Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-13 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on March 13, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN FPL 06-1943: Final Plat (CLABBER CREEK III, 244) Approved Page 4 R-PZD 06-1922: Planned Zoning District (SCOTTSWOOD PLACE, 558) Page 5 CUP 06-1992: Conditional Use Permit (COMBS ST. CHURCH OF CHRIST, 524) Page 6 LSD 06-1944: Large Scale Development (COMBS ST. CHURCH OF CHRIST, 524) Page 6 LSD 05-1809: Large Scale Development (THE LOFTS @ UNDERWOOD PLAZA, 483) Page 9 Tabled Approved Approved Tabled CUP 06-1952: Conditional Use Permit (HAYS, 373) Approved Page 42 ADM 06-1958: Administrative Item (MILLSAP CENTER PARKING LOT, 212) Page 54 PPL 06-1940: Preliminary Plat (COBBLESTONE CROSSING, 246) Page 55 LSD 06-1924: Large Scale Development (MALCO THEATRE, 173) Page 59 CUP 06-1950: Conditional Use Permit (DAVIS, 559) Page 67 RZN 06-1949: Rezoning (ELLIS, 569) Page 71 Tabled Approved Approved Approved Denied Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Jill Anthes Candy Clark James Graves Audy Lack Alan Ostner Christian Vaught Christine Myres STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Suzanne Morgan Andrew Garner Brent O'Neal CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT Sean Trumbo STAFF ABSENT Jesse Fulcher Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 3 Welcome to the March 13, 2006 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. If we could have the roll call please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call Allen, Anthes, Clark, Graves, Lack, Ostner and Vaught are present. (Myres present later) Ostner: The first item on our agenda is the approval of the minutes from the February 27, 2006 meeting. Anthes: I move for approval of the minutes with these changes. Who do I give them to? Ostner: Staff. Clark: Second. Roll Call: The minutes are approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 4 Consent Agenda: FLP 06-1943: Final Plat (CLABBER CREEK III, 244): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located W. OF RUPPLE ROAD AND SALEM, N. OF CLABBER CREEK PHASES I & II. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 34,78 acres. The request is to approve the final plat of a residential subdivision with 110 single family lots. Ostner: If anyone in the audience or any of the Planning Commissioners would like to hear this item, please speak now. Otherwise I will entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. Clark: So moved. Anthes: Second. Roll Call: The motion to approve FLP 06-1943 carries by a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 5 Old Business: Ostner: The applicant has requested we table this item, R-PZD 06-1922 for Scottswood Place. Is there any information we need to know about this? Pate: The applicant has simply requested that this be tabled until March 27, 2006, the next Planning Commission meeting. Ostner: Do I have a motion to table this item? Clark: So moved. Allen: Second. Roll Call: The motion to table R-PZD 06-1922 carries by a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 6 New Business: CUP 06-1992: Conditional Use Permit (COMBS ST. CHURCH OF CHRIST, 524): Submitted by STEVE CLARK for property located at 350 SOUTH COMBS AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY — 24 UNITS/ACRES and contains approximately 1.35 acres. The request is for a church (Use Unit 4) in an RMF -24 zoning district. LSD 06-1944: Large Scale Development (COMBS ST. CHURCH OF CHRIST, 524): Submitted by STEVE CLARK for property located at 350 SOUTH COMBS AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY — 24 UNITS/ACRES and contains approximately 1.35 acres. The request is for a 4,700 square foot building as previously approved. Garner: The Combs Street Church of Christ is located at 350 South Combs Avenue. There is Conditional Use Permit and a Large Scale Development on your agenda tonight and I will summarize both of these here. As a background, a Large Scale Development and Conditional Use Permit for this project was most recently approved in October of 2003 and received a one-year approval extension in October 2004. They were unable to obtain their building permits within the one-year timeframe, therefore their approval expired, so that is why they are back before us today. The plans are the same as those originally approved. The only difference before the Planning Commission tonight — the lighting ordinance is now in effect and at the time of the building permit, we would review the building plans for conformance with the lighting ordinance. The Conditional Use Permit is to allow for the addition to this Church. There is an elevation board there showing the proposed addition. It is a 4,700 square foot addition to the Church and a total of 56 parking spaces in conformance with parking requirements for Church use. Staff finds that granting the Conditional Use Permit in this location would not adversely affect the public. The Church has been in a residential neighborhood for many years and the proposed addition to the building and the site would be an improvement to the area and the neighborhood. There would be improvements to the street that we are recommending conditions of approval with a Large Scale Development. The conditions of approval for the Conditional Use Permit are relatively straight forward. We are recommending approval of both the Conditional Use Permit and the Large Scale Development. Ostner: Thank you. I will call for any public comment on these two issues, this Conditional Use and Large Scale Development. If anyone cares to share anything, please step forward. I will close the public comment section and open it to the applicant for any presentation you would like to make. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 7 S.Clark: Steve Clark, representing Combs Street Church of Christ. Basically, Andrew summarized everything pretty clearly. We had this approved two years ago and going through the Church's process to obtain funding for it and commitments for funding, it took them a little bit longer than the two years that was allowed. With the extension, the net result, is that we are here again tonight to get it reapproved. We would like to have you support this project. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Clark. Commissioners.... Anthes: I move that we approve CUP 06-1992 subject to the conditions as stated. Allen: Second. Clark: I have a question for Staff. Andrew, you have gotten no contact from the public opposing this, correct? Garner: No. Clark: Okay. Graves: A point of clarification from the motioner and seconder. I assume it that on number one, you intend to find in favor of what Staff recommends? Anthes: Yes, on the CUP. Graves: I'm looking at the wrong one. Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-1992 carries by a vote of 7-0-0. Ostner: The tandem item is for LSD 06-1944: Large Scale Development for Combs Street Church of Christ. I will open it up for public comment. I will close the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission. Anthes: I have a question on Conditional Approval #1. Staff, can you tell us why you are not recommending curb and gutter on this section? This is on the Fourth Street from Willow Avenue to Combs Street to the 20' street section? O'Neal: Anthes: In the previous approval from Planning Commission from 2004, I believe that was approved with that specific condition. Have you looked at it and agree with that? Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 8 O'Neal: Yes. Clark: I will move to approve LSD 06-1944 with the conditions as stated. I figured we left sidewalks off the first time and there was a good reason for it. Sony, we have sidewalks, curb and gutter. 5.Clark: The rest of the story on that is that section of street is currently about 12- 15' wide and it is just a short connection on the north side of the church between 4th Street and Combs Street over to Willow Street. If we had widened and put curb and gutter on our side, the street still would have been substandard as far as total width. Plus the other side of the street is just a chip and seal so what we worked out with Staff at that time was let us go ahead and widen the street to give us a full 20' which gives it fire access, plus what we are going to do is overlay the other side of the street with some asphalt to give it a little bit higher structure and strength. So we are not really saving money or doing less work, we just took a street that was substandard and improved it enough to make it a fire access and make meet the current standards of fire trucks. Clark: I knew there was an explanation. Ostner: That sounds familiar from three years ago. I believe Commissioner Clark made the motion to approve this Large Scale Development. Is there a second? Allen: Second. Roll Call: The motion to approve LSD 06-1944 carries by a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 9 LSD 05-1809: Large Scale Development (THE LOFTS @ UNDERWOOD PLAZA, 483): Submitted by GARVER ENGINEERS for property located at 607 W. DICKSON STREET. The property is zoned C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL, and contains approximately 1.40 acres. The request is for a mixed use development with office, retail, restaurant and residential space. Garner: This site is at 607 W. Dickson Street. The site has approximately 1.4 acres and is zoned C-3, Central Commercial. To get your references on where this is located; it is located just west of George's Majestic Lounge. Underwood Jewelers is located on the other side of the property and Dickson Street is along the northern property line and the SWEPCO Fayetteville Utility Substation is located immediately south of the property. The applicant proposes to develop a nine -story mixed use building along with a parking garage. The nine -story building would have approximately 9,400 square feet of commercial retail and office and 9,400 square feet of restaurant uses along with 77 condominium residential units. The parking garage would be five stories in height and contain 256 parking spaces. Adjacent Master Street Plan streets are Dickson Street, obviously and Powerhouse Avenue. Staff is recommending approval of this large scale development with Conditions of Approval. Condition #1 is Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards and compatibility with surrounding commercial developments. Staff finds that the proposed mixed use building as you can see on the elevations there is compatible with the surrounding development and meets Commercial Design Standards. The applicant may want to go into more detail about it, but the design of the building steps back — the largest height of the building from the street frontage to provide more of a pedestrian scale as opposed to having a full nine stories right at the street — in an attempt to make it more compatible with Dickson Street. Staff does find that the parking garage structure that would be visible from Dickson Street should be further articulated with materials and/or screens to screen the concrete walls that are not compatible with the surrounding development on Dickson Street. Condition #2 is Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff recommends that street improvements include constructing, repair or replace sidewalk and landscaping along the project's Dickson Street frontage that might be damaged during construction, and constructing the pavement for Powerhouse Avenue as a full city standard street section on both sides, with curb and gutter to be replaced as determined by the City Engineer on the east side of Powerhouse Avenue. The other conditions of approval are relatively standard. The other issue that was discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting (it was two times through Subdivision) involved a large utility easement that SWEPCO was requesting along the eastern property line and Staff has met with both the applicant and the utility company on this issue and finds that this is a private utility easement and Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 10 Ostner: Alexander: that this issue should be worked out between the applicant and the utility company. It is not for the City of Fayetteville to make a finding on that particular issue. Other than that everything is pretty straight forward and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. At this point I will call for any public comment. My name is Fran Alexander. I have no arguments with Rob Sharp's designs of anything so I don't want it to be construed that way, but I do have a great concern about the height of this building in relationship to Fayetteville as a whole. I'm not sure how much of what I have to say would really be under your direction as a Planning Commission, but pick out of this what you wish and hopefully my points will be worth something in the long run. My parents got married in the 1930s and when they were returning to Fayetteville from the South, as they approached Fayetteville, they ran out of gas and my mother as a young bride said it was okay, she could see the towers of Old Main and they were eventually rescued on what was a gravel road at that time. We can still see Old Main from I-540 coming from the south to the north. We can see Old Main from I-540 from the north going south. You can see Old Main from Lafayette when you are coming from east going west and quite frankly, I don't know if you can see it from the west. But if this is the Athens of Ozarks as we like to call it (I don't know if you all have heard that), but that is an old term in Fayetteville. If we continue to build tall buildings in our downtown area which will dwarf Old Main, we are essentially going to cover up our Parthenon on our Acropolis and we won't be the Athens of the Ozarks at least visually, any more. I believe that what we need to do is understand the value of return. I totally comprehend that a building of this size is what is needed for a return on the money invested because you have to have more rental area in order to get a better return or break even point. I do understand that for the developers. However, for the rest of Fayetteville, to diminish Old Main, the view of Old Main and our downtown area with tall buildings — if we start making canyons of our streets — and this will really dominate more than this sloping perspective that we have from the street here. I don't think they could set it quite far enough back from Dickson Street to really give this impression. I may be wrong about that. But I think that nine stories is entirely out of proportion with the rest of Dickson Street and the loss of Old Main as our visual center will be a detriment to the businesses on Dickson and everybody else who has Fayetteville symbol there as their gathering point for this town. And it is much more important than you realize. I think if you discuss this with the tourist bureau in Little Rock, the State tourist department, Old Main is the symbol of the University which is on so many things — the towers are symbols of so many things in this town. I don't think we can afford to bury them. That is what tall buildings will do. Our downtown Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 11 plan said that we wanted a traditional town, not a traditional city of tall buildings. This we need to keep that in mind. I also want to point out that this building will be on a higher plane closer to Old Main because of the way the hill slopes there, rather than if it was on the down side of Archibald Yell for example which begins to fall off down the hill and so there you could build a taller building with more floors than would be appropriate this close to Old Main. I hope that my comments will be taken seriously because I think that we are in a real transition point in Fayetteville. We could absolutely lose what our symbol is. Any questions of me? Thank you. Ostner: Any further public comment? I am going to close the public comment section and bring it to the applicant for any presentation you might like to make. Sharp: My name is Rob Sharp and I am the project architect on Underwood Plaza. I would like to make a brief description of the project to add to what Andrew mentioned and also talk about the height issue and our intention to blend in and enhance the downtown environment. First of all the enlarged site plan to explain the project. As you can see this is Dickson Street along here, this is Powerhouse Drive. You remember Powerhouse Drive used to have Dave's on Dickson as a one-story nightclub. This was an old gas station — it used to be University Auto — it was torn down, it is essentially a vacant lot. The SWEPCO's substation is right here to the south of the project. Our intention with the project is to provide the parking for the project against the power station nestled in to the hillside here to allow us to align Powerhouse with a new building. It would have terraces, street front, some apartments; and also it would allow us to put our building here on Dickson Street where we can continue that street edge that is already there and key into the Dickson Street improvements that have already been made. The other thing we are doing is a little pedestrian foot path between Qdobe which connects from Dickson from Powerhouse. We envision this would be an area for sidewalk cafes. That is what you see (point). This is Powerhouse, this connects to Dickson to create a special place between the two streets. This is the facade of the parking deck. (inaudible). The intention here again is to conceal the parking deck from Dickson Street downtown. The building materials are primarily a dark brick and we are also using some slate, some stucco and copper flashings to blend in with the brick and stucco. We think that picks up on the building that Fay Jones designed for Underwood Jewelers back in the early sixties. Also, it matches the Qdobe building that is directly to our east. On the issue of height, I certainly agree with Fran Alexander that this is an issue for this community and needs to be discussed, ordinances need to be reviewed and passed. As an architect in this town, I am certainly going to abide by any ordinances that Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 12 get passed. I do feel that this meets the current zoning. I also feel it meets the spirit of the new downtown Master Street Plan, and particularly we have done everything to make a walkable environment. We are encouraging downtown living. We have concealed our parking. We are enhancing the experienced economy. I think that while the height is something we are willing to discuss, overall in terms of the downtown master plan, the process that we are in, I don't think we should discuss it in terms of this particular building. Since it is now law yet and may not be for another six months or a year. I will answer any questions. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Sharp. Commissioners. Graves: A question for Staff or the City Attorney. Are there any things in the current ordinances that allow the Planning Commission to restrict or limit the heights in a C-3 and if so, what are they and what is our ability to do that? Pate: With the current zoning in place, you will notice in your bulk and area requirements, if you look under C-3 zoning, C-4 zoning, it says none, there are no bulk and area regulations meaning there is no minimum size or lot or frontage onto a lot, no minimum for building height. That is one of the issues. I think, like with anything, Commercial Design Standards apply in this case, because there are commercial uses proposed. And one of those is compatibility and transition of other developments. We worked hard on this project with Rob's office in the beginning in looking at ways — they looked at ways to try to step the building back, the actual height, as Andrew mentioned. The highest point is interior to the project and an effort to make that more of a transition off of Powerhouse and off of Dickson Street. For instance, the Dickson Street facade has four or five stories and then it steps back to go to the higher facade on the Powerhouse side. Looking at that drawing, it is two or three before it steps back and then it steps back again to the higher facade. So it is not a full structure that is nine stories. We believe they meet the intent of the Commercial Design Standard component which is really the only thing that would apply as far as building height, is looking at transition and compatibility with other properties in this district. Graves: I have a follow up question then for the City Attorney. Would the City Attorney agree that the compatibility portion of the Commercial Design Standards would include the height in comparison to other buildings or does compatibility just mean the look and design itself? Williams: I think compatibility to some extent take into account height, but it surely could not control that issue. It is something you can look at like anything else, but we have to keep in mind that at this point and especially when Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 13 Pate: Allen: this project was submitted which was several months ago, there was nothing at that point that had been submitted to either the Planning Commission or the City Council that had a height restriction in a C-3 zoning district. Therefore, I think that this project, height should only play a minor part when you are looking at whether or not it is compatible. But I think it is one factor you could look at. If they were proposing a 100 story building here, I think you might be able to say that there are compatibility problems. Or if they refuse to step it back as they did. I think that is another thing you could look at — if it was just a blank wall all the way up for nine stories, I think then compatibility would be called much more in question. I just wanted to tag onto that very quickly — obviously Planning Staff is concerned with the unlimited height requirement and limited ability to go high in the downtown area. That is why we worked closely with the community and the Planning Commission and City Council to establish the vision and understand what types of structures, what heights are compatible with certain areas of our downtown especially. And what vision we have as a City to create that community. That is certainly something that we all understand that the Planning Commission has made a recommendation to the City Council with regard to height two weeks ago at the Planning Commission meeting of the 27`h. As Mr. Williams mentioned, this project was submitted back in October before we even had formal discussions about these types of heights and the Planning Commission came to a recommendation to the City Council. We are going to continue this process to get to the City Council for this downtown zoning code. It is my understanding that the Arkansas Supreme Court says that the fundamental purpose of a Planning Commission is to plan orderly growth. And certainly that to me would include considering people that are already there. That it is a two-way street. And orderly growth can and does occur on Dickson, that doesn't impact people in terms of use and heights and buildings like say Bordinos, for example. I feel that since we do not yet have a downtown master plan, one that has not been passed, that we don't have a blueprint in place by our City Council that would determine if this is an appropriate height for this building. So therefore I would like to move to table LSD 05-1809 until this has come through City Council. Clark: Second. Vaught: I would like to ask a question of Staff and the City Attorney. It is my understanding that the regulations that control this building are the regulations that are in place at the time of submittal, not what we pass in the meantime. Is that not true? Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 14 Williams: I think that is correct. There is a provision that says that once a zoning has been proposed such as a downtown master plan has been submitted to the Planning Commission, then for a period not to exceed ninety days from that date, plans or approvals may be withheld at that point in time. However, this particular project has come in long before any plans were submitted to the Planning Commission about this and therefore, they would go without that, they would be outside that particular regulation. It would be improper to hold them up because in fact, even if the City Council went forward and passed the downtown master plan ordinances which would limit the height or some other landmark building protection zone that might limit the height to protect Old Main, they would not be susceptible to that. We could not apply that retroactively to them and therefore, I would think that tabling for that reason would not be an appropriate thing to do because we still must judge them with the ordinances that were in effect, a code that was in effect when they in fact submitted their proposal to the Planning Department which was back in October. Vaught: That is one reason why I don't agree with tabling at this time. I think that this speaks more to the fact that we need to pass our downtown master code in a very prompt fashion. I hope it is a top priority at the City Council and doesn't go the way of the Hillside Ordinance, because this is only going to get worse in this area of town if we don't. We have no height restriction over most of Dickson Street and downtown Fayetteville. There is a lot of C-3 and C-4 zoning and I think that this building would be the least of our concerns. I feel like they have done a great job trying to meet the spirit although it wouldn't pass the downtown master code height regulations which we do not have yet. They have done a great job blending this building, using it to step it back and try to help it tie into the existing structures around it. I do appreciate the fact that I believe it is five stories on Dickson Street and then it steps back which we have even talked about in the downtown master code, allowing a variance for them, for people to go higher in certain areas if they do use things like step backs. We can't say if it would meet those criteria or not. I still struggle with the idea that that part of the Commercial Design Standards speaks to height, the part that has been referenced about compatibility because for one it is not a definitive rule, it is a should, not a shall in the code and two, we specifically address heights in other areas of the code. I struggle with the idea that we can use that part of the Commercial Design Standard to cap a building like this when they have gone far above and beyond to try to tie it in. So I will vote against it. I feel that this building is ready to be voted on tonight and I feel more than anything this should encourage us to contact our City Councilmen to please promptly move the downtown master plan forward so we can have some rules to judge these projects by. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 15 Allen: I want to follow up on my thoughts. I know I won't change Commissioner Vaught's mind nor he mine, but I wanted to rebut that. I did talk with David Newburn who is a Supreme Court Justice for Arkansas about this a little bit today. I do feel like that when something is not, when we have no downtown master plan, so we can't say that we are abiding by that. Until we have a blueprint in place by our City Council, that it is our responsibility as Planning Commissioners to protect people besides the developer. The building is beautiful, Mr. Alexander has beautiful buildings all over town. I have no problem at all with the looks of the building. I just do believe that while I have learned very clearly that developers have the right to develop, I also think that citizens have the right to protections for where they live and they dwell and for us to impact views and sunlight and the very looks and heart and soul of our community, that to me is our responsibility as a Planning Commission. Those decisions can be made by the Council. They have not yet seen the downtown master plan. It has not been voted on. Vaught: You have said that we are waiting for a downtown master plan; this project should not be judged in anyway by the downtown master plan. It should be judged by the code that we have today and the code when it was submitted. And that is my whole contention. I am all for the downtown master plan, I love it, I want to see it through. I am glad we get to vote on it while I am still on the Commission. This project does not fall under it. I don't know how we can hold it to those standards when they are passed. Allen: But I am saying, Christian, that our responsibility as a Planning Commission is to plan orderly growth and that involves protecting the people who are there. Vaught: And it is also to uphold the code of the City more than anything and to judge projects by the ordinances we have on the books. Ostner: Thank you guys. I think that is the same point repeated. I am going to let Mr. Alexander speak for a moment and then Commission Clark is next. Alexander: Rick Alexander on behalf of the applicant. Some of you may or may not know that we have been working on this project for about two years, long before there was serious discussion about height limitations on the downtown master plan. I am a proponent of the downtown master plan. I have worked in support of that in many instances. The height that has been recommended by the Planning Commission, in my opinion, is arbitrary. I mean that with no disrespect. The City Council may or may not adopt that height which is what I mean by that. They may adopt a six - story height or an eight -story or nine -story height. At the time we started working on this project, there was no height limitation and the cost of land Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 16 in many respects dictates height. Also, we are responding to other directives that we thought we understood were coming from the City and the City Council and that is density, infill... you get density in an urban setting where land is expensive by going up. That was certainly our driving factor in determining how to make this project, number one, tasteful, using what I believe are materials in excess of what the design standards would call for, design in excess of what design standards would call for, bringing to the project a great personal cost to the project. Enough parking, which is another concern of downtown development. So, the project you see is the result of several years worth of work well before there were height limitations. Many, many millions of dollars into this in terms of land acquisition, engineering and architectural fees. I think it would be unfair to hold us to a standard of height that is not currently law - you nor I have any real expectations that will ultimately be the height limitation. Again, it could be eight stories, nine stories, ten stories. The City Council will adopt whatever it adopts. This is certainly not the tallest building in town, two blocks is Hillcrest Towers — 12 stories, 13, if you count the elevator cap on the top of it. The library probably comes in at eight stories if you really count the height and not the true stories, since many of the stories are 20' or whatever. Legacy Building is seven stories and where it sits on the hill, it will probably be at a height equal to this structure. This does not block Old Main from anybody's view. What it does block is an ugly view of the power station that has been viewable from Dickson Street for many years. This is in my opinion a much more attractive alternative than that. As a practical matter, the power company proposes to put 120' electric towers running down Powerhouse Drive. If they do that, this will not be the tallest structure in that area. This is nine stories from the back of the structure, eight stories from Dickson Street. And again, I don't think it is fair to judge this project on regulations that the City may or may not pass or ordinances that the City may or may not pass. If they City does, that's fine. They may do that this year, they may do that next year. I would rather be turned down so that I could appeal to City Council rather than left in limbo where we continue to pay the interest and the surcharges of a development that can't go forward for want of a tabling until the City Council takes up the issue — the City Council may never take up the issue. The Hillside Ordinance is a case in point. That Hillside Ordinance may or may not reflect what the Planning Commission sent to it, and it will be passed on the City's own good time. Please don't leave us in limbo on this. For us, this is a matter of significant financial impact to be left tabled until the City Council does or does not do something. It would be an extreme outcome for us and what do I tell my banker? All the money I borrowed, maybe I'll pay you back when the City Council gets around to doing something? That is real difficult. I believe, and I think I said in the prior meetings at Large Scale, that it is the Planning Commission's job to judge this project on the basis Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 17 Lack: ordinances that they currently exist, not on what we would like them to be or what we think someone will make them, but on what truly is. As an investor and one who owns the property, certainly I must make decisions based on the ordinances as they exist. When I submit my plan to the City, they want me to address the ordinances as they currently exist, not on how I would like them to be or how I think they might be in the future, but what the ordinances currently require of me and I think that is what I have done. We think we have made an attractive project and it is something that will benefit the downtown. It will certainly do those things that I have heard others in the City government request and that is infill and density. We bring that - in some respects this will be affordable in that the cost of the units as a whole will be below the mean average for properties marketed currently. Of course they will be smaller, but they will be affordable in that they won't be $300,000 or $400,000 units. With respect to looking at other issues and other desires of the City as we have heard through various meetings — the Dover Kohl Master Plan not being the least of which, I believe this project meets those concerns, meets the design standards, does a lot of things in terms of density and infill and we would certainly like to go forward. And if we cannot go forward, please do not table us indefinitely. Please don't do that. I would rather be turned down and appeal to the City Council. Don't leave us in limbo. Just a few concerns. I was at the first Subdivision meeting that saw this and the most recent, the two times it went through Subdivision. I think I was somewhat alarmed from a design standpoint. You start to bring in one building that is so much taller than the immediately surroundings that currently exist. I think that that is obviously any sense of speculation of what will be there which I don't know where that line is to the feasibility of speculating of what will be there some day. But I also think that from a design standpoint, I have learned lessons that you have to look at what is in place and try to meet the regulations that are currently on the books and with that I have a respect for that and a respect for the fact that the regulations that currently on the books say that this is an okay building. I think that with that, I have to respect that and feel a duty to that. When we look at protecting the immediate surroundings and the buildings and people that are immediately around this, I believe that they are basically also C-3 with the same potential, so I am not sure that I see them as having a greatly different potential or a buildability than what this building will have. If everything goes through the way we have proposed it to City Council, you will be able to do a six -story building which I would say if this building were two stories shorter on the Dickson Street side, we would still see it much the same which much the same height concerns and the same views of Old Main that we see the potential to block would still be of issue. If we imagine this rendering and only two stories being taken off of the Dickson Street side of this building, that it would be little Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 18 Sharp: Clark: change to the impact. With that I feel that we would be out-of-bounds to look at this from a regulation of the downtown master plan. While I think the conformity with that and overall conformity of the height would be admirable, I think that I would not support tabling this. I would be ready to vote in the affirmative for it. I have one comment as it relates to tabling. Commissioner Allen made a comment that we don't have a downtown master plan in place. I would say that we do in fact have a downtown plan in place and it is the Unified Development Ordinance which addresses many aspects of design, buildings, zoning, height, density, landscaping. I brought this image of the E.J. Ball Plaza and where it sits on the Square. I think that is a demonstration of a building that is about the same scale as our building where the architect made no effort to meet what we would consider Commercial Design Standards. There is a sheer wall up the street has no windows that we can see; the other sides are all sheer pieces of glass. There is a metal pipe snaking up the side of the building It has nothing to do with its neighbors, the classic Victorian commercial buildings. I think the type of development that you see there already we have ordinances to prevent. We are constantly refining our ordinances and constantly working on them as we test them in the real world. I think the building that we are showing here is a reflection of the laws we have now which are certainly the most stringent in the State of Arkansas for design, materials and finishes. I don't agree that we don't have a law now, don't have a plan. We have a plan and our plan continues to get better, our plan continues to change. After the downtown master plan is passed, in two years there will be amendments as things happen. We continue this process. I would think to table it until we get the final law is a misunderstanding because we are never going to get the final law. We do have the law we have now, we have a law that is fairly stringent, we have a Planning Staff that is very attentive about a lot of details. That comment, I would ask that you not table the project and to in fact approve it here tonight. I will still support tabling this simply because I have concerns about it, but if we were not to table, and that would be either defeated or withdrawn, I would still be inclined to vote against this project. It has nothing to do with the downtown master plan. I think you will be relieved to hear that. I think your arguments are very compelling and correct, Mr. Alexander. It has to do with the fact that the Commercial Design Standards talk about compatibility with surrounding developments and I don't think a nine - story building on Dickson Street does that. I also have issues and concerns about traffic. Yes, you are talking density and infill and talking about one street that really doesn't exist and another that can not be expanding and that is Dickson Street. The Powerhouse, I don't believe Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 19 any improvement has been happening on Powerhouse Avenue. I'm not sure those two in combination could carry the load for a five -story parking garage to house all the vehicles for a nine -story building. Those are my concerns. Also, I am very surprised that the University has not commented on this in terms of view shed to Old Main and campus in general. Because this does sit on a higher hill than just about anything. I think it is a gorgeous building, I think if it was any place else. You talk about a lot of other taller buildings around the area — I think if it was anywhere else, I would probably be inclined to support it wholeheartedly. But because of where it is, the unique location that is going to hold, it diminishes the E. Faye Jones design to the west of it as well in terms of the Underwood building which kind of surprises me a little bit. It overwhelms it and I think that is the word that strikes me about this particular project in where it is and it is overwhelming. I would hope that it could be made shorter (for lack of a better technical term). I don't know if the developers are willing to do that. I agree that perhaps we should give you something to go on and either vote it up or down and let the Council grasp and deal with height issues. If we depend upon it to get done in the downtown master plan, as we have seen in Hillside Ordinance, it just might not happen. Let them make the determination. But I will oppose it as it is. Graves: I was just going to say that I would be perplexed why we would table it if the case is, which is our City Attorney has explained, that if you — regardless of long you table it, a new plan is not going to apply to this project based upon when they applied. So there is no advantage gained by tabling this application, unless there are some grounds that haven't been stated yet. If somebody has a problem with the design or something like that and I'm not talking about the height — the materials and the other things we normally look at on Commercial Design Standards. Sometimes we have tabled in the past to work out things on those issues. The grounds that I heard to table which is to wait and see what the City Council does with the downtown master plan, which is not, I might add, not fully in front of the City Council yet. We passed some portions of it. There is no advantage gained by tabling on those grounds because it is not going to apply to this project anyway. I would agree with the comments made by Commissioner Lack and Commissioner Vaught and also by the applicant that if you are concerned about the height of the building and you have some grounds under the current ordinances to deny the application on that basis, then don't vote to table, vote to deny on that basis tonight, and allow the applicant to move the project forward under the current ordinances which are after all what applies to their application. With respect to the current ordinance, and I also want to echo what the applicant stated as far as the ordinances. They are always changes; there is no time when the ordinances freeze and that is the law so to speak. They are constantly Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 20 being modified, amended, changed, deleted, added to, etc. You will never get to a time when you can say, here's the law, here is what it will be, this is what it will always be. You have to go with what is on the books now and when something comes through that you are concerned about, you modify your ordinances accordingly and judge future applications on that basis. We will modify them again when something else happens. Right now we have the ordinances which we have which do not have a specific height limitation in C-3. We have a specific height limitation in other zoning categories, but not in this one. We have been told that we have sort of a fall back with compatibility under the Commercial Design Standards but I'm not comfortable denying a nine -story building on that basis in comparison to what is in fairly close proximity such as Hillcrest Towers and some other buildings. If it was forty stories or twenty-five stories or whatever, I would feel comfortable saying that is incompatible with what is there. When you are talking about what is in three or four stories of what is around it, that does not seem incompatible to me. It doesn't seem an appropriate basis. But that is my interpretation of what we have been told we can do with the Commercial Design Standards. Others of you may and clearly do, as Commissioner Clark stated, feel differently. Well then, vote that way and vote that way tonight and don't table it. Allen: I would like to make it very clear to the applicant that I think it is a very attractive building and I'm also very appreciate of things that you have done in our community. This is not a personal attack, I hope you understand that. I also understand your financial investments and your concerns and with that I will withdraw my motion to table and move to deny the project. Ostner: First we have a withdrawal and the seconder needs to withdraw also. Clark: I will withdraw also. Ostner: There is another motion to deny. Clark: I will second. Sharp: I wanted to answer some questions on access and traffic and I'm sorry I didn't explain better how this access works. This is Dickson and this is Powerhouse. City Staff had the same concerns as Commissioner Clark did as to how the traffic is going to work. And one of their first requirements, maybe the first requirement, is that we do - this Powerhouse Avenue currently — you may call an alley, but they request we add sidewalks all along the east side, that we provide on -street parking. So this becomes a real street, not only between here and Dickson but also sort of sets a Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 21 blueprint for the future to trying to connect Powerhouse and University as that land develops, if it does in fact develop. There is also a second access to the parking deck between Underwood's and our building, and so the traffic issues have been studied by the Planning Staff and by us and we feel that two accesses are more than adequate for 283 parking stalls. So if there is a concern about traffic, I want you to do that we have looked at that issue and are convinced that it would work and function properly. Vaught: It concerns me a little bit how the Commercial Design Standards are currently being interpreted by the Committee. I do not feel that the height issue should be given as much weight in the Commercial Design Standards. I see compatibility as a protection against neighboring uses and when you have a use surrounding by other C-3 and C-4, this building is very compatible. They have the full potential to build something ten, fifteen stories next to it. There is no height limitation. The argument to me that this building isn't compatible with the surrounding uses in an area where we are promoting redevelopment, so we should expect redevelopment. To me, it seems like an incorrect argument. That is not what I feel like the Commercial Design Standards are set out to do. I feel like if there is a specific height limitation desired, it should be listed in the code. When we have an area with not bulk and area regulations, that is what we have, especially in an area like this specifically zoned C-3 and C- 4 to promote the denser developments. It just baffles me; I don't know what you guys think we will have if we want denser development. Obviously, if you want density, you have to go up. So to me, it is not a compatibility issue at all. I don't think that is a correct argument to be making on the commercial design standards. I do feel that the applicant has gone above and beyond to try not to make this an opposing structure on Dickson Street by stepping it back and even it back on Powerhouse. I think that the scale of the stories need to be looked at because you are looking at a two-story building next door to this and the height of it comes to the third story of this building. So we are not looking at something that is so grossly different. I will vote against the denial. I feel like that is an incorrect position. I feel like these developers have gone out of their way to meet our current regulations. Anthes: Couple