Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-28 MinutesPlanning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 1 C-PZD 05-1704 First Baptist Church Commissioner Ostner: The next item is C-PZD 05-1704 for First Baptist Church. Ms. Morgan read the staff report. This is a unique request for approval of a Master Development Plan Commercial Planned Zoning District for First Baptist Church located at the corner of Dickson and College Ave. This request is for approval of a rezoning and future development which will occur in 5 phases. At this time, what is before you is not detailed plans for this development with specific street improvements outlined, etc. However, this is a zoning issue and will establish the land use and building requirements, bulk and area, and signage usage for this property. This property is currently being utilized for First Baptist Church and buildings surrounding the property. The applicant desires to enlarge this structure as shown on the plan before you. With this proposal, additional parking would be provided in a coming phase with a parking deck on the property. The applicant proposes this in five phases, which includes the renovation of the existing building that is occurring at this time. The applicant proposes compliance with the majority of the requirements of the Unified Development Code. There are some slight modifications; the parking proposed is for a total of 167 parking spaces - with current ordinances a minimum 175 parking spaces are allowed, so the applicants are requesting eight fewer spaces without a conditional use approval. That is addressed in condition one of the conditions of approval. Briefly going through the zoning criteria proposed, the proposed use unit is Use Unit 4, Cultural and recreational facilities, which allows for church use. The property is currently zoned C-2 and R -O and requires a conditional use approval for this use. The density or intensity is listed as none which will allow for the proposed development. They are establishing a maximum buildable area of 60% of the property. Height regulations are listed for each phase of development with phase two being two stories, as well as phase four. Phase three is a one story proposal at 14 ft; the parking deck would be maximum of 3 levels in height, with a net 88 spaces. There are not any setback requirements which would allow the development of this building to the property line. The current existing structure is built within the Master Street Plan right-of-way for College Ave. The applicant is required to process a request for lesser dedication of right-of-way for College Ave. and potentially Dickson St, depending on where the building is located adjacent to the right -of- way. However, this would be done at the time of the development and the conditions we listed in the staff report reflect this. With regard to signage, the applicant is proposing something a little different than what is typically allowed for monument signs. The applicant is proposing two monument signs on the property, one at the corner of Dickson and College and a second at the corner of Dickson and Highland The applicant proposes a 15 ft setback for the monument sign on Dickson and a zero -foot set back for the one on Highland and Dickson. Staff recommends the requested monument signs, as long as they meet the regulations set forth in the Commercial Zoning District requirements. We have included that as the second condition requesting Planning Commission review. There are proposals for phasing, shown in shading, based on the development plans. Construction of sidewalks will be in compliance with the Master Street Plan adjacent to College and Dickson. The applicant requests the phasing of street improvements to correspond with the phasing of Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 2 construction to remove any landscaping or sidewalks during renovation. Since we are not reviewing development at this time, the applicant will be required to come through review for each of its phases as a large scale development. No residential dwelling units are proposed. Listed are 14 conditions of approval, and staff is recommending forwarding this Master Development Plan to the City Council for consideration. Mr. Thad Kelly with Cromwell Architects represented the applicant. He stated that the proposed right-of-way off of College is a huge issue with them, that it takes 20 feet of the building that is already existing. He showed where the line would be on the map. The point being made is that they would prefer condition number 10. This is important for the whole project. We can not build in a right-of-way. He stated that they tried to enhance the corner of College and Dickson with a structure that builds a streetscape and landscaping. Better flow and circulation of the church and internal processes would be achieved. It would be done in phases in the next 22 years, and the parking deck would be the last thing. This was planned in mind to engage the city's master plan for the street/wall elements along College. We agree with everything that staff recommends, including establishment of vegetation as a buffer to any adjacent residential property. Part of the reason we are doing this is due to the zoning, which is from a different era when this was R -O. We are trying to do this as a current PZD, to get away from the R -O. Everything that is touching us or near us is commercial. He cited buildings in the surrounding area as examples. Commissioner Ostner opened the floor to public comment. There was no public comment. Commissioner Trumbo stated he had a question on the monument signs, what is shown on the plat given to us, is this set in stone? Mr. Pate stated it is not set in stone, but as with all Master Development Plans, this is a template, to see what the developer is going to do with the fully designed project. No, we do not anticipate that is exactly where the monument signs will be, but they will be in that general area. Condition 2 in the staff report states that the monument signs must meet the setback requirements within a commercial zoning district. Signage is a zoning issue and ties back to the zoning ordinances. Staff approval is based on the setback requirements that are required in that zoning district. Commissioner Vaught stated that they never had anything this long term in phases before, is that acceptable in a PZD. Mr. Pate stated that City Council and Planning Commission will determine if it is appropriate, with their review of the master plan. Commissioner Vaught stated that phase five is the parking deck. Mr. Pate stated that is correct. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 3 Commissioner Ostner stated he would like to know where the parking deck is slated to go. Mr. Kelly stated that the parking deck would be between them and the Thrifty Nickel, at grade with College Avenue, and extending out to three levels on Highland. There is a grade change on one deck level there. We could laminate a building on the street edge if needed. Mr. Vaught, on the phase question, the church has been there for 150 years, and this document is to let you know that they intend to build for next 22 years. Commissioner Vaught directed his question to Mr. Pate on the parking deck requirements. With the calculations, with a parking deck, will that allow 167 parking spaces? Mr. Pate stated that 167 spaces are shown on the plans, with the addition of the parking deck it would allow 88 net spaces to be provided. Commissioner Allen stated when the parking deck is completed, would they be willing to do some shared parking during the times you don't have church actives going on, with other business on Dickson Street? Mr. Kelly noted that the church has been very accommodating with the businesses in the surrounding area. He didn't see any problem with that. Also, the parking was based on the 1000 seats in the auditorium. However, with the renovation that is going on currently, the church has decreased the seating and moved people around. Commissioner Ostner stated he understands that this is a Master Development Plan, and they are not asking for development, but how does this work with our rezoning and Unified Development Code? Besides the discrepancy with the right-of-way on College, he thought a proposal needed a zoning change that did not fit in with current codes to propose a Master Development Plan. Why are we seeing this, and not a large scale development with right-of-way issues? Mr. Pate stated that the problem of the existing right-of-way is only one; issues with setbacks and zoning is another. He explained these issues to Commissioner Ostner. Commissioner Ostner stated due to the right-of-way issue, zoning, and conditional uses required for a church, we see it as a PZD. He stated he understands it now. Commissioner Vaught stated that nothing on the drawing states phase 5, do we need to make it say phase 5 for the parking deck on the paperwork as stated? Mr. Pate stated it can be, as it is stated in the conditions. Commissioner Lack stated his concern with the parking deck. Listed in the booklet in phase 4, the parking deck is mentioned. He stated his concern on the open door this will give someone in the future. With it mentioned in Phase 4, it will allow an open deck area and height limitations. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 4 This would limit the 2 story parking area to a 24 ft. height, but he can also see the desirability of the liner building and the streetscape. Mr. Kelly stated that the confusion of the height is that the 88 feet is the existing building and it would go no higher than that. Commissioner Lack stated that in the booklet for phase 4, there are diagrams with calculated height requirements for each phase. He sees a limitation to the two story parking deck. Ms. Morgan stated in the booklet at one point in time all of the phases were broken down and phase five was specifically identified as the parking deck. It appears in revisions if you look on page 2 of the general concept, discussion of phase 4, it states in the second paragraph, mid -way down, that at some unknown future date, the applicant envisions a 2-3 level parking deck. And the parking deck is shown in the plans schematically. Commissioner Lack stated with the limitation of heights to go by phase, we do not have a height requirement established for the parking garage. Mr. Kelly stated the garage should be in the required 24 feet height requirements. The cars would be taller than that, but the structure itself would be open on the top. Commissioner Lack stated that would be acceptable if added as a condition or part of the development plan. Mr. Murphy with Cromwell Architects stated the parking deck is a future consideration that the church has in mind, not being very specific at this time. It is a thought towards two things: One, to provide the church with the availability to increase their parking. The parking deck is described as a 2-3 story building. Twenty years from now, the city's point -of -view about parking may change, or the city might ask them to build a 3 story parking deck, then add one story. But it is not very well flushed out now. What Thad said about the height is true, because of the change in grade there. It would be in the keeping with the building heights in the surrounding areas. Commissioner Lack stated we are being asked to approve a master plan and we are establishing those criteria for all the other phases. The one phase that would have the most potential for concern is the parking garage. We do not want to end up with an open parking deck on the streetscape and the loss of that facade. Mr. Murphy asked Commissioner Lack if it was his recommendation to amend our proposal to provide a more specific description of the deck? Commission Lack stated looking into this as an over-all Master Plan that was his assessment of it, and would like to hear from the other commissioners. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 5 Mr. Murphy stated he would like to address the parking deck in general, at this point. He stated again, that there were two purposes to the parking deck. One being the church's use of it, due to the overall parking situation in Fayetteville and the ideal structure to meet the current PZD. He stated again that these are plans for the far future, and it was good to think in those terms. He also mentions that possibly pulling the parking deck from the proposal at this time to go forward would be a good idea. Commissioner Lack stated that he would like to applaud the idea of using a parking deck with an urban church in this urban campus. Commissioner Graves stated that he was going to propose, before the applicant had, to possibly remove the parking deck from this particular application, due to it being so far off in the future, and not even knowing if they are going to be doing it. If they do, they don't seem to know what it would possibly look like. The applicant seems pretty knowledgeable in the other areas of what they want, and he states he doesn't feel comfortable binding the Planning Commission 20 years from now. He states an example of this and advised that it would be a good idea to pull this from the application. Commissioner Vaught stated he also applauds the idea of the parking deck. He asks Mr. Pate if they should strike the whole parking deck out, or leave a part of it. Will it come in as a large scale development, or how will they go about that in the future. Mr. Pate stated it is really up to the Commission, if they feel it is more appropriate to strike it or do not feel comfortable with it at this time. Staff felt it was a major component for this downtown development to have structured parking, as opposed to surface parking. This has been an issue for many of the churches in this downtown area. If the applicant has no problem of striking it at this time, we see no problem in it. Parking decks can be added at a later date. Commissioner Vaught directed a question to Mr. Williams. If we approve this, under the Master Development Plan, will the applicant be subject to the Downtown Zoning Code once passed? Mr. Williams stated that it might be subject to both of them, though this