Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-27 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on March 27, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN LSD 05-1809: (THE LOFTS @ UNDERWOOD Approved PLAZA, 483) Page 6 R-PZD 06-1922: (SCOTTSWOOD PLACE, 558) Tabled Page 34 ADM 06-1958: (MILLSAP CENTER PARKING Withdrawn LOT, 212) Page 35 ADM 06-1956 (DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN ZONING DISTRICT MAP Page 36 VAC 06-1989: (WEDINGTON PLACE, 401) Page 51 CUP 06-1985: (FIRE STATION #5, 255) Page 57 LSD 06-1962: (FIRE STATION #5, 255) Page 65 CUP 06-1990: (CREEL, 561) Page 68 RZN 06-1986: (ARORA, 562) Page 72 LSD 06-1939: (BELLAFONT II, 175) Page 74 Forwarded Approved Approved Approved Approved Forwarded Approved LSD 06-1974: (THE ARBORS AT SPRINGWOODS, Approved 286) Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Nancy Allen Jill Anthes Candy Clark James Graves Christine Myres Alan Ostner Audy Lack Sean Trumbo Christian Vaught STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Suzanne Morgan Matt Casey Jesse Fulcher Tim Conklin Leif Olson CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 3 Welcome to the March 27, 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, Graves, Myres, Vaught, Lack, Trumbo, and Ostner are present. There were no minutes from the previous meeting. Election of Officers for 2006-2007 Ostner: The first thing we're going to accomplish tonight is the election of officers for next year's planning commission. The slate of officers that have been nominated by the nominating committee are Commissioner Jill Anthes for chairperson, Commissioner James Graves as vice -chair, I believe Commissioner Candy Clark as secretary. We will first vote, I believe, on chair. It's a secret ballot. This is also the point where any nominations can be made from the floor, or if you choose you can simply vote. Are there any nominations to be made? Cast your ballot. The next election will be for vice -chair. Are there any nominations to be made? Cast your votes, please. Are there any nominations for secretary? Please vote. I'll let Mr. Fulcher make the announcement. Fulcher: For chairman, unanimous decision for Jill Anthes, 9 votes. For vice -chair, unanimous decision for James Graves, 9 votes. For secretary, Candy Clark, unanimous 9 votes. Thank you, Congratulations. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 4 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, GENERAL COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.40 acres. The request is for a missed use development with office, retail and residential space. Garner: This project was tabled at the previous planning commission meeting, mainly to address the issues with the parking garage elevation that was facing Dickson Street and to evaluate the possibility of a new access point through Powerhouse Avenue and different off-site street improvements. The concern was the brick elevations of the parking garage facing Dickson Street. They have been modified to brick and metal screening. This is more background. This is located at 607 Dickson Street. I won't go over all the details of the project since we discussed it at length at the last planning commission meeting. Just to kind of update you on what the applicant has done since that meeting. In response to comments regarding the height and the scale of the proposed building, the applicant has reduced the height of the structure along Dickson Street by approximately two stories, resulting in the loss of two residential units. In the blueprint of the building that was presented to the planning commission on March 13th and the newly designed structure are depicted in elevations and visual simulations that are in your packets. The applicant has also submitted a letter from a traffic engineer discussing the project's potential impacts on traffic and circulation in the area with the conclusion that motor vehicle traffic from this project does not appear to be a serious concern. In addition, in discussing with the applicant, they have indicated a willingness to contribute toward off-site traffic safety improvements that were an issue of concern to the planning commission. The applicant, I believe, has contacted the property owner to discuss the potential access through Powerhouse Avenue to extend an access easement through that area and my understanding is that that owner is not amenable to providing access easement through their property. The conditions for approval are the same as those that were discussed in the previous meeting. I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Garner. At this point I will call for any public comment if anyone would like to speak to this issue. Anyone unrelated to the development item. Underwood: Bill Underwood is my name. I guess I should speak for the project as it has my name on it. To give you a little background, if I could, so that you can understand where I'm coming from on this. I came to Fayetteville 49 years ago from Oklahoma — dust -bowl Oklahoma — after having completed college there (inaudible). And then I went into the navy for four Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 5 years, had the G.I. Bill. I came to Arkansas for a business degree which I later received in 1961. But I wanted to start a jewelry store on Dickson Street, and it was in the little white space next door to the Underwood building, where it is now. I had a thousand dollars I borrowed, which is all I had to start the building with, which even 49 years ago wasn't much money. For the first two years the store almost failed there were no employees but myself'. So it's kind of grown in that one space. The store has never been more than 50 feet away from where it is now. In the mid - 50's when it came time to renew the lease or build the building for the store, I wanted to use Fay Jones. As you know, Fay is not the cheapest architect around but he does beautiful work and he was willing to do the building so he designed me the Underwood building and it took me five years to pay his fee, but it's been the best thing I've ever did. One of the things that is similar to this project that we're talking about tonight is the setback that he worked into the building. Instead of having the building right up against the sidewalk which is what most retail stores do, the building is set back some 20 feet in the deepest part. That's very valuable space; the very front part of the building is where retailers like to have their space. This building that we're talking about tonight while not set back that far, it is set back. It's not just a sheer wall. We could have proposed taking the 450 feet and instead of 100 feet which we're asking you to approve and put a box on Dickson Street, a sheer wall. But that would not be pretty and it would not be suitable in my opinion for the character of Dickson Street or for Fayetteville. So when I moved here I fell in love with Fayetteville and with Dickson Street. In western Oklahoma we had no trees or mountains or stream or lakes, or anything like that so I've been in love with Fayetteville and Dickson Street for all these years and would do nothing to compromise that street. So I'm asking you to approve this project. I think it's a beautiful building. I think it will be an addition to the area. Do you have any questions of me? Thank you. Ostner: We might get back with you. Young: I'm Cyrus Young. I'm normally not able to attend the planning commissions and I was writing this all up and preparing for someone to read it, but my schedule allowed me to be here tonight so I will just read my prepared statements here. The rights of developers are always talked about and explained in great detail, whereas the rights of the community as a whole are seldom considered and never detailed as to the law. Even though the Arkansas Supreme Court has recognized the right of the community to protect itself from development that is not harmonious with existing land usage. The citizens of Fayetteville have consistently requested that the city make decisions in a manner that will preserve the quality of life that we have now. It has been pointed out that his proposed development can not be judged by some future regulation or policy, which Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 6 is true. But that is not the issue. The issue is will the city require this development to conform to the stated policies of the citizens of Fayetteville that were adopted prior to this development being submitted to the city for approval? The general land use plan 2020 which had much public input states at the beginning its purpose is that it helps to insure compatible land usages and to manage development and growth. The land use plan defines the area for this proposed development is 9.11 historic downtown commercial areas and that the overriding goal for this area is to encourage commercial development which retains the area's historic character. At 911.E, the land use plan requires the city to identify and develop design standards for new development that encourage compatibility with existing development. In the code of ordinances there is 166.14 commercial design development standards which were in existence before this development was presented to the city. Within that ordinance is a standard that requires that a development should provide compatibility and transition between adjoining developments. The citizens of Fayetteville have been consistent in requiring compatibility in new construction and again these requirements and policies were put in place prior to this development being submitted to the city of Fayetteville for approval. The Arkansas Supreme Court in 1970 cited the purpose of a planning commission as "the general purpose of the planning commission is to prepare or have prepared a plan or plans of administrality, to receive and make recommendations on public and private proposals for development, to prepare and administer planning regulations, to prepare and transmit to the legislative body recommended ordinances implementing plans, and to advise and counsel the city government and other public bodies. The planning commission shall have the duty and function of promoting public interest in and understanding of the long- term coordinated municipal planning." The long-term coordinated municipal planning. (inaudible). In 1996, the Supreme Court explained the purpose of zoning. The fundamental concept of zoning read the legislation is sound city planning. City of Lowell verses M&M Mobile Home Park. The Arkansas Supreme Court has further stated that once a city has adopted plans and ordinances, then they must follow those plans and policies. Nor does that city have to create a zoning ordinance or a land use plan or adopt a plan use districts or commercial districts. But once it has done so, it must follow the ordinance until it is repealed or altered. The city of Little Rock, Arkansas verses (inaudible). The argument is sometimes put forward and I believe has been in this development that the cost of the land is such that tall buildings required to make the project profitable. It is not the duty of the city to give relief to a developer who has made a bad financial decision and paid too much for a parcel of land. The supreme Court has already addressed the issue of cost verses return verses adjoining properties. Homeowners who have relied on residential zoning are entitled to consideration and use of a suitable tract may be Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 7 reasonably restrained so as not to cause them injury and rezoning can not be justified solely on the grounds that it is necessary to put a particular tract to this most remunerative use. Tate vs. City of Malvern. The Arkansas Supreme Court has also addressed what they call the overall area. The benefit to a few individuals cannot be allowed to override the best interests of the residents of the overall area. Downs vs. city of Little Rock. The Supreme Court has cited the Herns/Stanness (?) case which involves community. In speaking for the court, Judge Shaw said we think it is a principle growing out of a world -ordered civil society that every holder of property, however absolute and unqualified, may be his title, holds it under the implied liability that his use of it may be so regulated that it shall not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having an equal right to the enjoyment of their property nor injurious to right of the community nor injurious to the right of the community. Noble vs. City of Little Rock. The Arkansas Supreme Court has repeated this ruling many times. Appellant's exercise of her rights to property must be recognized, however, we held in an earlier zoning case that her enjoyment of its use may be reasonably restrained so as not to cause injury to the property rights of her neighbors. Marlin vs. City of Little Rock. I'm here tonight speaking to the proposed development LSD 05-1809, the Lofts. After I have spoken my words, I will not be allowed to speak again, although the developer will be given unlimited time to speak and advocate in favor of this development. The concerns to the public are too often ignored in the rush to approve a project because the developer has so much money tied up in the project. The Arkansas Supreme Court has also addressed the issue of citizens' input in the decision making. The opinion of local residents when it reflects large and reasonable concerns is an appropriate factor for a planning commission or city council to consider in zoning cases and can help form a rational basis for a city's legislative decision- making. City of Lowell vs. M&M Mobile Home Park. The city of Fayetteville's policies and requirements use the word compatibility many times. Arkansas Courts have already addressed and defined compatibility. In the conditional use permit situation, uses will be permitted if in the discretion of the planning committee and the board, certain conditions have been met. The most important one being that the use in question will not be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not adversely affect the plan for the area. And will not adversely affect the plan for the area. The word compatible means capable of existing together without discord or disharmony, Webster's 3`1 New International Dictionary, 1976. Also, in Life Concepts vs. Harden, the court addressed a challenge to the term compatible and found that it was not impermissibly vague because it has a plain and ordinary meaning that could be readily understood by reference to a dictionary. We agreed that the term has a well-defined meaning as not so vague as to leave an applicant guessing as to its import or meaning. Moreover, there is no indication that an appellant Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 8 was laboring under misconception of what the ordinance required in order to obtain a permit. We concluded appellant has not established that the ordinance is unconstitutional. An ordinance with the word compatible in it as far as Arkansas case law is concerned is constitutional. Rolling Pines Ltd. Vs. City of Little Rock. This development does not fit the Dickson Street area and does not meet the goals and requirements which retain the area's historic character as stated in Fayetteville's ordinances and policies which were requested and adopted by citizens of Fayetteville prior to this development being proposed. This proposed 9 -story structure can never be considered compatible with the surrounding area which contains one or two story buildings, no matter how much you much you may tinker with the design, such as step floors. I ask you to turn down this request for development for failure to comply with existing ordinances and planning policies. By rejecting this development, you will be preserving Fayetteville's identity and character as consistently requested by the citizens of Fayetteville. Harrison: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Marly Harrison. I live at 350 Sequoyah Drive in Fayetteville. I have never addressed this commission. I don't have nearly the information that the former addressee had. But I have a lot of compassion. I came here 42 years ago with my family. We've stayed 40 years longer than we had expected to, mainly because of Fayetteville, the city. Because we appreciate it, it's beautiful, we love the aesthetics, we love the people, we love the fact that they care about their city, have always fought for their city, and that's why I'm here today. I live on the mountain. I walk around Mt. Sequoyah. I never walk around that mountain that there aren't 4 or 5 cars parked at the cross looking at the view, looking out across the mountains. And, folks, they don't drive up there to look at a tall piece of concrete. I don't look out my living room window across at Old Main to look at a tall piece of concrete. Dickson Street, we've spent a lot of money and a lot of time to put pretty little brick sidewalks in, quaint little lampposts, which gives one the feeling that this is a street for browsing and walking and visiting and seeing friends and it's a beloved street. It's maybe the most beloved street in Fayetteville. My children rode their bikes up and down the street, they've walked up and down the street, listening to music. I've raised children, grandchildren, and now a great-grandchild in this town. I don't have a lot of statistics. I've lived in Santa Monica for a year when we were away. And even a city of Santa Monica has managed to have multi -use housing, inclusive housing, and most of their buildings are about 5 stories. And it's, even as large a city as it is, it's an accommodating city for that reason. You can walk down the streets and you don't feel closed in. you'd feel like you can breathe, and like you can see, and you can see around corners, and through alleys, and I just fear that if you allow a building 9 stories tall, which by the way, I think is higher than Old Main, I fear that if you allow that that Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 9 it'll just be the beginning of what may happen on Dickson Street. So, I'm just merely here as a citizen who loves the city, who loves, the street, to ask you to vote down this project, unless they can lower the size of the building. It's just too tall. Thank you. Bennett: I'm Joel Bennett. I live at 4 East Cydnee in Fayetteville. I first lived in Fayetteville in 1951. I attended the University here, went away for a period of time, and came back in 1965. So I have also lived here 42 years. I think Mr. Underwood has built a beautiful building, the present one he has. I think that the people who come to Fayetteville come for two reasons. One is because it has a small-town look, but has the amenities of a big city. If we start, I fear we'll start ruining what people come here for, and they won't want to come here if it has the big city look. I agree with the former speakers I think this is incompatible with that street and I will remind of the idea that London keeps their heights very low in downtown London, England. The big buildings have to be on the outskirts. The same for Paris, Santa Fe, New Mexico, many of the most attractive cities in our country have restrictive ordinances that limit heights in their historic districts. That's all I have to say, thank you. Belden: Hi, my name is Leslie Belden. I live downtown at 15 South Block on the square. I'd like to speak on behalf of the Lofts at Underwood Plaza. I want to be clear I'm not speaking as the president of Fayetteville Downtown Partners. We're not speaking to that tonight. I`m speaking as a resident, but I also speak as someone who has specific educational background, specific qualifications which perhaps give me a different type perspective on this type of project. I have a degree in architecture; I have a doctorate of ministry with an emphasis on the intersection of architecture with philosophy. Interesting combination. And I have a Ph.D. in public policy planning. So with those various backgrounds, what I'm pretty good at is looking at the environment with respect with what the architecture means to people, how it influences their behavior, and how public policies can encourage a good environment. Now, I'm trusting that you have a visual elevation, perhaps some perspectives of the new design for this building, and I'm trusting that these people do not, because I did not as someone sitting out here. I don't know is it on that? No. So they don't have a way of seeing it, do they? First, I want to applaud the work you're doing. Nancy, you've worked hard for 6 years, especially this in-between time when we're meeting the old codes and we're moving toward the master plan. I don't envy you, working toward the best solutions for the city of Fayetteville. With that said, and this project coming during the in-between times between the old standards and the new codes. I've talked with the architect, and how he's worked toward those proposed standards without actually meeting them. And I'll tell you the truth, and it's only a version, and I've told this to Rob: I was not at all happy with either the height of Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 10 the building or the bulk of the building. It did not seem appropriate to Dickson Street. It seemed to overwhelm the street, with the context of the other lower buildings. But in its current form, there are 4 stories on Dickson Street before it steps back to 6 stories. And in its current form, any extra stories are not visible from the Dickson Street side. I don't believe that the people here know that tonight. It's possible that they do, and they're still not comfortable with it anyway. The details on the building are traditional without being overwhelming. And I believe that they complement the Fay Jones designed Underwood building. There are horizontal low bands that hint at the