Preliminary Plat (Grand Valley Stables, pp 103) was submitted by Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Terminella & Associates for property located along the north side of Guy Terry Rd. at Howard Porter Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 70.29 acres. The request is to allow development of a residential subdivision with 24 single-family lots proposed. Hoover: Item number seven on the agenda is PPL 04-03.00 for Grand Valley Stables. Suzanne? Morgan: The applicant is requesting to create a residential subdivision of 70.29 acres with 24 single family lots. This property is located north of Guy Terry Road within the Planning Area and all surrounding properties are in the Planning Area. The sizes of these lots, 20 of the lots are approximately 1.5 acres with the additional four to the north ranging from 8 to 10 acres. This proposed subdivision is approximately three lots west of the proposed Grand Valley Estates which is next on the agenda. This subdivision will be gated and the applicant is providing a looped street with two accesses to Guy Terry, which is a collector on the Master Street Plan. Staff is recommending approval with 13 conditions, of which any future division of the property to create two lots will be reviewed for right of way connectivity and access with appropriate dedications and infrastructure development required to serve additional lots. Staff has received signed conditions of approval. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward? Moore: I am Brian Moore with Engineering Services representing Mr. Tom Terminella who is here this evening also. This one of two subdivisions that are actually in the county that we are presenting to you tonight. This is 70.29 acres, it is Grand Valley Stables, it is predominantly 1.5 acre lots. There are some larger lots on the north side of the subdivision due to the topography in that area, it is real steep back there. Mr. Terminella is here and I'm here to answer any questions that you may have. Hoover: Is there anyone that would like to address this PPL 04-03.00 for Grand Valley Stables? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners. Staff, in the growth area what are we looking for? Warrick: For properties within the Growth Area we govern the subdivision of land. We are looking for proper lot creation and access. We also ensure the provision of water service to the properties since that is one of the services that can be provided by the city to the Planning Area if they are within our water service boundaries. Beyond that, the county can take over with regard to the actual construction sections for the street itself and they do have a couple of options for developers depending on the type of street that they choose to install. Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 22 Anthes: This question is for staff. Would you clarify item five on the conditions of approval it says gated subdivisions shall not be permitted on public roads within the county and how that pertains to this subdivision? Warrick: We included that as a condition. A statement was in our staff report because we were made aware of an ordinance passed by Washington County in September, 2003 that stipulates that gated subdivisions shall not be permitted on public roads. They are, however, permitted on private roads. The reason that we included that information is because it was brought to our attention by the applicant that they intended to have a gated subdivision. We just wanted to ensure that the information that we had was conveyed to the applicant and that everyone understood that the streets would be private and would, therefore, be maintained by a Property Owner's Association. Anthes: The subdivision itself fronts on a public road but that doesn't count as the internal street, is that what you are saying? Warrick: That's correct. The internal streets would be private streets. Anthes: Also, on the subdivision covenants, page 7.8 I'm looking at references the subdivisions and building codes to the City of Springdale. It does within a couple of different areas in both of these projects. Is that an error or is there some sort of crossover because you are in the planning area? Warrick: I will let the applicant address the information in their covenants. Moore: I'm sure that they took one that we have done in the past and that is just a typo. Warrick: This developer also has projects in Springdale and in Springdale's Planning Area. We can assure that that is corrected before this comes to you as a Final Plat and is filed of record. Hoover: Are there any other concerns or motions? Shackelford: Do we have signed conditions of approval on this? Morgan: Yes we do. MOTION: Shackelford: Based on that, I will make a motion to approve PPL 04-03.00 subject to the stated conditions of approval. Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 23 Vaught: I will second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Vaught, is there anymore discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 04-03.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 24 PPL 04-04.00: Preliminary Plat (Grand Valley Estates, pp 104) was submitted by Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Terminella & Associates for property located along the north side of Guy Terry Road, east of the intersection of Howard Porter Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 77.67 acres. The request is to allow development of 24 single-family lots proposed. Hoover: Item number eight on the agenda is PPL 04-04.00 for Grand Valley Estates. Suzanne? Morgan: This request is for a residential subdivision much like the previous discussed. The acreage is 77.67 acres with 24 lots. It is located just east of the Grand Valley Stables. Staff is recommending approval with eleven conditions and staff has received signed conditions of approval. Hoover: Thank you. Do you have anything to add? Moore: No, she did a great job. It is almost identical to the one that you just saw other than the lots are a little bit bigger. Hoover: At this time we will open this up to public comment, PPL 04-04.00 for Grand Valley Estates. Is there any member of the public that would like to address us about Grand Valley Estates? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Is there any discussion or motions? MOTION: Shackelford: This seems to be in line with all of our ordinances. Based on staff recommendations, I wilt make a motion that we approve PPL 04-04.00 subject to all eleven conditions of approval. Church: I will second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Church, is there anymore discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 04-04.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 25 PPL 04-02.00: Preliminary Plat (Salem Townhouses, pp 401) was submitted by Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of C & K Properties for property located north of Wedington Drive on Salem Road. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and C- 1, Neighborhood Commercial, and contains approximately 8.32 acres. The request is to replat the subject property into two tracts of 4.77 and 3.55 acres respectively. CUP 03-31.00: Conditional Use (Salem Townhouses, pp 401) was submitted by Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of C & K Properties for property located just north of the intersection of Salem Road and Wedington Road. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 4.77 acres. The request is to allow construction of townhouses in this zoning district. Hoover: Item number nine on the agenda is PPL 04-02.00 for Salem Townhouses. Pate: If it pleases the Commission I would like to go ahead and speak about item ten as well, which is CUP 03-31.00 that deals with the property that the applicant is requesting to split out to the north. For the Preliminary Plat the applicant is requesting to subdivide the subject tract into two lots. Lot 1, the northern lot, is bordered by Salem Road to the east and Walnut Heights subdivision to the north. It is proposed to be 4.77 acres and that property is the subject for the Conditional Use request. This lot is zoned R -O, Residential Office. Lot two to the south is bordered by Wedington Drive to the south and the existing Arkansas National Bank to the east and this lot is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and proposed to be 3.55 acres in size. Required dedication of right of way along Wedington Drive is 55' from centerline. There are no street improvements recommended at this time. For a little background, the subject property has been before the Planning Commission and the City Council in previous years for a rezoning request, a couple of lot splits, a Large Scale Development and most recently, in 2002, a Preliminary Plat request. That was approved by the Planning Commission to split the remaining tract in the same configuration as is currently proposed. That approval has lapsed over the one year time frame. Therefore, the request is the same. In staffs research of the rezoning request and other actions that the Commission has approved there was consistently a condition of approval and discussion for Planning Commission determination of street improvements and right of way dedication of a future street to serve this tract connecting Salem Road and Wedington Drive to provide two means of access. There are two existing curb cuts and stub outs. One is from Salem Road and one is from Wedington Drive. Staff is recommending that that be connected with right of way at this time and at the time of development that that street connection be constructed. Staff is recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat with a number of conditions. Hoover: Can you repeat that one more time? Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 26 Pate: Staff is recommending basically, that the two curb cuts that are existing that stub out, one from Salem Road north of the Arkansas National Bank and the one to the west of the Arkansas Bank Tract to curve around the northern and western boundaries of the Arkansas National Bank parcel of land and that street connections be made at that location with future development that the right of way be dedicated at this time. That is one of the Planning Commission's determinations to be made with staff's recommendation for approval on item number one. Additionally, additional curb cuts shall not be permitted to Salem Road or Wedington Drive pursuant to previous Planning Commission determinations. Item number ten, the Conditional Use request in the R -O Residential Office District, is to allow development of 12 townhouses containing 72 dwelling units with 134 bedrooms proposed on the northern tract of this Preliminary Plat. Staff is recommending approval subject to several conditions and it is tied to the Preliminary Plat in several of those. Staff is recommending approval with a maximum density of 16 units per acre on this land. Staff finds that the development of townhouses in this location is an acceptable transition between the commercial development to the south and land use to the north with the single family and multi -family zoning. Ingress and egress of course, is also an item of consideration for the Planning Commission. As was mentioned, I believe that the applicant is intending that an additional curb cut is needed along Salem Road. I would like the applicant to speak to that. Again, the proposed density does provide a reasonable transition in land use between the commercial property to the south and residential property to the north, west and east. Staff is recommending approval with eleven conditions of approval. Hoover: Would the applicant come forward? Moore: I'm Brian Moore again with Engineering Services. Chris and Carrie Elder are here also to speak on both of these items. I don't know if you want to take them individually or at the same time. Right now these are actually condominiums is what they are proposing. The first item is actually the instrument that will allow us to split the property. The actual Final Plat will do that but this is what we need to do first to be able to split this piece into two tracts. Carrie Elder is here and I think she is going to speak to you on the curb cut issue and the right of way issue connecting Wedington and Salem Road. Elder: First of all, I just want to state that what we are proposing is a 64 unit condominium neighborhood, not an apartment complex. They are really not town homes, they are going to be condominiums where they can be purchased individually. The value should range between $85,000 and $90,000 per condo. We feel there is a tremendous need for that in Fayetteville for affordable yet upscale. It will be very nice as you can see from the elevation there. As far as the curb cut goes, we went back and Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 27 worked on this and we have rearranged to go ahead and use the existing curb cut because we felt like staff's recommendation, we tried to work with that and see how we could make that work and we have done that as you can see from the layout here. What we are asking though is in their number one and number five of their conditions of approval for the Preliminary Plat, number one, and number five on the staff's recommendations, they are asking for a 50' right of way and a public street from Salem to the point at which a future access would connect from Wedington. They use the words "create an adequate means of access to the overall tract". We are asking that a 30' drive be considered as adequate access. When you take into consideration that now you have a residential and a commercial together verses a completely commercial development. We are saying using the existing curb cut off of Salem Road, not adding an additional curb cut, we would like to bring in a 30' access there instead of a 50' right of way with a public street. We would of course bring it all the way to the point at which another access could connect on. We feel like that satisfies the adequate means. That is what we are asking for tonight for you to consider that. We originally, as Jeremy pointed out, wanted to do a curb cut. We still feel like that was a good plan for the project as far as the residents being able to get in and out, as far as emergency vehicles and trash, we felt like there was a lot of turns with this. However, we are willing to go ahead and try to make that work with using existing curb cuts. We very much would like to do a 30' drive as the adequate means of access for the future whatever ends up being there. I'd like to just say this, we think that this is going to be a wonderful buffer for the neighborhood. The units should be comparable in price to the homes in the area. We are not trying to put as many units, this is only 13 per acre verses, I think we could have 15 more units, I don't know. We tried to do it in a way that would minimize the number of residents as well. They are 1,300 sq.ft. with two bedrooms and two baths to try to minimize the number of residents and the number of cars in the neighborhood. We are just asking that you would consider the access issue and let us do a 30' on our property that would give access down the road verses the 50'. Hoover: Thank you. I will open these two items up to public comment, PPL 04- 02.00 and CUP 03-31.00 for Salem Townhouses. Is there any member of the audience who would like to address these? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Bunch: A question for staff, can you respond to the comment about the 30' access. Also, since the bank building is owned by the same property management or same property group. The question is do we need a 50' right of way and would 30' of it come from this particular slice of property and 20' from the adjacent property next door by the same owners? Can you address that situation please? Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 28 Warrick: We are looking at two different action, the first is the Preliminary Plat. With that Preliminary Plat the request is to create two new lots, the northern tract which is the subject property of the Conditional Use and then the remainder tract which is west of the bank property. The way that we devised our recommendation and evaluated this project had a lot to do with past actions that the Planning Commission has approved for this particular property and for this specific request. In 2002 the Planning Commission did approve a Preliminary Plat creating these two tracts of land with basically these conditions. However, that Preliminary Plat was not acted on by the applicant and has since been voided because it was never finaled. In order to even consider the Conditional Use to allow residential units on the northern tract the tract has to be created. That's the process that we are going through through this Preliminary Plat. When we are talking about adequate access, throughout the years we have looked at many different configurations and possibilities. Our disadvantage, even to this date, we are not looking at a Large Scale Development showing how one of these tracts of land will develop. This is a concept that you are looking at. Staff doesn't have this, this is one of many different iterations that have been worked up by the applicant to see if it is possible to do what they want to do on the northern tract of land, which is great because they are thinking about what happens if certain conditions go into play with this Preliminary Plat. We have been trying to decide what the best mechanism is in order to ensure that we are properly platting this subject tract and that we're not leaving things with too many open-ended unanswered questions with regard to access and connectivity. When this property was originally zoned we started talking about the need to maintain some sort of control over the number of curb cuts and the location of curb cuts on both Salem Drive and Wedington because of this being a very key, heavily traveled intersection and knowing that an increased number of curb cuts can cause additional traffic conflicts. The disadvantage there of course is not understanding exactly what use is going to be established and how it is going to circulate on the site. We made the recommendation for dedication of right of way on the north and west sides of the bank tract so that we could ensure access to the other pieces of property in this corner. The Planning Commission can certainly determine whether or not that is the best way to provide necessary access,. It may be, it may not be. We've tried to give you a sound recommendation. The proposal for a 30' access easement as opposed to a 50' right of way. Staff is not opposed to considering that but I think that a condition of this Preliminary Plat would really need to relate to that being something that is specifically addressed at the time of a Large Scale Development. That's taking a stab at trying to make a recommendation if that is something that the Planning Commission is wanting to pursue the option of again, not addressing the access at this particular time at the plat process, but addressing it more specifically when we have a Large Scale Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 29 Development plan in place that proposes a specific project with more concrete information. I'm not sure if that answers all of your questions but it might start. Bunch: That's a start. Hoover: Just for clarification, the Conditional Use is just to determine if we think multi -family is ok? Warrick: Correct. Hoover: I'm sorry, let me just say townhouses. That's all we're looking at, it would come for a Large Scale Development? Warrick: That is correct. The Large Scale is not before you right now. Hoover: The Large Scale, when it comes back we'll be looking at what? Warrick: For the Large Scale Development you will be looking at all of the site requirements, infrastructure, additional access needs presented by that plan would have to be addressed at that point in time also. You would be looking of course, at landscaping requirements, parking lot, the number of parking spaces based on bedrooms, all of the things that go into the standard Large Scale review. Hoover: On the Preliminary Plat issue we are only looking at dividing this property into two tracts? Warrick: That is correct. Like I talked about with the Grand Valley Stables and Estates project, with a Preliminary Plat, and this one is a little bit different because it is inside the city limits, but with a Preliminary Plat you are looking at reasonable configuration of lots, access and provision of utilities. Both of these tracts of land that are proposed to be developed, or proposed to be created, have access to utilities and they both have street frontage. The reason that we talked quite a bit in the report and in the conditions about providing right of way and delaying the installation of infrastructure to the time of development is because these are statements and conditions that are consistently coming back with this property through various applications. Hoover: Thank you. Can I lead the discussion to the first item of the Preliminary Plat and those issues which I guess would be the right of way or easements? Vaught: The right of way, we are talking about just along the Arkansas National Bank property right? Not the entire length of the split? Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 30 Warrick: Correct. What we were proposing was to dedicate right of way along the north property line of Arkansas National Bank and along the west property line. Vaught: At the time of Large Scale Development, say if we approved either the 30' or the 50' tonight at the time of Large Scale Development we could revisit that at that time and reduce it or enlarge it. Warrick: We can. I think that when we are talking about the difference between right of way and an access easement it becomes more important. If there is right of way dedicated and in the future the Planning Commission feels that it is not necessary then we would need to go through the full process of vacating that right of way. If it is through the Preliminary Plat process either stated to be reviewed at the Large Scale or designated as an access easement, even if it is an access easement chances are we would be looking at vacating it if there is excess dedicated. The differences between an access easement verses right of way have a lot to do with setback requirements and frontage. If it is right of way it is a public street. It is a front setback requirement. If it is an access easement it functions more like an alley and it does not have the same type of conditions placed on it with regard to setbacks and different conditions like that. Vaught: This is something where we can say access to be reviewed at LSD? Williams: I think you could review it with the Large Scale Development. Warrick: I think you can solely because both of these tracts already have frontage on a built public street . We are talking more about internal circulation with these conditions. Vaught: Right now we wouldn't specify which one we wanted, we would just say access to be reviewed with Large Scale Development or would we specify one of the two? Warrick: I think that you can do either. Let me propose something. If we wanted to for instance, eliminate conditions one and two in the Large Scale and condition five in the Conditional Use substitute a condition stating that the number of access points, right of way dedication and construction necessary for infrastructure to provide adequate access will be determined at the time of Large Scale consideration by the Planning Commission on either of the two resulting tracts. That will give you the ability to wait for the Large Scale to understand the layout of one of the projects. We expect the northern tract will come first, then make a decision as to what you believe to be the most appropriate access. At that point in time you will only have control of that tract of land. You will not be able to request Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 31 dedication of right of way across one of these other tracts of land or affecting one of these other tracts of land. At that point, if this is split out and we review a Large Scale for the northern tract, 4.77 acres, that's the piece of property that we will be able to affect with the Large Scale action. Vaught: But they would still have to bring the other tract through. Warrick: Right, the other tract is large enough that you would see it in the future as a Large Scale also. Vaught: To me it seems like a better option. It is a lot like the town homes that we talked about a couple of times on Hwy. 62 where you don't see the whole picture. It is hard to say whether or not access is sufficient. I was confused looking through