will be granting them the approval to build it. It is not final approval, because they do have to come through as a large scale development and comply with the existing ordinances. This is more of a rezoning issue, and the location of various buildings, which they are showing. Commissioner Vaught stated that if the Master Development Plan passes, and one year or 10 years from now, for this parking deck they come forward with the liner buildings, they will be held accountable for the standards at that time, not what is being passed now. Mr. Williams stated that this is an difficult question, because you would be approving a parking deck here, whether or not it is required in the future to have a liner building with the parking Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 6 deck or not. That part may not be enforceable down the road in the Master Plan, assuming it would be approved. Commissioner Vaught stated again about the time frame of the parking deck and the issues of not knowing what could happen in the next 20 years. His concern is whether to keep it in the Master Development Plan or take it out, or add some kind of condition stating that at the time of approval, those are the guidelines that need to be met. Mr. Pate stated its better to remove it altogether for the packet to the City Council for the zoning decision rather than add arbitrary conditions. They may still be the drawings, but we can state that it is a future use. Commissioner Vaught stated that they would then come back with an amendment to the Master Development Plan at the time they would be ready to do that. Mr. Pate agreed. Commissioner Graves stated his follow-up concerns, which were the same as his previous statements and coincided with Commissioner Vaught. Commissioner Ostner stated he was thinking along the same lines, if somewhere in the applicant's proposal, it could state that if they are willing to build the garage in the future, with this proposal giving no permissions of any sort, possibly in the statement of commitments. The parking deck does make things more confusing. Mr. Murphy stated the church would like to remove the parking deck from the application. Commissioner Ostner asked the staff if there would be significant changes in the drawings that would need to reflect this new situation. Mr. Pate stated not for the Planning Commission, the drawings will not be a problem and it is not directly stated in the booklet, as Commissioner Lack stated. We will remove it from our staff report, if that is the Commission's wish. We will refer to it as a potential action and not a phase Commissioner Anthes stated she has a question on the timing. The infrastructure is being built for the parking deck in the first phases, for the future of the parking deck. The Master Development Plan states the maximum limit of development, and if we remove the parking deck from it, we would be exceeding the maximum development allowed in this zoning. Mr. Williams stated that would be true unless it was an amendment to the Master Development Plan that was presented by the applicant to ensure in the future any revisiting of the zoning issues, by the City Council and Planning Commission in this particular case. What you say is correct, but they can come back in the future and say they want a change to this Master Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 7 Development Plan that was approved in 2005, and list the reasons. The Planning Commission can look at that and it would not be in violation of that policy. Commissioner Anthes stated if nothing is planned for that site, then we would get a large surface parking lot. Commissioner Ostner asked if anyone was opposed to taking out the parking deck in the proposal. Commissioner Anthes stated that she is not comfortable yet with that decision. Commissioner Ostner stated that he would take that as opposed. No one else opposed. He stated that the informal reflection in the conditions and record reflect that eight of us are in favor of the parking deck being removed from the proposal, and one is opposed to it. Commissioner Anthes stated she had no problem with the land use as a church, but does have questions on the bulk and area requirements, and on the lack of time requirements, compared to our other PZD processes. The applicant has stated that their intention is to reflect the Downtown Development and Downtown Master Plan in their development. The staff report indicates the addition of parking lots off of Lafayette Street in the area would be detrimental for street character. She states that the development shown is also highly detrimental for the street character of Highland Avenue. It is almost all surface parking lots along the entire length of Highland Avenue, which I don't believe is in keeping of the principle of the Downtown Master Plan or with the development as we are envisioning it for the future. That leads into the heights of the buildings that are being requested in the different phases. One shows one story on College Avenue, but in the surrounding area, the minimum is 2 or 3 stories on our major streets. She states that the one story addition is not in keeping for downtown. Also, the Planning Commission is talking of the height limitations (in the Downtown Zoning Code) that this height might end up 3 stories, and in the future it might be too low. She also notes the dimensions of the parking deck as being a 2 bay deck, with a sloped ramp and a liner building. Also, a question on the monument signs to staff. She states that normally we allow a sign on the building and one monument sign, and believe that they have signs on their building now, and can staff explain what the church has and what they are proposing. Mr. Pate stated that he did not know how many signs they had on the existing buildings, the church might be able to answer that. Commissioner Anthes stated that there is one on the drive-thru canopy where the proposed monument sign is shown. Mr. Pate agreed, but monument signs are in a separate category. Commissioner Anthes asked normally don't we issue one monument sign per commercial Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 8 business? Mr. Pate cited the ordinance of the monument and wall signs. He noted that 1 wall sign per wall face for each business is allowed. Commissioner Anthes stated we need to keep everything uniform for the surrounding area, which would almost disallow the second monument for that reason. She stated that the building area shown is a maximum 60% coverage, assuming it is covered in current ordinances. How does that compare to what we are looking for on Downtown Development? She believes the Downtown Master Plan requires more coverage than this. Mr. Pate stated that was correct. Commissioner Anthes stated that in approving this proposal, it will be for less coverage than what is stated in the Downtown Master Plan and expected development for the future. She stated that she would like staff to look into this open ended phasing that seems very long. Normally there is some kind of expiration date on a PZD and we can come along and check on