of questions. I think in a Staff report, Staff had found that the north facade of the parking garage that would be visible from Dickson Street — you have some problems with articulation. It looks to me like the elevations in our packet have the Underwood building removed. I don't know now what part of this is actually exposed. Does the applicant have an elevation that shows that? Sharp: You are correct. When we originally submitted with the elevations with the Underwood building in place you couldn't see the parking deck, and Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 22 they asked in order to see it place to remove the Underwood building, so that you could actually see it. And what they are talking about is a half block back from Dickson, you will see some parking deck ramping and the reason for that is we want people to be aware that there is parking back there. But it is a full half block off Dickson. As you drive by, you just get a glimpse of it and we can certainly screen it if you think that is necessary, but our feeling is that it would be detrimental because you wouldn't know there was parking back there. Anthes: Is the visual part about as wide as where it says parking entrance in the elevation that was submitted? One bay between the one with the light pole and then the Sharp: If you will get this drawing, the north elevation dated March 2nd. This is the ramping we are talking about. This is the stair tower to the parking deck so we dressed out to conceal it, but we wanted to allow this little glimpse of the ramping of the parking deck. Parking entrance is the signage. Anthes: Is about the width of the sign, about the width that would be exposed as the building was shown in front of it? Pate: It is approximately 50'. It is the width of the drive aisle plus the parking stalls between the Underwood building and the actual front of the building facing onto Dickson Street. Anthes: Can you just sketch in the Underwood building. I have another question about signage from Staff. There is quite a lot of signage shown on these elevations. Does any approval of this building indicate any approval of that signage. Have you reviewed that quantity of the signage for compliance? Pate: Anthes: None whatsoever. We would review signage separately as a sign permit in accordance with the ordinances we have in place at this time. I have a couple of questions of our City Attorney. I believe that we do have a policy document in place that is the downtown master plan. There is not a codes and ordinances, but there has been a policy document that have gone through this body and has been approved by City Council, much as our General Plan 2020 has been through this body and approved by City Council. Can you tell me what a policy document and general vision like our general plan is and how we look at projects? Williams: I don't really think that controls the development code. I think the development code is what the Planning Commission is charged to Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 23 administer. If you are thinking about how to change it, you can certainly look at the guides that 2020 Plan or the downtown master plan, but if the code is specific on what they must do and they comply with the code, I don't think we can go back to another document which is clearly not an ordinance, doesn't have the power of an ordinance and say well this is a guide of a plan for us and therefore despite the fact you are meeting our code, we are not going to approve your plan. That is one of the things when you are looking at - depends on how much discretion you have. In a rezoning, you certainly have a lot more discretion to look at guides, plans, the 2020 Plan and downtown master plan. When you have a large scale development or a preliminary plat, you don't have nearly as much discretion — basically at that point you look — have they complied with the code? Or is there some section in the code that you can point to, that they have not complied in order to turn down their development I think a lot of it depends on what kind of question you are asking. In a rezoning, I think yes, you could look at the downtown master plan as one of the guides, just like you can look at the 2020 Plan and use that as one of the factors that you would weigh to determine whether or not to recommend a rezoning. Anthes: To build on that, I believe that you were going to bring to this meeting some verbiage from the Arkansas State Supreme Court about historic buildings and adjacencies to historic buildings. Can you tell us what that research says? Williams: Well, actually, not from the State Supreme Court, but there is certainly a statute that I looked at. It is a statute to protect monumental buildings and control the height of other buildings in order to protect a monument building, like Old Main. That is certainly an option that the Planning Commission could recommend to the City Council to do — to establish a district to protect Old Main as a monumental building. I think that everyone pretty much agrees that it is the most important building in Fayetteville. The University has done a lot to protect it, not to put anything in the Old Main lawn. In years past, someone said let's put parking there, we don't have enough parking for the University. There were some plans at one time to put parking in front of Old Main, and because of Old Main itself, those plans were rejected. They wanted to preserve Old Main and its view for all of Fayetteville. I think that we would be very justified if we wanted to go in that direction to create a protection zone for Old Main which specifically — this statute specifically allows to limit the height on structures within this zone. There would be arguments on exactly how high, how tall the limitations should be, where it would apply, how far away from Old Main. Those would be some things you and the City Council would have to determine as the appropriate standards, But we don't have that in place right now and it Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 24 hasn't been submitted anywhere. What I'm still looking at in the code is if in fact that had been proposed before this project came forward, before they submitted it, even if you have been talking about it for two years, even if you bought the land — if you have not submitted the project when you did and we had a proposal to protect or to restrict the height of buildings to protect the view of Old Main or the downtown master plan ordinances had been submitted to the City Council or to the Planning Commission which does restrict the height in this area, that I would have had to tell Mr. Alexander I'm sorry, even if you did all this planning, there is a particular code section here that suspends your right to get a permit for ninety days and gives the City Council that much time to work on it. But that is not the case here. In this particular case, they submitted their building plans back in October and therefore they are not susceptible to this particular ninety -day waiting period like another developer would that didn't submit as early as they did. Anthes: So, to follow up on this historic building precedent, basically the committee within the Planning Commission (the subcommittee of the subcommittee) that is reviewing significant buildings, that would be the piece of legislation that we would look to in establishing that. I'm not just thinking about Old Main, obviously we have an E. Faye Jones building next door to this project. So that is another issue. But that is a future concern. I understand what you are saying that we have policy documents that certain kinds of approvals have more discretion than others. I do want to ask about the traffic safety and access issue. Staff, what is the breaking point at which Staff requires or asks the applicant to provide us a traffic study? Pate: For a residential development, it is 100 units. If a developer submits a request or comes in for a pre -application meeting, we request a traffic study if it has 100 dwelling units or more. That is a policy that has been in place since about December, 2004. Anthes: Are there any break points in Commercial construction? Pate: No, we really haven't identified one. The reason for that is most very large projects have a residential component to that. The Bellafont Phase II development for example, out on Joyce has a lot of residential units and a lot of commercial development. It was obvious that a traffic study was needed for that. They commissioned that without us even asking. That was part of the overall review process. We have really established a square footage for that. Anthes: When you say 100 units, that is 100 actual dwelling units, not bedrooms? Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 25 Pate: Anthes: Pate: Anthes: Pate: Correct. So this project has 77 units and 110 bedrooms, so you feel that it is under the threshold of what we would require? Yes. The pole mounted lighting that is on top of parking structures, we have a fabulous example of what that looks like in Fayetteville and it is not the greatest. Can you talk about your review of the lighting on the top of this parking deck? With our new lighting ordinance which has been in place for a few months now, we began that process by requiring light fixtures to be submitted with a large scale development. It was not working at all, simply because the final design of structures have not taken place when it is presented to you. That is the point of the preliminary plat or large scale development. Preliminary plans are submitted to you. In the final construction details, that is typically when we look at those lighting fixtures. So at the time of the building permit, our review would consist of requiring the lighting engineer or the architect to supply us with cut sheets and information, lighting plan, to understand exactly where fixtures would be located to ensure they meet all of those requirements. Anthes: Thank you. On your finding #11, talking about street trees and based on the existing islands and the existing trees in the vicinity of Dickson Street, that you are recommending two street trees instead of four. Are you recommending that the other two trees be planted elsewhere on the property? Pate: There is some mitigation required on this site and we are requiring those trees because it is in an urban setting to be planted with structural soil and the applicant has agreed to do that. It is located on the landscape plans that you have. The reason for Dickson Street, with the improvements that the City did, there are quite a few utilities and other constraints to actually plant some of those, to have them mature at all. It was a desire to have, based on — the wording of this is at the discretion of the City Urban Forester who would be able to work with the applicant at the time of construction to understand exactly what utility constraints there are. Anthes: Speaking of utility constraints, I understand that from what Andrew told us is that we are not able to look at this utility easement. Staff states in the report that you feel that the 26' easement is inappropriate and obviously we had at Subdivision talked to the developer and were interested in moving the building more towards the sidewalk if this large easement Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 26 Pate: wasn't required. Can you indulge us on where that might be, if you have any news and the other thing is, I don't know what all drawings you have there, but it would be advantageous for the public to understand what is being proposed in case they would like to weigh in on it any time in the future. We first became aware of the easement issue when the applicant brought it to our attention actually and we had a meeting with them. We subsequently requested that this item be tabled at the Subdivision Committee which is why it was heard twice. We had a meeting with AEP/SWEPCO who is the electric provider in this area. You can see the drawings there, superimposed photographic simulations by Rob Sharp's office, obviously concerns Staff with the Old Main view. Other structures especially when we are attempting to revitalized the downtown/Dickson Street area. The indications to us that something of this nature, increasing the height of the poles and installing a 161 Kv wire would be within the next year or two and would come from the substation heading north across Dickson street, in front of Old Main, probably down Gregg Avenue. We did meet with the utility company on two different occasions to request that they at least look at alternative routing or underground — burying some of these lines underground for a portion of the frontage in the downtown area or potentially in front of Old Main. They have said they will at least look at that opportunity to reroute. There is obviously not a commitment there. We felt that with this application that requiring that large of an easement in the downtown easement, based on our current codes which allow minimum setbacks of five feet or zero feet, depending upon the zoning district, which would be both inconsistent and incompatible with the goals of the City, both in current ordinances and proposed ordinances that we have before us. We would not support a dedication of an easement along this frontage of Powerhouse and the downtown area. To add to that, the structure being located next to the street, what I understand, is that there are clearance requirements for the existing wires so if the larger wires were never installed, there is still clearance requirements for the existing wires and therefore, the applicant actually redesigned a portion of their property to accommodate those clearance requirements. Anthes: Thank you, Jeremy. I think for the record, the proposed height of those poles is 120'? Pate: I believe that is correct. Anthes: I hope people are listening. Thank you for indulging my questions. While I, too, am concerned about the height of this building, I feel pretty strapped by what we have on the books right now in order to do anything Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 27 about it. I feel a little bit more comfortable. I think if the front facade was four stories and stepped back in keeping with what we are going to be requiring in the future, if that passes, I would feel that some screening on the parking entrance facade on the north elevation would be beneficial. I don't know to the degree of making any kind of masonry building front, but just something that might conceal the ramping just a little bit, but would still give the impression that there was parking available. I know, for example, in the city of Hot Springs, they spent quite a bit to make a parking deck to not look like a parking deck, then nobody parks there because nobody knows what it is. I think there is a medium point to be found there for a comfort level. And I guess I am cheered by Mr. William's assertion that we may have some leeway in developments that are being proposed after we have forwarded the code on which we have done. That gives me some comfort in this issue. Alexander: I just wanted to make a couple of comments. I'd like to address Commission Clark's concern about the Underwood building. You may or may not know that Mr. Underwood is a partner of this project. They fully support it. We have an option to purchase the property next door, which I hope some day to also do. As you know we have bought similar property across the street and maintained the historical character and fabric of that. With respect of judging this project in terms of its compatibility with projects coming in the future, even if the City Council adopts a six -story maximum, certainly you will see many six story buildings on Dickson Street. When you judge this project in view of what is most likely to come, you are talking about the difference on Dickson Street of two stories. With respect to the view shed of Old Main, I walk this area every day in attempt to at least not get more unhealthy than I am. I can tell you that the height from this project to the top of the hill where Old Main sits is a pretty good one. It keeps your heart going. Old Main is a seven -story structure, possibly eight, depending on how you measure stories. It sits on a very high knoll of one of the highest hills in town. This structure will in no way top out any place close to the height of Old Main because of where it sits below the hill that Old Main sits on. Again, we think that this is a good addition in terms of a visual substitute to what you currently look at which is the Powerhouse power station. We fought the issue of the power poles because we think it is inappropriate both for this project as well as what it would do for downtown. Again, hoping to make you more comfortable with this project. We have given a lot of thought in terms of this structure and we have taken into consideration the adjoining property owners' view points. I think many of them, certainly the people that own George's are proposing an addition to their structure. The train station will be a project in the future. Again, with respect to the majority of this project, it is residential, not commercial. That traffic associated with Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 28 residents living downtown and not commercial enterprise, like a restaurant or music venue. I hope that answers some of your questions. Ostner: I have a comment real quick and then I'll get to you, Mr. Nock. This is a difficult issue for me. This would be a terrific asset for our downtown and Dickson Street and it is a beautiful building. I am sad that we, as a City, haven't mapped out our vision more thoroughly at this point. But they need to know the rules they have to play by and that is why the ordinances have to be so specific as a lot of us have mentioned. When you are driving down the highway and they are changing the speed limit every once in a while, that is not fair. They put it up and it stays and whatever the sign says is the law. In a lot of ways, zoning is like a speed limit. It is always there, we always forget about it, but it governs a lot of the things that we do. My concern is much less dramatic or exciting. I was interested in the tabling. I don't think this packet is ready. Ninety-five percent of this design is ready to be built and meets the rules. I don't think I can find for condition #1, the Commercial Design Standards. I don't like the parking deck facing Dickson. Something does need to be fixed. I believe this issue has come up before at Subdivision, possibly even twice. I don't think the packet is ready. I think it is our charge to make that finding. I can't find for that finding. I am also concerned about the traffic. I understand this doesn't warrant a traffic study, but I believe a pedestrian was killed two, three blocks away at Center and University, less than a year ago. If I have that intersection correct. If I lived in this building, I would not jump onto Dickson every morning. If I did, I would probably head down University towards the intersection where the duck pond is, which I believe where the pedestrian was killed. That intersection is dangerous, it is substandard. I would like for this project, it would be nice with the minimum frontage that this project has, with some off-site improvement could happen toward that intersection. Possibly not completely restructuring it, but possible contributing something toward it. I'm not exactly sure of the specifics of that. But those are two things that concern me. This is a very important project and I don't think it is ready for my positive vote. I would like to table it, I will reluctantly vote against it on safety and the Commercial Design Standards finding. Mr. Nock. Nock: My comment was just a short one a minute ago, but I am going to add something to it. I just want to point out for the public's perspective that those power lines are being proposed had nothing to do with the impact that we are doing on this property. So, I don't want it to be misconstrued by anyone that because we are building this building that they are going to have to expand the power lines. That is completely separate from our project. I wanted to address one thing that you, Allen, as chairman, have commented. I'm not sure I am reading this wrong, but as far as I understand it, our parking deck actually faces — the piece of it that faces Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 29 Allen: Dickson Street is set back nearly half a block, so it being facing Dickson Street is a little bit, not completely accurate. It does face it, a portion of it, but it is very much inset from the street frontage. It is not like we have a parking deck on the sidewalk of Dickson Street. And that may be what you meant. The other piece where you see the parking deck from the eastern exposure is made and screened to look like a warehouse property which would be apropos to what you want to see in a urban fabric environment. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but this planning was specific to come off the road but at the same time allow easy access so you would be able to avoid those accidents and things that might come up. To lobby my motion for anyone who might have not made their mind up, but I wanted us to remember that if we decide to deny, of course the applicant will appeal and the City Council will hear this and the bonus to me about that is that it will give all of us an opportunity to be heard more by the Council. They will be looking through our notes and seeing our concerns when they make their decision. They are the ultimate decision- making body. I think that would be advantageous for them to see that there are some of us who are very concerned. Merry -Ship: Addressing your concerns on the parking, we have worked to make almost a three-way ingress/egress where you come in off Dickson Street either two ways into the building and come out Powerhouse either to the north of the south. In considering the proposed parking that would be almost adjacent to the Walton Art Center or City proposed parking deck... I don't know how much that would change if there was a parking deck right next door with a railroad track between us. As far as in and out, Dickson Street, side street. One other note I would like everyone to remember - when the building we razed was a nightclub of a pretty good size — Dave's on Dickson and I have been there for a few concerts. I have also noticed the adjacent club next door. When you are talking about how many people are parking and how many people versus 77 units, I've seen the parking in that area on weekends, in the evening, in excess of 800-900 people. I just want to be sure is we are paying the price to build parking on the requirement for the residential versus what was in there and is in there now, I understand your concerns, but I don't see how we have impacted anything more or less than what was already pre-existing. I'd like you to keep that in mind. Vaught: I guess I find it a little disconcerting that an argument be made that we should deny this item so it would be appealed to City Council. I think it would be unfair to the applicant that we do that. I feel that we would need to deny on a basis that it does not meet our code. I feel like that is our charge. As far as Commercial Design Standards go, I feel like that is an Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 30 issue that this body can resolve tonight. I don't find reason to vote against it if you feel like the parking deck needs some more articulation or screening or needs to be covered by a different material. That is definitely something that we take up every day and give Staff direction on . They could easily administer with understanding from us what is necessary. If those are the issues holding it up, I would propose that that is something that we can hash out at this level, for one, if that is the reason, we need to give the developer reasons and an understanding on what they need to do to meet those and our perspective, so when they came back through, they would have an understanding of what was there and what we are expecting from them at that point in time. Overall, I think it is a great looking project. I do feel like something could be done to the fa9ade that faces Dickson Street if it is painting it, covering it with a material similar to the building. I would definitely understand that perspective. I don't have an answer. I don't know if the developer or Staff has looked at that. Right now, it just looks like bare concrete to me, which I fear would stick out. Have you guys looked at different options — just the sliver that is visible between the two buildings or over the top of the Underwood building. What could be done. The corner part of the building you have done extensive work on. Alexander: Again, we want to see the articulation and the trouble we went to on Powerhouse. We'd love to have a parking deck that would look like something other than a parking deck. If it alleviated some of for instance, some of Commissioner Ostner's concerns that we articulate that better, we would be more than happy to do that. Tweaking of the project in that regard is nothing. We fear or want to avoid — we are looking for an attractive project; we are looking for an attractive parking deck. We do want people to know that there is parking there so they will in fact come and use that parking and take that parking off street. We intentionally built the parking deck bigger than the numbers we needed to accommodate our particular project in the hope that we take parking of the street and that we actually supply parking for the adjacent project. That was a concern of ours from the beginning and we hope we've done that. That is certainly something we are trying to do. You all know the debate about parking. We are trying to get a parking deck built at the Walton Arts Center, one at the UBC. I will predict that this will be the first parking deck in the Dickson Street area. So we want it to be attractive. In terms of trying not to hit a moving target, if your concern is articulation of the parking deck, we would be more than happy to articulate it in a manner that made the Planning Commission feel better about the project. And you can make that a condition of approval. But again, that allows us to have a static target that we can understand what your concerns are, we can then go out and address them and move forward with the project. So Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 31 we welcome that. I would hope that somehow it stills says parking — come and park, that's what we want it to say, come and park. Ostner: I would certainly want parking on Dickson. Vaught: So the parking deck is open to the public, I assume paid parking. Alexander: There will be parts of it that are reserved to the residents, but we will have many spaces that will be open to the public. It will be an open parking deck. It will provide parking for all of those businesses and I have one across the street, the UARK Bowl, that has no parking, so when we have functions there, you have to drive around and hope the kids aren't up in the parking lot next to the fraternity house and get in there. That was by design that we made a bigger parking deck. And it was by design that the parking deck was used also to screen the Powerhouse unattractiveness. So we've kind of taken what you looked at — that power grid and we have basically screened that from Dickson Street. We thought we were doing a good thing there. We would be glad to do more of a good thing if that makes a difference. Vaught: From my perspective and I think that other Commissioners would agree, I would like to see similar materials from the surrounding buildings incorporated on that facade, not to say you would have to do a liner building or anything to that extent, but just something so it is not a dramatic change in materials between the two building. That would be my direction to Staff on that and I would think Staff would approve something like that. I believe that leaves the applicant latitude to be creative in how they cover that in an economical, but beautiful way. I think that the overall the materials for the structure are very good looking. Incorporating those somehow on the visible portions to Dickson Street would go a long way in alleviating that concern. The other thing, I think Jeremy mentioned earlier, was the light pole on top. That was the first thing I saw and it sticks up real high. It is my understanding that it will be reviewed and the ordinances will be met. Alexander: We would obviously like as little of obtrusive lighting as possible to the extent that you can still be safe. We will comply with the ordinances and will put lighting up there that the City Staff thinks is appropriate. We are not struggling with that at all. Vaught: To follow up on the comments made earlier about denying, I would like to point out as well that even if we pass this, if it is in our judgment that this meets our current ordinances and we pass this, the public has the right to appeal to the City Council as well. I think that is the more appropriate Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 32 measure to be used rather than us denying the project solely for the purpose that it be appealed. Ostner: I don't think that was ever stated. It was a completely different — it was prediction of if it were appealed, this is the thing that would obviously happen. Allen: I wanted an opportunity to refute that I don't want this to get into the Vaught -Allen show, but I think you took that out of context and think we will have to respectfully agree to disagree. Vaught: I do and I understand your point. Williams: Just from a procedural point of view. It might be better than to have a motion to deny, I look at eight commissioners so it takes five votes to pass a motion tonight. I would suggest it would be better to have a motion to approve and then you work on the conditions. If you don't want to approve it, you vote against it and it fails and it can be appealed up. I think that would be a lot cleaner because what if we divide 4-4 on a motion to deny, that means the motion to deny fails but sitting in limbo. If fact if it is a motion to approve and it goes 4-4, then the ruling is that it has failed. But I think that would be better. And if you all would look at the conditions of approval in case it might pass, to work on that, especially the Commercial Design Standards. That would be my recommendation, just from a procedural point of view. Clark: Sharp: Clark: Sharp: I have a question for Staff or Rob, you may know this as well. Powerhouse, the alley that is Powerhouse. It is going to continue to the south and will it connect eventually to University? The Master Street Plan that was just passed on the downtown streets shows that as a stub out that ends at our property line. However, when we were talking to Staff, if any one ever develops that property to the south of us, they would like to encourage that that be developed as a full street with sidewalks, street trees, lighting, to connect University and Powerhouse — to make a smaller block. Right now it is a big super block there. But your project will not empty onto University. Both entrances and exits go to Dickson. There is an easement right now — you can get into the Powerhouse parking lot — you can snake in there. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 33 Clark: This plan, these street improvements do not touch that area at all. Your entrance and exit, two of them are on Dickson? Sharp: We are encouraging traffic to go the other way, yes. We are not building Powerhouse to any greater extent. We are building it up between Dickson and our south property line; we are proposing to leave it as it. Clark: The two appealing entrances and exits will be directly to Dickson. Sharp: Right. Lack: Looking through the packet of information that we have for this meeting, I see that the 03/02/06 Subdivision Committee found in favor of the elevations for Commercial Design Standards. While I wasn't on that Subdivision Committee, I was on the previous one and I know that that Subdivision Committee also found in favor of the elevations for Commercial Design Standards. I know that from that, six of us have reviewed that and have found in favor of the Commercial Design Standards. Now that certainly doesn't mean that with added information that a person can't change their mind or gain greater knowledge on that and better insight. Personally, I have not found better insight on that. I feel the elevations that I saw in Subdivision Committee that I was comfortable with are the same elevations that I am looking at now. The parking garage we talked about the parking garage visibility from the back basically from the substation and the fact that is was addressed. I don't have a problem with the parking garage, the narrow gap of visibility of the parking garage that is approximately half a block back. I don't personally have a problem with raw concrete. I don't think that is a bad thing. But that would possibly go to some personal assessment there. But if we are looking at something for parking screening, and if that is something my fellow commissioners would want to look at, I think this same applicant has screened a parking garage with a metal screening, a project that recently came through and if that is something that other commissioners would desire, that would be something that could be addressed to the applicant. Sharp: Two brief comments. It was always our intention to have an attractive entrance and if that is the issue that is keeping Commissioner Ostner from accepting the project, then I would certainly respect his experience on the Planning Commission not to back down on that issue and say we will make that something that conceals the ramping of the parking deck, conceals the headlights, but still has a parking entrance. The second comment that Allen brought up is the death of the young man at Center and University. I'm not a traffic engineer — I got interested in traffic studies when Dover Kohl came to town the first time we were working on Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 34 the downtown master plan. I wondered why they brought a traffic planner because I thought that was something you did out in the suburbs, but I thought a lot of their comments about how narrowing streets slows down traffic, on -street parking slows down traffic, lower scale street lighting, instead of these big poles slows down traffic. I am concerned that Center Street is this race track. It has a hill on each side so they can get a lot of speed up. I think Center Street is kind of an anomaly of the downtown area. It is the very kind of dome that we are trying to avoid, the kind of development that we are trying to replace with a project like this that comes ups to a street that has a wide sidewalk, narrow traffic lanes. I want you to know that we take pedestrian traffic and circulating very seriously on this project. We take automotive traffic very seriously. We are trying to balance these. I hope this project won't be denied because something that happened on a street that was designed to standards that are against everything that we are presenting there tonight. Those two issues, pedestrian safety and screening of the parking garage, we are going to do everything we can to make those two things work. Ostner: I appreciate that. It seems like my specific comments have been the focus of the discussion. Specifically, I have no doubt that you can design a solution for the parking garage. I'm reminded of four or five months ago when the other project had a parking garage and that held things up for a long time. It wasn't just a little nothing. I wasn't a thing that we just hand over to Jeremy. We can hand off Commercial Design Standards if we feel comfortable enough. We do not have to. You can never expect what you do not inspect. It is part of our charge and I'm simply saying that this is an important project and I think it needs to happen here with all the formalities that are going on. I am concerned that it is stepped back. Dover Kohl taught me very well that the build -to line can make or break a street. A street is a living thing, the closeness creates a good atmosphere for people. Its kind of like why does everyone mingle in the kitchen. There is a huge living room with on one in it. It is intense, people like it, they are close to each other, it is where the action is. This hole is part of what Dover Kohl has told us this is not good, this does not help your downtown. Do not leave holes. So the fact that nothing is there concerns me also. The access in next to the Underwood building. Inaudible — Sharp. Ostner: There is a lot of ground, I want to say 100', 120'. I could see stepping back 20'-30'. I think that what I see here at that perspective is probably a 30' step back. I'm just going over my concerns here. My point is not to vote against this just because, my point is to try to crack this into a project that I could vote for. I do think that that intersection is a problem; it is not your fault, I am not blaming you for it. I'm simply suggesting that this Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 35 building with nine stories has a short amount of frontage and you have done improvements to Powerhouse which is off site, it is not abutting your project. In my mind, there is a balancing act of the impact and this is what traffic studies try to do, how much impact, how much should be fixed. I believe most of the smart drivers are going to go through that intersection. They are not going to get on Dickson and go to West Street and turn south to try to head towards the interstate that way. It would be great if they parked their car for a month and walked to work. I am just illustrating my concerns better. I would like to be here again in two weeks with a few changes that I could vote for. Myres: I was on both Subdivision Committees when this project came forward, and the last one I chaired and it was my understanding when we approved the Commercial Design Standards for the things that Staff mentioned, specifically the parking garage, that that took into account their recommendations and that is what we approved — the determination of Commercial Design Standards for the parking garage based on recommendations from Staff. Pate: Actually, the Subdivision Committee voted in favor of the elevations that were presented not what Staffs recommended changes. Myres: We sure meant to. That was probably my fault. But in any case, I thought what happened, didn't happen. I am also going to vote against this, not just for no reason. I've always maintained that the height of this structure is way out of scale with what is presently what is downtown. People keep mentioning what is going to happen down there in the future. It hasn't happened yet. I realize that certainly they have gone above and beyond what is expected in terms in meeting the letter of the law. I know we have been told over and over again that our judgments are based on code and standards, what's legal and what isn't. But it bemuses me a little bit that we are not expected to use our own judgment, that if it meets the letter of the law, then it is okay, then we might as well just rubber stamp it. What are we for, if it is not to bring to bear our experience as design professionals and also interpreters of the spirit of the law or code. I have no quarrel with the design of the building — I think it is spectacular. I think it is more suited to a larger city than we are presently. I certainly grant that you have done everything you possibly can to meet what is required of you and then some. But in good conscience I can't vote for a building that is going to dwarf the Underwood building that is so totally out of scale of two and three-story structures that are presently there, that will cast a huge shadow when the sun sets on part of Dickson Street for a good part of the afternoon. There are a lot of reasons that are just my personal feeling. Whether or not I can use that as a reason for casting a vote, is certainly up for discussion, but I'm going to use it any way. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 36 Ostner: We do have a call to decide for the Commercial Design Standards and how that is specifically... Sharp: Can we table this to get back with your concerns? Osmer: We have a motion. That is an option. Vaught: I know we have a motion on the table and I know we have a recommendation from the City Attorney and now have a request from the applicant. So, I was going to ask the motioners about what they felt about their motions, if they want to do something different? I suppose a motion to table supercedes the pending motion? Alexander: We would like to do it until the next meeting. Vaught: Mr. Chair, I will make a motion to table it until the next meeting. I feel comfortable tabling it until the next meeting. I think if the applicant is requesting it and we can decide at that point in time. Ostner: Mr. Vaught has made a motion to table until two weeks from tonight. Is there a second. Lack: Second. Anthes: If that passes, I believe the applicant needs to know what we would want to see different. I think that what has been discussed is, of course, is the elevations for the parking structure. I still have some questions for Staff in my working through the conditions for approval earlier, I didn't go far enough in what I wanted to talk about street improvements. I am looking for what is the rational nexus and I'm looking at a Subdivision that we would build 77 homes on it and some commercial space and what we would ask for in connectivity and off-site street improvements. I'm not sure how that relates when we starting doing downtown buildings because we haven't done so many. It appears that we are basically off loading two exits — there are three ways in and out of this property, two of them lead to exactly the same place which is the intersection of Powerhouse/Gregg and Dickson and the other one very close to the same point on Dickson, but you could turn the other direction. With that many units in a typical development that we would see, I would be looking for another way out. I'm wondering if there are some off-site improvements that would meet the rational nexus that could help us. Pate: A couple of different things — one, a lot of the developments that you as a Planning Commission see, especially preliminary plats or green infill Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 37 development, therefore there is no infrastructure. If they don't have frontage, there are existing streets that are substandard for instance. A benefit to infill development and developing a property that has already been developed for over a hundred years is that you will benefit from the infrastructure already in place there. Therefore, you have waited essentially until the infrastructure has been placed there before you and you then benefit from that previous investment. Same thing with water lines and sewer lines — they are there. If they need upgrading, we would review that. The same thing goes for street improvements. I would not recommend at any rate that Dickson Street be improved to four lanes sections or Powerhouse has a turn lane in both directions. Those are not appropriate recommendations and our master street plan actually calls for the right-of-way existing on these streets to be maintained. What that means is essentially that street cross sections that you see now, we have deemed appropriate for existing development and future development. Our master street plan standards which are for future development for anything a building permit is issued and infill development in the future. In evaluation of that, what Dover Kohl suggested that those street standards were appropriate for infill development. So we have to balance those two things, the existing infrastructure with what is proposed I think part of that balance is you as a Commission have to make a decision if there are 1,000 units on this property, that is probably a little different and we would have to look at something else and maybe it is not an appropriate project even though there is no density limitations in C-3. Those are the types of issues that you have to make a decision upon. We as Staff feel that 77 units and less than 20,000 square feet of commercial space, a lot of the users of space such as myself who live downtown — several of the planners, we would walk to those spaces. The University students that live in some of these spaces would walk to the University as opposed to drive. So vehicle trips generated right there would decrease with the property that is downtown and hopefully so, to decrease the vehicle trips downtown. So as far as the rational nexus we didn't really look beyond this immediate site to other intersections. We did require both side of Powerhouse to be improved as opposed to one side as per typical requirements. We required both to be curbed and guttered and to widen that out to a full street section along this property and then in front of the Qdobe building all the way to Dickson. The Dickson Street improvements that the City installed two or three years ago now, we found were adequate. Anthes: When do you expect the connection from Powerhouse Drive south to University might occur? Pate: At this time there is gate there, it is never closed. So I think there is by default cross access, an emergency access, if needed. Typically you will Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 38 keep that gate open, keep that access point open for that very reason. — to allow for another access point into Powerhouse Seafood Restaurant and everything there. When will it become an improved street? It all depends on what SWEPCO does and will this decrease property values to develop right next to that area as well as will there be general development on University in total. There is obviously a large piece of property there in the Powerhouse parking lot area that could redevelop. So it does have potential. Anthes: And is that area dedicated right now as a street oris it on private property? Pate: The right-of-way used to go across the railroad into what is now the Reinbeld (?) area, I think it has been purchased now. When the railroad came through there, the right-of-way was vacated and ? stopped so right now it goes further than what you see on your plats, but they have not gone in that direction. It is actually a private drive once it leaves this property. Anthes: So there is no way to bank a fund to extend that because we don't know the right-of-way at this point. Pate: Correct. Ostner: I would tend to be more interested instead of Powerhouse being brought up to a full street section, that it is in essence a cul-de-sac at this point. It is a temporary cul-de-sac, it is something we hope won't always be a dead end. But I would be much more interested in that same amount of money being spent somewhere nearby, very close, at an intersection that will be impacted that is dangerous. If there were some numbers or amounts, some dollar amounts that were proposed to be spent under this current situation with Powerhouse Street being improved — I know that street is not perfect but it is almost like a lane in a parking lot. People drive it but they don't zoom, they are not going anywhere. They are slowly getting to the spot right there that they know they are heading to. I don't as much see it as a street, I know the City owns it. I would like to suggest that. Our second determination is street improvements. Instead of improving Powerhouse, curb and sidewalk both sides, it is basically a glorified alley right now. But is does