it earlier because I didn't know what we were talking about necessarily, what we were approving. I saw a little drawing but I don't know, I would prefer that route. Shackelford: A question of the applicant, we re talking about the difference in a 30' access easement verses a 50' right of way. Theoretically speaking, will that affect the route in which you go forward in doing your soft costs for development of this property. Elder: Absolutely, thank you for bringing that up. It is very difficult if you wait until Large Scale for us. First of all, the land can be purchased and we will probably be required to do so once you pass this Preliminary Plat tonight and waiting until Large Scale to find out what our costs are going to be is not feasible for us. It is real important to us and I think I would like to point out that Dawn said they are not opposed to the 30'. They are not opposing that, she said that just a minute ago that that would be adequate access. If we could decide that tonight that would very much benefit us and also the point that she made of why this is an issue. It is absolutely the setback requirements. That changes everything. You also have to consider the people that are going to live here if you all pass it. What is that going to be like the way you come in the entrance, you don't want to change things so much that it is not going to be something that looks good when you come in because you have changed the buildings around so much to facilitate a 50' entrance way that may or may not be adequate access in the future. 30' we feel like is adequate access, I don't know that they are opposing that. It would be very beneficial for us to know that tonight in order to go forward. Shackelford: That's what I assumed as I have looked at some of these projects in the past. There can be a pretty significant difference in the overall development based on the setbacks. I understand what you are trying to accomplish Commissioner Vaught but my opinion is we may owe it to the Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 32 developer at this point to go ahead and define that issue so that they can accordingly develop this project before they bring it back. Vaught: Then if it is their choice, depending on what they bring back, they may have to go through the Vacation process and extend things even longer. As long as they know that if we approve one of the two and it is not sufficient when it comes back through the LSD we can address that issue. Hoover: Staff, can you make a comment about a 30' easement? Warrick: A 30' easement is adequate for a 20' drive lane that meets the minimum standards for fire access. It may also allow for some pedestrian connectivity through a sidewalk, generally that is not something that is installed with an access easement. When we are talking about a residential development it is something certainly to consider that the residences, those occupying the residences on the north end of this tract, might want to access the neighborhood shopping or neighborhood type businesses that are permitted by right on the undeveloped portion adjacent to Wedington Drive. The other thing probably with regard to an access easement, or right of way, whichever the Planning Commission chooses to be appropriate, some type of access for the northern tract to be able to enter and exit off of Wedington Drive I think is appropriate. We typically look at two means of access. That doesn't mean that they both have to be on Salem Drive. People getting in and out of this location would most likely benefit being able to use either of these major streets to get in and out so I would suggest that that be considered when you are looking at where to require some sort of access easement if that is the configuration that you choose. Hoover: If we go the direction of the 30' access easement we would want to be sure to add a condition with sidewalks, the possibility of sidewalks, a pedestrian access to sidewalks in every direction and also vehicular access to the northern tract. Warrick: I think that pedestrian and vehicular access is appropriate because of the nature of the request for residential units to the north. I think that we also owe it to the developer to talk about when that installation will be required. If the development to the north precedes that vacant property to the west if they would be bearing the burden of constructing that access to Wedington Drive as well as any access that they may make to Salem. I think it is appropriate that they understand what the Planning Commission will be contemplating. Not knowing what or when will develop to the west and knowing that it is desirable to have two means of access, I think that it is appropriate that the Planning Commission consider making the requirement that the access to Wedington Drive be constructed by whichever development comes first. Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 33 Hoover: I think we should have some more discussion about this but would you think about how you would change the condition number one so if we do go that direction we're prepared? Bunch: While we are on the subject of accesses and cost, staff, could you speak to the subject of how wide of a road and also to what standards the road would be built if it is vehicular access. Would it need to be a 20' road or is there any way to build a 24' road on a 30'access easement and will they need to have curb and gutter and built to city standards? Casey: I think we need to determine if it is going to be a driveway or a private street. A private street is a minimum of 24' from back to curb and back to curb. The minimum street standards that apply are only for the construction of the pavement section and the sub -grade underneath. We need some direction here on what you all are considering as to what this will be labeled will it be a private street or if we would see it as a driveway? Bunch: Would we approach that at this point in time verses the time of Large Scale, we would say what the street width would be? I guess part of the thing that is driving this is when the bank lot was split off. Historically, the stubbed out driveways were there to provide this access and give a visible rendition of where those accesses need to be because it was already planned that way. How wide is the existing ingress and egress and what would it take to match up with them and do we need to include that at this time through either the Preliminary Plat or Conditional Use? Warrick: Is that a specific question? Bunch: How wide of a street do we need to put in there because if we are going to say we want to accept a 30' access, then the question becomes what access do we get within that 30' and if we are looking at accessing commercial as well as residential I think in order to give direction to the applicant that we need to be more specific. Moore: The width of the access easement itself is not a big issue. We could make that 40'. That is not a big issue in my mind. The issue is if it is a public street there will be a 30' building setback from the edge of the right of way, which will be 50' from the south property line. If it is an access easement that setback will not exist. If we wanted to make the road a 24' that would not be a problem, we could put in a 35' access easement or for that matter, a 40' access easement. Does that make any sense? Bunch: Yes, since the easement verses right of way question has to do with the setbacks and that sort of thing. As we are presenting this as the applicant Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 34 requested giving them some direction and letting them know in advance of what costs are going to be, I thought we might speak to the issue as to what type of access this will be with roads, sidewalks or that sort of thing. Another item on the keeping track of what the costs are, this is something that may be varied in history, when this was first divided up there were some costs that were delayed having to do with bridges and other offsite additions in the area. I talked with Jeremy about that to see if these were viable assessments that were delayed with the original action saying that at such time as this particular process comes through those fees will be applied. Matt, do you have an