it. With this Master Development Plan, is there some where down the line, will we be able to re -look at this. Mr. Pate noted the normal PZD expiration date of one year. In zoning, there is no expiration date. That is where we look at bulk and area, etc. Due to the zoning request, we felt it was appropriate to allow that time. He also stated that when the development comes back thru it would be subject to development regulations in place at that time. This allows the zoning to be put in place. This is unique since it is a smaller parcel, but they have a long term plan on that parcel. With a Master Plan allowing some flexibility, an applicant doesn't have to come back to the Planning Commission or City Council every time they need to develop something else on their property. He stated that the ordinance allows the flexibility for the applicant to propose something, and if it is not something reasonable to the council, they have a say in the matter. He stated that the 20 year mark did initially concern staff but staff believes the development regulations at that time would be enforced. This is not an over-all development approval on this proposal, but a template with flexibility with the applicant and with the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant may move things around a bit, but the applicant should be aware that regulations would be in place and enforced at that time. Commissioner Anthes stated that if this was a straight rezoning, not a template with a drawing, it would be easier to understand at this point. She stated the conflict is in the details in the booklet and the drawings, which is the template of the zoning. Mr. Pate stated that the zoning regulations in the booklet proposed by the applicant are crucial. The width of the parking deck is not what we are reviewing at this time, but at the time of development, we would. He stated a couple of other regulations they would look at as an example. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 9 Commissioner Anthes asked about height. Mr. Pate stated it was important to look at height at this time. They are establishing a maximum height; that is part of the regulations of zoning which is why it is needed to be called out. He stated again that this is not a development approval of what is proposed, but the Planning Commission as a body would now or in the future look at proposals with what ordinances and regulations are existing at that time. Commissioner Anthers stated she wanted to keep her comments short, but is concerned about the heights - 2 story structures and a 3 story parking garage being proposed in the future. She stated with the specific conditions proposed, she would like to recommend a motion to amend the approvals as follows: Condition of approval 2 to allow one monument sign; condition of approval 9 to add "development on the property shall be in compliance with ordinances that are in effect at the time of submittal including, but not limited to, the downtown zoning code"; and an additional condition should be added stating "prior to City Council, the project booklet should be revised with the following provisions: the booklet shall be revised to include page numbers, remove all references to the parking structure and liner building in compliance with what the Commissioner said earlier." Commissioner Ostner motioned to amend the proposal. Commissioner Myers seconded the motion. Commissioner Vaught stated he would support that amendment, but not all of it. He stated he did not have a problem with the second monument sign, and had a question on the Downtown Master Plan on how it would effect future development of this project, due to the amendments requested. Mr. Pate stated he was not sure how the Downtown Zoning Code will be passed, that there will be some conflicts with some of the properties that are not developed yet. He stated an example that someone wanting to develop a 1 -story development will have to develop a 3 story building. If the conditions are included as stated, he believed they would have to comply with the future Downtown Zoning Code, since it is included in that zoning boundary. Commissioner Vaught stated if they do not put that condition in, the applicant is subject to bulk and area requirements that we are passing tonight, correct? Mr. Pate stated only for the zoning. Commissioner Vaught expressed concern regarding the conflict between this Planned Zoning District proposal and future zoning actions on the property with the Downtown Zoning Code. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 10 Mr. Pate stated if property is zoned right now from C-3 to C-4 and then the Downtown Zoning Code, which is a zoning ordinance, is passed, it will affect the zoning of this property from what it was. This is not the only property to address Commissioner Vaught stated he does not support the amendment, and will vote against it. Striking the parking deck is a wise choice, but the other two he does not agree with. Mr. Williams stated he would recommend the Planning Commission to totally strike condition 2 with signage, it is really not up the Planning Commission to determine signage. The City Council has passed a resolution regarding signage. He stated the resolution and explains why the City Council and Planning Commission should not be involved with the signage. It is up to the Sign Administrator to handle that part. Commissioner Anthes stated doesn't the sign administrator deal with zoning districts and the rules for those zoning districts. Clarification on how signage is to be administered within a PZD ensued. It was determined that signage must follow established zoning districts within Ch. 174 Signs. Commissioner Anthes recommended to amend the condition of approval 2, based on these clarifications. Commissioner Ostner re -stated Commissioner Anthes' recommendation to amend condition of approval 2 and conditional approval 9, and also add conditions for the applicant which would include the page numbers in the booklet and remove phase 5 which was the parking deck. Commissioner Anthes re -stated the verbiage of condition of approval number 9. Commissioner Vaught stated the Downtown Zoning Code is a zoning change and is not an ordinance to be held to currently, since it has not been passed. We are setting zoning for this property, including the building heights, tonight. Commissioner Ostner stated since if this zoning change happens in 2005, and most of the downtown was zoned in the 1970s, the fact that it is recent makes no difference. If the Downtown Zoning Code is applied, it will be a blanket rezone regardless how long a zoning has been in place. Commissioner Ostner discussed with Commissioner Vaught and Mr. Williams on the differences of what is in compliance now versus what will happen when the Downtown Zoning Code gets approved. Commissioner Graves stated it seems wrong to ask applicants to bring a PZD forward with a level of certainty of what it is going to look like, and for this body to turn around and say that we Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 11 are going to require you to comply