function fairly smoothly and I think it will function fairly smoothly with this development. At another intersection like Center and University, I believe Center Street curb to curb, has a 30' section. It is two lanes that speed. Part of the reason people speed, I think, is that because of the hills, but also it is extremely wide and I believe the chokers that were put in on Dickson have really helped to slow down traffic. The curbs have been brought in. There is a narrow spot that your car has to go and you'd better watch it. We can see the curb beat to pieces by people who Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 39 weren't slowing and paying attention. I think chokers would be a great place to spend money and improve that intersection. That is just the first dangerous intersection nearby that in my mind, these people would use heavily. Anthes: You are speaking of an off-site improvement that would go to University and Center? Ostner: Possibly, instead of current off-site improvements on Powerhouse. Clark: Sharp: I'm a tad confused. Powerhouse Drive — architecture, help me here. Are you ending it, stubbing it out? You are not going to be able to leave your parking deck, turn right, come up that little lane by the restaurant and get out on University, or are you? Currently you can get through there. You can drive through there currently. The Planning Staff has asked that we improve that to full street standards to the edge of our property and we are not going to close it off at that point. It will remain like it is. Clark: So it is an unintentional entrance and exit potentially. Can I get into the parking deck off of University? Sharp: Currently you can get from where our parking deck will be there — in the future, I am looking for some direction from the Planning Staff, is that something that is desirable, an extra point of entry. Clark: For me it would be. It would help funnel some off of Dickson Street. I don't know if we can ask you to do that. But there is no right-of-way, right Jeremy? Alexander: It is private property. Even if I agreed with you, I don't know how I would accomplish that unless the owner of that property wanted me to do that. That property is private. Clark: That answers my question. That means there is only Dickson Street. That bothers me. Sharp: One of the advantages of perhaps tabling tonight is that we could pursue that, see that option with the adjacent property holder and say that something came up that affects the property and we can come back in two weeks and tell you what we found out. Clark: To me that other entrance and exit other than Dickson Street would help me in terms of the commercial aspect of the building as well — for Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 40 Sharp: Clark: Pate: restaurant traffic, for people coming and going to shop, etc. Turning into your property coming up Dickson Street, you are coming across traffic, very near a light. I can see stacking problems there. If you can come into it from the back — any pig trail is good for me — to get out of traffic. And that would certainly alleviate some of my traffic concerns. But I don't know if you can do it. If it is related to traffic, there is fire department access and safety and we had a meeting with Chief Curry and he has reviewed the issue and fire hydrant elevations and places to park his fire truck. We have been taking into consideration not only the traffic of the people that use the building, but also the traffic generated by any rescue operations. It does meet all the Fire Department standards and he is very happy with the layout and the site planning. It has been reviewed not just by my office, the civil engineers, and the Planning Staff, but also the Fire Department. Was the Fire Department assuming it was going to connect, Jeremy? Or widened. I can't see a fire truck going down that lane to get to the southern access. It would be once it was widened, but to follow up on both yours and Commissioner Ostner's comments, I could not in good conscience recommend to the Planning Commission approval of this project without improvements to the existing Powerhouse. That would be a major point of ingress/egress. It functions as an alley currently, but will not function — this will have retail frontage and function very much as a street, albeit it will dead end currently. That is my recommendation. Obviously the Planning Commission can decide differently. I think it is something that the applicant could pursue an access easement or at least talk to the property owner to the south. I don't believe the Fire Department assumes access through private property as an ingress/egress. They have to assume property they have direct access to which is usually public right-of-way. Clark: And I agree with you. Allen: I feel we have appropriately patched this. Ostner: I was about to ask that. We have a motion to table (supercedes) by Commissioner Vaught, Commission Lack seconded it. Any further appropriate comment, new comment. It has to be something new and I might cut you off..... Allen: To table it seems superfluous since I believe the Commission has made their decisions as to how they prefer to vote. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 41 Vaught: I have a simple request. I would like this elevation to show — one that shows the Underwood building so we can really know — I don't really know what I'm looking at — I see this big parking deck and I know it is not all visible. When I mentioned improvements to the parking structure, it was this elevation facing Dickson. Ostner: Rob sketched it on here if you want to see it. Clark: I would like to see something about the back and where the street is going to end and what it is going to look like. We have never denied a developer's request to table and I certainly don't intend to do so tonight. We are tabling this tonight with the intent that the architects will look at some of our comments and bring us back something in two weeks that will look somewhat different. I am comfortable with that. Ostner: This is a vote — you don't have to vote to table. It is still our motion, our vote. Anthes: I would be comfortable voting tonight with the added suggestion that we were able to hash through the possibility of another street connection. I feel that bears some study and if they are willing to do it, I would like to support it. Ostner: This is the motion to table. Roll Call: The motion to table LSD 05-1809 carries by a vote of 6-2-0 (Allen and Graves vote no) Ostner: We will see you in two weeks. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 42 CUP 06-1952: Conditional Use Permit (HAYS, 373): Submitted by CRYSTAL GOEDEREIS for property located at 1882 STARR DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF- 1, SINGLE FAMILY - 1 UNIT/ACRE and contains approximately 1.59 acres. The request is for a change in non -conforming use, from a dental office to an attorney's office. Morgan: This subject property is located on Starr Road. You may be familiar with it. It was annexed in the summer of 2004 rezoned RSF-4 as part of the annexation of island. On this property was a dental office and clinic. The owner attempted to rezone the property to R -O so that this use would be a conforming use on the property. This was tabled indefinitely by the City Council. At this time the building is unoccupied, it has been since September. The applicant has an opportunity to lease it to a law office. Because it has been within six months, this nonconforming can still remain, however, because it is a change in use — a dental office could go into that office but since they would like to change the use to a law office, they are requesting this conditional use. This is permissible as indicated in the Unified Development Code. Staff finds that the law office proposal is no more of an impact to the surrounding neighborhood as was the dental office, in fact, we ran some trip generation calculations and found that a law office would generate less traffic than a dental office. In review of the findings that are required for a conditional use, Staff does recommend in accordance with the Sidewalk Coordinator's recommendation that in lieu of sidewalk construction, we have calculated the distance on this lot of 330' based on a lot split which was approved and filed (found on page 18 of your staff report). In addition signage will be limited to that which is allowed in the RSF-1 zoning district which is a wall sign of 16 square feet. There is an existing gravel drive which Staff is recommending be paved to 12' beyond the right-of-way per our requirement. The applicant a letter which addresses all of the changes which will be occurring both to the interior of the structure and exterior on the property currently proposed. Staff finds that this will be a compatible and are recommending approval. Ostner: I will call for any public comment for CUP 06-1952. Seeing none, I will bring it back to the applicant for any presentation she would like to make. Goedereis: I had an aerial picture of the property to show you. I blew it up so you could see Starr Drive and exactly how the dental lab is located on the property. We were forced to annex as you well know back in 2004 rather than going for rezoning, what we did — after we found out that the dental lab was no longer going to be there, we took applications and we had many different people apply, even a daycare. What we found would be most compatible for the neighbors was the law office. As Suzanne said, it will generate less traffic, there is no foot traffic, very little customers — mostly over the phone. Hours are more conducive to what they neighbors Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 43 would like. I mailed out fliers to all the existing neighbors and Starr Drive Association president, Larry Wong and evidently everyone agreed. I only heard from one person, Mr. Zang and he had some questions. As you can see there is a buffer area between the building and the residences up against Madison and he wanted to make sure that was going to be maintained and it is. I take exception to #2 and #8 on the conditions. On #8 I really don't take exception to it, the only thing I would ask — this particular piece of property — we realize that Starr is identified as a collector. Therefore, we went and did Crystal Cove in the back and did the subdivision and broke off at Barrington and Madison, we realized that you needed to have a easement coming across that piece of property so that someday Starr could be that collector street. We voluntarily gave that easement at the time. My question on #8 would be, is you want 12' from right-of-way, I gave you 30', does that mean that you want me to pave the whole driveway? Because that would be approximately 42'. I can understand coming 12' off the existing street now for two reasons — one, a car pulls out and it is gravel and there is asphalt and the cars coming up, there is a slight hill there, you break off chips of the asphalt, I understand that. So I could see paving that down 12' but I don't see a need to pave it down 42' feet. I would ask for some qualifications and different guidelines on that. On #2, I am really bewildered by this one. This one blew me out of the water. When we gave that 30' easement across the front of this property, we gave it to keep Starr a collector. I live out there, I live on this property and have for three and half years. I understand that we have a problem out there because what happens is, and I've argued this back to Jeremy before, but when you have an existing sidewalk and then no existing sidewalk, the kids use what the existing sidewalk is — they ride their skateboards right down Swetzer Drive and they will shoot right out in the middle of Starr. I understand that they want money in lieu, but what I would propose instead of that, is let us construct the sidewalk when you make Starr a collector. We will sign an agreement with you that we would be glad to put that sidewalk in at our expense. A six foot sidewalk, I am bewildered by that because there is four foot on the school and there is four foot on Madison right now, coming up to Starr, so are we going to have a four foot, a four foot and a six foot? That doesn't make much sense to me. That is what I am asking, the reason for this is not to get by with not paying the $5, 940 but to make sure that sidewalk gets completed on Starr. The only way I can do that is to keep it in my hands. I can't complete it now, because when Starr becomes collector, it would have to be broken out and it won't be there once again. And I still don't understand how we are going to obtain that. But I have looking at the Master Plan and it makes a little more sense to me. Hopefully it will be done before long. Those are the only comments. I have gone to great lengths to meet with the neighbors and no one had any major problems. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 44 We did do this lease for five years so that you know I'm not trying to change this use every year. This is not my idea of fun. Ostner: Thank you. We will bring the issue back to the Commission. Anthes: A question on the map that was included with our Staff report on page 18, I am confused because it looks like the lot line goes directly through the building. Can you tell us about that? Morgan: That is correct. I don't really know how to best address this except that whenever they were creating these lots, they did some lot line adjustments and lot splits. The main point was to create tract 2 which would be developed as a subdivision and to get the boundaries on that lot correct. As you can see on this plat, J.B. Hays owns both pieces of property therefore at the time, we felt that since they owned both pieces, then it would be considered as one, they certainly could do a lot line adjustment to create off of that existing structure with a setback so it could be sold in the future and not have any problems with the property line location. Anthes: The reason I bring that up is I believe that lot line adjustment can be done administratively through the Planning Office. With the Conditional Use that goes with the land, is it going with this legal description or how do we do it? Pate: The Conditional Use is going with the project and property as described in the application so our application describes this 1.59 acres and described the structure. So I don't think it is really the uses for the structure itself, regardless of that lot line location, so that's where it would apply. Actually, with this particular Conditional Use the only way the Planning Commission can approve it is if there are not major primary structural alterations to the structure itself. So if the building came down or if there were additions, actually there couldn't be any additions to that property. As you know, the rezoning was table indefinitely at the City Council, so really we are in a situ, in limbo situation where the structure is located there, it is not zoned appropriately at this time with the exception of what the Planning Commission can grant by Conditional Use. Anthes: So, just for the record, because part of that building sits on tract 1 and we are granting a Conditional Use for the building, that is in no way meant to imply that we feel like that Conditional Use is appropriate for tract 1. Pate: Correct. It is for the structure already addressed and located on the property and for the record, yes, it is for that existing structure at 1882 Starr Drive as identified in our 911 addressing system. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 45 Anthes: I have another question. Basically, if we extend this Conditional Use, it changes the permitted use to a law office and it can never go back to dental office again unless it came through again? Pate: Correct. Anthes: Will you discuss your recommendations on both the driveway — I believe that in the Staff report, even in the findings, you recommended that a new top coat of gravel be added to the entire length of the road and that didn't make it into condition #8 and I wondered why. And then also the sidewalk issue. Pate: The actual gravel was proposed by the applicant. It was simply a reflection of what they included in their letter of the improvements that they would be making to the property. That is why we did not include it as part of the conditions. I think there is a bit of misunderstanding about the 42' of paved access. For a collector street, it requires 35' from centerline of the actual street, so they have dedicated 35' from the centerline. It does not mean that we would request them to construct a driveway 35' plus 12' into the property. It would mean we would request and require by this Condition of Approval, with any residential property, you are required to build the driveway from the road into the property, then 12' with the sidewalk built through at the right-of-way line just for the width of the driveway. Anthes: So you are saying that if we were going to clarify that recommendation, we would just say that the applicant pave the driveway approach a minimum of 12' from the existing road rather than from the right-of-way. Pate: It actually is paved from the road to the right-of-way and then 12'. That is our typical requirement of a single-family home. Anthes: Then is that the 42'? Pate: The 42' I believe is referenced because — I'm not sure where the 42' came from. We are simply requesting from the edge of the pavement, it be paved in to the right-of-way line which is where the sidewalk would be constructed through the driveway and then 12' beyond that. Anthes: With the sidewalk, would it be possible for them to install the sidewalk now rather than take money in lieu and put it at the point where it would be required for when the road is widened? Pate: That is a possibility. It would be much more expensive. That is the reason why we recommended money in lieu at this time because there are Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 46 going to be some significant storm improvements that would have to occur — there is an open ditch — it would require that that drainage to be improved like with a storm pipe, underground storm drainage and the sidewalk placed on top of that so that would actually incur a lot more cost than what this recommendation is. As you know the Planning Commission with any Conditional Use request by ordinance, the Sidewalk Administrator visits the site and makes a recommendation of money in lieu or sidewalk construction and we make that recommendation to you as a Planning Commission. The applicant has the right to prove to the Planning Commission and present evidence that the number of persons served by the development, pedestrian trip generations, justify a reduced contribution in lieu, if they can justify that to you based upon our ordinance requirement, that is something the Planning Commission can decide to reduce that. At this point in time, the requirement is $3.00 a square foot and that 330' stems from the length, the frontage of that lot. Anthes: If I could restate what the applicant said, I don't believe she had so much trouble with the amount of the cost of that, but whether or not it would be constructed along the property at any point or whether the City would take it in lieu and then construct a sidewalk elsewhere. Pate: It would be utilized in the quadrant by ordinance so it would be within that quadrant to repair and replace sidewalks. I would mention that there is an emphasis in our sidewalk replacement and repair program on the schools and obviously there is a school directly adjacent to this property so that is something where an emphasis would be placed. As I mentioned, it probably would require some significant street improvements to Starr drive in general to do that, but obviously the contribution for that frontage would already have been made. Anthes: It is St. Joseph's school that is there? Obviously I would agree with the applicant that I would like to see the sidewalk constructed at this point however, once you find out the cost, you might be more willing to pay the money in lieu. Have you looked at that? Goedereis: It is not just the cost, it is the trees and everything in there. As far as it goes with the money, no, it's not the money, Commissioner Anthes, that I am arguing over, it is the fact that I want to make sure that sidewalk goes in when it needs to be. That's why I would much rather give a, just as we do a Conditional Use that runs with the land, give a thing that says when the sidewalk is ready to be constructed, we will construct it. If we sell the property, it runs with the ground. Just to be sure it gets constructed. The 6' sidewalk I'm still not sure of. The foot traffic, if I wanted to talk money, we could argue all day long how this isn't the same, we have all been through enough of that tonight. The only other thing I want to say is Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 47 the lot line adjustment was not done by us. One of the rezoning issues that we were trying to do when we wanted to do the rezoning, was to correct that problem. That's how we brought that property; we really didn't realize it, because it was all one piece of property until we platted it out. Anthes: I just have one last question and that is of Mr. Williams. Is there any precedent for, and I believe she offered it, so I'm not presuming to offer one for her, is there a precedence for a bill of assurance for sidewalk construction or do we just need to take the money in lieu? Williams- The only time that I am aware of that the City has gotten involved in that, it usually has caused problems down the line, where the money was returned because it wasn't built in time or there were other problems with actually getting the sidewalk built when the City wanted it. I do have a couple of comments. One is what you were concerned about and the other Commissioners, with the line going through the house — the office building. I don't think it would be out of line to require the applicant as condition of approval to do a proper lot line adjustment to get the building within this lot. I don't think it would be very difficult. I think it could be handled administratively by our Staff. All it would require is a survey and I think it would be accomplished. The other thing I am concerned about a little about is the actual requirement of the sidewalk. That is what our code requires, however, the code is subservient to the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution says that we can require an exaction like this, a sidewalk or something, as long as it bears a rough proportionality impact of this development that we are allowing. There is no development here, it is just changing from a dental office to law office and I think the Staff's report indicated it would be less use, fewer people here. Because of that I don't know if the City really has any constitutional power to require this developer, this applicant, to pay any money toward sidewalks when there has been no impact whatsoever that I can see on the need for sidewalks. I think you can require a lot line adjustment because obviously it is not a proper situation for a property line to go through an office — it is okay to have law practice in part of that structure but if you are in the other structure, you are off the lot. I guess you're not supposed to practice law in that part of the office. That would be difficult to administer at least. I would be concerned with both #2 where I don't think we have any impact that we can point to to justify requirement of the sidewalk. And that is what our ordinances say because often times a conditional use will in fact have an impact. If you go from a residential single family and you are going to put in a daycare, that's an impact so I think that sometimes it is justified when there is a conditional use to require sidewalk and we have in the past. In this particular case, I don't see any impact that would give us the right to require this amount of money, even though it is a small amount of money. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 48 Clark: Jeremy or Suzanne, did this have a Conditional Use running with it for the dentist office. Pate: No, it was an existing non -conforming use when it got annexed. Clark: We didn't miss an opportunity at that point to require a sidewalk. Williams: It was this condition when we annexed it in. Vaught: I was thinking of the exact example sited when we went from a single family to a daycare and we pro -rated the amount of the exaction on that. As a non -conforming use, I don't know what to do. Typically we have non -conforming uses when we are going from a single family to something else so going to a non -conforming office to a conforming situation, how do we measure or pro -rate that impact. Williams- I think you just look at both of the uses whatever they were. They had a right to use the dental office even though it was non -conforming, they had a right and in fact were using it. I think it was more of a lab really than a dental office. Since they are changing the use of it now, then they have to come back and ask for a conditional use. But I think Constitutionally that doesn't change whether there is an impact on our infrastructure needs and I can't see one. Maybe there is one that I am missing, but I don't see an impact that would justify us doing that. Vaught: To follow up with Staff, my recollection was it was sort of a dental lab which means to me it is a commercial use as well, but it is different in nature than a dental office, which I know we used to generate the numbers for stating traffic. It will obviously be different than a law office so I don't know what I can compare that with. I do agree with the City Attorney that we should add a condition to require the necessary lot line adjustment to bring the structure onto the lot we are looking at. My one question for Staff and the Commission - I'm ready to make a motion if we can resolve that one issue. Right now, I am siding with the City Attorney to strike that item altogether but I don't know if I have apples to apples comparison. Was that considered? The additional impact to the site like we had with the daycare on Mission? Pate: Vaught: It would consider what impact this proposed use would have on that property. Compared to the dental lab that was there? I know in the past we used the trip generation -type software to deal with that. Was that done here? I just didn't see the numbers. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 49 Pate: Clark: Williams: Goedereis: Clark: Goedereis: Clark: Ostner: Anthes: That is typically only done with actual vehicular traffic, not pedestrian traffic. We don't have any means or methods to calculate actual pedestrian traffic. I would assume it is higher in this are because of the school, but again, as Mr. Williams noted, it doesn't necessarily mean it would be higher. You as a Planning Commission has the right to waive or vary that requirement based on Chapter 171.12, if you feel the reproportional contribution of the developer is exceeding what you think should be the burden of the developer or applicant, you can reduce that requirement. I think it is kind of an odd situation when the developer is saying they will pay more in lieu to make sure the sidewalk gets built. That kind of perplexes me because we have a developer willing to participate but City Attorney saying they don't have to as opposed to us saying you have to, the City Attorney is saying you don't have to. They can voluntarily do that. The only reason that I want to do it right now, I don't know, Commissioner Clark, where that road is going. All I know is that I am trying to hold on to funds from my boss so that he doesn't say we paid for that sidewalk once, we are not paying for it again, when I live out there and I almost run over everybody almost every other day. I just want to make sure the sidewalk goes in that particular ---- that is why I offered the bill of assurance that runs along with it. What about agreeing to a new condition that makes you do the lot line adjustment? The lot line adjustment is no problem. The only reason I hadn't done the lot line adjustment, that property has been surveyed umpteen hundred times. The only reason I hadn't is because we may bring up the rezoning depending upon this issue. It seems to me it would make it much cleaner if we require the lot line adjustment even if the rezoning comes back through. It would make sure this house clearly where this house is as opposed to breeching the gap between two lots. So I would like to add that as an additional condition of approval however you would like to do it. We have a condition #10 being offered that lot line adjustment will be appropriately processed. Second. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 50 Clark: When we approve the conditional use, that will be a condition. Vaught: I have a comment on fees in lieu, the reason we set that up is so that you know your exposure and we need that money in the system. I don't like the idea of a bill of assurance because it is questionable, it's out there, it hangs. It has to be for a specific amount as well, typically, I would think. I don't think we can make that open ended. The idea is that you pay this amount and then the City who has plans to widen this road, it is next to a school, it is a priority area, they pay whatever it takes at that point in time. The argument against the fee in lieu to guarantee your sidewalk is built on your property, I understand your argument but this is our policy, we will use the money in your area if we require it. Right now I think we are talking about whether or not we require it. Goederies: And I agree. I could have argued that point from the beginning but I wanted you to know where I was coming from. It is not the matter wholly of the money as I want to see those sidewalks constructed out there probably as much as, probably more than you do because I live in there and I have to see the children out on the street all the time that I almost run over, on their bicycles, on their skateboards. That is a dangerous thing. And hopefully all of that will be resolved within the next five years. As of now, however you want to justify it, Commissioner Vaught, works for me. Ostner: I would encourage you to participate in the Street Committee. They look at things like this all the time and they make decisions and they enclose ditches and lay sidewalks and curbs in certain parts of town all the time. Graves: Just addressing the sidewalk issue, I think there was a question about where maybe different Commissioners stood on it and given what the City Attorney has stated, we have some information as Jeremy indicated on vehicular trips but that first of all relates to a dental office rather than a dental lab, which really doesn't have traffic and second, we don't have any foot traffic data. I would tend to think that a law office could generate more foot traffic than a dental lab, but that may be wishful thinking as a lawyer, I don't know. I'm not sure I have a rational basis for that feeling and the rough proportionality we have to have some kind of rationality in order to determine. I think anything that I tried to do as far as assessing a percentage of this, if we said 25% or 50% of the normal fees in lieu, would just be grabbing something out of the air rather than having a rational basis for it. I would be in support of just striking that at this point in time. Osnter: I have been thinking about it and I would probably not be in support of striking only because in essence, when this was annexed, one way to think about it is the zoning was changed, no zoning at all and suddenly they Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 51 Pate: were in RSF-1. How much they had to do with it is really beside the point but when we look at rezonings and buildings that, businesses that are going into or that the rezoning has changed around them. We look at them a little bit differently. Even though this new tenant is going to be working on the inside, there is a big list of all the things he is doing.... It is a pretty intense remodel. It is not just move in and change your business cards. I think a good case could be made that this is a development situation. There is a lot of paint, sheetrock and carpet I think development is going on and I think a sidewalk is warranted. The fact that there was no decision should a sidewalk go in when it was annexed, is really just part of the process that is not looked at. When we rezone, we simply look at is this the highest and best use of a piece of property. It is the same with annexing. The sidewalk decision, like signage and all kinds of other things are decided on down the line and I think tonight in on down the line and I think the sidewalk is warranted and can be defended. I would be willing to instead of charge for 330' times 6' wide, I would be willing to charge 330' times 4' wide which comes to 1,320 square foot of sidewalk which comes to $3,960, in a point of fairness. But that is where I stand on that. May I recommend procedurally, it would probably be a better idea to vote on that item separately from the motion to approve or deny the conditional use. Ostner: That is a great idea. Graves: I was about to move for the sake of discussion that when we vote on the conditional use, that it not contain condition #2. Ostner: We have a motion to remove condition #2. Vaught: Second. Anthes: I'm looking at this and saying, what are we changing and what is the request. We have a property zoned RSF-1 that we are going to grant a commercial use to so in that respect, I believe we are actually increasing the use on the property with this action and therefore, are we in our rights to assess for a sidewalk? I think we have an applicant that has already stated willingness in that regard, understands the need for it and I would be, in the interest of compromise, willing to support Commissioner Ostner's reduction to a 4', since there is 4' on either side. But I will vote against the motion to strike. Clark: I mirror Commissioner Anthes, especially, and only because the petitioner is wanting a sidewalk there. And if I'm not mistaken, the more money Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 52 that accumulates in the quadrant puts pressure on actually seeing it done. So if you contribute, you are adding money and weight to the argument that this needs to be accomplished. Normally, if the applicant was opposed to it, I would heed Counsel's warning on this, but I don't think you are going to court over this. I am going to vote against the motion but I will support, follow that with an amendment to make a motion to pass the conditional use with your alterations. Ostner: For Staff, isn't there a caveat in this amount that if it is not spent within a certain timeframe, it is returned? Pate: One year. Ostner: The quadrant has one year to come up with a good use of this money otherwise they will return it to you. Goedereis: The only exception I take to that, Commissioner Anthes, and I whole heartedly understand, but we were a commercial unit before, it was not our fault we were annexed. I'm not going there with you, I don't want to go there with you. I will accept what you propose and be glad to do it, as long as that sidewalk gets constructed with my $3,960 will be good. I know Commissioner Chair, that you can't guarantee that. Ostner: And the chances are high that it won't happen in front of your property especially with all the drainage improvements required. Goedereis: But I can go to the Street Committee. Ostner: Yes, you can, as can your neighbors. Vaught: It may not happen with your money, but it will happen. Ostner: We have a motion to remove condition #2. Any other discussion on that? Roll Call: The motion to remove condition #2 fails by a vote of 3-5-0. Clark: I would move that we approve CUP 06-1952 with the following recommendations of Staff with the exception on condition #2 by inserting 4' sidewalk or $3,960 if that is the correct math, and inserting a condition #10 that a lot line adjustment be made to bring this home into one lot or the other. Myres: Second. Ostner: Any further discussion? Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 53 Allen: Since I presume this will pass, I wanted to comment to the applicant that I appreciate your involvement in the neighborhood. Thank you. Clark: The motion does mean into Lot 1, Tract 3, rather. Ostner: Is that clear to Staff? Pate: Yes. Graves: To be clear, this was not in my mind a referendum on whether there ought to be sidewalk out there. There should be but I'm not sure we can connect it appropriately to the amount of impact that this changed commercial use is going to have in the area, so I will be voting against this motion as well. Vaught: I concur with Commission Graves but I will vote for it, simply for the fact that I believe that a Conditional Use requires 6votes? Williams: It requires 5 affirmative votes. Vaught: It is an issue if the applicant is willing not disputing it, so I would hate to see it fail on an issue we are having. Ostner: We do have our issues. Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-1952 passes by a vote of 7-1-0. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 54 ADM 06-1958: Administrative Item (MILLSAP CENTER PARKING LOT, 212): Submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates for property located at 438 & 516 MILLSAP ROAD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 3.60 acres. The requirement is for a 15' green space buffer. The request is for a variance of the required 15' of green space buffer to allow for 3' of green space along a public right-of-way. Morgan: Clark: Myres: Ostner: The applicant has requested that this item be table until March 27111. If you would like any information, I would be happy to give it to you. So moved. Second. Does the applicant have anything to say? Does anyone from the public come to speak about this issue? I'll close the public comment Any comment before we vote? Clark: Are you anticipating new plats? Pate: Please keep your plats. Vaught: Simply because they are not here, we are tabling? Morgan: The applicant has some questions about the Staff report after receiving it on Friday and would like to have a meeting with Staff and their attorney to discuss some of these items and regulations. Roll Call: The motion to table ADM 06-1958 carries by a vote of 6-2-0. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 55 PPL 06-1940: Preliminary Plat (COBBLESTONE CROSSING, 246): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located NE OF CRYSTAL SPRINGS PHASES I & III. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 60.28 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 194 single family dwellings proposed Morgan: This subject property is located off of Salem Road, east of Salem Road, adjacent to Crystal Springs Phase I and Rockhaven Subdivision which is currently under construction. It is located north of Crystal Springs Phase III. The property is zoned RSF-4 and contains approximately 60 acres. The applicant would request a subdivision of this property for 194 single- family lots with a density of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. Property to the east of this subject property was once approved for the development of Laureate Fields subdivision. This property was recently purchased by the Fayetteville School District and they have submitted a letter withdrawing all approvals, thereby allowing the applicant the ability to propose stub outs and not having to connect to the originally approved stub outs in Laureate Hills. There are two collector streets located through this subdivision, first being Raven Lane which is constructed through Crystal Springs Phase III and it traverses north and stubs out to the property to the northwest of this piece of property. Additionally there is a collector street, it was formerly Gypsum Street — there was a Master Street Plan amendment that moved this collector street to the north through Rockhaven and the applicant is proposing to continue that collector street through this subdivision and stub out to the east. The applicant proposes to dedicate not only this right-of-way, but internal right-of-way at 50' and 42' each. The applicant did modify the plat since Subdivision Committee to provide these smaller street sections on streets that were less traveled. Street improvements have been explained in condition #1 — this subject piece of property is unusual in that it is not located on a street on which we typically require street improvements. They will be constructing all of the interior streets in the property, however, Staff does recommend off-site improvements, those to include $70,000 contribution for a traffic signal at Mt. Comfort and Salem as well as an amount of $21,447 for construction of a left turn lane on Salem onto Mt. Comfort Road. Additionally, the developer will contribute $2,622 for a turn lane on Salem Road from the collector street that will be constructed through Rockhaven. This contribution will be submitted to the City and distributed to the party responsible for constructing that improvement. The applicant has included schematic designs for those improvements and they are located within the Staff report. Additionally, the applicant will be required to mitigate for tree preservation. If you look in your conditions of approval, we are recommending approval with 19 conditions. We have signed conditions of approval from the applicant. It does require Planning Commission determination of off-site improvements as well as determination of Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 56 appropriate connectivity and compliance with the Master Street Plan which Staff is recommending in support of, based on the changes submitted by the applicant and additionally, Planning Commission determination of approval of street width is requested. The applicant has modified the plat to comply with the recommendations of Staff as well as the Subdivision Committee. As with all new developments in the west Fayetteville, we are requesting a potential guarantee for contributions for an interim solution to the wastewater passage. Ostner: At this time I will call for public comment. If anyone would like to respond to this preliminary plat. Seeing none I will close the public comment and ask the applicant for any presentation they might have. Jorgensen: I am Boyd Jorgensen with Jorgensen & Associates, along with Charlie Sloan on this project. We have met with Planning Staff and made our appropriate changes and hopefully they have been reflected in the plats provided. Any questions or comments or concerns previous to this meeting have been addressed and any that you may have, I will be glad to answer. Vaught: I have one question for Staff on the streets. We have approved a subdivision next to this that they are now stating will not be developed. And knowing that the public schools have purchased the property next door, they have no plans so we cannot base our decision on Master Street Plan and where it should connect to the neighboring property at this time, I guess that is something they deal with when they come forward? It seems like we are cutting the property next door in half with this connector street which makes sense. Will it ever connect through? Pate: Sloan: Yes, the school would have to comply with the Master Street Plan just like any other developer. Mr. Sloan has spoken to the school about that location and I believe located it so that something could occur. To answer that question, we met with the School and allowed them to place that street where they wanted it. We thought they would want to be all the way to the south — they don't want that. They want to be able to split it so they can put athletic facilities on the southern part of this property I assume is what they are going to do and the school on the other side, so you don't have to drive through the school itself to get to a stadium or football field or whatever. Vaught: That is good to know. I know sometimes when we deal with other governmental entities, we don't have as much control as we would like. Just making sure. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 57 Sloan: No, we put it right where they wanted it. The northern street we complied, Zacannti Drive, we connected it to the east. They weren't too sure about having that, but that is what the City wanted. Anthes: Question for Staff for clarification about the rationale about the parkland dedication and taking money in lieu. As far as I understand or remember, Laureate Field had public parkland that was being dedicated which would indicate to me that Parks felt that parkland in this area was appropriate. Do they consider that this will be a school and there will be play fields, something to cause this development not to need a park? Pate: I think more so they are considering the Park West Development which was not in place at the time Laureate Fields came through, which is a much larger project and could potentially result in a much larger parkland dedication and trail system, rather than a small pocket, neighborhood park. I think that is what they are considering more so than the school. I know we considered the school as shared, open space in the past, but we were trying to move away from that somewhat. Anthes: So it is really about Park West and that being within the distance. Pate: That and obviously there are ball fields and parks in this area to the west that are already developed so that does provide open space and green space that is already developed here. Anthes: I would like to say that I am pleased to see this many connections in this property. Unfortunately with this school next door, I now wish this property was zoned something more dense than RSF-4. It think when we have this kind of proximity to a school, that we are actually looking at a development that is too low, but that I understand that this is what it is zoned and Mr. Sloan has every right to build to that zoning. Clark: Question for Staff. Fayetteville has two Salems, we are talking about the one running north and south, not east and west on these street improvements. Pate: Correct. Clark: I absolutely applaud the improvements to intersection at Mt. Comfort — that is long needed. We have heard lots and lots of talk about it being done, but now we have a developer that is going to stand up and do it. It is far, far from your development but it is going to be critical to it and I really applaud that insight and willingness to go above and beyond and I will make the motion that we approve PPL 06-1940 with the conditions as stated. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 58 Myres: Second. Ostner: Any further discussion? Call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to approve PPL 06-1940 carries by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 59 LSD 06-1924: Large Scale Development (MALCO THEATRE, 173): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS for property located at LOT 9B, CMN BUSINESS PARK II, PH. I. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 12.92 acres. The request is for a 44,315 sq. ft. motion picture theatre. Morgan: This is property that is located on Steele and Joyce Blvds. It contains approximately 13 acres and is west of Wal-Mart. The property is zoned C-2 and the applicant requests approval of the development of a 44,315 square foot theatre that will seat approximately 1,900 people. There are as you can see on the site plan, there is room for expansion in the future, that however has not been accounted for in requirements and review of this large scale development. The applicant is required to dedicate right-of- way on Joyce however, no additional right-of-way is required on Steele Blvd. which has been built out with an island section which the applicant will be reducing somewhat, will be cutting that to have an entrance from Steele. Staff is recommending improvements to include contribution of 50% of the cost of a traffic signal at this entrance proposed by this applicant. In addition, the applicant did submit a traffic study which had three recommendations, all of which we are recommending be adhered to. The applicant has submitted elevation boards for review of Commercial Design Standards however, this elevation board which is before you is reflective of what was submitted at the Subdivision Committee. In your packets are the revised elevations. The applicant did revise the northern elevation to incorporate some of the comments at Subdivision Committee. I believe that Subdivision Commission also requested perhaps a modification of the southern elevation, that was left alone, so you can decide whether or not you feel that needs to be modified or whether it complies this evening. In review Staff is recommending approval. The applicant has provided stub outs to the adjacent property for cross access and we find that the improvements done here will help to aid development on the adjacent properties. Staff is recommending approval with a total of 20 conditions which include Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards as well as determination of street improvements and there is a request for Planning Commission for determination of a waiver of street aisle widths. Our requirements, the Unified Development Code calls that internal drive aisles be 24' width, the Fire Department requested a 26' width drive aisle to access the structure for their apparatus and setting up if they ever need to service this property. The applicant requested a 28' width on the main internal drive aisles which will serve the greatest amount of traffic and this is comparable to a typical standard drive aisle. I would like to point out that in condition #10 that we have additional conditions in regards to the landscaping which has been requested since tech plat review which includes removal of sewer Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 60 lines from under the landscape islands and the applicant is willing to comply with that, so that we can get trees in all the islands. Ostner: I will call for public comment. Seeing none, I will close the public comment section. Does the applicant wish to make a presentation. Suneson: My name is Chris Suneson with McClelland Consulting Engineers. We have worked diligently on this project through planning stages and we anticipate a great vote for the citizens of Fayetteville this evening. I can answer any questions that you might have as best as I can. Vaught: I have a question about the site plan. There are some large, especially toward the corner of Steele and Joyce areas left open. Are those proposed out lots or are those unbuildable. Suneson: At this time there are no definitive plans for out lot development, but the way this site configuration lends itself, those are potential out lots. Vaught: I didn't see a detention area, is it the southwest corner? Sunseso: We will not be having a detention area, we will be going directly to the release of the drainage easement along the eastern property line which flows south. Vaught: Question for Staff and the City Engineer. Have you reviewed that plan and does it meet the pre and post flow requirements? O'Neal: Lot 9 was previously designed in the CMN development to direct discharge for wetland recharge adjacent to Mud Creek. Vaught: And in that discharge there is no additional filtering requirement — we know how sensitive wetlands are, we don't have anything on our books that would require in these situations some kind of collector filter. I know Sam's is an example of someone I know that was doing this and offered lots of things, but those are offers as I understand. O'Neal: The wetlands are the filter. There was an additional mitigation done for that further downstream. Suneson: If I might add to that the drainage field behind the theatre would actually act to take out some of those spinets ? that you are asking about. Allen: At the Subdivision Committee we discussed a little bit the Commercial Design Standards and some concerns that we had. I wonder if you could point to changes that you might have made on the plans, please. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 61 Sunseson: I am at a disadvantage; you all have the correct elevations in front of you. The northern elevation in particular has been articulated quite a bit since our last revision. The signage around the Fayetteville 12 has been upgraded somewhat to include some of the features of the western elevation. It is to my best knowledge that we have a lot of exterior ramps that have been added to the southern and eastern elevations as well. In addition to that, the southern elevation has been, we've brought around some of the brick around from the front to dress up that to some extent. The northern elevation has included some site elements including column articulation on that lowest side of it and I believe we have wrapped some brick around and brought some more of the lentil pieces around to bring those up to standards. Vaught: On the east side, it sits fairly close to the property line which backs up to Wal-Mart if I'm correct. Is that what I am reading here? The Wal-Mart sits right across the property line. Suneson: That is correct. Vaught: So that is somewhat screened from that. Ostner: I believe there is a drainage sort of easement in-between there. Sunseson: There are several in that location. Ostner: It's not close but sort of close. Myres: I was on the Subdivision Committee that brought up the need for additional articulation or repeating elements from the front around to the side and I think they have done what we had asked in good faith. The fact that they didn't change very much on the south side doesn't bother me at all. I think the side with the signage I'm having the same trouble you are, is probably more visible and that was the one that I thought in particularly needed some attention and they have given it some attention so I'm in favor of the changes that they have made. Clark: Question for Staff. This stoplight we are talking, the turn signal. We are talking about it at the entrance off of Steele Blvd.? Pate: Yes. Clark: Because it is... maybe I'm not reading condition #2 right, but it just says they are going to pay it and doesn't say where it is going to go. I guess nobody has any problems with the east elevations? It backs up to Wal- Mart so you are going to have two ugly backs together? Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 62 Sunseson: I would take issue with an ugly back. Clark: The rest of the building is gorgeous and I'm in absolute support of it. We would be tarred and feathered not to pass this tonight. Sunseson: There are buildings with less articulation on the rear elevation. Clark: You are right. Having this theatre appears to be Nirvana for the City of Fayetteville. I'm a little surprised you are getting away with just having one exit off of that second story. Does Fire Code not..... Sunseson: We have two exits off the second story. There is one on the east as well. You will find that those are two separate theatres as well. Anthes: My question has to do with condition of approval #3, the waiver of the drive aisle widths. I'm looking at their drawing and it looks like they have 24' drive aisles between the rows of parallel parking and then a 28' section proposed on the aisle directly in front of the theatre and then the main cross aisle. While the Fire Department only requires 26', can you talk about why the additional 2' is desirable? Because to me that would just mean cars would move faster where you have people and trying to get to the door of the theatre. Pate: The reason we requested or recommended 28' is because that is also where the turning movements occur when you are going from one aisle to the next so it does require quite a bit more space than the typical drive aisle. With the stacking — the original design of this did not have near the stacking on Steele Blvd. It was just a parking lot where it was offloaded directly onto Steele. So we looked at a reconfiguration of the drive aisle to allow for more significant stacking space because obviously a large theatre like this will have peak hour traffic. We felt the 28' would, because it also connects to the property to the north and there will likely not be any access allowed onto the Joyce or Steele from those two potential out lots, as well as to the south, Lot 9A, there is a bridge location directly to the south of this and so there is likely limited access, with the Creek also to the south, there is limited access for this property, so we felt it functioned better as a drive aisle of greater width in that location. Anthes: I appreciate what you say about stacking space; I'm glad that you reconfigured that not to be in the parking lot but that is a matter of length not width, so that wouldn't seem to make an argument for the additional width. Suneson: I'd like to address that, Ms. Anthes, we are trying to provide a hierarchy of circulation as you move away from the theatre so you move into those Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 63 larger aisles where we anticipate most of the traffic will occur. One, we are going to need bigger radii on those not only to provide say Fire access but to move the traffic in and out as quickly as possible. Anthes: I understand the Fire Department states they only need 26' and from what we can see in most subdivisions they require much greater turning movements than any car normally would and I'm looking at the amount of impervious surface we are adding to the parking lot for a 2' additional width for the length of those aisles and it is considerable when you talk about the asphalt we are adding to the area, perhaps unnecessarily so that's why I'm asking the question. A 28' width aisle is two 14' lanes which is wider than any Department of Transportation width for an interstate freeway so it is wide. In fact, on busy days, people might want to park there next to one of the tree islands because there would appear to be enough room. I am just trying to understand where all the thoughts are coming from and what is really there to substantiate that width, especially where we have a lot of pedestrians moving from these cars into the theatre. Clark: Is there any type of a side area where pedestrians or passengers will be let out? Sunseson: We have nothing in our plans to date, but it would be possible in incorporate that into the design. Clark: If it is designed to allow passengers to exit vehicles before the vehicles are parked, it would seem to me that your approach could be narrowed and just leave it wide right in front of the theatre and mark it. That would be a nice little addition to have a demarcation point that is clear to let people get out of cars safely. But I agree with Commissioner Anthes that the rest of the 28' I don't understand, when 26' would seem sufficient. Vaught: I know that we are in an internal parking lot and we are dealing as we have all been to movies, mass inflows and outflows at the same times, there are no internal sidewalks through parking lots. My only thought is that a lot of these wider aisles are going to be where significant pedestrian traffic. There is an argument that allowing some extra space, marking it with paint for an area for pedestrian traffic might be needed. I understand the need for the extra space because you are sharing that road with cars and people. We wish there were sidewalks but we don't have sidewalks in parking lots so maybe that is one thing I assumed the wider lots were wider places ?, so maybe if we had 28' and something internal, we could mark part for pedestrian use so you try to funnel that. Anthes: May I address that. Commissioner Vaught, I normally would agree with you but it seems to me that the drive aisles, the wider aisles are actually Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 64 contradicting the pedestrian movement. If you look at the plan, the narrower aisles are in paths where the pedestrians would be moving from the cars to the theatre and the wider aisles are actually going the opposite way and serving the cars. To me, I would rather see that impervious surface moved to run between where the heads of cars are together to actually have a sidewalk that is protected that is running toward the theatre that would protect pedestrians, but I'm not sure it does what you are wanting it to in this configuration. Vaught: The two that I see are 28' are the north/south ones. And they function more as streets than as parking aisles. The 28' right-of-way is a residential street, pavement curb to curb is a residential street in Fayetteville, but you can allow parking on it, so that would be the issue. I don't think we want to allow parking in our main drive aisle. I think next to the theatre it makes sense because you do have, not people parking, but loading and unloading and there needs to be room around that. It is the furthest one away that you have the most issue with? I don't know what the applicant thinks about dealing with the drive aisle. Sunseson: I can address the fact that both, all three I should say, drive aisles will be painted with no parking striping because of the Fire protection requirements. Vaught: Would you be willing to shrink the far one in the spirit of finding a resolution, the far western aisle by reducing the width by 2'? Sunseson: Certainly. Vaught Then let's make that change and I will make a motion to approve LSD 06- 1924 with the stated change in that western drive aisle finding in favor of Commercial Design Standards, finding in favor of Staff's recommendation on condition #2 on the traffic signal on Steele as marked on the plat, and all the conditions as stated. Clark: I will second. Ostner: I have a question before we vote. On this northern elevation that we talked about, I would agree that it looks fine, but I am looking at the site plan and normally up against big buildings like this, there is some sort of landscaping and I'm not seeing any. On the north end.... Sunseson: Yes, sir, we have a 15' landscape buffer required by code and in addition to that, our parking will be screened with an evergreen screen. In addition to that, Staff has asked us to provide evergreen screen around our trash dumpsters that will be located on that side. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 65 Ostner: I am talking about up against the building, touching the building. The plans I see have the landscaping out at the street, which is nice. Sunseson: We do have internal tree islands and it is our intention to this point to leave the three immediately tree islands in that northern parking field as a landscape island without trees in it, but Staff has indicated that they would require that we move the sanitary sewer out of that and that has been the major contention. So you will have three more trees on that side. Ostner: Say that again, there is sanitary sewer under there so you can't do anything. Sunseson: To this point we had, immediately north of the building, sanitary sewer routed through those tree islands. We are going to provide three more trees. Ostner: I am talking about closer to the building than the sanitary sewer. What is that area? Sunseson: That is sidewalk. Ostner: That is concrete up to the building? Sunseson: Yes. Ostner: It looks to be about a 10' sidewalk. I don't think that is the way it should look. Clark: So when I come out the back door, I look at the nice little deck that you have added on the north side, I will look down to concrete. Is that what you are getting at Allen? Ostner: Yes. Clark: There should be bushes. Ostner: There should be something. I can see concreting the front of the building... Vaught: Should there be bushes, is that a requirement? Ostner: It is not a requirement, this building has met the requirements for the minimum. It would be nice if that was on there, but we have a motion.. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 66 Allen: I have always been anti -big box person and there is no absolutely no way around calling that anything but a big box, but knowing that after earlier this evening, that definitely I would be murdered, found dead somewhere in the community, I'm going to give my rationale for not calling this a big box, that I am not sure you cannot build a theatre that doesn't look like a big box. Ostner: There is a motion and a second, is there any further comment? Roll Call: The motion to approve LSD 06-1924 carries by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 67 CUP 06-1950: Conditional Use Permit (DAVIS, 559): Submitted by STEPHEN LEWIS DAVIS for property located at 2050 W 6TH ST. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.27 acres. The requirement is for 11 parking spaces. The request is to allow fewer than the minimum allowable parking spaces, utilizing 3 on -street parking spaces to fulfill the requirement. Morgan: This property is fairly well known, the former Shakes property located on the corner of Sixth Street and recently the streets were realigned to create the intersection of Sand Avenue and Sixth Street with a light there. The result of this was the creation of a tract which had right-of-way on all four sides. The applicant has been through several variances procedures and has come before this Planning Commission in order to request waivers to bring the non -conforming structure into compliance as well the addition of a second drive through area on the west side of the building. When this was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission, the request was for a specific parking lot design and as you can see on page 14 of your Staff report, this site plan which included the addition of four parking spaces which encroached into the required 15' green space. Staff recommended approval and the Planning Commission approved that encroachment. The applicant, my understanding is that the person who submitted this proposal is no longer working with this development and the existing owner requires — would like to redevelop this property for restaurant use which would require a minimum of 11 spaces. In working with trying to get the spaces onto the property and also have enough exit for a drive aisle and to maneuver around the existing building, the applicant proposes to shift that 10' green space variance further to the north to four other spaces to the north, and in addition in doing so will allow eight spaces to be constructed on the property, however, the applicant is three spaces short of the 11 minimum spaces and is requesting a conditional use to go below the 30% minimum under the requirement. In lieu of providing them on site, requests to provide them on Sang Avenue which is currently a dead end street with the reconfiguration of this intersection. The applicant, as you can see on the drawing on page 12, requests these three on -street parking spaces on Old Sang Avenue, west of the structure. Staff finds that this application is compatible — it will not adversely impact any of the adjacent properties and recognizes the situation on this property being unique, and recommending approval on these changes. Ostner: I will call for any public comment. Seeing none, I will close the public comment and ask the applicant for any presentation. Lewis: I am Steve Davis, the applicant. In making this a viable property, we need to get at least eight parking places on site. We have arranged the design such that it maintains as much green space as possible and still provides enough space in backing out — the parked cars will not back into the back Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 68 of the building. I would appreciate your consideration. We really need to get the eight spaces on the location and the three on the dead end street adjacent to the property. Vaught: Question for Staff. When we first saw this, there was considerable talk about vacation of Old Sang and who the property would go to. Was that ever resolved? Did the adjoining property owner owned a little sliver on either side of the road —did they receive them all? Typically if it is vacated, each property owner gets to the centerline. Was that the situation here? Pate: To be honest, I don't ever remember having that discussion but it has never proceeded beyond that to vacate this right-of-way. It serves as access for both of these properties currently. Vaught: So there are no plans to vacate this. Am I the only one? Pate: The site plan that is shown on page 14 of 16 which has the parking directly off of the street, that would require vacation of the right-of-way had they utilized that parking configuration. Vaught: They would have had to seek one at the time the City was the owner so it would have been a little easier for them to do. Anthes: To follow up on Commissioner Vaught's question, so page 14 on our Staff report is what we saw before and page 12 is what we are seeing now? Pate: Correct. Anthes: So this shared parking area just didn't work out? Was it ever approved? Pate: Shared parking area was never pursued or approved, that was just an option. I think the City may have drawn these plans when we still owned that property and that was one option we looked at for off-site parking which would also have required a conditional use request. Obviously, that option would require a waiver or change on Sang Avenue because you can't have head -in parking off a public right-of-way. I believe the property owner to the west also would have to agree with that option. Anthes: The reason I had to ask is that it seems more of an elegant solution in that there is a lot, the corner of State Highway 80 and New Sang would be able to be landscaped and at this point, it looks like the building is sitting is all asphalt. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 69 Pate: There was actually a requirement when we sold this property — we went in and took out that 15' of green space with the exception of the corner of the building, it is currently all asphalt/concrete right now with the exception of that 15' that we require to be taken out. One of the conditions of approval which will still stand with this applicant is that trees and shrubs be planted along the entire frontage of Sixth Avenue and Sang. Anthes: Does the amount of land on this parcel meet our heart scape requirement, don't we have a maximum that we can pave? Pate: Eighty-five percent. Anthes: And we are in that number? Pate: They are meeting the 15' green space — they also have as Suzanne mentioned the hardship was put on this property by the City because of the realignment there. We took a lot of the actual usable space on that property. It would be difficult to utilize this structure for much more than what it is currently designed for which is a small drive-in, originally. I think it is accommodating parking to be able to use this structure is important. Anthes: I agree, I wish we could have worked something out with the shared arrangement, because it is nice. But in lieu of that I will move for approval of CUP 06-1950 subject to the conditions of approval as stated and with the proposed site plan with the granted landscape waiver. Vaught: I will second with the statement that I would love to see — it kind of baffles me that we take the easement on the other side, we purchased the property to do this but it only makes sense that the old right-of-way be vacated to it can be utilized and we could have a plan like the first plan. I am a little baffled why the City didn't do that originally. Williams: My memory is that there were problems with the adjoining owner and that wouldn't have actually solved the parking problem for this particular property, there wouldn't be enough property left to do the design that was originally conceived by the City that you see on page 14. That would not have worked; we would have had to purchase more land. Ostner: That is also the way I recall it. The adjoining owner to the west likes that right-of-way, the entrance into their project. That is just going by my memory. Clark: The City's infinite wisdom has created one difficult piece of property and Mr. Davis, I commend you for wanting to do something with in. I am a Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 70 little concerned about the parking, but anybody is going to face this and I think you have come up with a reasonable suggestion with the off-site parking. I do have one question — in the packet it said that you anticipate your business to be heavily through the drive through window. You are not expecting a lot of traffic parking? Davis: I think there will be some parking, some inside retail so it is kind of hard to predict, but I would probably say 60% drive through, 30% inside. Clark: Because having those parking spaces across, where you have to walk in front of the drive through, but I still support the conditional use and wish you great luck. Ostner: Any further comments? Please call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP -06-1950 carries by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 71 RZN 06-1949: Rezoning (ELLIS, 569): Submitted by SCOTT ELLIS for property located at 4230 HUNTSVILLE ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-1, SINGLE FAMILY - 1 UNIT/ACRE and RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 6.03 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-7, Residential single family, 7 units per acre. Morgan: If you look on page 14 or 15 of your Staff report, you can see that subject property containing approximately 6 acres has frontage on Huntsville Road. It is located west of David Lyle Subdivision and Riverhill Subdivision. I will go into a bit of the background. As I researched the zoning files and annexation files in the Planning Office, in 1995 the property to the east and north was annexed into the City and zoned RSF-7 and R -O. These designations at the time may have been altered with the changes in zoning, but I think that RSF-7 was formerly R -S. The property to the west of the subject property was annexed into the City in 1998. The portion that was originally annexed into the City in the 1960s whenever they annexed Lake Sequoyah was zoned RMF -24 and as you see on page 15, the property immediately to the west is RMF -24 with the northern portion RSF-7. It was zoned RSF-7 in 1998 to allow the development of small single-family lots. Annexation of these properties to the northeast and west created an island which was annexed with the annexation of islands in 2004 and zoned RSF-1, therefore, we are looking at a piece of property that is split -zoned with the bottom portion being RSF-4, having been annexed in the 1960s, and northern portion RSF-1 being annexed in 2004. The property owner requests a rezoning from RSF-4 and RSF-1 to RSF-7 to allow for the development of a subdivision under these zoning regulations. This application has been reviewed by Police, Fire, Planning and Engineering and the findings of those divisions are found on page 3. We anticipate improvements to infrastructure with the development of subdivision. Additionally, Fire response times were given at 5.25 minutes — when Station 3 opens, this travel time will be reduced to 4.25 minutes and the Police Department states that this proposed rezoning will not substantially alter the population density. Staff finds that the rezoning is consistent with current land -use planning objectives and policies. That rezoning the property to RSF-7 is compatible with the immediately surrounding properties., also zoned RSF-7. As encouraged in the General Plan 2020, this new residential area would be located accessible to roadways and community amenities, mainly RA Park which is located to the north. RSF-7 is the most common zoning district in this area. The David Lyle Subdivision is zoned RSF-7 and taking a look at the plat, it is developed at a density of 3.86 with lots ranging from 60' frontage to 75' frontage. As for access to this property, fortunately no access was provided with the development of the surrounding subdivisions. The applicant would propose access from Huntsville Road and Staff would evaluate potential for connecting that street to other surrounding properties Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 72 in the area to provide for future connectivity to other developments. Staff is recommending approval of the application. Ostner: I will call for public comment. If you are unaffiliated with the development and would like to speak about it, please step forward. Swanner: My name is Kay Swanner and I live in David Lyle Subdivision and am also on the board of the David Lyle Property Owners Association. When David Lyle was rezoned in 1995 as Staff said, it was rezoned to R-1 and it states right in there that R-1 zoning allows for four dwelling units per acre, so that's the way David Lyle was developed. It was developed into four units per acre. Then when the area was zoned R -O and that's where Riverhills Subdivision is now developing and that is also developing as four units per acre. When this piece of property we are talking about was brought into the City in August, 2004, it was brought in as RSF-1, in other words, Staff must have looked at it and decided it needed a RSF-1 zoning at that time. They didn't just say let's zone it something different than everything around it, but it had to be compatible with what was in the area which was RSF-1, four units per acre. Ostner: I believe the Council in the one that is doing that. It is possible that it didn't get a full Planning Commission report in this instance. Williams: What happened when we did the island annexations, the City Council wanted to choose a real low density either R -A or RSF-1 which is one unit per acre or one unit per two acres so that if a higher density was sought by developer or owner, that it would have to come back through the process. They weren't making the individualized decision on what the zoning should be but they wanted to start with a very low density so that development would have to come back through them and they could take a look at it prior to it being rezoned. Swanner: So that is what we want you to do is to take a look at it as it relates to the surrounding properties. If we were zoned R-1, four units per acres and developed that way, the Staff recommendation is that a RSF-7 would be compatible with the area. What makes that compatible with the area, why wouldn't it be compatible with four units per acre which is how the rest of the area is developed. It would seem that a rezone would be done according to.... Ostner: I'm sorry to keep interrupting you but RSF-1 is one unit per acre. Swanner: I have the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of March 13, 1995, it says its to be 99.88 rezoned to R-1 and later in the minutes it says that R-1 allows four units per acre. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 73 Ostner: There has been a change in titles- R-1 — we don't have it any more, it met residential single family probably four units per acre, but this was brought in as RSF-1 meaning residential single family, one unit per acre. There is some confusion I think we changed those titles in 2003, so it was never RSF-4. Swanner: When Riverhills came in last year to get their property developed, David Lyle at that time was listed as being zoned RSF-4 so that is what we are. So what I'm saying is that we are developed at four units an acre, the front part is developed four units per acres, we are asking why can't the next door neighbor be developed at the same way we are. We are asking you to consider that. Maxwell: I'm Emma Maxwell, I am here on behalf of my dad. He owns the house that is adjacent to this property that accesses to the east of my house and the property is all behind my house. He asks that before this goes through that we speak with and meet with Mr. Ellis. My dad couldn't be here because he lives in Pine Bluff and I live in the house. We would like to talk about access and privacy issues to make sure my property will not be devalued, maybe take a look at a survey and see exactly where the property lines are. He didn't want any of this to go through without asking Mr. Ellis to meet with me and my Dad and discuss some of these issues. Ostner: Just to share with you that there is a whole separate process for that where a lot of those discussions go on. It is called the preliminary plat process and tonight all we would do would be to change the rights of what could go on. If it went through at RSF-7, they could put more houses per piece of land than at the RSF-1. They would still have to come through here and talk about fences, where is the property line and stuff like that. You will be notified. Clay: My name is Robert Clay and I live at 4186 E. Huntsville Road. The property you are talking about is directly behind me. From 7:15 to about 8:30 in the morning, the traffic backs up all the way from Crossover to where I live, so sometimes it takes me several minutes just to get out of my driveway turning right to get on the road. And adding the extra traffic into there, I think you need to consider traffic flow. Lower density would be better four units per acre instead of seven you are suggesting. Another problem we have — when I first bought the house last year I saw all these slow-moving vehicles sign along the road, and wondered what in the world are all these signs for. The first time I came up on my house when it was dark, I missed the driveway. And everybody along the road has a slow moving vehicle sign, just like the property that is being rezoned. It is Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 74 very hard to see your driveway unless it is well marked. When you are adding another 42 homes trying to get off the road, I think you are going to create a situation that is not really beneficial to the community. I don't think it goes along with the established community, changing it to seven. I would like to see it stay at a four units per acre I think it would be better for the community and the property. Thank you. Ostner: Just to repeat that things like street lights are part of the discussion when we go to the next phase if this development were to occur, the preliminary plat phase. Caldero: I am Andy Caldero and am the president of the David Lyle Property Owners Association. First thing I would like to question is the fact that none of the people that are in the properties adjacent to this proposal, that are in David Lyle, to the best of my knowledge, were notified about this hearing. There were no notifications sent out. As president of the POA, since I am on record with the City, I would have thought I would have been notified at least. I was not notified. As far as this zoning is concerned, David Lyle, Riverhills and just about all of Stonebridge has sold/developed four homes per acre. A while back, it got through Planning Commission, it got through everybody, that the parcel that is now being developed as Riverhills was going to be built as duplexes and condos — that was a violation and we went back and it was changed, it was shot down. Mr. Callaway has bought it and has developed it as four family per acre. We had to come back and fight them and Kay brought the records out from City Hall to prove that it was in the minutes that that piece of land could not be developed in any other way but four families per acre. The density around that whole area, south and east of the proposal is all four families per acre. Why it should suddenly go to seven is beyond me. It changes the whole appearance, the whole flavor, the whole attitude of everything there. As this other gentlemen stated, the traffic in the morning is unbearable. It has been proposed to widen that section of the City I guess, but that is somewhere down the road, but meanwhile the people who live on the south side can't even get across the road to go left to come back into the City in the morning. He complained about being able to get out of his driveway, those in Stonebridge, it is virtually impossible for them. There is a new traffic light being put down on Stonebridge Road —that is not going to alleviate the traffic that is coming out and heading west, it will just give a little pause so people can get out a little bit. But the traffic is starting to back up considerably. It is well past our subdivision to the east and to change the density to the next subdivision between us to seven, is ludicrous. Thank you. Ostner: Any further public comments? I will ask the applicant if he has any presentation he would like to make. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 75 Crawley: My name is Aaron Crawley. I am a co-owner with Scott Ellis. We just want to zone this similar to what is all around us. We have RSF-7 to the west, RSF-7 to the east and a park to the north. I think there is RMF -24 southwest of us as well. In our preliminary plats we only have 18 lots on there. That is only three units per acre. But in this zoning we want to be the same thing that is directly to the east and west. Ostner: I have a question for Staff. You have laid out the requirements of RSF-7 in here - seven units per acre, 60' lot width minimum, 6,000 square foot lot area minimum. What are the bulk and area for RSF-4? Pate: Seventy foot for lot width minimum and 8,000 for lot area minimum so it is 2,000 square feet less and 10' less. Ostner: So these lots would be 10' narrower, if they built out to the maximum, what the RSF-7 would allow if they chose. These lots could be 10' narrower and 2,000 square feet smaller. It is still single family, the only permitted uses are City-wide uses by right and single-family dwellings. They have to have a conditional use for any duplex. So I just wanted to illustrate that. The other thing that jumped out to me is that I would agree that the look of the surrounding developments are RSF-4, however, the zoning maps show RSF-7 almost completely surrounding this piece of property and RMF -24 on the west and RA on the north. Vaught: I was going to ask Staff about the discrepancies between the neighbors and the zoning map. It sounded like they had a different impression on their zoning. Do we know anything about the history? Pate: A little bit. I'm working off memory here, but in 1998 David Lyle Subdivision was forwarded by the Planning Commission with a different recommendation than what the Council approved. There was a bill of assurance and actually some discussion about a landing strip on Mr. Bowery's land; it was finally dedicated as park land. It was found not it was not appropriate for park land, so I believe that is how the property to the north was part of that David Lyle Subdivision rezoning and annexation back in the nineties. It was zoned at that time, we can pull that ordinance, as R -S which translates to RSF-7, a residential single family small lot designation at that time. In 2003, we changed that designation to RSF-7 which is why the plats she is referring to — a lot of the information refers to just R -S. Vaught: R -S is basically the same of RSF-7. I'm not familiar with the subdivision — are there 60' lots in David Lyle? Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 76 Pate: Yes. Vaught: So this is in keeping — the area that is marked parks is the area that was donated but is unsuitable for parks? Pate: It was deemed unsuitable for a landing strip, reading in the minutes. Part of it was dedicated and part of it was donated as park land. We do have those ordinances that the final piece of paper you want is the ordinance that was passed by the City Council that is filed at the Circuit Clerk's office. Clark: This has been a most interesting evening. This is an appropriate way to conclude it. I am concerned about such a high density zoning for several reasons: number one is the traffic already on Huntsville — lived there, I know. Secondly, when I look at this piece of property and look ahead a little bit for it to develop, I am not seeing a lot of connectivity possibilities. If this builds out at seven units per acre, I think that would be absolute disaster. I would be more than happy to recommend an RSF-4 zoning so you could be in compliance and compatible with what is actually built next to you as opposed to what it says on the map. Because what we see is not what we have. What it says is RMF -7, and it is really 3-4. That's what you seem to indicate what you would like to build. A question for Staff, what part of this 6.03 acres is already zoned RSF-4? Morgan: If you see property to.... Clark: Just a little bit of it? Morgan: Yes, I may have that in the Staff report. Vaught: You just connect to two lines from the Lake Sequoyah rezoning — that diagonal line that runs along Huntsville Road .... Ostner: This is what we have been dealing with lately. Morgan: If you look on page 5 of the Staff report, I roughly calculated it out to 1.6 acres. Clark: I am going to make the motion that we approve RZN 06-1949 but at uniformity of RSF-4. Allen: I will second that. That was going to be my motion before you spoke. Clark: You can figure out the math on it. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 77 Allen: I did also wonder if you had made an effort to speak with these neighbors, I think that is always helpful. Crawley: I haven't, my partner is out of town today. I assume he did, but I have not personally. Allen: A lot of these breakdowns in communication can be easily fixed. Crawley: The reason we were going for the RSF-7 is because of the lot widths. It will equate to being around three units per acre. With an RSF-4, we are going to be lots less than that. Allen: I understand that but I do have concerns about traffic and what happens to be compatible, what is there. Crawley: We looked at what was directly east of us. We were going to develop the houses the same to make them compatible. Graves: I am going to vote against the motion and that is because the property that surrounds all of this is RSF-7 although there have been some comments about how many units per acre are actually built out there. The units out there are using the smaller lots that RSF-7 accommodates. What is already out there is using that, in particular the Lyle subdivision as Staff has indicated. I don't see a real reason to put the wider lots and the so forth that we discussed right in the center of what is already zoned RSF-7 out there and RMF -24, so I will vote against it. Vaught: I would concur. From what I understand, David Lyle is developed, Staff correct me if I'm wrong, it is developed in an RSF-7 pattern is what I've heard with the 60' wide lots and similar type. Is that correct? Morgan: After looking at the subdivision plat today, it appears that they have used a combination of different widths. Those lots that are actually adjacent to the subject property are approximately 75' lot widths. Those located interior to the subdivision are at 60' lot width and you can find 70' lot widths scattered throughout. There is a good mixture in that subdivision. Vaught: And this is one of the complaints I've had for a while. I don't like some of our titles on our zoning because we get here and RSF-4, it is very difficult to build at four units an acre — you usually see 2-1/2. RSF-7 I imagine is similar in nature where you could cram it in, pay all your park fees, go very far to do stuff, but I have a feeling it is a lot less than that when it is developed. The key here is the lot width. I am in support of the original application because it is surrounded by RSF-7 and RMF -24. The issue of traffic and access is something we would look at at the next step and I Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 78 would look for cross access. I believe that is very important, but that is not what I've been asked to do today. I believe RSF-7 is in keeping. I'm having trouble saying I'll vote against it. I think that offering an amendment to the original application would be the correct way to go if we don't agree, that way we don't vote down the forwarding of the rezoning. Ostner: If it fails, we have the option to vote again. Are there any other quick comments? Lack: I did want to ask Staff is you have calculated the built -out density is as some of it is built RSF-7 and some is larger lots. What is the overall build -out? Morgan: The overall build -out density is what appears to be Phase I of David Lyle was 3.86 units per acre. Vaught: Utilizing 60' wide lots and 75' lots? Morgan: Correct. Osmer: My question is what about notification? Aren't adjoining property owners — okay it's all about an ad in the paper? Pate: Yes, that is correct — an ad in the paper and the sign up. PZDs are the only ones we require and some conditional uses require certified mail for adjoining property owners. Ostner: Any further comments. We are going to call roll on forwarding this as an RMF -4. Roll Call: The motion to forward RZN 06-1949 as an RMF -4 fails by a vote of 3- 5-0. Vaught: I would make a motion that we reconsider RZN 06-1949. Ostner: I'm not sure we need to reconsider, we have simply taken no action. Failed something that is different from the Staff report. Williams: Procedurally, why don't you go ahead and just reconsider it again. Ostner: Okay, a motion to reconsider. Clark: Second. Planning Commission March 13, 2006 Page 79 Roll Call: The motion to reconsider RZN 06-1949 carries by a vote of 8-0-0. Ostner: My take on this is the difference is somewhat minimal. I know the lots are 10' narrower and 2,000 feet smaller, but Mr. Vaught has hit it on the head, it is difficult to develop seven units per acre with our current requirements. This is the closest thing to affordable housing this City can offer if smaller pieces of property. A smaller home will be built on it, it will cost less, it is a different product. Since it is surrounded by compatible zoning, I am wanting the preliminary plat process to make a terrific development out of this and I'm not going to stand for anything less. The traffic is a big problem; it is going to have to have stub outs, it is going to have to be first class, but for seven units per acre I think I would be in favor of it and I would hope that I could convince the neighbors that I think you all will be safe with your property values. Graves: I was going to make a motion that we forward to the City Council with the recommendation of approval of RZN 06-1949 rezoning the property to RSF-7. Ostner: I will second. Any further comment. Anthes: I am still concerned with the six minute response time, the traffic and the lack of possible connectivity and I would rather see this property come through as a PZD. Roll Call: The motion to forward to the City Council with the recommendation of approval of RZN 06-1949 rezoning the property to RSF-7 fails by a vote of 4-4-0. Ostner: The motion fails — it takes five positive votes. Williams: The applicant certainly has the right to do a written appeal to the City Council. City Council makes a final decision on any final rezoning anyway. You have to make a written request to the City Clerk within ten working days in order to appeal this denial of your rezoning request. Osmer: Are there any announcements? Pate: Yes, the nominating committee to present the slate of officers will meet directly following the agenda session and working session of the Planning Commission a week from Thursday's meeting. There is a Subdivision meeting on Thursday. Ostner: We are adjourned.