answer for us on that? Casey: Of the assessments that were made on the previous lot split, the only one that would still be applicable is the Salem Road bridge assessment. I would recommend that we would look at that assessment at the time of development because we will have actual numbers to work with as far as projected traffic counts for the number of units. There was also an assessment for Wedington Road there but Wedington Road is currently constructed and it has been a policy that assessments not be made after the fact but only for the upcoming needs, such as the Salem Road Bridge. That is why I would not recommend an assessment for the already improved Wedington Drive. Shackelford: Back to your original question of comments regarding right of way. Obviously, I'm only one vote of eight tonight but I personally see some benefit in allowing an access easement verses a right of way in this situation. I think it is going to allow this property to develop a lot better. As far as some of the other conversations about the width of the easement, I probably would support something a little wider than a 30' easement because we need to see a 24' drive here and a sidewalk. I also think that the desire to sell this property is really going to dictate the level of finish out that the developer does on this. They are going to want to make this as nice as possible so they can sell this so they can move onto the next project. I, for one, would support the access easement over the right of way dedication to allow them that ability. I also stated earlier we owe the developer that level of definition so they know which way to go. I also think that we owe them some input of the design shown here, although it is conceptual, with lot one. I have an issue with having one access into this development with 144 bedrooms and 72 units. I think we owe them that due process that when the Large Scale Development comes forward that a second source of access is going to be vital. Hoover: I believe staff mentioned vehicular and pedestrian access to Wedington so I would assume that would mean it would have a second. Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 35 Shackelford: It is not on the conceptual drawing so I just wanted to make sure that the applicant was aware of staffs comments. I think that is going to be critical for the approval of this on a Large Scale Development. Vaught: Are you speaking of off that access easement or off another part of the parking lot? Shackelford: I don't know that it would necessarily have to be off that access. In fact, I think internal circulation would work better if it was off another cut. I just think it is an awful big development for one entrance and one exit. Vaught: I would also be in support of an access easement. The main issue is the building setbacks. This is what I'm understanding from staff, the condition of the build out of a drive in that access easement is more of a concern than a building setback. If we could specify a 24' road with minimum residential street standards with curb and gutter. Is that something that we can do inside an access easement? Warrick: If the Planning Commission feels that it is necessary for proper circulation and access I think you could. It might be more appropriate at the time of Large Scale when you understand more about the layout of a specific project whether it is the northern or western tract. We have crafted another proposed condition if you are ready for it. To remove items two from the Preliminary Plat report and five from the Conditional Use report and replace item number one in your Preliminary Plat packet to state "Staff recommends that a 40' access easement be dedicated to connect Salem and Wedington Drive and that construction of said access will be delayed until such time as future development occurs on either tract. Elder: One more comment as I'm kind of analyzing how this is all going, when we first met with the city and came to the Planning Committee meeting, it has never been indicated to us that we would have needed to provide access from Wedington. This could've ended a long time ago had we known that. That was never an issue. In fact, we were told that that would be the responsibility of the other tract. We are not developing tract B, we are developing tract A. We brought up the curb cut, that would've provided a second access off of Salem to give two. Another thing I need to point out, it is not 144 bedrooms, it is 128 bedrooms, 64 two bedroom units with more than enough parking. The curb cut on Salem we envisioned a curb cut there and utilizing the existing curb cut to give the two. To ask us to provide access off of Wedington, I'm saying why wasn't that an issue from the beginning then we wouldn't be here tonight because that is not feasible for us to do at all on this project. For a future development to make another stub from the parking where they can connect this, that is a different thing. To say that we are required, the bank wasn't required to do that, we're required to do that for someone else's Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 36 development, we can just go home, that won't work. I wish it would've been brought up sooner. That's brand new to me. Hoover: We always have connectivity and two accesses usually on something this size. Is the stub out adequate? Warrick: I don't know that I can even necessarily speculate on that not knowing more about a proposed layout. We've talked about different numbers of units, different configurations, different access points. I'm hesitant to speculate more on where we are going to need access. Typically, it is appropriate to have access from adjoining streets if they are available. It depends on the layout of the project and we don't have that at this point. Anthes: I'm looking at pages 9.13 and 9.31 of our packets, the illustration of the Lot Split from 1998 and the Preliminary Plat from 2002. In the 1998 Lot Split it shows a future 40' right of way dedication for a potential street that would run the length of the southern edge of proposed tract A and provide connectivity, instead of to Wedington Road, to the future development of the agricultural property to the west of this. Why was that taken off when we talk about connectivity and all these other projects that we do in residential and with the street constructed in that location serving this development with a potential for a possible future connection to the west, would that satisfy you? Warrick: That right of way recommendation was removed by the Planning Commission in the action that followed that Lot Split. I think that it is important to look at this property and understand that we don't necessarily have to have a city street or dedicated right of way in order to ensure cross access between adjoining development. We do that on a daily basis when we are talking about people developing on lots that are infill or that are adjacent to other commercial lots. We will require that a drive aisle is stubbed out or there is some other means of connection for internal circulation between developments, not necessarily a street right of way making a full street connection. I think that we will certainly look for some type of connectivity to the west regardless of whether or not it is a street connection with street right of way dedicated or an internal type drive aisle connection, which is more common between commercial developments that are adjoining. Yes, it is important that we have that connectivity to the west. When we look at a Large Scale Development on either one of these tracts that have property to the west side of them we need to consider that. Hoover: Where are we? Shackelford: A question of staff. I may be misunderstanding this, as you read the potential condition of approval that would require the access to Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 37 Wedington, depending on which lot builds first, are you saying that if lot A develops they will be responsible to build the access at that time to the eastern boundary of Lot B all the way to Wedington? Warrick: That would be the way that it is stated in that recommended condition. Just to let you know, what I did was read the bottom part of condition number one substituting 40' for 50' and