with some unknown zoning ordinance in the future. Commissioner Ostner stated that there is motion to alter these conditions and vote on that. Commissioner Graves stated that he had a problem with the verbiage stated. Commissioner Vaught stated that he had a problem with the verbiage stated and would like to leave it out. Commissioner Allen stated we should look at what is put before us, we do not have a Downtown Zoning Code at this time, and some common sense just needs to be used. Commissioner Allen moved for an immediate vote. Commissioner Ostner asked if anyone was opposed to an immediate vote. Commissioner Clark stated yes, she would like to split the amendments. She stated that she would like to vote on Commissioner Anthes' proposals one at a time. Commissioner Ostner asked it there were any further comment on these changes, before they vote. No comments were made. Commissioner Ostner stated that the motioner has requested to remove condition 2 completely, amend condition 9 with a statement "development on the property shall be in compliance with ordinances that are in effect at the time of submittal including, but not limited to, the downtown zoning code," the applicant will add page numbers to the booklet, and the applicant would remove Phase 5 parking deck from this proposal. He stated that we are only voting to change these conditions. Commissioner Ostner requested roll call on the amendments requested. The amendments were approved by a vote of 5-4-0. Commissioner Myers motioned to approve the forwarding of C-PZD 05-1704 to City Council with the amendments. Commissioner Clark seconds the motion. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of C-PZD 05- 1704 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-1-0, with Commissioner Anthes voting no. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 12 ANX 05-1811 Summer Resources Commissioner Ostner: The next item is ANX 05-1811 for Summer Resources. Mr. Pate read the staff report. This property is approximately 3.75 acres, located east of the Waterbrook Phase 1 and 2 Subdivision that is north of Huntsville Road. The Planning Commission recently approved two phases of Waterbrook Subdivision. Phase one, which fronts Huntsville Road and Phase 2, which is to the north of that, surrounds a large, previously excavated pit. Parks and Recreation board voted to take parkland for this development. However, land that was agreed upon was in the county and adjacent to the site. Part of the conditions for approval for the preliminary plat, prior to acceptance of that land the property had to be annexed into the city. The park requirements for the current phases of Waterbrook Subdivision require 2.75 acres. The remaining approximately 1 acre would be utilized for potential tree preservation mitigation, which was also brought to the Planning Commission's attention at that time. Staff is recommending approval of this item. In recommending this approval to the City Council, staff finds that the request does meet the intent and is in compliance with our guiding Policies of the General Plan 2020. Mr. Mel Milholland, with Milholland Engineering, representative for the applicant, spoke briefly, concurring with all the comments that staff made. This Waterbrook preliminary plat has been approved by you, as a tract split. This tract of land was in the county at the time the Preliminary Plat was approved by you and the county. He would like to make the request of annexation approval to be forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Ostner opened the floor to public comment. There was no public comment. Commissioner Anthes made a motion to forward ANX 05-1811 to the City Council. Commissioner Trumbo seconded the motion. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 05-1811 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 13 R-PZD 05-1798 DePalma Addition Commissioner Ostner : The next item is R-PZD 05-1798 for DePalma Addition. Mr. Pate read the staff report. This site you have seen before, as part of the Biella Subdivision that is located off of Hwy 265. At that time, 10 acres of this piece of the property was indicated to be brought back to you as a Planned Zoning District. The applicant is requesting a Master Development Planned Zoning District to contain 5 single family lots and a private drive. The current zoning allows 4 units per acre, resulting in a maximum of 40 units on this site. This proposal is a significant down -zoning on the property and a more appropriate use of this property that has significant terrain and tree canopy. The property has access with right- of-way from Ansen Street. As part of the conditions of approval for this Master Development Plan, the applicant shall show proof of access to the site off of the Ansen Street cul-de-sac, to ensure that all access easements are in place from all property owners in that area, prior to the Planning Commission's approval of a preliminary plat to actually subdivide this property. This action tonight would not subdivide the property, but would simply have the applicant gain entitlement and zoning rights. The project booklet is much different then the last Planned Zoning District. It is a much smaller development, with not as many issues to discuss. Staff finds that the proposal is compatible with the surrounding development, which is relatively low density, and that it is consistent with the land use plan. The low density, large -lot requirements combined with compliance with the tree preservation ordinance would help reduce grading and development on the steep hillside, more so than allowed with current zoning. The planning project booklet has been submitted recognizing zoning and development criteria requirements of the Master Development Plan approval process. With those findings and others included in your staff report, staff is recommending this to be forwarded to the City Council for consideration, with 9 conditions of approval, addressing the access into this property, Planning Commission determination of a waiver request to reduce the required 22 foot wide pavement section to 20 feet is also included. Staff is recommending approval of this waiver, finding low density of traffic generated by the 5 lots and lack of connectivity to the streets in the area. Street construction would have to meet Fayetteville city standards. Mr. Tom Hennelly with H2 Engineering represented Mr. Oates, the property owner. He stated that he had no problems with the conditions of approval stated. There are 50 foot setbacks all around the properties with these 5 lots, and works well on the mountain. Commissioner Ostner opened the floor to public comment. Sue Cauldren, a resident of Ansen Street, stated that she had a couple of questions to ask the board, but would like to say that she was very happy about how this 10 acres of land was going to be used. Two acre lots with 5 houses and a private drive saves the density of the beautiful area. Her fear is that in the future, if the DePalma family heirs decide to not build and sell it to a developer, with the current zoning, can they put 40 homes on this