substituting easement for right of way. That has not changed from the staff report that has been distributed and published. The only changes I made were the dimension and the type of access being an easement verses right of way. Shackelford: Would staff support a stubout in that area to allow that road to be built when tract B developed if there was another source of access, maybe another curb cut to Salem Road into tract A? Warrick: I think that we are going to a place that I don't necessarily think we're ready to go. I don't think we have enough information. I don't feel like I have enough information to make that recommendation. One thing that is difficult with this project that has been difficult for staff is that we have to look at a Preliminary Plat. It is the way that this project has to be subdivided in order to create the tract of land that the applicant wishes to develop. Regardless of any sort of development plan for either one of these two lots that are being proposed, we need to determine the best way to subdivide the property and what appropriate conditions need to be applied to that action. In a way it makes it more difficult to consider the Preliminary Plat and the Conditional Use together because traditionally and typically what we would see is a Preliminary Plat creating a subdivision. At that point in time we look at all of the necessary access issues, we make requirements, they install the infrastructure, bring it through the Final Plat and it is done on the ground and we have a lot that someone can bring through the development review process for a project. At this point in time we are looking at two things together that are not necessarily usually considered together. That makes it more difficult because we don't know if the Planning Commission feels that the residential use that the density being proposed is appropriate on the northern tract. Staff feels that it is and we don't feel that that is too much of a hurdle. The actual layout of that has not been reviewed and is not under consideration. All that is really to you is let's split the tract up, have two new lots to develop and let's see whether or not the proposed use is appropriate on the north tract. Shackelford: I understand that. It is difficult for us because we can't see everything conceptually that is going to happen. I assume it is just as difficult for the applicant without knowing all of the rules he or she might abide by to go draw up a plan that is economically feasible. It is a tough situation and is a unique way of looking at the approval process. Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 38 Hoover: Your revised condition number one, when they start the next step, will it be clear at the next meeting if they start laying it out about this access to Wedington, if that is going to have to be a full easement or road built or a stub out? How far along in the process would that come up? Warrick: It would have to be designed at the Large Scale Development, whichever tract develops first if the Planning Commission approves it the way the last condition was stated. Graves: This may be what Commissioner Shackelford asked but I am going to ask it in a different way to make sure I understand. Is there not a way to reserve this right of access in such a way that if they develop the northern tract first that you could have them build out the northern portion of the road and maintain the right of access for the western tract until such time as they might develop that tract? In other words, maybe they built half the road but you've still got the right of access and then you could require the other portion of the road be built at such time as that part of it came before you. Warrick: I think the Planning Commission would have that opportunity at the time of Large Scale. You may have to modify the conditions slightly. I think it would depend on what the intent was and also on what the project is that is going through Large Scale review. Adequate access is necessary regardless of the location of the project or the type of project. If we were looking at development of the northern tract and we looked at a Large Scale Development and the action today for the Preliminary Plat is that a 40' access easement is dedicated along the north and west property lines of the bank property. We would then need to look at how much of that access was appropriate and needed for whichever tract developed first. The Planning Commission has the opportunity to make that requirement at the time of development if the access easement is dedicated now. We can't require the access easement on the west side of the Arkansas National Bank tract later when we are looking at a Large Scale project for the 4.7 acres on the north because we won't have control of it then unless it was to develop as one big piece which obviously, is not the intent. That's what we are doing with splitting them up. I don't know if that answers your question directly. Graves: I think it did. I am just interested in trying to find out if there would be a way to give the applicant more certainty about what they might have to build or what they would have the potential to propose at the Large Scale Development stage for the northern tract but still reserving the right to build out a road on the western tract later when that tract developed if that turned out to be appropriate for access to the northern tract. Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 39 Warrick: I think it lies in the manner for which the condition is crafted now for the Preliminary Plat. If that is your intent to have an access that is being developed at such time as it is deemed necessary based on the two lots building out. The Planning Commission needs to decide I guess if you think it is appropriate for 64 condominium units to have a direct access to Wedington. If it is then the project to develop those 64 condominium units should bear the burden of constructing that access. Vaught: It is hard for me because there is so much unknown. There are a lot of options. They could connect to Wedington through the project in other places to the south, not necessarily just with this access easement. What I worry about with just an access easement on the western property is I don't want that to be part of a parking lot. If that is part of an access easement couldn't they put parking spaces off of that? You wouldn't have to have the curb and gutter unless we specified street standards on it. Warrick: As long as the purpose of the easement is not impeded you could have other things in that area. You have to maintain access. If that is an access easement it has to be dedicated solely for the purpose of access. Vaught: I have no problem with that access easement bordering the northern line. There would be, if we specify access easement on the western lot we could then change it at the time of Large Scale depending on the project or would we be able to specify the street standards with curb and gutter there? I don't want, if that is the access easement for this northern lot and these town homes, I don't want it to be cut through a parking lot is what I am worried about. I'd want it to be more like a street. Warrick: The only time that you could control it changing it from an access easement to right of way would be at the time of development of the southern tract because that is the subject property at that point in time and if it is necessary for it to be right of way then that is when you would have that opportunity. Vaught: I agree. I don't think it should be the burden of the northern tract to bear that burden, unless their project deserves it. It is hard because we are trying to give you definition and flexibility but we are not trying to tie our hands later. I do like the terminology that staff just used "Street delayed until such time as deemed necessary." I think that access to Wedington can be achieved in many ways with this site not necessarily right next to the bank depending on what goes in south of it. That's what is so hard for us here. It could be a stub out between two parking lots on the far western edge. I'm not necessarily opposed to requiring access easements on both lots at this time and then specifying the level of development later if that is enough definition for you the developers. What are you wanting to see out of this as the applicant? Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 40 Elder: The issue of access from Wedington was never an issue. This project, if we use the existing curb cut, you are only talking about the distance off of Wedington of the bank building lot. Using the existing curb cut, I don't see the big problem with residents accessing Wedington from that way. How does that benefit for us to provide that drive on the other side of the bank when there is one on the other side? It is hard for me. If you are wanting circular then we would've come back and talked about the additional curb cut issue which we have not brought up because we have tried to design this to satisfy the fact that you all probably didn't want another curb cut. Staff was not recommending that. If the issue of access circular internal access is an issue then adding another curb cut on Salem is a reasonable request of us verses bringing another street from Wedington right along side Salem the same distance to the same piece of property. We are not developing tract B, we are not touching Wedington. I do appreciate you wanting to clarify this tonight. I know we are taking a long time but this is a very big issue for us to know tonight what they are going to recommend at Large Scale. It is a very big decision. I am a little surprised that that is being brought up now because it wasn't in two previous meetings. The future development, when we asked for clarification of that was only that we provide it on the north side of the bank. Vaught: For me some of those other decisions like additional curb cuts are things that we can address at Large Scale as well. What we are doing now is reserving this lane. Elder: It helps for us to get a really, really clear indication that if we are going to be asked to provide the street on a 50' easement from that. Of course we are not opposed to you all having a right of way from Wedington traveling north for the commercial down the road. To ask us to provide that access it would be wonderful to know that tonight, it would've been even more wonderful to know it at the initial meeting with staff. Bunch: I think one of the confusing things here is when we are using the term access. It is being used in several different ways. I think what we are looking at here is having an access wrapping around the north and west side of the bank property. This goes back to the original time when the bank was split off and to provide opportunities for future development of both of these lots. As we can see, our action tonight may not come to fruition because this thing has bounced around for a number of years and has had several different zonings and several different layouts and lot lines. I think if we just look at the access easement and then make a statement that only the northern portion, the portion on the north boundary of the bank, would need to be built if the northern tract develops first. I think maybe if the southern tract develops first, which is commercial, Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 41 access to Salem is much more critical. Right now with the residential development everything would be onto Salem Road and there is not any driving need to access Wedington at this point in time. Should the southern lot develop out as a commercial piece of property then the internal access would be necessary. I think to simplify this if we can say to grant the easement on both pieces of property since this is a Preliminary Plat since it affects tracts A and B and to give direction, make a comment if tract A being the northern tract develops first, then the easement would be built along the northern border of the bank and stubbed out to access Wedington but not completed. If the southern and western lot develops first then the whole access would have to be completed. I don't know how to put that into a motion, I think I just did. To have it be a 40' access easement and for a 24' road to be constructed to public street standards, even though it may or may not be a public street, and to have vehicular and pedestrian access provided. That should address the Preliminary Plat and I think all of the other conditions, were we going to remove two, restructure one and then that should be it. I guess I will make that as my motion. It is going to be hard to repeat it but that's the concept that needs to be embodied in the motion. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch, is there a second? Shackelford: I will second the motion with the addition also, again, I'm only one vote of nine but as I look at this project and talking about access, I am looking at the other side of the coin as far as the internal circulation and I would support a second curb cut on Salem Road to the north that would line up to the majority of the parking lot to allow easier access and internal circulation within the project. Again, that is something that you will have to get a waiver on and I'm only one vote of nine but for the record I would be in support of that as it was originally drawn. Hoover: We have a second by Commissioner Shackelford. I have a few comments. I would differ with you about a second curb cut on Salem. In fact, I prefer just letting them do the access easement to Wedington and not building the road in lieu of a second curb cut on Salem. It looks a little tight to me but I could easily change my mind as it develops. Is there more discussion? Anthes: Are we or are we not removing condition number two? Hoover: He removed condition number two. Anthes: Ok. Hoover: Is there any other clarifications or discussion? Renee? Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 42 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 04-02.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Hoover: With the Conditional Use we have not talked about density. Is there discussion about this? Vaught: I am not opposed to the density. I think it could be a good buffer. The neighborhood to the north I'm not sure exactly the density, it is zoned RMF -24, it is pretty tight. I think it could be a good buffer between this and Wedington which is a pretty busy road. Anthes: Madam Chair, do we need to open this to public comment because I don't believe we've done that with the Conditional Use yet have we? Hoover: Yes, we did both at the same time. Is there anyone that would like to address this? Seeing none, I will bring it back just for good measure. Shackelford: I concur with Commissioner Vaught's comments, I think this is in line with a lot of the density in this area and I think it is a good transition from commercial and a very busy road for a neighborhood area. I am in support of the proposed density. Warrick: Based on the previous action with regard to the Preliminary Plat I think it is appropriate to remove conditions four and five. They are addressed through that other action. I think it is also appropriate to get a handle on exact numbers because we've heard different numbers tonight than what was submitted in the application. The application was for 72 units with 144 bedrooms and I believe we are considering 64 units with 128 bedrooms now. Hoover: That's confirmed, 64 units with 128 bedrooms? Elder: Yes. Hoover: Thank you. Bunch: What is that per acre on the revised density? Shackelford: 13. Warrick: That would modify the density information that is included in your conditions. Item number one, we calculated that with the previous numbers, that could be modified to reflect the proposal which would allow for a density not to exceed 13.5 units per acre. Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 43 MOTION: Shackelford: I will make a motion to approve CUP 03-31.00 restating condition number one to state density allowed on the subject property shall not exceed 13.5 units per acre. My understanding is we have stricken conditions number four and five so that leaves us nine conditions of approval so subject to those nine conditions of approval. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford. Vaught: I will second. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Vaught, is there more discussion? Bunch: Yes, a question of the applicant. How do you feel about the revised conditions of approval? Elder: They are much better. Bunch: So you would sign off on these as presented in the motion? Elder: I appreciate it, certainly. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Williams: My math is not exactly the same as the City Planner's math. I would say they can't quite squeeze that in with 13.5 so I would say not to exceed 14 and use these other figures up here so it is clear that they will be able to get their development done. Shackelford: I will amend my motion so that it states 14 units maximum per acre. Vaught: I agree. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 03-31.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 44 ADM 04-08.00: Administrative Item (Amendment to Planning Commission Bylaws, Article In Submitted by Dawn Warrick, Planning and Development Administrator, proposing an amendment to the time of election of officers. Hoover: Item number eleven on the agenda is ADM 04-08.00. Warrick: This proposed amendment to the Planning Commission bylaws has been discussed at several different meetings and I prepared it after speaking with Commissioner Hoover and several other Commissioners. The purpose is to modify the time that you are mandated to elect officers for the Planning Commission. The way that the bylaws currently read is that you must have your election at the first meeting in April. At that point in time you have new sitting Commissioners who potentially don't know any of their fellow Commissioners and have been part of the process at all. It would be the first action that a Commissioner takes once they join your group. That is probably what happened to a good majority of you, the first meeting you attended you were asked to vote on the officers for the Planning Commission. The modification is proposed to allow the Planning Commission flexibility and basically just changes the time frame to state that you will have that election no later than the first meeting in April but it gives you the lead way to elect your officers prior to that if you so choose but it is not quite as demanding as what you currently have on the books. That is what this proposed bylaw amendment is and it is really to strike one word and to add three in Article II, Offices Subsection A where the second sentence states "The Nominating Committee shall present its slate to the Planning Commission who shall elect by secret ballot the Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary annually." Strike the word at and insert no later than the first regular meeting in the month of April. Hoover: Is there any member of the public that would like to address this administrative item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Allen: I just think this makes a lot of sense. I don't see how new Commissioners can have any notion as to who would be the best candidate so I move for approval of ADM 04-08.00. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Allen. Shackelford: I will second. Hoover: Is there anymore discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 04-08.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 45 Administrative Item: Report from the Nominating Committee Administrative Item: Outdoor Lighting and Hillside Updates Hoover: Item number twelve is Administrative item, a report from the Nominating Committee. Will Commissioner Allen be giving that? Allen: I think Commissioner Anthes can give that report. Hoover: I will just state the Nominating Committee was Commissioner Ostner, Anthes and Allen. Anthes: The Nominating Committee met this evening at 5:00 p.m., February 23`d in the agenda room. We proposed the following slate of officers for 2004- 2005. Chair, Alan Ostner; Vice Chair, Loren Shackelford; Secretary, Nancy Allen. Hoover: Thank you. We are going to vote on this the next meeting. Warrick: We will prepare your secret ballots so that your vote can be at your next meeting. Your next meeting is the first meeting in March, you may vote at that meeting or the following. Hoover: I think we can vote at the next meeting. Warrick: Ok, the March 8th meeting. We will have that for you. Hoover: Thank you. Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 46 Hoover: Onto item 13, the Outdoor Lighting and Hillside updates. Olson: Good evening Madam Chair and members of the Commission. I am here to just do a little update on the Outdoor Lighting and the Hillside ordinance and where staff is with those. I left the Outdoor Lighting ordinance with you all this evening at the beginning of the evening, you should have it there somewhere in front of you. This is just a draft. The Outdoor Lighting ordinance, just a brief history, did go through the Planning Commission, it was tabled by the City Council. Since that time staff has gone back and reworked this ordinance, tinkered with it a little bit. Basically what we've done is removed some of the compliance things in the ordinance that would've been burdensome on the property owner and developer and on staff to enforce it. Light meter readings and things of that nature have been removed. This draft is fairly straight forward. What we are proposing to regulate are the types of fixtures and the placement of those fixtures. It has been simplified quite a bit and it would apply to all new development excluding single and two family dwellings. In regard to the Hillside Ordinance, it has been an ongoing discussion on Hillsides. What we have come up with very recently is we have scheduled a Hillside Ordinance workshop for Thursday, March 4`h at 5:00 p.m. to be held here in Room 326 of City Hall. This will be a discussion workshop. Some of the items that we will probably be discussing will be boundaries, how the ordinance is applied, the standards that we proposed, if those are adequate. If there would be perhaps a better standard that we should use. All of those issues we will discuss at the Hillside Ordinance Workshop on Thursday, March 4th at 5:00. Hoover: Thank you Leif. Olson: Do you all have any questions or comments? Church: Is the workshop open to the public? I just want to clarify that. I think there is a lot of interest in this and how it affects people's property and so I just want to makes sure that the yare aware that's open to the public. Olson: Absolutely. Graves: Is it going to be open for public comment as well or participation, not just attendance? Olson: Absolutely. That's what we will be looking for is some input at that meeting. Staff and the Planning Commission task force has looked at this for quite some time so we would like to move forward with it. Any input would be helpful. Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 47 Bunch: Leif, are there any major changes from the proposed draft that was offered at the last task force meeting? Olson: We have not made any changes to that. Bunch: It is basically in that form and subject to additional review. Olson: That is how the Planning Commission taskforce left it and staff has not altered any of that. That draft will be what we will start out looking at at the workshop meeting. Bunch: Any other considerations that have been brought up in the interim that may need to be inserted but just haven't been physically written on the same page yet? Anthes: Is it at 5:00 or 5:30? Warrick: It will immediately follow our agenda session that day for the March 8`n Planning Commission meeting. Vaught: I would just like to get the hillside ordinance draft forwarded to the Commissioners through email before the meeting. Hoover: I would just like to make one comment as chair of that taskforce. The draft that has been completed has not been adopted by the committee at all, it was just presented at the last meeting. Don't come after the three of us, we don't know if we agree either. We want to get input before we discuss it any further. Thank you Leif. Are there any other announcements? Allen: I was going to remind you of your commitment to me to make an appointment of someone to replace me of my four year service with the Sidewalk and Trails Committee. Hoover: I was thinking that I would appoint myself for the next month and then the next Chair could appoint someone starting April I" with a clean slate if that is ok with you. Allen: That is fine with me. Hoover: We stand adjourned, thank you.