piece of property? Also, if this Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 14 is passed, would there be any kind of restrictions put on this property, so it would not happen? And we do not lose the density we are trying to preserve? I also represent my next-door neighbor, Carolyn Ferrel, who is ill, and could not come tonight. Her property is right next to this 10 acre strip of land. She has a structure directly behind her house, which is used for an art gallery and guest home. But it seems the private drive will be directly under her nose. I haven't seen any maps, but I don't know if that second structure is on them or where the property line is. So, my second question would be a sign of goodwill, if this private drive be screened or moved further down the property. If it is built up and straight, it would destroy her property, view, etc. I don't know what the setbacks are for a private drive, does it follow the property line or follow certain requirements? Commissioner Ostner stated that this street does touch her cul-de-sac, then it goes off at an angle, and makes a pretty big triangle away from her property line. Mrs. Cauldren was offered a copy of the maps, showing how the private drives are set up. Commissioner Ostner also stated that he would address her first question. Mrs. Cauldren stated she had a last question, that 9 conditions of approvals were mentioned and would like to hear them read, since she did not know what they were. Commissioner Ostner stated that he would get her a copy of them before she leaves. He also asked for any other public comments, before he addressed her first question. There were no more public comments, he closed the public comment portion and brought it back to the Commission. Commissioner Ostner stated that on Mrs. Cauldren's concerns, that since this is a Residential Planned Zoning District, the zoning will have to follow this drawing. And if the land was sold to another developer, they would have to come back to us for another rezoning to change this drawing. Mrs. Cauldren asked if the approval would be for this zoning only then? Commissioner Ostner stated yes, that there was no way they could squeeze 40 homes past you all. They would have to go through this whole process again. On the issue with Mrs. Ferrel, he believed this layout gives as much room as possible. If the road kept continuing straight, then it would go further away from her property, but it does create a buffer triangle. Commissioner Ostner questioned the applicant, "Is that triangle a build -able lot?" Mr. Hennelly stated he wanted to answer Mrs. Cauldren's first question. Mr. Hennelly stated he would like everyone to know that this PZD would be good in perpetuity, this is as good as forever, however long Mr. Oates takes to develop this. So he would like to assure the neighbors that they don't have anything to worry about. Regarding the triangle created by the access drive Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 15 splitting lot number 1 in half, he did angle it down. There is a very small portion of property, that could have a small storage shed built on it, next to the drive. This has 50 foot set backs on the front, side, and rear. He would not anticipate this happening, the majority of the property is west of that drive, and he would anticipate that triangle would be wooded. It is in the conditions that the trees could not be cut down without urban forester approval. This would give a 50 -foot screening from Mr. and Mrs. Ferrel's house to the drive. He does not imagine a great impact on their art gallery or home. Commissioner Vaught stated he had a question about the road. It is off on a pretty sharp angle off the cul-de-sac. Does that meet all our requirements, it looks like a very steep slope. Mr. Pate states that it is just a drawing on paper now, and staff would have to review that as part of the development guidelines with the preliminary plat. Commissioner Allen made a motion to forward R-PZD 05-1798 to the City Council with the 9 conditions stated to the City Council. Commissioner Lack seconded the motion. Commissioner Ostner asked if there were any further discussion? Commissioner Anthes stated she had a few questions, looking at the Master Development Plan submitted, and would like clarification on the staff report on page 5. The question is, on the large setbacks of 50 ft, can you explain the difference from the project you submitted earlier (Falling Waters,) trying to keep setbacks tight with the street to minimize the tree removal and what the strategy is with the large building setback and amount of tree removal? Mr. Hennelly stated in the cross-reference to the proposed Falling Water PZD, primarily there were houses on both sides of the street, and they were serviced by gravity sewer. It was good to get them up to the street, because of the amount of grading that would take place. With the way we have the drive, there is not as much grading needed. We tried to buffer with 100 feet of wooded area between each house, and 50 feet of wooded area between the existing homes. Also with the density of the wooded area, Falling Waters had 1/2 acre lots versus two acre lots here. It was also good to get those homes closer to the street. As it is, for these homes, they will have low pressure sewer, if we can get engineering to sign off on it. Plus it is not cost effective to bring a gravity sewer line up thru the Sequoyah Reserve to service 5 houses. We weren't faced with a lot of those same challenges. Commissioner Anthes asked on the development plan, that the houses are required a 3500 sq ft minimum floor plan with no height restriction? Mr. Hennelly stated yes. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 16 Commissioner Anthes asked if staff can recommend a 3500 sq ft house with no height restriction on a hillside? Mr. Pate state that there are currently no height restrictions at all with the zoning district that it is located in now. As a benchmark, when staff reviews the development with no height restriction now, we saw no reason to impose one arbitrarily. Commissioner Anthes asked when development occurs on this property, would they be subject to the ordinances and height restrictions at that time. Mr. Pate stated that is correct. Commissioner Anthes stated next question, the development plan stated 18 foot streets, the fire department is talking about 20. Do you agree with that? Mr. Hennelly stated yes, they did. Twenty feet is fine, we adjusted the plat accordingly. We initially had it at 18 feet, but after we talked with the Fire Marshal, we changed it. Commissioner Anthes stated that the Master Development Plan states that there will be no sidewalks or street lights in this development? Mr. Hennelly stated yes. Commissioner Anthes asked staff about their comments on that. Mr. Pate stated that with 5 lots and a private street, the street will probably function very well for pedestrian and vehicular movement, especially with no connectivity to the east, south, or any direction. There are also no other sidewalks in this area currently built, and it is unlikely the public would venture down a private street. Commission Anthes stated she would agree with Mr. Pate on the sidewalks, but would disagree on the usage of the street area. People would use it to get to the park dedication area and wonders about the street lights being beneficial. Mr. Hennelly stated that they would normally be opposed to the additional street lights, but due to the secluded area on a hillside, we could get with staff and come up with individual gas lanterns or something of that nature, with lower illumination. We can make that a private light and a requirement in the covenant, that each one of the lots have one of those. Commission Anthes stated that would be nice. A low light for the pedestrians and a safety factor. Mr. Hennelly stated that something like that could be worked into the project. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 17 Commission Anthes stated that her other question would be the nine minute response time, that the Fayetteville fire department has written us a letter, indicating a nine minute response time with no likelihood of changing, because of the steepness of the existing streets and narrow winding road into the development. The question is, with that response time, what is the wisdom of granting condition number 2, which involves a waiver request for a dead end private street longer than 500 ft in length? Would the Commissioners like to comment on that issue? Commissioner Clark states that she was concerned about the letter from the Fire Marshall, but remember that this was status quo for the streets in that area, so not to make the situation worse, the response time is normal up to this property. She believes insurance will be a bear, but that is down the road. A question was directed to Mr. Pate, when do you say "No", on the lack of response time or even with police response time? Not in this particular development, but any development, or situation. Mr. Pate stated you have to always keep in mind that response time is not the only factor to consider. In the annexation policy there are 20 guiding criteria, with rezoning there are 5 or 6. When the staff, the Planning Commission or City Council reviews the requests, and believes it is not in the interest of public safety, that is when it is not recommended. He describes the fundamentals of the zoning review process. Commissioner Clark stated that this is concerning, that we have areas existing in town that will burn down before we get there. She is not particularly troubled about this development, it is not making it worse, but I hope there is never a fire. Mr. Pate stated that the Planning Commission should get the minutes from the last City Council meeting, that the Fire Chief made some great responses regarding the same issue. He noted some of the issues that were discussed at the Council meeting. He also stated that this rezoning request actually decreases some of the issues on response time, due to the decrease in number of homes allowed. Commissioner Clark stated that we can look at emergency access when we look at the preliminary plat, at that time. Mr. Hennelly stated that was the point he wanted to make. With Biella, there was an emergency access established. At this time, we are working on an emergency access for this development and it will be in place, and reduce the response time, considerably. Commissioner Allen stated that she is part of the Neilson family that watches the government channel, and watched that particular City Council meeting, and found that very confusing. She requested Mr. Pate to contact Fire Chief Johnson and see about coming in before one of their meetings and discuss with them some of the issues they are having. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 18 Commission Graves states that the fire department can not take into consideration the stations that are not built yet, or the underdeveloped roads in these developments. He stated other assumed issues that the fire department has to take into consideration on making these response times. Commissioner Lack stated that the decreased density and change of zoning were appealing. Also, he would like to ask a question about one of the use units. Units 1 and 8 are permitted uses, 24 is a conditional use; use unit 24 is listed in the permitted uses category, instead of the conditional uses? Mr. Pate stated that the first is correct, and how the other conditions are stated as revisions. Commissioner Clark called for a vote. Commissioner Ostner asked if anyone is against the call of the vote. None opposed. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of R-PZD 05- 1798 to the City Council was approve by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 19 R-PZD 05-1734 for Paradise Point Commissioner Ostner: The next item is R-PZD 05-1734 for Paradise Point Ms. Morgan read the staff report. This is a detailed Planned Zoning District Master Development Plan, an application requesting approval for not only the zoning for this property, but also the development approval for a large scale development. The property contains approximately 1.55 acres and is located west of Crossover and south of Joyce Boulevard. The applicant requests a mixed-use development, which will incorporate 12 residential units and 12,065 sf. of retail/office space. The retail/office space is located on the first floor of the development as well as one residential unit. There will be 11 residential units on the second floor. Page 2 on the staff report indicates the permitted and conditional uses as proposed by the applicant. Density on the property currently would allow the development of 24 units per acre; the applicant requests 7.7 units per acre. Setback requirements are a little different than the RMF -24 and C-2 requirements. Fifty -foot front setbacks and three-foot setbacks on the side and rear are proposed. A maximum 35 ft in height and a total building area of 20% is proposed. Access is one of the issues we discussed with this development. Proposed is one access onto Crossover Road and a northern access through the property to the north, through an existing parking lot. At the time of the report, the applicant was coordinating with the property owners to the north for approval for an access easement, which will allow them access onto that property. If those agreements and easements are not obtained by the time building permits are being reviewed, this application would have to come back to the Planning Commission for review to determine whether a single access onto Crossover Road will constitute safe means of access to this development. With regard to tree preservation, there is an existing 23% canopy on the property and the applicant proposes to preserve 13% of that canopy. With the proposal, mitigation would be required by either planting on site or contributing money in lieu. Staff is recommending forwarding this Master Development Plan Planned Zoning District to the City Council for approval with a total of 26 conditions of which are included several determinations, including Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff recommends construction of a 6 foot sidewalk along Crossover Road. This portion of Crossover and Hwy 265 is not yet improved and is slated to be improved in the future. Therefore we are not recommending any other improvements than sidewalks at this time. Condition 2 of the Planning Commission determination addresses commercial design standards. The applicant has brought a board representing the proposed elevations as well as a material sample board. Staff finds the proposed elevations are in compliance with commercial design standards. Subdivision committee found in favor of the elevations and support of the modifications of the western facade. Condition 3 regards the determination of safety access discussed. Condition number 5 discusses the approval from any adjoining property owners if grading is proposed 5 feet from the adjoining property line. Typical developments of this nature do not have to address that situation, but as the applicant is proposing to build this structure 3 feet from the property line, it would certainly need to be addressed. In addition to that, there are some offsite easements that will be required. There is an existing easement on the property that will need to be vacated prior Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 20 to the issuing of building permits. With regard to signs, the applicant proposes all signs in accordance with ordinances, and staff would request a modification to condition 14, to allow Use Unit 17, Trade and Services, as a permitted use, proposed by the developer. With regard to phasing, they would typically have one year, and after that one year, a one -ear extension on the timing of their permits. The applicant is requesting five years from City Council approval for all issues of permits for this development. They anticipate breaking ground soon. Mr. Jeremy Thompson with 112 Engineering represented the applicant. He stated the location and advised that there are two lots with an irregular shape. The architects worked hard to put together this structure to work with the current dimensions. It's a two story structure proposing office retail space on the bottom floor with one residential unit. The second -story contains residential units only. We are in agreement with staff comments. On condition number two, we would like to give an update. Utility easements are in the process of being acquired to the south and west side of the property. We also have verbal agreement on the transfer of that easement but have not obtained signatures. Also, on the access easement to the north: the plans show access on the east side of the existing building and the property owners are asking us to move it to the west side of their structure. You will notice a parking area on the west side - we are proposing to extend that directly north. This will actually connect perfectly with an existing access off of Joyce Street. That is the direction that easement is going now. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask, and the architect is here and can answer any questions you have on the structure. Commissioner Ostner opened the floor to public comment There was no public comment. Commissioner Vaught asked staff if this is a Master Development Plan? Mr. Pate states it is also development -related. Building permits can be issued after City Council approval. He also explained the differences to Commissioner Vaught and advised that staff will always explain which type of application is before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Vaught noted the differences on the last PZD verses this one. Commissioner Anthes stated she has two questions. The first is directed to Mr. Kit Williams. Use Unit 17 is requested as a permitted use; is it more appropriate as a conditional use within this zone? Mr. Williams stated he didn't believe it was required to use all the use units that the applicant requests. You can use your own judgement on that, just like the City Council can. You can also make some permitted or conditional; just like our normal zoning districts do. I don't think you are bound to what they are requesting, even though staff is recommending it now and not intentionally leaving it out. Mr. Pate stated that is correct and the biggest reason for that is often times on Unit Use 17 there Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 21 are higher intensity uses and one doesn't know the development pattern that will occur. But in this development, we do know where everything is going. There is no question on what is going to be built, we know the footprints, parking space, etc. Commissioner Anthes asked that if the building configuration would not lend itself to the other uses anyway, then you are not concerned? Mr. Pate stated that is correct. Commissioner Anthes stated another issue she would like to discuss is the condition of approval for phasing. That is the required permits of the 5 years being requested. She states she doesn't see any circumstances for this approval. This development is actually smaller than a lot of large scale developments. She would be more inclined to follow the same pattern on this issue, and revise that to a one year approval. Commissioner Vaught stated that he would like to ask the applicant why they requested the 5 year extension. Mr. Thompson stated that the owner's intent is to after approval start construction of this project. In the new PZD process, we are allowed to develop a time frame, and to provide the owner with a little extra time, we proposed 5 years. He states he would be willing to back down to 2 to 3 years, since it is allowed in the new PZD and there is some consideration on the Planning Commission's part. Commission Anthes asked Mr. Thompson how this development is any different than any of the other developments or plans coming through under a year? Mr. Thompson stated that he didn't think that the development was any different than the others but refers to Jeremy Pate on the new PZD that allows the time frame. Since it is allowed, we proposed that. Commissioner Clark stated that it is odd that it is one phase, one building and it will take 5 years to build it. Commissioner Trumbo motioned to amend the time requested to 2 years. Commissioner Myers seconded the motion. Commissioner Ostner stated the motion is to amend condition number 17 to read 2 years to gain their required permits. He asked if there were further discussion on this. There were no more further comments. Roll was called, and the amendment to condition number 17 was approved by a vote of 8-1-0 Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 22 with Commissioner Anthes opposing. Commissioner Clark motioned to forward R-PZD 05-1734 to the City Council with stated conditions, as amended. Commissioner Myers seconded the motion. Mr. Pate mentioned that the stub out access shown on the east side on the plat and to be aware of the discussion to move it to the west side. Commissioner Ostner asked if there was any further discussion. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of R-PZD 05- 1734 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0.