architecture next door without trying to copy it. And I know the building and Craig Underwood have had a lot of input into the architectural design of this building as partners in the project. What I really like about the project is how the design fits into the context of the oddly shaped lot. And how it meets the criteria of both the designers of the developer and much of the priorities of the proposed master plan. Of course it's a mixed-use building. Of course there are building heights associated with the master plan, as well as traditional architectural features. But I appreciate how the mapping of the building is appropriate to the scale of the building surrounding it, how it's more refined in its detailing on the Dickson side of the project, and more industrial or warehouse -like in nature on Powerhouse to complement the more utilitarian uses over there. I like how the project incorporates parking spaces that are needed so that it can encourage the new dynamic of smart parking. With spaces being double used and much needed parking available for other events on this part of the west side of Dickson. I also like how the building encourages walking through the project, providing opportunities for the general public to enjoy public spaces designed for loitering. And finally, I must admit that I'm not unbiased when it comes to the development team. I live in the Campbell Bell building that's an earlier project of theirs. As a former board member of the Historic Preservational Alliance of Arkansas I'm partial to projects that are redevelopment efforts within a downtown context. Richard Alexander and Rob Merryship are responsible for redeveloping the Ozark Theater, the Campbell Bell building, the UArk bowl, the Inn at Carnell Hall, St. Joseph's Catholic Church, and are in the process of developing the old Fulbright Library. They've taken on projects that were difficult and that were deemed hopeless by many and that were for the most part originally out of compliance with the city's codes and ordinances and required a lot of hoop jumping through the process. The development team has contributed much to the character of downtown Fayetteville through the risks that they've taken. The risks have paid off both for themselves as well as for the city of Fayetteville. This project too has been difficult. This site stood vacant for years, waiting for a solution. The wrap-around site has been difficult to design and the integrity of the surrounding buildings have been a priority, much like maintaining the integrity of the historic Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 11 Alexander: Ostner: Alexander: Ostner: Alexander: Ostner: Alexander: buildings they've worked with has been a priority in the past. The team won an award from the Historic Preservational Alliance in their work on Carnell Hall. That same organization has an award for infill projects in an historic context. After seeing and reviewing the proposed plan, I believe this project could very well win that award. I hope that the planning commission can see what an asset this building will be to the Dickson Street area and to the city of Fayetteville and I hope that you'll approve it. I thank you for your time, and more importantly for your service to the city. Graham Alexander. I just want to reiterate what I said two weeks ago to this body and also in that interim I have looked at the pictures, and I don't have them with me. Does this one on the easel have representation of the new building? It does. I know you have probably have several views of it. In looking at them, these computer renderings have a tendency to adjust according to where you get the computer to look at them. Even though the building may be four stories before it sits back, as its drawn next to the building which Shoemaker used to own, or does still own, I'm not sure about that. Excuse me. I tell you what, Rob, if you wouldn't mind turning that around for the moment. We're pretty familiar with it, if she could, this one too. Ms. Alexander if you could just talk about it like that, we've seen it. The building then on the left of the new building proposed is two stories tall, and you see as it's drawn next to the new building the new building comes in at about three stories there, so the perspective that you're looking at this is not exactly right on with if you faced the building. The way that you look at this you would be actually looking at three stories that would be can you see what I'm talking about the perspective here? You're across the street, I believe, facing southwest. But what I'm trying to imply or tell you, is that this picture does not exactly give you the same number of stories that are actually going to be there when you look at it from that perspective. Anyway, I wanted you to consider that. I know that they've taken off a couple of floors on the top to not have the towering effect but that's only on the front. Still on the back, I do have a lot of concerns about how that might impact the view off of Old Main. Thank you. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 12 Ostner: Any other citizen public comments? Okay, we will close the public comment section and ask the developer to make his presentation. Sharp: My name is Rob Sharp and I'm the architect on the Underwood Plaza project. I'd like to be brief because I know we spent a long time talking about this last time, but I do want to go through the changes we've made in the last two weeks. When we were here last we asked for more time to address the issues that came up. As we've done in each stage of the project, we feel like we're continuing to improve the project and I want to list what we've done in the last few weeks to make sure that the project is compatible with all existing ordinances. First of all, as has been mentioned, we pushed the 8th and 9th floors back 40 feet from Dickson Street, so they're essentially invisible as you walk around Dickson Street until you get far away from the buildings. This has a really dramatic effect as you get closer to the building and as Ms. Alexander mentioned reduces that looming effect. Essentially as you get close to the building all you can see are the four stories on Dickson Street. That's a significant change the developers have agreed to. Secondly, we reduced the number of apartments from 77 to 75 as mentioned before. Also, we reduced the square footage of the upper floors to 4,000 square feet. And that to put that in perspective, the ground floor is 18,000 square feet, so essentially by the time you get to those upper two floors it's only 22% of the building footprint. This is the area that I know when people talk about a 9 -story building on Dickson Street the mental picture they get is like the EJ Ball building where it's just a sheer cliff right up on the street. This is not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is a building that is walk- out basement situation. Eight stories from Dickson Street on the upper side. It's only 9 stories from the Powerhouse side and only then when you walk into this courtyard behind Qdoba's it's very difficult to perceive that there's nine stories. And also, as you get to the top, it's only 4,000 square feet of enclosed space. By the time you get to the top, it's about the size of a large house or duplex. I want to make that very clear that that's a change that we have made. We've also discussed the project with Rich Chellman who's a very highly regarded traffic engineer and works in a lot of urban settings, works for municipality, he's not someone who is the developer's mouthpiece. This is someone who looked at the project, he looked at the traffic counts, looked at the intersections, and he felt first of all that adding residential downtown is a great solution to a lot of long-term traffic problems. He also felt that the changes that had been made to Dickson Street to narrow that up and slow traffic were the right ones to make. He still felt that the intersections in the area could handle it. I've given you a copy of the letter he gave us to that effect. He, in general, felt that the project would not have any problems as far as access which is the same thing that the fire department told us. We do feel that the access is good. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 13 The other issue on access, as we've talked to Bill Underwood, is through Tagon Incorporated owns the property to the south of us where Powerhouse restaurant is. They currently lease that space. There's currently a drive, sort of a snaky skinny drive that connects Powerhouse to the University. That drive is open, will continue to be open, the restaurant wants it, SWEPCO wants it, we want it. It's something that because the property one point in the future may be developed, he's reluctant to completely dedicate a city street through that point, but he's certainly willing at this point to allow that access to continue and he wants that access. Essentially, any connection between that Powerhouse property and Dickson Street makes the property more desirable, so it's certainly in his interest to keep that there. That is that will happen. The other issue that we've discussed is the parking deck facing north. Some commissioners felt that it was too brutal even though it was off Dickson, so the developers have agreed to screen that with a masonry wall so that it will appear essentially as a separate building from the one on Dickson Street. It will shield the fact that it's a parking structure. I feel that we've addressed that concern. I hope that your illustrations you have demonstrate that. We've also looked at the area of pedestrian safety in the area. It's not just an issue of automotive access, there's also the fact that this will create some pedestrian activity in the area. When the site was a nightclub, there would be sometimes up to 1,000 people to come see shows and that would create sort of this burst of pedestrian activity at two in the morning or midnight, so the area does have some history of handling large numbers of pedestrians. The way it is now, there's basically no sidewalk on Powerhouse. We're adding a sidewalk along the west side of Powerhouse. We're adding curb and gutters so instead of it being an alley and a driveway, it looks like a little street. Also, the developers have agreed to those $20,000 in seed money to increasing pedestrian safety and traffic following in the downtown area. We've discussed these things as part of the downtown improvement district. Until that gets started, this is something to get that process begun so we can do the things off Dickson that have already begun on Dickson such as narrowing the traffic lanes, adding landscaping, adding decent crosswalks, and those kinds of items. We've also studied the effects that this building will have on the view of Old Main. (Illustrations being displayed, which are new to the commission). Basically, this is Old Main here, this is demonstrating how far the buildings are from Old Main, this demonstrates their height and because Old Main sits on such a prominent hill and is so tall it is still the major landmark in the area from any of the points of view we're talking about. We also looked at other projects; I'm not going to go through each one to show the relative effects they would have on Old Main. We also studied in the plan where the view from Old Main would be blocked. The only place we could find is a half -block along West Avenue in front of Grub's where you're not going to be see Old Main anymore where you Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 14 used to be able to see Old Main. That half block would likely be blocked anyway by a parking structure built on that land as envisioned by the downtown master plan. So I'd say certainly the idea of keeping Old Main view unobstructed is important but there's also the concept I think that this building would add something to the skyline of Fayetteville. It's not going to block anything except for that half -block view. I think in its way would add to the character of Fayetteville. No one complains that Carnall Hall blocks the view of Old Main. Also, I just want to briefly talk a little bit about the comments that were made that refer to rezoning, the conditional use or mobile home parks. This is not that situation. We're not asking for a conditional use. We're not asking for rezone. We're not asking for a mobile home park. What we're saying is that the land is zoned this way, we've made many steps to make it compatible with the downtown area, so I feel we've addressed the concerns that came up two weeks ago. I'd be happy to answer your questions. Ostner: Thank You. Mr. Sharp, at this point I will bring the issue to the planning commission. Graves: Mr. Chair? Ostner: Mr. Graves. Graves: Just following up maybe on some of the final comments made by the developer and the city attorney will certainly correct me if I'm off -base here, but we were handed a document that has a lot of official looking citations of cases from Arkansas Supreme Court. Most of these cases deal with uses and whether uses are compatible or uses are injurious to neighbors of a community. In this particular case, the uses that are proposed which is retail, residential, parking - to me there's no question that those are compatible with what's on Dickson Street, so I'm not sure I see the relevance of the broad majority of those cases that were cited. They are certainly language that came out of some legal cases, but the effect they might have on this particular proposal I'm not sure that it's there. There's also some cases regarding rational basis for making legislative decisions. This, of course, if not a legislative body and we don't pass ordinances or make law, we follow what's already in place. I want to repeat my comments from two weeks ago. I felt that the previous proposal met our current UDC and I would agree with one case that was cited in the document and its relevancy here and it's the City of Lowell vs. M&M which is that once a city has adopted plans and ordinances we have to follow those plans and ordinances. What's in place right now is the UDC whether everybody on this commission likes the current version of the UDC or not, that's what the law is right now. I know there was some discussion over the commercial design standards and whether there's Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 15 some language in there that allows regulation of height in buildings. The commercial design standards. I don't agree that it does. In my mind, we've elected as a community to exercise the community right to regulate height in buildings in some zoning districts. In this one, we didn't elect to exercise that right. It was silent, and we're obligated as that case states to follow the current version of the UDC. In my mind, we don't have a leg to stand on, in my mind, as far as regulating the height on this particular project according to the current UDC. I know that others here disagree but we had that discussion two weeks ago, but I don't want to rehash that discussion any more than anybody else does, so I think we know where everyone stands on that particular issue. As far as the cases that were cited, and again the city attorney can correct me, I don't think the vast majority of them have anything to do with what we're talking about tonight and what we're here to decide tonight as the developer hinted at in his comments. And so, when I look at this, the community certainly has a right under Arkansas law, under the statute that our attorney cited two weeks ago where you can set up some type of historic district and regulate the height of building around the edge of the district to protect and to preserve historic buildings. So far, we haven't set up a district like that in Fayetteville, so again we're dealing with the laws that are already in place right now. It might be that the City of Fayetteville at some point elects to make a historic district preservation of some kind under state law to protect the view or the nearness of other buildings, or whatever, of Old Main, but right now it's not there. Maybe we should all be talking to our city council members to do something like that to make sure we protect Old main and other historic buildings, because there's certainly a number of buildings of historic character we would all like to protect in Fayetteville. We also, in this particular zoning district, have not elected to regulate height. I appreciate the developer has been willing to modify the proposal from two weeks ago to make it more to the scale of what faces Dickson Street right now but I for the reasons I've already said didn't think that we had a right to ask for that, but I'm appreciative of the fact that it's been done. I'm going to support the project for the reasons that I stated two weeks ago and for the reasons that I've stated tonight. Ostner: Mr. Williams, do you have any comments? Williams: The only case I would cite is the one I cited too many times before I'm sure you're very familiar with it, the Richardson vs. City of Little Rock planning commission case where the Supreme Court said that when a subdivision ordinance specifies minimum standards to which a plat must conform it is arbitrary as a matter of law to deny approval to a plat that meets those standards. And of course the UDC has specified what you can consider in denying to deny a large-scale development. There are several things that you can consider. The first one it says that the preliminary plat Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 16 or development plan is not submitted in accordance with the requirements of this chapter, meaning chapter 166 development chapter. The same chapter that does have the commercial design standards in there. There is one thing that has been cited before, a development should provide compatibility and transition between adjoining developments. So there is that, I've never heard of a building being denied for that reason, but that is part of the commercial design standards. All the rest of the other six except possibly traffic safety obviously have no basis in any fact, no one has ever said they're not complying with the other parts of the code. So your determination should be whether or not this plat is in compliance, not with the 2020 plan, or the 2025 plan, or the master plan, or anything like, because it says the ordinance not the plans, plans are general guiding principles helpful in rezonings and other areas, but when it comes to approving or denying a preliminary plan or large-scale development, that's not within your provenance to look back at those plans. But you can look at the commercial design standards and weigh that for your decision. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Anthes: Mr. Chair Ostner: Ms. Anthes Anthes: My concern last week had to do with traffic increase and an increase in connectivity. I appreciate you talking to TND and generating this report, but I do have a question about the basis of which they used when they looked at Dickson Street. They said that, it's on the fourth paragraph of the first page of the report, says that Dickson Street at this location is designated as a historic collector. These streets are further shown as having two -16 foot roads. Sharp: We talked to him about that number which he got off the internet which we told him was out of date and he was happy that the city had gone ahead and narrowed the lanes and taken his advice on that issue and he said that it did not change his recommendation about its capacity. He said that the checkpoints are at the intersections and the intersections service level which is excellent. He was aware that his 16 foot number was incorrect and he said he would get that change later in our hands and that we would get to staff or to you. He felt that that was even better. He liked the 12 foot lanes and he was sorry for his mistake. We didn't give him any time to measure. We had to get out there with our tape measure ourselves and get the real number, 12 feet. Anthes: And then, this, I don't know who I asked this about this there was an offer made this evening about $20,000 seed money for pedestrian improvements Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 17 in the area. It doesn't appear in our staff report nor does it appear in conditional improvement. I'm not sure that it can. By what means is an agreement or offer like that formalized, Mr. Williams? Williams: The simplest way is just a contract or whatever bill of assurance or something although bills of assurance are generally done with rezonings. I'm sorry, I didn't hear that offer. Sharp: Jeremy Pate and I talked about that a little bit week before last and we talked about the best way to administer that. The developer's concerns that the money not be spent out of 265 or somewhere else, but actually needed to be spent on the downtown area. The pedestrian safety right now falls in the cracks between streets and landscaping and a lot of other things. He agreed to look into that issue. We haven't talked since with the intention of that that essentially like an impact fee that the money would be spent by the city where they decide pedestrian safety needs a boost. As for intent, I have no idea how to turn that into... Williams: That's not something we can require. Certainly if the developer's willing to offer that as condition of approval for this. If they want to put it in as condition of approval I guess they would have the right to do that. Then it would be a condition of approval and that would assure the $20,000 was paid. If that was your intent, we can create a condition of approval if that is what you all want. Sharp: Yes. Before we brought up the question was about the intersection of Center and University which is so far off from our site. The developer felt like you can't go out even legally and dig up the intersection, repour the sidewalks and change the curb radii and plant trees. It's really the city that is the better entity to do that. $20,000 is the recognition that some of the additional traffic is because of this development. Williams: You didn't have any particular language that you wanted for your condition of approval that you're offering? Sharp: No, Sir. Williams: I just hesitate to put words in your mouth since this is something that we could not require. It is something that the developer is offering. He could tell you, well this is what we're offering... Sharp: We're asking you to put the words. Williams: $20,000 for pedestrian improvements within a two or three block area or do you want to specify? Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 18 Sharp: There is a report we shared with the city planning staff that is about traffic. The city of San Jose did this report. It is excellent. It talks about traffic and all the different strategies that can be used. They are aware of this document and it's been used in the past. So we recommend that you look at that. Alexander: Rick Alexander, one of the developers I think our thought on that was to contribute some money to pedestrian safety and sidewalk and traffic improvement within the context of the development, preferably between Arkansas Avenue and Powerhouse or Powerhouse Drive. We'd like to see the money spent where the impact of the project is going to be with respect to the impact of the project. And again Williams: Would that be Dickson to Center or Dickson to where? Alexander: I think any of those intersections, Gregg and Dickson, Powerhouse and Dickson, Arkansas Avenue and Dickson, and maybe even University Avenue and Dickson. Those are the intersections where they're going to be impacted and we're certainly not opposed to helping improve those intersections. We'd like to do it consistent with the downtown master plan in terms of design and materials. And again our thought on the impact of the project was that the majority of the project was residential, so many of those people will be living at the project, parking in the parking deck and walking to various activities. The majority of the project is residential units and we think that a lot of the impact of the project will be pedestrian traffic coming out of the project. The reason you would buy down there is so that you could park in the parking deck and live in a condominium close to all that activity so that you could walk. So we would like to spend that money within that context and promote pedestrian safety. I don't know how that is accomplished. We would offer the money and we would like to spend it in that nexus. We would enjoy talking to the city about how that would be accomplished, so. Williams: Okay, I'll try to get up something about that. Thank you. Anthes: I guess I'm a little disappointed that we won't be able to formalize the connection to University Avenue. And I would just ask that would consider that when that property develop that a connection should be made whether it's at the route that it currently takes or another one that is more appropriate for the future plans. Sharp: That connection first came up with our first meeting with the planning staff and the planning staff is very interested in having that connection so whoever develops that property will be faced with that issue and I feel that Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 19 the planning commission and staff be consistent in requiring some kind of access. It is I think when we look back in the generation that will grow up to some kind of one of those quirky San Francisco type streets will be there eventually. Right now we've got the use of it I think the use will continue to everyone's benefit and I'd be very surprised if that would be cut off. Anthes: And my last questions is for staff did we find a place for the additional two trees that we did not recommend planting along Dickson? Garner: We did recommend planting two trees on Dickson and two landscape islands along Dickson Street that we had planned but did not think was appropriate to add two trees there. There was we need to figure out exactly if there are storm drain issues in those islands. We've left it as they'll be forced to work out at the time that the structure plans I believe. Anthes: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought our last staff report said that technically four trees were required as mitigation trees there and we were asking them for two. I wondered whether you found another place on the site for the other two. Pate: I believe those were all located within the interior of the site. There would be actually trees and tree wells within the interior of the site., mitigation trees. Anthes: Thank you. Clark: Mr. Chairman, a question. Ostner: Yes, Ma'am. Clark: For the attorney, Mr. Williams, did I hear you correctly in saying that of the six criteria listed under commercial design standards compatibility to surrounding development isn't a legitimate consideration? Williams: That is what the commercial design standards say. They say compatibility and transition to adjoining development, if I remember right. Clark: That's kind of what I thought but people tend to mumble. Williams: Sorry. Ostner: I'm certain he said so. He said so two weeks ago, too. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 20 Sharp: We certainly agree that compatibility and transition is a large part of the project. That's why we wanted it on Dickson Street area. We liked the flavor that was there, and we're trying to blend in every possible way. We're not trying in any way to come in with a project that is ailing to the area that has a lot of concrete such as we won't mention that. We've done with the detailing, the materials, with everything we've done is to be compatible and provide transition. Clark: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes, ma'am. Clark: I appreciate everything you have done in terms of the setback of the top floors tremendously. I'm concerned about the outlook to the university. I respect the fact that you asked a traffic engineer in New Hampshire to look at this. I'm not sure you've ever tried to turn on Dickson Street during a football weekend, however, and that concerns me. I'm hearing that you're anticipating a lot of pedestrian traffic, but how are the people going to get to their jobs who live in this complex? To me, it seems like they're going to drive because I don't know how downtown Dickson Street can support employment for all the people who are going to live in these condos. I think, yes, they'll park there on the weekends and the evening, etc.. and pedestrian traffic will certainly be there during these times, but I think that during peak traffic hours we're going to have an impact on a very narrow street, a street that we have intentionally as a community tried to make more pedestrian, to make more retail -friendly, not necessarily. I am concerned about the commercial design standards in terms of compatibility. I think your materials are incredibly compatible, I do, it's a beautiful building. You're about to see a building later in this agenda that is absolutely huge for development and I'm going to support it whole-heartedly because I think where it is very appropriate, very compatible. I don't believe that this building on this comer on this lot with starting your introduction to Dickson Street if you're going to the east is still compatible. I'm not sure that just pushing the stories back in front is what I had in mind with a shorter building because it is still tall in the back. It is a beautiful building, it's an absolutely gorgeous building. I'm afraid that whatever we do is going to be a policy statement, and we're not supposed to make policy statements. That goes to the council. So whatever we do however it ends up I think that it's going to have to be a council decision in terms of height appropriateness. My vote tonight, I don't think it meets the commercial design standards in terms of compatibility and transition in terms of the past. I'll probably be the lone vote, and I don't care. I also think traffic is an issue and I would like to encourage Mr. Underwood to consider allowing that entrance onto University to be used because now is the time to get whatever you want to be there before it Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 21 develops and we have to do something that might be overly creative and overly expensive with another development. So, I said it two weeks ago, at least I think, I can't remember what I said, and I've said it again, so, I would be very... I will very reluctantly say I will not be supporting this. Ostner: Thank you. You did mention a policy decision and I wanted to make it clear that this is our decision and it will not go forward after our vote tonight, so... Sharp: I just wanted to make a brief comment about the New Hampshire traffic engineer. The way we got their name is that we'd done work in the past with Hall Engineering. They're the experts in pedestrian safety and urban development. We wanted to work with them again but they said that they could not because they're under contract with the city on the 2025 plan. They said if you can't work with us, work with Rick Jones. He's highly regarded, the best in the field. He's not someone we picked out of a hat, he's someone that was recommended by Hall and should receive the city's hire. We regret that we couldn't have Hall & Associates as they're familiar with the project, but they felt it was a conflict of interest. Clark: No disparagement meant to them all, it's a beautiful place. Ostner: An independent business sticking up for its own interests. Myres: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes, Commissioner Myres Myres: I've been fairly vocal about my concerns with the streetscape with this building that it's going to present and I have to say that I am absolutely delighted with the changes that you've made. Looking at the outside elevations and also looking at the granted the slightly realistic perspective views it still changes to me, significantly, the scale of the building as it presents itself to the street. I have to agree with Mrs. Belden that it is an appropriate and attractive addition to the street. I always have felt that it was a beautiful building. I agree with Commissioner Clark on that one. But I think that the changes that you've been willing to make do significantly change the scale of the building as it's not only viewed from the street but as it feels from the street. So I'm going to for the first time in four votes, three votes, support this project because I think that the alterations that you've made really improve it, and I really appreciate your willingness to do that. That's all. Vaught: Mr. Chair Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 22 Osmer: Mr. Vaught Vaught: I would like to thank them as well for the work they've done. The new elevations to me, definitely help me visualize, I do appreciate the graph of the altitude with the buildings on it. That's very good presentation. In the elevation of the parking garage, that was excellent. I do appreciate that change as well. I do think seeing the building on there as well helps me see what that would look like. I do disagree with other commissioners I have a hard time seeing the compatibility part of the commercial design standards as regulating height. To me, we have districts which set heights and we have districts which choose not to regulate them, and that's the underlying basis for the decision. It's been said a lot better than I could on that point. I'll be supporting this project. I think it's an excellent project. I think that all of these issues and the issues that we will see, which I will see, that the commission will see shortly will be deemed intolerable when proposed on Dickson Street emphasize the need for the downtown master plan which I believe goes to the city council in May, if I'm correct I think that there's an excellent editorial in the paper this weekend which describes, which was not voted on at that time that allows for a number of those projects to go forth, so be active and talk to your councilman about these issue because that's something that is coming and will make this building look tiny, some of them. I appreciate your work and the changes you guys have made. I supported it last time and I will support it again. I think that trying to interpret that commercial design standards is a slippery slope to say that it is compatible in its height. I think that if this is too tall a project later with 10 stories. There are a lot of tall buildings out there. The Lindsey building is there. I have a hard time seeing the disparity of these two projects when it comes to that issue. To me, it becomes very arbitrary when you start selectively applying height to the commercial design standards. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Vaught. Two weeks ago I was fairly in favor of this except for some specific requests. I really think that the applicant has made some terrific steps towards scaling back a little bit and bringing the project closer to being in line for compatibility issue. As a note to the citizens who have spoken and who have been here a lot and will be here a lot in the future, what is lacking tonight if you all want a voice is a rule that says this height is allowed, this height is not. Later on in the docket tonight, we're finally considering such a rule if the citizens can get on the books to be guideposts for developers coming into this town this is the way. You look at this downtown master plan that says these areas can be really tall. It's the area near the square, not around the square. I just want everyone to be aware of it. We don't have the tools to dream a better work code, this is too tall, I don't like it. But the citizens of Fayetteville are about to create their own tools in the downtown master plan that would Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 23 say they want these fine tunings to go on. I think it's a great document, and I think it's a fair guidepost for the citizens to share with the developers legally these are the types of buildings we want. Tonight we don't have that, all we have is this one statement, this caveat, of compatibility in the commercial design standards. I think that this is compatible with the changes they have made. I think the seed money towards the downtown pedestrian safety improvement fund, hoping that will be renamed officially. I do have a question for the applicant. Mr. Alexander mentioned the Gregg and Dickson intersection, University/Dickson, Powerhouse/Dickson, those intersections are really in good shape. If we could make sure those I'm sure that was just a misstatement but I was thinking intersections that were lacking could we just call it like a three block radius or two block radius. Alexander: A two block radius would be fine, but again we would like it to be spent within the nexus of the project something that would address the added or traffic generated by the project. We think this would be as much pedestrian traffic as vehicular traffic, so I don't mind a radius, as long as it was within the nexus. We would prefer it not be spent out on Joyce Avenue. Those guys can come up with their own pedestrian improvements. Ostner: I just want to double-check. I know that Mr. Williams was trying to craft a statement of sorts. Williams: I have something. It's not three blocks, because I didn't hear that when they were suggesting what they wanted. This is the language I came up with and we'll ask Mr. Alexander if this reflects his view. The developer agrees to pay and shall pay $20,000 to the City of Fayetteville to be used for pedestrian improvements within an area from Arkansas Avenue along Dickson Street to Powerhouse Avenue then south to Center Street then north to University, west along University Avenue to Dickson Street. That's not three blocks, that's more like two blocks. But, I don't know, is that what you want? Alexander: That's what I would prefer. I don't know how you parse the detail of it, but again, West Avenue, any of those, something adjacent to the project. I'm sure we've got trails going through there at some future point. The city trail is going to come perilously close to this project. It might be appropriate when the trail comes through... Williams: Or we could agree as agreed by the city and... Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 24 Alexander: As Powerhouse dead ends, the city owns some property there that could be park activity, trail connections to the trail. I would prefer to see it in those areas for those type of things. Williams: What about if the entrance, off the University, if Mr. Underwood would agree, I mean that is a horrible entrance, even into a restaurant. Alexander: I don't know if Mr. Underwood would mind spending the money on the intersection up there. Underwood: I don't know, what did you say? Williams: University to Powerhouse, going down in there. Alexander: Again, I think you're going to do a connection with a trail right there where Powerhouse dead ends where the railroad track is that's got to be connected somehow with the rest of the trail system, so that might be an appropriate place to do that. We'll work on trying to get that, if Commissioner Clark would vote on it on that basis we'd be glad to do that, ha-ha. Vaught: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes, Mr. Vaught Vaught: I would like to go ahead and get the ball rolling. I'll make a motion to approve LSD 05-1809 with the stated conditions for approval adding the number twenty-four condition could you read that one more time? Williams: Yes, the developer agrees to pay and shall pay $20,000 to the City of Fayetteville to be used for pedestrian improvements from Arkansas Avenue along Dickson Street to Powerhouse Avenue then south to Center Street then north to University, and back west along University Avenue to Dickson Street, or as otherwise agreed by the city and developers. Vaught: With that condition added, and finding in favor of commercial design standards and determination of street improvements. Ostner: Okay, we have a motion to approve this large-scale development Myres: I'll second. Ostner: As proposed by Commissioner Vaught and seconded by Commissioner Myres. Is there any further discussion? Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 25 Allen: Mr. Chair, there certainly is. Ostner: Commissioner Allen. Allen: I'm aware that all of my comments are made, because [inaudible] erodes. But I can't very well live with myself unless I go ahead and express the concerns that I have. I wanted to start out by talking about the downtown master plan. I read this again last night and I was going to mention some things that I found in it and some things that I didn't find in it. In the design section survey it enumerates the times that comments were made and concerns the public had about parts of Fayetteville and the kinds of improvements they wanted made. I did find repeatedly that people wanted to capitalize on visual landmarks. I did find repeatedly that people wanted trees and trees and trees. I did find repeatedly that people wanted affordable housing. I did find repeatedly that people wanted infill but they wanted to retain history. I did find repeatedly that people wanted historically preservation. As a part of a non -sequester I thought this was interesting I found that the Mountain Inn was considered a blight by three people. I didn't know that. I found that nothing in there no comments by any one person suggested that three or four story buildings would be appropriate at some sites. So it makes you sometimes wonder if you've got a charade. I just wanted to express my concern about whether this was being implemented the way the people commented. Going out on a blaze here, should be enough that it won't matter, but I just wanted to feel like I said what I think. I want to say first that this particular group of developers has done some wonderful things for the community of Fayetteville. Some really lovely developments. I'm very appreciative of them. Some of them were things that I could see no other way to develop them, and they've made them look excellent. I think this is a beautiful building too, but I don't think that it fits in this particular place. I think the historical character of Dickson Street which belongs to every single one of us would be altered forever. The sunlight would be changed, our views of Old Main would be different. It is not compatible. It would become any city, USA to me. It's been that way the way it looks now from about the beginning of time way before I was born and that was quite a ways back. I've talked to a lot of people about this. I talked to David Newburn from the Arkansas Supreme Court, I've talked with Mort Gittleman, a retired University of Arkansas professor. They both say that a number of instances from the Supreme Court decisions that upheld the right that a planning commission's job is to not only find ways to find ways that developers can develop but also to make sure that the citizens have rights, the people who exist there, the people that things be compatible. I just don't want to think about that being the strip of buildings, tall buildings, all the way up and down there. My suggestion and my hope is that the way that can be handled is that these buildings can be built with conditional uses. Instead Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 26 of putting a particular limit on buildings, some fit some places and some don't. If they could be handled one at a time or using a conditional use I think that might be the most appropriate way to do that. But to just think about a bunch of buildings down there is almost to me like thinking of Eureka Springs, well gosh we've got some good stuff, tourism, people coming down our quaint streets so let's knock them all down and put up 15 Hyatts. I just don't want to feel like our community is getting raped for the benefit of tall buildings which I'm not certain can be filled. I don't mean it as personally as it sounds. I do really believe that you've done good work in our community. I just don't think that this building fits in this location. It's just plain not compatible for the reasons I've stated. I will vote against it. It's not an attack on you. It's just a strong feeling I have about Fayetteville. I've lived here a long time. I feel like other people that I represent feel the same way, and like I said in my speech they don't have access to power. This is my way. It's like the minutes go to the people who have the most power on the council, and I want them to know that there are a few people who do have these concerns. Ostner: Thank you, Commissioner Allen. Are there any further comments? We have a motion and a second. Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: The motion to approve LSD 05-1809 carries with a vote of 7-2-0 Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 27 PPL 06-1964: Preliminary Plat (EMBRY ACRES, CRAIG HARPER, 61): Submitted by BLEW, BATES & ASSOCIATES for property located at SW CORNER ALBRIGHT AND GEORGE ANDERSON RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 19,99 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 57 single family lots. Ostner: Before we proceed to our next item, which was supposed to be R-PZD at Scottswood Place, there was an item on our agenda tonight entitled Embry Acres, it was a preliminary plat. As I understand it, several neighbors are here tonight to speak to this issue. We did not see your hands go up. We did not know you wanted to speak to it when we considered it. The awkward situation is that the developer, the applicant, has left. I would like to request or ask a question to the commissioners if you all would consider reconsidering that issue, however the awkward position is that if we wanted to change any conditions of approval or make any changes beyond public comment I would not feel secure doing that without the applicant they thought they were approved. Anyone have any questions? Allen: Mr. Chair? Ostner: Yes. Allen: I feel like if they are here we should at least let them speak. I think that I will move to reconsider preliminary plat 06-1964. Ostner: Okay. I have a motion to reconsider this issue. Vaught: Mr. Chair Ostner: Mr. Vaught Vaught: Do we have to reconsider just to hear their points, or can we take some public points and then make a decision as to what we want to do. Ostner: Well, I might ask that of Mr. Williams. I believe that we do need to reconsider it. Williams: What you could do is kind of a halfway measure, I think. If you can move to reconsider before you vote, you can listen to the audience and see whether or not you really want to reconsider. Ostner: Instead of formally opening the issue we could take public comment on this preliminary plat. How would that sound? Anyone opposed? Okay. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 28 Williams: Does anyone want to make a second? Cause you can't do it without a second. Ostner: That's right. Commissioner Allen. Allen: I'lI second. Ostner: Okay. I made the motion and Commissioner Allen seconded. Is there anyone opposed to this issue? Williams: Instead of doing that, why don't you open it up to public comment? Ostner: Okay. I'm going to call for public comment on this preliminary plat. Please state your name and share your comments. Pompass: Hello, my name is Sherry Pompass. I'm a registered nurse at Northwest Medical in Springdale. My family has lived for the past 43 years in Northwest Arkansas. My parents bought a plat of land that is on the north border of the Embry Acres subdivision that is proposed in 1962. They purchased the land. The Embry Acres subdivision and the properties being developed on the other site of it, I'm not sure of the name of that one, it has increased the runoff that flows across to my parents land and has also increased our garbage supply. My mother wrote a letter and I'll read it to you. My family and I have lived on the same property for the past 40 years and have seen many changes occur around us. For the betterment of our community, for the most part. I approach you at this time in response to a letter that I received inviting me to attend this meeting to voice any concerns that I have with the construction of the new housing development being constructed immediately south of my home. First I have concerns with the change in the pattern of runoff from the development as my property lies downhill from the proposed addition. And changes taking place at this time already increase the off flow and the runoff onto my property, increasing the erosion and flooding across my land. When my husband and I bought our property, there were ditches that ran the water to the feeder creek for Clear Creek, but it tended to pool in the roadway on the southeast side at times with heavy rainfall. We made the mistakes of letting the county change the flow many years ago by putting a tie under the road at that point to direct excess flow under the road instead of maintaining the ditch and possibly raising the road slightly, as they should have. This must be corrected before any development is built, as most arable land increases the amount of runoff. Secondly, I am concerned with the litter of waste materials from the construction sites. At present, I have pieces of plastic bags hanging in the treetops of my property from the work that continues in progress further south from the proposed addition. There is debris in my fence rode and across my yard. It Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 29 is not only an eyesore, but also an environmental hazard. Ladies and gentlemen, I could have brought you several 33 gallon trash bags full of trash from the developments that are undergoing right now from my parents yard, from their front yard, from their fence road. I could have gotten one just from the first 50 feet of fence of my parents property and brought it in. I could have brought all that in, but I did not want to make a stage show out of this. And thirdly, we're concerned about the traffic. As you know, increased trips for the delivery drivers increases their wage because they get paid by the number of loads they deliver to a site, so they are on our roads. There is no division in the road, there is no sidewalks, there is no easements for persons on the sides of the road, little county road. There are a lot of people who have children who ride their bicycles up and down the road. There is no law enforcement that has been out there because it's neither Springdale, nor Fayetteville. We're still a county road on the border of both cities. That is our concerns. We want to be good neighbors, we really do, we just want to make sure that the developers are good stewards of the land. We need a clean-up project. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. Is there any other public comment? I'll close the public comment section, and ask the commissioners if anyone feels compelled to formally revisit this issue. Or if they want to speak about it. Vaught: Mr. Chair I feel uncomfortable revisiting the issue with the developer not present. I feel like that would be unfair to him. This is something we've seen before. I see no dramatic change from the first time we had a plat quite similar to this and I still feel comfortable with my vote, and I don't wish to revisit the issues. I appreciate the concerns and I would hope that the staff and the code enforcement division would watch these areas and make sure regulations are being followed during construction to reduce the problems neighbors are having. I think it's one we can see so I don't know what needs to be done there. Allen: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes, Ma'am Allen: Was the developer here earlier before the floor of consent age was passed? Ostner: I would assume so, I couldn't tell you. Allen: I was wondering about the possibility of I don't know how to do it by Robert's rules of orders, but I thought maybe we could table that since there are concerned from the neighbors and maybe it could be revisited at the next planning commission meeting. Because normally if there are people speaking to an item then we don't pass along the consent age. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 30 Ostner: Yes, ma'am, except we would still need to vote to open it. It sounds like we might not have the majority. Pate: Mr. Chair, we can probably answer or at least address the three questions that were proposed regarding drainage, trash, and traffic. Casey: As far as the drainage is concerned, the patterns are not changing. The majority of the site is draining to the 18 inch pipe that crosses under Allbright, and they're continuing that pattern. We've also proposed a retention pond. It will restrict the amount of flow and be less than what is there now. That's what is proposed and if there are any improvements needed to the existing culvert then that would be required. Ostner: Thank you, and trash? Pate: As far as trash, that is part of our ordinances and I believe it's probably construction that is causing a lot of that. I will speak with our building safety inspectors and insure that everyone is utilizing the correct facilities they're supposed to be utilizing for onsite trash. That's something I can do tomorrow morning with our building safety inspector. As far as traffic, we are requiring sidewalks for pedestrian safety towards Anderson and Allbright so there will be sidewalks at least on the south side of that entire property, which is in excess of 1300 feet on Albright road and approximately 660 feet toward Anderson road to connect to existing sidewalks to the south. The street will be widened fourteen feet from the center line which is the same requirement that was approved in 2005 or 2004. Those improvements are consistent with everything else being developed in this area, so that should help with some of that traffic movement. I would mention also this is not a county road at this point. It is a city road. I believe the city line lies relatively close to the center line of the road so it is partially Springdale and partially Fayetteville, so that might contribute to some of those issues with speed. Anthes: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes Anthes: I admit that I need to withdraw my second to the motion to reconsider after hearing the concerns I realize that they are concerns that can be taken care of within our regulatory process and while this is not my favorite development, certainly I don't like the fact that the backs of the houses face towards Anderson, I think that it is in compliance and that whatever would not change my vote. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 31 Trumbo: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes Trumbo: I would like to point out that the applicant was saying that the pipe was 16 inches, is it 16? 18 -inch pipe was closed. Possibly we could have someone take a look at that as well to help with any drainage issues. Inaudible talking Ostner: Ma'am, we cannot hear you. If you would like to speak into the mic, we might talk to you for a little bit. Pampass: The pipe was in place and it runs into our property for drainage, excess drainage that wasn't carried by the ditch. The ditch has since been tilled in. There is no ditch on the south side of the road, so all of the water from the property is now yes flowing across to our property. This is because the ditch has been filled in. And we don't like that. Ostner: I guess we should ask Mr. Casey if the I'm wondering if that is in the Springdale city limits. Casey: Yes, that portion of the drainage area is in the area of Springdale city limits. However, I do believe the existing contours shown for the area in question and it appears that this pipe is at a low point in the road. There has to be a pipe there to get the water from the south side of the road to the north side. Regardless of whether there are ditches on the side of the road, it appears that it travels north across this property we're talking about tonight. The developer, the engineer, is proposing to continue the same drainage patterns that are there now. Ostner: I would encourage the neighbors to talk with planning more, discuss these things with engineering, these drawings, and these issues. It's available. I'm not sure that we can get to the minutia of your solutions tonight but I hope that we have answered a few of your questions. Clark: I have a new question. Ostner: Yes, ma'am Clark: On condition this went through a consent age, so does that mean on condition approval number one we are going to require the connection through lot 15? It says it is recommended. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 32 Pate: Yes, the connection that's shown on the plats you have a connection north of lot 15 to avoid a creation of a long straight stream which is on the plat that you approved. Clark: So on the conditions that are recommended we have found in facto in favor of? Ostner: That's correct. Williams: Mr. Chair, since the second has withdrawn her second now there is a motion to reconsider but there needs to be second before any further discussion really needs to be held. Ostner: We have reopened and heard from the public. Is there a second to formally open the issue? Seeing none, the issue will not be reconsidered. We will carry on with our agenda and I encourage the citizens to contact the staff in the future to get some answers. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 33 R-PZD 06-1922: Planned Zoning District (SCOTTSWOOD PLACE, 558): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at NE OLD FARMINGTON RD. AND ONE MILE RD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 5.06 acres. The request is for a Residential Planned Zoning District with 17 single family lots. Ostner: Our next item is Residential Plan Zoning District 06-1922 for Scottswood Place. If I could have the staff report, please. Anthes: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes Anthes: I move to table R-PZD 06-1922 at the applicant's request until the April 10, 2006 planning commission. Ostner: Thank you. Commissioner Anthes made a motion to table and Commissioner Clark seconded. Is there further discussion before we vote to table? Pate: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes Pate: We have notified the applicants that they will be required to notify adjoining property owners since this has been tabled several times, so a new notification should be sent out to that effect. Ostner: Thank you. Further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to table R-PZD 06-1922 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 34 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. Ostner: The next item is Administrative Item 06-1958 for Millsap Center Parking Lot. Could we have the staff report? Pate: The applicant has requested that this item be withdrawn. I believe there are several solutions that presented themselves and so we can hopefully permit this parking solution without any variance requests. Ostner: Terrific. Thank you. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 35 ADM 06-1956 (Downtown Master Plan Zoning District Map) Ostner: That means our next item is Item 7, Administrative Item 06-1956 for downtown master plan zoning district map. Graves: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes Graves: I'm going to recuse from this item. Ostner: Okay. If we could have the staff report, please. Conklin. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Tim Conklin, Planning and Development Management Director. Mr. Olson, long range planning, is going to pass out the map the planning commission has been working on after many sessions after each agenda session. There is an ordinance review committee that has been set up for April 11 following the agenda session. It is my understanding that Thursday you did have this on your agenda. You have talked quite a bit about the downtown master plan already this evening. This is the map that goes with the code. It includes the four districts of downtown, main street center, downtown general, and neighboring conservation. It also includes an entertainment overlay district. We'd like to make sure that the commission and the public is aware of the actual regulation that goes along with the entertainment district has not been brought forth so there's a boundary that does appear on this map that does not include the final regulation to be discussed at the planning commission or afforded to the ordinance review commission. It's my understanding and I just want to clarify that. We did have a very successful process with the downtown master plan. We've implemented many of the recommendations. This map once again goes along with the boundaries. It doesn't include the regulation that talks about building height, building placement on the lot, setbacks, and also the issuance. Just to clarify, this is a different type of code that we have discussed, but not more away from the use, the regulation of use to regulation of building form, building placement, building height. There will be opportunities this evening for the public to address the commission with regard to the boundaries. There will be opportunities to have additional discussion of the ordinance review commission and then the city council. The planning commission back in November made a commitment to try to bring this forward to try to set these standards in place because we are seeing a log of changes downtown. We are seeing buildings that we have not seen as tall being built in our downtown today and so once again the staff is very excited that this is coming forth and that this is just the beginning step of getting a new code, new standards adopted for our city. Thank you. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 36 Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Conklin At this point I'm going to call for public comment, if anyone would like to speak to the downtown master plan zoning map. Please step forward. Durham: Hi there. My name is Julie Durham. I reside at 230 West Meadow. I'm on the corner of Locust and Meadow downtown. I chose to invest in a house downtown back in 2002 because of all of the other things that are going on right now: the development, the master plan, and I wanted to be part of that. I am also chair of the Dickson Street neighborhood association, and that association runs I think technically from College to West from Dickson to Center. Most of the individuals that are active in this group actually live along the Locust Street area between Dickson and Center and on Meadow Street and a couple of other outliers. The concern that I have personally that a number of the neighbors have with the plan with the map as it has been drafted, is the amount of yellow that is on that map. That's a lot of 6 -story buildings built to the property line. I'm right in the middle of that. Dover Kohl originally mapped our area neighborhood conservation, which I could understand. To me, that's a neighborhood. I have a yard, I have a fence, I have two dogs, I have neighbors. So our concern is that the Main Street Center is going to invite a lot of concerns and problems for us, for those of us who have invested and want to live downtown move forward with the changes as they occur. One of my concerns is that, and unfortunately we have a, we like to call our poster child, who has a house on Locust that burned. She cannot rebuild because she is in a zone now that is not conforming for single-family residence. I have a concern that if my house burns I'm going to have to bring it up to a Main Street Center Zoning, which means that I'm going to have to extend my west property line on the west side of my house out to the property line, which would ruin the look of my house. Other neighbors have similar issues, so what we would like to see is for the commission to consider adding some more downtown general zoning in some of this yellow area and to encompass a lot of the single-family home structures that are in the very heart of that, which is Locust Street, Meadow Street, probably over to School or West Street. The other concern that we have is that if you look at the houses and the structures that are there now, granted there are some that probably need to be torn down, that there are many that should stay. They will not be conforming with the Main Street Center Zoning, which is two to six story buildings. There are a number of single story structures down there, so that is another concern that we have. Thank you. Ostner: Could you specifically talk about the blocks you're talking about. Are there certain areas? Durham: As far as? Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 37 Ostner: Preferring them to be zoned... Durham: Okay, if you look just south of Dickson, I know there is a little bit of the entertainment area just there off of Dickson. Both sides of Locust Street from just off Dickson to just shy of Center because there's a church on the corner of Center and what is that street? It's the Church of Christ there on the corner of Center Street and Locust, I think. So, from just south of Dickson Street to just off of Center Street both sides of Locust Street over to School or West probably abutting up to what has been defined as the entertainment district there along the south border. I think the area is probably east of just off of Locust Street. Church Street and those areas are higher structures and more business -type complexes. But this little area in the middle where there are a lot of homes that's the area that we're concerned with. Ostner: Okay, so I just want to repeat that. Locust basically from the edge of the entertainment zone which is about a block south of Dickson and westward let's just say to West Avenue. Durham: Yeah, butting up to the entertainment district there I think that the area off of Dickson is probably just a couple of blocks. It's not a block. There's a liquor store and... Ostner: I should have said a couple of blocks. Okay. Any questions for this citizen? Thank you. Durham: Thank you. Marinoni: Hi, my name is Paula Marinoni. I live at 617 West Lafayette Street. I would like to invite you to watch community access television. I have a show called Preservation with Paula. It's on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays at one o'clock and there is a show running now on the downtown rezoning from the perspective of someone who's family has been here for 100 years. I know this area very well. I have been at the podium speaking on most historic issues in the last 10 years. More so than anybody. From the perspective of somebody who is very concerned with what is getting ready to happen here. There's too many problems with this for me to go over at the podium. I intend to address this when it goes to city council and ask them to send it committee. I would like to be on the committee as well as some other people who have a variety of backgrounds of concern of what is getting ready to happen here, not just the people who have a financial stake in it. My main concern this evening is and I discussed this with city staff today, we have been following this issue in my neighborhood. I'm the chair of the West Lafayette Street Historic Neighborhoods Association. We are Arkansas Avenue on the Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 38 west, College Avenue on the east, Maple on the north, and Watson on the south. Our neighborhood had the first paved roads in Fayetteville with the Fayetteville improvement district number one in 1919. Our neighbors pooled their money and had the first paved roads in Fayetteville. This is an old residential neighborhood. We came out in force during the master plan process and spent a lot of time and energy working with the master planners to educate them on what our neighborhood is. Some of the concerns that we've had with the noise and the entertainment and the culture and how sometimes that culture turns something that might shock you at midnight. I invite all of you to better understand that and any staff and city council, anybody that might be listening, to help better understand that to go do a ride along with the police. It is quite an eye opener. I talked with city staff today because I've been following this, especially the entertainment district overlay. We've been fighting that, the Dickson Street Interest trying to move that up into our neighborhood for years. We've been battling the noise, we have finally come to a place of balance and a place of peace that we can live side by side. During the master plan, they [inaudible] put in here preserving Lafayette Street, our neighborhood, as a priority, and it says the residential and civic character of Lafayette Street is much different from Dickson Street or College Avenue. It should be treated as a special place, as a cohesive entity with an identity that is distinct from neighboring commercialized streets. It was put under immediate projects number 5 preserving Lafayette Street. It is above College Avenue, which was number 9. We were a priority in the master plan and preserving our neighborhood. It also went on to define another one of our concerns in the encroachment of the energy of Dickson Street up into our neighborhood. And it says on the topic of the entertainment district, it says it talks about the uses around this area, it says neighborhoods however are not usually included in the cultural and entertainment districts therefore the overlay district should not encroach on surrounding areas that are primarily occupied by single-family residences where neighbors will be inconvenienced by noise and other impacts. We have a twenty-five year history of how our neighborhood has been impacted going all the way to the state to get protection. We have finally come to a place of peace and we want to keep it there. It goes on to say to encourage its development in directions that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding residential neighborhoods, as the district coalesces it should grow primarily to the south. In the area along West Avenue and parallel to the railroad tracks and it cites this example that I have here. Here's where they drew a line and I was there and I was instrumental in drawing the line in the sand of Watson Street to keep the energy south of Watson Street and out of our neighborhood. Here it where you can see. Here's Lafayette Street way up here and here is Watson Street. So you see they brought it straight across Watson Street. So my question is I've been following this with the city and I have been asking I Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 39 read in the paper that the Downtown Partners came to one of your agenda setting sessions and was addressing the entertainment district and so I called numerous people and said what is this? I was told that this was being tabled because it was controversial. And it is controversial if it comes up in our neighborhood. I was told repeatedly when I asked that it was not coming up yet. Then I find in the paper Sunday only because the newspaper now I get the agenda setting information from the city and it just had what is on this agenda tonight, it does not say that this is a map defining the entertainment district. So I only found out about it as chairman of our neighborhood from the paper, called today and got that clarified. I was told that we need to get the neighbors here tonight. It's just not possible to rally people on that short of notice, but I am speaking for our neighborhood. We have addressed this numerous times, and you will see that Ostner: Just a minute. Could I interrupt you? Marinoni: Yes. Ostner: Are you asking that the entertainment sort of access be moved south towards Watson? Marinoni: I'm showing you that now, yes. As you see... Ostner: I just wanted to be clear. Marinoni: Yes, as you see here in the master plan it cut it off right there on Watson so how somewhere along the line did it get moved back up in yellow as part of a higher density energy is and the entertainment district moved up there. I was told by city staff today that it was because there was a bar up there and they didn't want to split parcels. I don't see that it is splitting the parcel, and even if it is, even if there is one bar that is left out, which if you remember, it's On the Rocks, and they came forward with their rooftop bar, you'll remember that was a big issue. And it resulted in the ordinance that we now have requiring a conditional use permit for outdoor music. Okay, so coming up into this neighborhood is no small issue. We drew the line on Watson Street and we have no problem with an entertainment district the rest of this laid out the way it is. So I'm asking you to move the yellow back down and to move the entertainment district back down. Ostner: Okay, so it's not just the entertainment district you want shifted, it's the yellow Main Street Center, also. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 40 Marinoni: You can, I intend to address that with the city council. There's a lot of this yellow that is at issue. Right now what I would like for you to do is move the entertainment district back down. Ostner: Okay. Marinoni: Thank you. Alexander: Fran Alexander again. Am I to understand that we are not addressing height right now because of the map.? Ostner: We are actually simply approving or considering which of the four zones that were created I believe four weeks ago and where they would fall. So the height issue has been forwarded by this body onto the council which has placed it on the ordinance review docket and this map gives those items a place to be applied. Alexander: I understand that. So it's sort of a chicken and an egg problem. Ostner: Yes, ma'am. Alexander: Because if you're going to discuss the height in the yellow district... Ostner: Feel free to discuss height. We're discussing where the yellow falls and what consists of yellow is part of our discussion. Alexander: It's difficult because if the 6 -story, three to six story, allowed in there. As I understand it, if you tear down something or change use when you build back in the yellow district you're going from three to six stories as what size building you are going to be putting there. Is that right? Ostner: I want to double check with staff. Casey: In the Main Street Center, the ordinance that you all have forwarded to city council has a minimum of three stories and maximum height of six stories or 84 feet whichever is less. Above four stories, there shall be a building step back on the building's principle facade of no less than fifteen feet. Alexander: Okay, so it's two stories, two to six. Okay. Once again, discussing what we did earlier on the nine story building on Dickson I feel as though this is the time that we start identifying what will drastically impact the area in this yellow that will impact our view of Old Main and our sense of the town that Ms. Harrison I believe addressed that earlier of what Fayetteville really means to us, and if like I said it's a chicken and an egg problem. I'm Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 41 not sure whether we should address the fact that it's colored yellow and we can go from 2 to 6 stories or we should wait until we've discussed the stories and then try to change the color where they are. So, anyway, this is I don't know if you folks will discuss that tonight as far as height in this type of area, but I believe we need a city-wide viewscape of that which we are not trying to cover up. Thanks. Ostner: Thank you. Reese: I'm Karen Reese and I'm just a citizen. I, too, am honestly concerned about height. We have a lot of beautiful structures downtown that I'm afraid will disappear when people are motivated to start stacking square feet on top of each other. So, are we married to yellow being six stories, or is that I'm not sure if that's a question for staff or Osmer: I can just tell you our part of the process is satisfied that the ball is now in the court of the council. They might be married to it, they might change it. Ordinance review is going to look at those definitions that define yellow, green, blue, etc... That's the recommendation is that in general what the council is considering, which we have forwarded. For tonight, it is already done. Reese: I've gone on record as being for more of downtown being yellow because of zoning. Because I would like to see the zoning open up I mean I don't have a problem with some of those cute bungalows becoming gift shops or spas or whatever, I really don't. But, I do have a problem with tearing down structures to build the type of structures that we saw earlier. I have a problem with that, for that being just all of downtown. So, I hope that maybe I mean I guess I'll say that and just leave it to you to think about how you can rearrange colors or whatever. I don't know if there is a way, because the way that I understand it, in downtown general all the uses would not be permitted that are permitted in yellow. Is that right? So, that's more restrictive. The blue is more restrictive than the yellow, is that right? Ostner: Correct. Reese: Okay. So that's my problem. I'm for more opening up the zoning, but I'm not for the height, but I don't know if you can do anything with that. Thank you. Ostner: I do just want to share if a bungalow if we see it downtown could be two stories or partially two stories it would meet the minimum, the way I read it because the setbacks are maximums unless they build two lines. Did we Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 42 phrase them all build two lines? I thought we wound up doing it. Maximum. Conklin: Is your question in regard to minimum or maximum setbacks? Ostner: Yes. Conklin- It varies as to zone, so Main Street Center what was forwarded to the Ordinance Review Committee did not have a front setback requirement. We talked about an internal side with zero and a rear part. It did not have actual build -to lines. But it does have in there buidable street frontages of 75 feet so there's two parts of the code. Excuse me, 75%. I just would like to remind the commission and the public that as we move throughout this process that you have seen this evening a lot of discussion with regard to zoning. Downtown code and the downtown map you're looking at does change zoning districts. The one block from Locust street south of Spring to Dickson to North is currently with those small homes zoned C-3. Same zoning that you looked at earlier this evening with regard to the Lofts. I just wanted to point out that there are some neighborhoods that are currently zoned commercial without any height limitations. This is trying to address height limitations within areas that currently do not have height limitations. I just wanted to point that out. It is also allowing more uses but also having some more form type requirements of where buildings are placed and how high they should be in our downtown. Ostner: Okay, thank you, Mr. Conklin. Young: Could I get a clarification as far as the yellow zone... Ostner: If you could introduce yourself first, please. Young: Cyrus Young. The setback, is it a building two to six stories high required to be up to the property line or could it be set back? Conklin: Your question, does the building have to be built up to the property line. A certain percentage of it is built up to the property line, as is currently drafted and forwarded to ordinance review. Young: So bungalows don't comply. Conklin: I guess I'll answer that question. Bungalows comply currently as single- family homes have issues also as talked about so as we move forward we should try to address these issues as to have to have a code that in my opinion reflects the historical development patterns. That is something that we will continue to discuss with the ordinance committee. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 43 Ostner: Okay, before we leave that. On your average street, we've been talking about Locust, if staff had to guess from memory how close the fronts of those houses would be to the right-of-way line. As we walk out of the building and where we walk down there or not, anything proposed. Is the right-of-ways at least 5, 8, 10, 15 feet away from the curb? Conklin- Our rights -of -ways vary significantly on different streets. I'm not sure how it is on Locust we did amend our master street plan because setbacks were measured from that. But my guess would be 50 foot right of way there would be 20-25 feet set back from the street right-of-way. Ostner: Okay, so, if we I'm looking at the drawing here and I'm seeing probably 20 feet between the houses and the well maybe 10 feet depending on the scale. It's not a far push for either the zoning change that the council is going to look at or a board of adjustment hearing to allow a building to set back a little bit from that right-of-way line. We're not talking about the curb, we're talking about the right-of-way line. I'm just trying to illustrate how I believe the buildings downtown are a lot closer to what the downtown master plan dictates than some are illustrating. That's my opinion. Any more public comment? There were others. Hintz: Hello, my name is Daniel Hintz. I'm the executive director of Fayetteville Downtown Partners. The downtown master plan discussion continues to provide a very necessary focus on our downtown community, which is at the center of history, culture, and innovation, not just for Fayetteville but for the whole region. As you can see from these discussions and previous discussions, there are some strong passions. There are multiple stake holders with as many ideas to make this dynamic part of our community stronger and a better place. All of these passions and all of these ideas have merit and many have been reflected in the plan from its initial conception of the downtown master plan and as its wound its way through multiple community feedback sessions and neighborhood meetings. These feedback components have found its way into the map and into the components have been passed into ordinance review. From Fayetteville Downtown Partners, we would like to commend the planning commission and staff, the neighborhood organizations and countless other individuals who have committed countless hours and hard work in addressing the issues that were raised in the document and the map. We hope that you do forward the map tonight onto the ordinance review and city council process with any and all amendments obviously that you may feel are important. Particularly, when we hear some of the concerns talked about height. I think to look at both the map and its corresponding codes are going to be an important part of this discussion as it moves forward. And we hope that the ordinance review committee and the city council will Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 44 continue to work so diligently as they started and provided unto the community. It's also our hope that all the downtown stakeholders will continue to discuss and debate the merits of this plan and its boundaries as it winds its way through the process and our organization is committed to support this process so our entire community can truly call this plan its own. We have a number of opportunities that need that folks need to come forward and continue these conversations. In order to do that I really think that this map does need to be forwarded on to the ordinance review so both components can be looked at together as a family. I think it will help facilitate this conversation. Thank you. Belden: Leslie Belden, again I live downtown. I want to reiterate what Daniel said that I hope you forward it to ordinance review. I hope you also take with the plan that the concerns of the residents about the increased density in the residential areas. I know that many residents are concerned that if they lost their hopes they couldn't build it back. As a planning commission, I hope that you'll also consider how the change in the density will affect these neighborhoods, not just the use. This is a form -based code, not necessarily a use -based code. We will lose so much of the green character and the small scale if there is as much yellow as there is on there. I know that Dover Kohl thought it should be green so it would stay residential, when in fact so many of these small scale buildings are not residences. In some way, I would hope that the ordinance review part of this would be able to find some kind of a compromise, not take away the ability to be commercial, but also not take away that walk ability that we have now with our trees and small scale bungalows and the setbacks we currently have. Right now we have a certain character that would be lost if it was built out to the density that the yellow proclaims. Overall, this is wonderful and we don't have those unlimited heights that we do right now. It allows for so much more than we currently have. It's such a step forward, but I hope that you've heard from some of the people here that there is still tweaking to be done so that we don't lose those great things that we currently have. Thank you. Jackson: William Jackson, I live at 230 West Meadow. One thing I would like to ask, how many of you walk this area? Walked it or drove it and had a good feel for it. One of the biggest concerns I have with the limit of two to six stories is that when you go to the southeast corner of Block and Meadow and look toward Old Main, that is the view I'd like to reserve in Fayetteville. I don't want a view that when you go from the southeast comer of the square and look down Block what do you see? That's my biggest concern that there is no condition it's all yellow and not some transition. We'd like to limit it to some setbacks and preserve the residential feel of the area. I admit most of the buildings there are law offices and stuff but there are houses. Most of the buildings you see are Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 45 houses. Most of the commercial buildings that you do see are single storied, they're not two stories. I just wanted to add that input. Thank you. Silkwood: Celia Scott-Silkwood, 221 North Locust. Mine is the house that burned down and I just feel compelled to put a reality check on you all and let you know that regardless of the way the zone is now or if it is yellow, the economic hardship on my to build my house back the way the zone is asking for which is not single-family, not two-family, not even three- family, but four -family, I can't do that. I had an architect look at my lawn which is 7600 square feet. For six units, to sell as condos and break even would be $1.1 million dollars. Gee. You know I can't do that, so I just want you all to know that when you're thinking about all these things and when you're putting the colors on the map and when you're assigning height and density and everything that these are real people that you are really really impacting. And I know that if somehow I get some kind of funding together and I build something on that lot it will be at least two stories, if not six, and then my neighbors across the street will no longer have that view of Old Main. And my beautiful maple trees will be gone. And then guess what it just dominoes all the way down the block. I know that's all you want to hear. We've all said the same things but we all do have really deep concerns about our neighborhood. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you, Ms. Silkwood. Brown: Good evening. Tom Brown, 339 North Gregg. There are just two points. The first one, in the Arkansas, Gregg, Maple area, move the boundary of the neighborhood conservation south to the alley between Arkansas and Gregg just north of Dickson. And the second item is I'd like to reiterate what was mentioned that the entertainment district boundary should be returned to the Watson Street. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. Is there any further public comment? I know this is going to ordinance review, but they are interested in what happens here tonight, too. Stilwell: I'm Evelyn Stillwell and I live at the corner of Lafayette and Arkansas Avenue. I want to reiterate what Tom Brown just said and what Paul has said that this is a unique historic neighborhood where families have lived for many many many years. To encroach upon it with an entertainment district and destroy the kind of atmosphere that we have would be wrong, so I agree with them that we should keep the entertainment district south of Watson Street. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. Any further public comment? Okay, I'll close the public comment section and bring the issue back to the commissioners. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 46 Vaught: Mr. Chair Osmer: Yes, Mr. Vaught Vaught: I have a question about the entertainment district. We've discussed holding that off this initial map and waiting until we have the code ready. Is that something we could still possibly do? Because I have trouble defining an area that we haven't defined what is in it. Ostner: I think we went into that at length after reviewing it heavily. Most of the discussion centered on "yes we could" however as it's been referred to these are both headed to ordinance review. We took a straw poll and most of us felt secure as to the general boundaries but you do have a good point. There is no definition to this entertainment district yet. Vaught: I don't know if we need to make a motion but I would like to forward it without that on there. I would like to...well the commission should further define what that use is because I know that there are cultural districts and entertainment districts that were talked about at some of the meetings that I hope would be pursued, so the exact boundary doesn't need to be set yet. So, do I need to make a motion? I'll make a motion that we pull the entertainment district section of the map and just look at the underlying zoning districts at this time until that district is further defined. Ostner: Okay, we have a motion to amend the map by removing the entertainment boundary. Is there a second? Anthes: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes, Commissioner Anthes Anthes: To continue on that line of thinking, I have been looking at the original Dover Kohl downtown map draft alongside what is proposed tonight. The entertainment overlay is exactly where it was proposed on the original map. It has not been moved. It is exactly where they proposed it. I don't particularly have a lot of problem with including the old Icehouse property which has been historically industrial commercial zoning and is currently an entertainment zoning and leaving it within that boundary. Obviously this whole conversation and discussion would have been easier to have two years ago when there wasn't the development pressure that there is today in downtown. It's harder now. And yet, for that very reason, I think it's imperative that we get this code and the map on the books now to ordinance review and on the books. The map has been through many versions. We've all made concessions as we've debated the items on all Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 47 sides. I personally have more concern about height than other commissioners do and certainly less than other commissioners do. I have more concern about the amount of yellow than some commissioners and maybe not as much as others. I think that what we've been trying to do is find a place where we can all generally accept the intent and I think we're there or very close and what I feel we cannot accept at this time is the perpetuation of the current zoning. For that reason, I hope and I'm prepared to forward this map tonight. I would be happy to move to forward administrative item 06-1956, the Downtown Master Plan Zoning District Map to city council for ordinance review. Clark: Second Ostner: Commissioner Anthes made a motion to forward the map as we currently have it and Commissioner Clark seconded the forwarding motion. I am ready to forward this. I tend to agree with some of the citizens that Locust is more appropriate as green neighborhood conservation and I understand Mr. Alexander and several others have approached us in the past and said look we own most of this land. We want it yellow, please just change it. And I thought about that a lot. What Dover Kohl did, they walked these streets with staff and I think in general their original drawing was adapting the colors to what exists today. It seems like a good idea. It's a sort of soft phase in to a new zoning which would call for Locust to be green and it would spread up to the mid -block between Church and Block. Then there is the other side of the issue. Mr. Alexander saying none of us want this. You know what, you can still get rezoned. My philosophy is let's adapt the master plan to what exists today with an eye towards the future but not a tremendous shift. The day after it passes, a bunch of applicants get together, they want to change to green or yellow, great, they can do it like any zoning change, the way I understand it. I don't have a big problem. I'm not going to vote against the motion. I would be in favor of changing Locust back to green. I'm not certain that entire area needs to be swamped with 6 -stories as some citizens have said. I guess I'm basically opening up the conversation if anyone wants to discuss. Anthes: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes, ma'am Anthes: I think that there are more subtleties in the map than that. If you look at the original Dover Kohl draft they have Lafayette neighborhood areas west of Gregg Street as Downtown General and we have recognized that area and said no, that we wanted to essentially make it a conservation. We did the opposite in the southern area based on people's discussions and everything else. Yes, I agree with you, there's fine tuning needed. We've Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 48 done some of it, I think there's more to come. I think that without going block by block again, once again, and having the debate again, because none of us is completely happy with any of it. We all have things we fought for and held on to. At this point, we've come to the best possible compromise position we could come to, and I just hope you'll see that. Vaught: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes Vaught: I would like to act on those concerns and Commissioner Anthes' concerns about the current state of the code in downtown and how important it is that this moves forward in a timely manner right now. With all the pressure, if this is the vision we have for downtown Fayetteville, it needs action and I think that it is important to remember that the zoning code and our laws are moving organisms. They're going to change, this will change before it gets through city council, more than likely. It could change the day after that. They could say if it stays yellow through the process people can get together and request it becomes green. Whatever the outcome, don't let that be the end of it. Keep working. In my opinion, we're trying to set a vision for the future, not necessarily what is there. If something happens, a house burns down, it's possible for that person to replace, but where do we see this area in twenty years? That's the perspective I took. Through the 2025 process a number of citizens stressed the need for density in the center of Fayetteville on College in the downtown area. The only way to really accomplish density is through height, so we've got to find a balance that's been we have citizens here saying they don't want the height. Other citizens at other meetings say they want the height. We just need to come together. Our focus is a great compromise. The first step in a process that will never end because even the passing of the map and this code isn't the end of the story. It's something to remember. This is something I'm excited about, and I'm excited about downtown Fayetteville and seeing what this can open up. Thank you. Ostner: On the issue of some of the discussion that happened a while back at a working meeting was the fact that if we limit height downtown yet we have basically in general no height restrictions for the rest of Fayetteville, that is always counter-productive. When actually, we want development downtown, and want to encourage it. However, we're limiting height here and very few other zones. It was suggested by another commissioner that we should also limit height city-wide. We should make reasonable height limitations in all zones that would dovetail with the height provisions we're saying for the downtown master plan. I would like to strongly encourage the ordinance review committee to take that under consideration. If the developer wants to put in a tall building and can't Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 49 quite get it here, what if he just moves a block to the north and finds a permissive zoning on College, on the corner of College and Maple, I'm not sure about that zoning, but it's possible it has no height limitations. I think that part of this needs to be compromised. It's not really something we addressed. The C-2 height limitations. Rezonings happen and we rezoned the area of Joyce Street for 15 stories so I think it could easily happen and I think it would be quite discouraging for us to craft something so nice, I believe. That's my request to the council as we keep considering this. Inaudible speaking Osmer: Commissioner Myres has asked for a vote. Is anyone opposed to having a vote right now? I'm going to call for a vote. Roll Call: The motion to forward ADM 06-1956 carries with a vote of 7-1-1. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 50 VAC 06-1989: Vacation (WEDINGTON PLACE, 401): Submitted by Development Consultants, Inc. for property located north of Wedington Drive, west of Steamboat Drive. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.16 acres. The request is to vacate an access easement on the subject property. Fulcher: This is for a 50 -foot access easement located in lot 3R of the Wedington Place addition, just north of Wedington Drive and Steamboat Drive. Look on page 728, it's probably the best illustration of that access easement. The purpose of the access easement, it was platted in 1996 with the final plat of Wedington Place. Again the purpose of the easement was to provide a single point of access for lot 2 and lot 3A. Lot 2 was currently developed by the Bank of Fayetteville. The large scale development was reviewed in 1999. There was ultimately a problem with how the bank was set up with the drive-thrus and creating an awkward situation for motorists to get into the bank and to access the drive-thru. So during that proposal they did allow a separate one for the Bank of Fayetteville approximately 50 feet south, a 50 -foot access easement. Since then, the lot that contains this access easement has not yet been developed so at this time they were requested to vacate this easement, which staff is in support of. We will have to send out some comments from residents in the area that have been using this lot to access the new Harp's grocery store to the west. I went out to the site; you actually see where cars have entered the access easement and continued through the lot to get to the Harp's. It makes sense. They don't want to have to go out to Wedington to go two blocks over so they're just going through this. The problem with this is that the access easement is only 144 feet long so it actually didn't give you access all the way to these lots that contains the grocery store. When we review proposed projects for this lot and the lot to the north access will be provided, legal access, paved access, so residents and the general public will have a way to access the developments to the west without having to go off of Wedington. If you have any questions, please ask. Ostner: Thank you. Anyone from the public who would like to speak, please step forward. Ramsey: I'm (inaudible) Ramsey and I'm a resident of Wedington Place Senior Apartments and this little strip of road here would be of great help to us. I have written a letter and I have 64 signatures from residents that live there and I guess I could have gotten more from the community if I had gone. This is a dangerous road to get out on. We've been going through around the bank, which I'm sure the bank doesn't love us for, to get on this other little piece of road that is paved on the other side. I don't trust them about that, I'm sorry, I won't trust them about making accesses. I lived Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 51 somewhere where that was supposed to be done. Next thing I knew, it closed up. It would be a lot nicer for us if you would just leave this open. I'll read you what I've written here. We the undersigned are writing in reference to the posted notice regarding Wedington Place Addition VAC 06-1989. The request is to vacate an access easement on the subject property. Wedington Place Senior Apartment Conclave consisting of 72 apartments joins the property in question. We respectfully petition to deny this request and not to vacate this access easement. The traffic is heavy on Wedington drive with no stoplight for easy and safe entry. The partial road in place and the bank parking lot is often used to sharp at Harp's market which is a vital commodity. This road would be utilized by vehicle and pedestrians alike. We feel the benefit to these seniors is by far of more value. Thank you in advance for your consideration. It would also be a great place for us to walk. I've tried walking on Wedington and I feel like I'm going to be blown away, so I've quit that. So, really, it would open up a lot of things for us. I would really appreciate it if you would consider not closing this road. Thank you very much. Ostner: Is there any further public comment I'll close the public comment section and bring it back to the applicant. If you would like to make a presentation at this time please do so. Young: My name is Alvin J. Young with Development Consultants. I'm representing Mr. Morgan on this. This access easement is a 50 foot by 144 foot easement that adjoins lot 2. Lot 2 is the Bank of Fayetteville. As was stated by Mr. Fulcher earlier at the time that this was platted they had planned on this being a point of access for the bank lot and the adjoining property, the larger lot 3A. When the bank property was developed, it was not feasible for them to use this and they petitioned to have it moved south. This is kind of a remnant that was left over. Across the entire development all of the lots have common use agreements. Within these common use agreements are the use of parking and access, entrance and egress from one retail development to the other. Which means that the entire site any portion of the site that is not currently developed doesn't have buildings on there is open for those plats and those people to use. Any clients of Harp's would still be able to cross the property to get to the Harp's development when the retail development occurs on there. Those who have asked that there be more simply addressed during the LSD process. The commercial development process. The 50 foot access easement is sort of redundant in that even though there is already access guaranteed across the entire site, this specifies a certain location for that access. If the new cut coming in for the bank the proximity of it is actually dangerous and it's not feasible to have (inaudible) two developments side by side. It would be better to have the clear-cut removed which would again be addressed at the LSD process. The other item is that in this 50 Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 52 foot by 144 foot common access easement, all current utility easements are going to remain in place. There is no negative impact on the public or adjoining owners or utilities in lieu of this easement. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I will bring the issue to the planning commission for discussion. Anthes: Mr. Chair Ostner: Commissioner Anthes Ramsey: I heard the man but I couldn't understand what he was saying. Would he tell me why they want to leave it open? I don't want to go through all the traffic to go someplace. I mean I'd rather go around a road. I don't want to go through businesses to get where I'm going. It seemed to me like, I heard you but I didn't understand what you were saying. Ostner: Well, I'll explain it to you, ma'am. That actually is part of what he was explaining that this access easement when it goes away it will in a way be replaced because the businesses have agreements to let traffic through the way you all have been traveling. You will have to traverse other business' parking lots. So that's one of his defenses to this vacation. Ramsey- We have people who have cars that they walk over. I don't really see that being a good thing for them. Not everyone there is able to drive. And I don't see that a good situation for them. I think that puts them in jeopardy the more places they have to go. That's the way it seems to me. Thank you. Young: One point of clarification, this may help, we're petitioning only to remove the 50 foot common access easement we are not petitioning to remove all access from the site. All common access that is currently for the entire site will remain, which would mean that all clients of Harp's would be able to continue to cross the site when the site is development. The removal of the 50 foot common access would not negate the crossing of the property. Ostner: So, we're going to discuss this issue at this point. Commissioners. Anthes: Mr. Chair Ostner: Commissioner Anthes Anthes: It is my understanding, and from our drawings, that the current access easement doesn't even actually go halfway into the property so the people that are using the current road are actually traversing private property. So Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 53 we're not actually going to close something that is by -right currently, because it is currently private property. Young: Only 144 feet into this site, correct. Anthes: The common use agreement, we don't have it in front of us, but staff could you just tell us, this common use agreement would provide for the connectivity completely through lot 3R to the Harp's grocery area from Steamboat Drive as you understand it? Pate: I believe he's referring to some agreements that are made between lots when cleared development actually created this subdivision. It's actually located on the final plat. It is very consistent with our requirements for cross access when it is possible, so I would see every possibility that would allow that and not necessarily prohibitive here. Stubouts from Harp's were also provided from the west, so I think that will be seen. Anthes: And I'm assuming that since this is a vacation request and not a conditional use that there is not something that we could put as a condition of approval that would insure that cross access? Pate: Actually vacations can have conditions of approval, so cross access could be one of those requirements. If I heard the applicant correctly, dictating exactly where that goes is difficult for them at this point in time and where it is currently would be require variances for curb code distance separation. I believe one potential condition of approval is that cross access should be provided from Steamboat Drive to the property to the west at the time development, if the applicant is agreeable to that. That's a condition that we could place on the property. Anthes: I would like to see that because of the issues of connectivity and provide this network from one business to another. I can see where the access easement currently is very close to the road at Steamboat Drive. Perhaps in the development process we could find something along that frontage that is far away from the intersection that would be safer and more easily used. Would the applicant be amenable to having that assurance in the conditions of approval. Young: Yes, as you see before you there, the current plat is lot 3RA and 3RB. It is one owner that owns both of them and would be amenable to providing the assurance that the development of portions of 3RA and 3RB that cross access would be provided from Steamboat to the Harp's property. Anthes: Thank you. Staff, the issue of pedestrians, can you just talk about the sidewalk network in this area? Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 54 Pate: To be honest, I'm not quite sure what network there is. I know there were sidewalks along Wedington that are required to be reconstructed with new development. The Bank of Fayetteville did that. The properties along that area are required to do that as well. The property to the north I believe recently was approved for large scale development for a restaurant and will be permitting that at some point in the future. So they will have sidewalks along Wedington. Interior to the project, Tahoe Place and Steamboat Drive will require sidewalks as well, so that will allow for those pedestrian connections along the rights-of-way. To be honest, furthermore, I'm not sure how the sidewalk network is there if that is developed. Off the top of my head I'm not sure. Anthes: Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and move for approval of Vacation 06- 1989 for Wedington Place Addition with the addition that there is a condition of approval that states that at the time of development lots 3RA and 3RB will be connected as an access through the development to Steamboat Drive and would ask that the applicant keep in mind that we would need to facilitate both pedestrian and vehicular traffic on that route. Clark: I second. Ostner: Motion to vacate moved by Commissioner Anthes and seconded by Commissioner Clark. Any more discussion? Allen: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes, ma'am Allen: There are quite a number of people who signed this petition and I don't think we can discount that, so I wanted to see if, I know you can't speak for all of the people on the petition, but I wondered if you felt like the motion helped to rectify the situation. Ramsey: Do you know what I'm talking about? I really can't see doing something else being of value to us. If you go on Wedington, there's a sidewalk there. If you go off on Steamboat to McDonald's there's a sidewalk there. That doesn't take us where we need to go in the other direction. There's a partial sidewalk part of the way and then it's just mud and dirt. You know, I just really hate to see you do this. I would really beg you not to do this. We're senior adults and we don't ask for a whole lot, but I think that this is a consideration. I don't know what they're going to put there that is more valuable than a big houseful of old people. Really. I really don't. Just really really think about it. Put yourself, put your grandmother there and think. Okay? Thank you. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 55 Ostner: I just want to clarify that the route that you all are taking now is not what we're vacating. The route you're taking they can build a building on. The vacation we're talking about is next to it and it only goes halfway down the road. If we did not do this vacation and they built their building, you couldn't cross. Unless they agreed to Ms. Anthes' conditions. So, I think there's a lot of confusion going on. The dirt track is not in this vacation. I completely respect the needs and the desires to cross this piece of property and I agree with the conditions that's been placed on it which will give you all, I believe, that needed connection, which will enable you all to use it in the future, instead of just doing it today. I think there is some confusion going on. Clark: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes, Commissioner Clark: For the record, Ms. Ramsey, it seems like development is going to happen there. We are all in favor of keeping you all able to walk safely to Harp's and drive safely to Harp's. What we're going to do is put in place a condition that says when it develops to give you a full-scale paved and sidewalked entrance into that area, so it's going to be better. It may take a while to get there but it's going to happen. Meanwhile, I'm not seeing your daily traversing affected immediately. We are supporting, we are supportive of you. I will do anything to not have to drive on Wedington myself. If any large scale development that is going to happen on that property will come right back through us and you will be given notice and I expect you to show up saying give us our access. And we will be reminded and remind them that the developers already agreed to build you an access. Hopefully that'll, we talk in lots of terms and just it's hard sometimes to understand, but we're for you. Ostner: So, we have a motion to forward and a second. Is there any further discussion? Will you cal the rolls? Roll Call: The motion to approve VAC 06-1989 carries 8-0-0. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 56 CUP 06-1985: Conditional Use Permit (FIRE STATION #5, 255): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS for property located at SW CORNER OF CROSSOVER AND OLD WIRE RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.46 acres. The request is for a fire station in the RSF-4 zoning district. Ostner: If we could have the staff report presentation, please. Fulcher: If I may, I'll present the conditional use and the large scale information for the property here. The subject property contains approximately 1.46 acres. It's located at the SW Corner of Crossover Road, which is 265 and Old Wire Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family and is currently an undeveloped city park. The zoning is what is tied to a conditional use request for the public protection facility and an RSF-4 zoning district and must be approved for the large scale to be approved and currently with it. The City of Fayetteville is proposing to construct a new fire station on the southwest corner of Crossover Rd. (HWY 265) and Old Wire Rd. The station is proposed to contain approximately 5,500 sq. ft. of total area. Access is from Old Wire Rd. and Crossover Rd. Right-of- way dedication is sufficient for Old Wire Rd. (Minor Arterial -45' from centerline) and Crossover Rd. (Principal Arterial -55' from centerline). This was discussed at the Subdivision committee and I believe the best illustration of this can be found on page 14 of 20 which the engineer put together. There is some significant difficulties with developing anything on this site. Along the western boundary is a large floodplain that they're having to work around which pushes the building to the east to Crossover Road. On Crossover Road is a high pressure gas main and a pump station to the north side of Old Wire Road. On page 16 of 20, that is a proposed design by the Arkansas Highway Transportation Department for the proposed highway expansion. They're proposing to widen Crossover Road for the majority on the east side of the road because of the high pressure gas mains, sewer mains, sewer station on the east side or on the west side of Crossover road. What 14 of 20 illustrates in the shaded area is what the 55 feet dedication will be and the darkened -in area is where the 55 feet will not be dedicated in its entirety because it would create a non- conforming structure as they have it proposed to be located. Dedication of the right-of-way went to the street committee and was forwarded on to the city council. The approval voted 3-0 for lesser dedication of right-of-way for this project and it will be going to the April 4th city council for review. With that, staff is recommending approval of conditional use and of the large scale development with 17 conditions of approval for the large scale, two conditions of approval for the conditional use. A couple of those items: condition 1 is commercial design standards. We do have a board up there. The original submittal was taken from the design of the previous fire stations. The fire stations were sited differently on the site; there being two fronts here shows the unarticulated side of the building which they Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 57 have changed those elevations. To be compliant at this time, staff is in favor of those. Item 2, right of way dedication: the lesser dedication of right-of-way must be approved by the city council. Condition number three says the large scale development shall be subject to approval of a Conditional Use request for a Public Protection and Utility Facility (Use Unit 3) by the Planning Commission. If you have any further questions, please ask. Ostner: Just for the record, Jesse, those are the new elevations? Inaudible Ostner: At this point I will call for public comment Alexander: Fran Alexander, again. I just want you to know that I'm getting tired of listening to me. I just want to say that one thing that really disturbs me about this is that on the agenda there is no mention that this is Ruth Park. I think that we should identify that this has been under the Parks Department. It has been treated as a wildflower area. It has proved difficult for the parks to have an area like this because people tend to believe that it is weeds growing there when wildflowers are passed their prime. The park has had difficulty having that understood because people always wanted this mowed. I know that without parking and being right there on the highway it is not served well as a park. However, in this town we need to preserve green space. I know that this fire station will be built there. I'm not objecting at all to a fire station and I know that this is city property and it will go there. I just think that we need to say out loud and have it recorded in our city's consciousness that this is green space that is going to be lost. The parks department needs to pay more attention to green space as green space and not always try to see it as a developed park. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. Any more public comment on this conditional use request? So now I will close the public comment section and ask for a formal presentation from the applicant if you would like to do so. Morgan: Good evening, Mike Morgan with McClelland Consulting Engineering. As Mr. Fulcher pointed out, this is a city project. It is a 5500 sq. ft. stand alone 2 -store fire station. It represents a much needed amenity to this area. We have of course a lot of people coming into the area. It is meant to replace the existing fire station number five which I understand this will replace two buildings, one that is next to Highland Park there'll be a fire station in the southern part of the town and this project here which will serve basically from Joyce Blvd. to Township. This represents a strategic location, I certainly understand Ms. Alexander's concerns about green space and we are continuing work with trails to insure that this is city land Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 58 and we take the opportunity to extend the trail. The trail will be on site and connect to a park that is currently not connected with the City of Fayetteville. I have members of Wittenburg Delony & Davidson architects, as well as members of the Fayetteville Fire Department here. I'm with the engineering company that did the plans so you may have questions. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I will bring the issue back to the planning commission for discussion. We have tandem items we need to vote on them independently. We can talk about them. Clark: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes Clark: I have a question for staff. What is Parks' response to losing the park? Do they have one? Pate: This actually was discussed at the city council before we brought any type of action for a conditional use or large scale development. The city council passed a resolution to utilize a portion of this for a fire station and of course the other portion remaining will be utilized potentially as a trail head and also a trail connection along this corridor. So it is identified in our trails master plan to help facilitate that connection. Clark: The connection isn't dependant on the fire station? Pate: Correct Clark: Well, I'm just concerned because it is a very unique space in Fayetteville. I agree with Ms. Alexander's comments. I thought it needed to be mowed, too, until I read the sign. It's wildflowers and they're really pretty. Do you want to talk about large scale development now, or do you want to wait? Ostner: We do need to vote independently, but we generally talk about them at the same time. Clark: Well, also, I'd like to here the subdivision's comments about what things in the elevations have changed because I thought we had a policy in Fayetteville to build fire stations that were more residential -like so that when they became outmoded they could be converted. I mean I remember this in my long-term history with Fayetteville and the fire station on Highland certainly meets that criteria, except for the tall garage. But this one doesn't. This one looks kind of different. Pate: A fire station has actually been built similar to this. It has been changed to Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 59 fit the size of the lot. The current fire station that is close to it is on Hollywood which is off of 6th street. Alderman: There are two others that have been built very similar to it. One is behind the car dealership on Millsap and the other one is behind the McDonald's off of 6th street. They're both exactly the same. It is trying to be residential. It has sloped roofs on it. Obviously the base where the trucks would be have to be can't have sloped roofs. It would be very very tall if we tried to put sloped roofs on it at the minimum height required to get trucks in there. We would be increasing the height substantially if we put sloped roofs on that area. We put sloped roofs everywhere else. We've made it all masonry, there's no other lesser materials on there. That's something I think is very important. On the side that faces Crossover we've added additional elements that are on the other two fire stations to try to bring that facade into the proper compliance so that we get more detail on that side. Vaught: Mr. Chair, I was on subdivision for this, as was Alan and I don't remember who all else. They brought some enhanced design elements to subdivision for the side facing Crossover and we actually had them go back and add a few more so it does look quite a bit different on that side than what you would see on the side of most fire stations because it's on a corner like it is and has to be oriented the way it is with that side facing a state highway. With the space limitations they have there, they've already got a little deck you'll see on the next item that kind of goes out into a right-of-way a little bit. It's kind of site restrictive a little bit, too. The east elevation was changed quite a bit from what you would see on the prototype you were referring to. Anthes: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes, ma'am. Anthes: What concerns me about this site and the development in general is that we need a fire station and I'm all for it in this general location. I feel like the city needs to be an example to itself and all of the developers coming through here and I think that there are some things here that we would be questioning of any developer and I think that we must question ourselves even more strongly. One thing that I look at and I get nervous about is this page of our packet which shows this property entirely within the floodplain. We know that these corps maps were made sometime before we made a lot of the development that we have made, so I can only think that this condition has worsened since this map was generated and not gotten any better. I also think that we've had that area designated as a park and with the sign that says it is a preserve, I think it actually uses the word preserve, I think says to the citizens of Fayetteville that we are preserving Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 60 this land for this use. To change it is serious business and as far as commercial design standards go, if you want to move into the development item, the east elevation that faces 265. The rest of the building is quite handsome, is not something I feel that we would pass in the design overlay district. There are other places where we are looking at commercial design standards. 265 is getting to be even more important road for our community and I feel we should do a better job with our fire station and our building projects that face onto that major street. Allen: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes, Commissioner Allen Allen: I would echo what Commissioner Anthes said. I don't know the answer to it, but I certainly think it's important that we the city follow the same guidelines as everyone else. But we need a fire station so I don't' know the answer to the dilemma. Alderman: We've added windows. We've increased the main window in the middle. We've added detail to the facade to articulate the facade. It is the side of where the trucks are parked, so therefore the height is a minimum requirement there. There's not much we could do with that. We have to have that height to be able to park the trucks on the inside. I think that the city has tried hard to not say that we have a fire station that has a certain design. That's all we can do. We've come back and made those changes. We attempted to add a lot of detail to that side. All the window sizes. We added a big picture window to that side. The only thing that is going to be a little bit different on this fire station is on the north and south side we're talking about using the full -blast type of windows into the base. Which if you'll go in and look at the other stations which has big blank door with one little line through it. That's a significant thing. A lot of money to be paid to do that, too, so we could get more visibility into there, so we could get more three dimensionalism there in that piece of the building so that it would try to meet those design issues and looks issues that you're interested in for this fire station. Vaught: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes Vaught: My recollection from subdivision also is that a large amount of vegetation is being preserved. We had only one neighbor show up for subdivision. I lived on Oak Bailey for about four years which isn't far down the road from this, and I can say that I never saw anyone using it as a park. It's right across from Old Wire from some kind of a pump station that has a pretty decent smell to it most of the time. There just aren't people that are Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 61 strolling around out there smelling the wildflowers. There was one neighbor that showed. His concern was not the preserve. You would presume that the neighbors would be the ones using this as a park if it was being used as a park. This neighbor was more concerned about buffering sounds from fire trucks that are departing on emergencies than anything else and the vegetative buffer that was being left in place satisfied him that he's not here tonight because of that. He was satisfied with what was stated at subdivision. That's not to say that this isn't a park or that preserving parks aren't important but I'm not sure that the folks that are living out there are actually using it or viewing it in that way and I think that the city has had a number of complaints about the smell from the pump station right across the street. The smell of wildflowers doesn't perfume. Morgan: I will add that we're keeping a lot of the vegetation that as you said is in the right-of-way the current vegetation. So you won't be seeing it without pretty good tree screen on that side, too. Anthes: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes, ma'am, Commissioner Anthes Anthes: Question for the applicant. Richard, can you tell me how much building you're going to be bringing into this area? What are you doing to get the building above the floodplain? Alderman: We are going to raise it. Obviously it won't be much higher than what the current east side is right now, but the land slopes to the west and we will be bringing that side up on the west side so that we will basically be taking a plain that is about the street -level and running it straight across, whereas now it goes down. Anywhere from the highest point the fill would be 6-8 feet, something in that range. That is only in the middle of the site. It does get better as it goes north, the site comes back up as you come to Old Wire. Anthes: Have you been in contact with the Corps about the amount of floodplain and flooding in the area? Do you think that it roughly corresponds to this map? Alderman: We've discussed that. We've gone through the requirements. We will go through all requirements that we need to, that is one of the conditions of approval to get all the city's approval for the construction in that zone. Anthes: Question of staff. We've talked about the fact that there will be a trail head provided, yet I've noticed in the conditions of approval, number nine, it says the proposed trail head parking and associated curb cut is not to be Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 62 Pate: constructed and should be removed from revised plans. Can you and maybe you covered that one, but... There are a couple of different potential locations for that trail -head and so nailing it down now with the construction of this is not the point. The trail would come from the intersection of Old Wire and Crossover across the driveway that hits south of there and would be along the west side of the creek along the west side of the fire station and then follow the property line to the south. That trail is a potential future location. The Parks Dept. don't intend to build it until we have a trail to connect somewhere. There is also the potential to utilize the property that the station is currently on if that station goes away at some point. I believe it is a larger parcel and may be a better location for that trail -head, so that also is an alternative. The conditions on there are there because none of the drawings show it except for the last one in your sheet. Morgan: The reason we left it on that one sheet is because we have to move trees to that point and wanted to make sure we were giving some idea of the trees in place if that ever became a trail -head so we wouldn't put them in the wrong spot, so that is why we left them on the landscape plan. Anthes: So, to clarify, the note is really to take it off the landscape plan but we're not saying we're moving the attempt to have a trail or a trail -head in that area. Morgan: That's correct. Anthes: Okay. Ostner: This is a conditional use request for alteration of the zoning allowances. We have a certain degree of freedom. Lack: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes, sir, Mr. Lack. Lack: It is my understanding that the city council has decided to appropriate this land for a fire station, is that correct? Osmer: Maybe staff could answer that. Pate: I believe that was the resolution in discussion with the Parks Department. I believe they presented along with city administration a proposal to the city council whether it should be left as a park or utilized as a fire station property. It was decided by resolution, by city council, to appropriate it as you mentioned as a potential location of a fire station. That was what was Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 63 presented to the planning commission. Clark: Did they know about the floodplain and all of that stuff? All of the considerations? Pate: I'm sure they did. It is along the creek there as well, so. Lack: The idea of the floodplain doesn't concern me as if we were talking about building in the floodway that would be of some more concern, but even then. You can with mitigation. There is a permit that allows you to with mitigation. The floodplain is open territory and I can remember the time when I only saw low-income housing built in floodplain areas, but now I see high-end retail and high-end housing. Land costs have changed within the city and within the Northwest Arkansas area. What was not feasible at one time is now feasible. So I think that with those considerations I don't find any reason to not be in favor of the conditional use to allow the fire station there and will move to approve conditional use 06-1985. Ostner: I have a motion to approve conditional use 06-1985 by Mr. Lack, there's a second by Mr. Vaught. Is there any further discussion? Graves: The motion didn't state that the conditions of approval were to be included, I assume they were. Lack: Yes, with the attached motions of approval. Ostner: Further discussion? Okay, will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion for approval of CUP 06-1985 carries with a vote of 6-2-0. Ostner: For the record, one of our commissioners had a family matter to attend to, so Mr. Trumbo has left. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 64 LSC 06-1962 Large Scale Development (FIRE STATION #5, 255): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS for property located at SW CORNER OF CROSSOVER AND OLD WIRE RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.46 acres. The request is for a 5,500 square feet fire station. Ostner: We have heard the staff report, is there any further public comment on this issue? I'll move on if the applicant has a further presentation you would like to make. Okay, we'll move on to further questions. Commissioners, any comments, motions? Vaught: Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to pass 06-1962. I feel like it's a fire station of a certain strength. I feel like they've done a good job articulating and making an attractive station. I pass one of the other stations on a daily basis for my job and it's a nice looking building and I don't think, especially with the extra measures they've taken, that this will detract from that area, especially with the additions. I like the glass doors so you don't see that blank wall, especially on the articulation on the Crossover side. I'm finding my motion finds in favor of commercial design standards and right-of-way dedication. On condition two and we've already found for conditional use. Graves: I'll second it. Ostner: Motion by Commissioner Vaught and seconded by Commissioner Graves. Is there any more discussion. Allen: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes, ma'am Allen: I've put on the fire chief hat many times about fire safety and response time and I spy the real fire chief so this will be my last time to ever ask, since I keep wanting him to come to a meeting, I wondered if I could ask you a questions, sir. How are you doing? Johnson: Fine, and yourself? Allen: Fine. Johnson: I'm just trying my best to hide behind someone. Allen: I saw you even though you weren't wearing your hat. Often we've had in our packets throughout the years such varying ranges of response times for fires and I wondered if you could tell us what you believe to be an appropriate fire response time. Obviously it would be parked in front of Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 65 the building as it catches on fire. Johnson: A fire station on every block... Allen: Right, but for future notice for other commissioners because there's just been such a wide gambit. Johnson: Yes, our fire station counts as a deployment plan on three we try to respond to 95% of our calls within six minutes, and that's our overall goal. By making the proposed fire station a reality and the development of Happy Hollow and Huntsville Road, we believe we're on track for doing that provided the city stays the same size. As the city grows, we will have to expand to meet the needs. Allen: I was thinking more in terms of minutes because we'll have anywhere from 4-9 minutes to it appears to me the building would be burned by the time the fire department arrived and a lot of times we get a large scale development coming through we'll have the report from the fire department to tell how long it would take to respond. That's what I'm talking about. What would you consider appropriate among of time? Johnson: The sooner the better, but the other thing you're not taking into account on this large scale development is that our system is built into the building as well. Take into account this fire station that we are building, it is going to have a fully sprinkled system in that which is a quick reaction to extinguish any type of fire, so as I say our goal is a six minute response to the 90% of the calls. Allen: Well, it was nice to meet you, sir. Johnson f: It's nice to meet you, but I would love to say that I would like to have a minute or less response time but I don't think any jurisdiction in the country could afford that to place fire stations on every block. Allen: I think not. I will be remitting my hat and handing it back to you after tonight but I do think you'll be visiting with the council of neighborhoods soon, so I'll see you another time. Johnson: Yes. I'm sure I'll talk with you then. Ostner: I do have a question for you. If your goal is 90% of the responses under six minutes how are your figures standing today? Do you think you're meeting that goal? Johnson: I'm putting together a presentation for that and we'll be closer to it when these two stations come online, when we relocate station 5 and we bring Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 66 online the new fire station, number three, we'll be closer to that. As I say, we're continuing to crunch numbers and we will have that for you. There are five things we look at, and response time is just one of them, but we look to the maximum build out as well to the area and other key examples. Another area would be the percentage of fire hydrants in that district as well. So it's not all based on the time. Vaught: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes Vaught: I want to refer back to the annexation of the task force committee, which I attended a few meetings on. I wasn't part of it but in that discussion, there was an argument saying we shouldn't annex anything over six minutes away from a fire station is counter-productive because they need to see where we're annexing in order to develop the next station and where development goes. So I think as we look at annexation, or as the commission looks at annexation in the future, I think there's a balance between the current response time and working with the fire department and the city to plan the next areas. As we look at the 2025 plan, as looking at a comprehensive annexation, the fire department can plan that growth. Right now on our piecemeal system it is difficult when we have a 9 minute response time somewhere down 16 East, yet there would be five when the new stations come online. I think that's something we have to remember as a commission, and push for that annexation plan. Osmer: Any more questions? Thank you, Chief Johnson. Did we have a motion, yes and a second. Any further discussion before we vote? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: The motion to approve LSD 06-1962 carries with a vote of 6-2-0. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 67 CUP 06-1990: Conditional Use Permit (CREEL, 561): Submitted by Jennifer Nicole Creel for property located at 1136 S. DUNCAN AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF - 24, MULTI FAMILY — 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.31 acres. The request is for Professional Office, specifically a doctor's office for midwifery services. (Use Unit 25) in an RMF -24 Zoning District. Ostner: If we could start with the staff report, please. Pate: This property is currently zoned RMF -24, residential multi -family, 24 units/acre and contains approximately 3/10 of an acre. This is a request in that zoning district, which is located at 1136 S. Duncan Avenue for a professional office, which is a conditional use. Specifically it is for midwifery service which is use unit 25 on this lot. Earlier this year, or in 2005, June 2005, a lot split was approved on this property and a structure was constructed. This is a request to utilize this structure for this service. Staff is in favor of converting this structure into this medical type of use, specifically for that utilization. The structure is approximately 1200 square feet. The conditions of approval: staff is finding in favor of those findings that were required to make for conditional use which include compatibility, availability of public services to service that structure, the fact that a conditional use is allowed within that zoning district, as well. Staff is recommending approval of this conditional use request with nine conditions of approval listed as a relatively standard straight from the findings. Planning commission determination of this use is appropriate. We also recommend a standard cement driveway, concrete driveway approach be constructed, not necessarily into the property but per our city codes with the sidewalk going through that. That is condition number two. Item three discusses parking, no more than four parking spaces will be allowed on the property. Staff is also recommending a landscape screen of the parking area from the street which likely would be tall grasses or evergreen shrubs. With that, staff is recommending approval. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I will call for any public comment on this conditional use request. Seeing none, I will close the public comment section and let the applicant make the presentation, should she wish. Creel: Hello, I'm Jennifer Creel. I live at 1116 S. Duncan right next door to 1136. I'm applying for midwifery office. It would just be prenatal services, no births would happen in the building. We do all home births, we're home - birthing midwives. I've looked over the recommendations and they're completely reasonable and easy to comply with. I do have a request concerning the driveway, if it would be at all possible to instead of poured cement have some kind of porous surface: grass pavers, stone, something where the ground water can be absorbed right there. That is just a request, and I'll take any questions. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 68 Ostner: Okay, we'll get right back with you. Let's talk about it. at this point, I will bring the issue to the planning commission for discussion. Allen: Mr. Chair Ostner: Commissioner Allen Allen: I think this looks like a real straight forward conditional use with a lot that would be even including some water support and the grass would be even nicer to me than the condition that we have which was condition number two. So changing that to the grass pavers I will move for approval for conditional use number 06-1990. Williams: On number two were you saying or grass pavers? Allen: Yes. Pate: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes, Mr. Pate Pate: There are standard engineering specifications that a sidewalk has to go through that driveway. I don't believe that a concrete sidewalk for the public benefit, because this will be within the public right-of-way. That's the challenge. Planting the grass paver would be fine on the property; within the right-of-way that's the concern because that's something the city will maintain once it's constructed. That's the specification out of street and sidewalk chapters, it actually spells out very specifically four inches compacted base material, six inch steel or ten gauge reinforcing steel and four inch poured cement concrete mixture. That's a right-of-way requirement, but interior of the property I think it's perfectly fine to change those materials. Clark: Mr. Chair Ostner: Commissioner Clark Clark: So what you're suggesting is that we amend this to require the sidewalk be built to specs but the applicant can use some type of non -porous surface outside of the right-of-way? Pate: That's correct. Ostner: How about if we phrase it staff recommends applicant install poured cement driveway approach up to the right-of-way line and a porous grass paver the rest of the twelve feet. However the staff and applicant might be Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 69 able to agree. Would that be okay? If you could come forward to the microphone. I think the issue is from the right-of-way line down to the street because the city basically has to maintain it. Creel: And the right of way is twelve feet? No? Okay, there's my confusion. Ostner: No, from the street edge to the right-of-way is an unknown distance right now. I have the drawing, but... It's probably not twelve feet. Creel: Okay, so this does not include with the lot split and the building of this structure we had to have that sidewalk paved, this is not the same thing? Ostner: It's related. Creel: It's related? Ostner: Here it is. The existing right-of-way is a good bit away. Pate: The structure is twenty-five feet from the right-of-way. Ostner: I'm wondering how far the street is from the right-of-way. Pate: I would say probably six to eight. Ostner: Right, and staff is saying that that first six to eight feet would have to be all concrete. After that, you could do some sort of porous material. Creel: And that's a city ordinance and that can't be moved in any way, that's just something that is. Okay. Ostner: I think that's how it's gone because the city is responsible for maintaining that and they don't really have the ability to be doing custom pavings, the way I understand it. Myres: And the already paved sidewalk runs through it, so where the two come together it's much more compatible to have a concrete where there's already concrete sidewalk, but you don't have to go the whole sidewalk. Vaught: The initial twelve feet from the right-of-way into the property would have to be either concrete or a grass paved type. Clark: I would be willing to bet you that staff could go out there and show you what has to be concrete and exactly what doesn't. That's just a guess. Anthes; Mr. Chair Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 70 Ostner: Yes Anthes: Could I ask the motioner to accept a friendly amendment on condition number nine that no pole lights be allowed? Ostner: Sure. Anthes: No pole lighting. I don't believe that you plan to put in any anyway, but... Ostner: We were just talking about standards. I guess we've already talked about it enough. Any further comment for this conditional use? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion for approval of CUP 06-1990 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 71 RZN 06-1986: Rezoning (ARORA, 562): Submitted by DINESH ARORA for property located at 727 S. SCHOOL AVENUE. the property is zoned C-2, THROOUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, and contains approximately 0.41 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL. Ostner: If we could have the staff report, please. Fulcher: This rezoning request for property located at 727 S. School is approximately .4 acres with access to School Avenue. There is an existing restaurant on the property. This line of properties there are a mix of commercial and industrial uses and residential uses on the east side of School Street. The applicants are proposing to rezone the property from I- 1 to C-2. Currently it is a split -zone property. The western boundary is I-1, with the Eastern half with the fronts on School is C-2. They are requesting to have the property rezoned as C-2. Obviously with the different types of uses allowed, setbacks, zoning requirements when you have a split -zone property it can be very problematic with any type of development with a change in use, with anything you wanted to do on the property. So the applicants just want to have one property in entirely one zoning district. The Fayetteville fire department will service with station number one with a response time of approximately two minutes. The rezoning will not substantially alter the population density or undesirably increase public services. Staff is recommending approval of the rezoning request in order to allow for a uniform use of the property. With the general plan 2025 or 2020 calls it out as mixed use with this area it is a mixture of industrial, commercial, and residential properties and this instance is within those guidelines. Ostner: Thank you. At this point, I will call for any public comment on this rezoning request 06-1986 for Arora. Seeing none, I will close the public comment, well...I'11 call on the applicant. Please introduce yourself. Arora: My name is Dinesh Arora. As Jesse Fulcher mentioned, this is 727 S. School property and right now has one side zoned as C-2 and one side zoned as I-1. The plan on putting up a neighborhood shopping district doesn't come under the I rezone, so they're trying to put all into one zone. That way we have a neighborhood shopping store in the I zone and want it reclassified as C-2. So we are requesting the commission to grant that change. Thank you. Ostner. Thank you. I'll bring the issue to the commissioners. Anthes: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes, Commissioner Anthes Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 72 Anthes: I move that we forward rezoning 06-1986 to the city council with the recommendation for approval. Myres: I'll second. Ostner: Commissioner Anthes made a motion to forward and Commissioner Myres seconded. Any further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: The motion to forward RZN 06-1986 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 73 LSD 06-1939: Large Scale Development (BELLAFONT II, 175): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located NORTH OF JOYCE BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF BELLAFONT GARDENS. The property is zoned C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 25.30 acres. The request is for a mixed use development with 99 residential units containing 160 bedrooms and approximately 352,770 square feet of retail, restaurants, and offices. Ostner: Could we have the staff report, please. Garner: This property contains approximately 26 acres. It is located on the north side of Joyce Blvd. and west of Vantage Drive. It is zoned C-3, central commercial. It was rezoned from R -O and C-2 to C-3 in January of this year with the bill of assurance, which is attached. The site is adjacent to the Post Office on Joyce Blvd. and Lindsey Tower Office Building is immediately west of this site. They're proposing a 26 -acre mixed use buildings with restaurants, retail, office space, and condominium towers to hold the maximum of 99 residential units and approximately 295,000 sq. ft. and a total of 353,000 sq. ft. of non-residential space. We have the building breakdown on table two there on the report listing the square footages of the different structures and number of stories of buildings. Access to this site will be provided directly off of Vantage Drive and Stern Street. I'm sure access would be provided to Joyce Blvd. through public drive through phase I of Bellafont, which has already been approved. Applicants propose three improvements based on a traffic study conducted for this project. The traffic study indicated that 12,097 daily vehicle trips would be generated by the proposal, which is almost double the existing traffic on Joyce Blvd. The proposed improvements are depicted on the exhibit which is included in your packets. Staff recommends the following street improvements, and I will summarize these, and these are also conditions of approval or recommended conditions. At Joyce Blvd. and Vantage, at the intersection , staff recommends that the applicant cede the remainder of the cost for traffic signal and widen Joyce Blvd. to a turning lanes. Staff also recommends that at the project's entrance onto Joyce Blvd. the applicant pay 50% of the cost for a traffic signal. It is also west of the project entrance at twelve feet on the north side, left turn lanes into the project site. Joyce Blvd. east of the Lindsay Office tower complex going down to the site on Joyce Blvd. has a center turn lane and at Stearns Street and Joyce Blvd. intersection, again we're recommending widening Steams Street twelve feet on the north side and a westbound right turn lane onto Joyce. On Vantage Drive along the project frontage widen six feet additional on each side of the road, either six feet by lane and stripe or a center turn lane with 6 foot sidewalk on both sides of the street. We're also recommending extending the sidewalk south to connect to the Joyce Blvd. trail which would eventually connect to the Mud Creek trail system. Stearns Street we're recommending from the western property line to Vantage Drive six foot sidewalks on both sides of the street. We're also Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 74 recommending that the applicant construct Stearns Street as a 28 -foot street section extending east from Vantage Drive to the eastern property boundary to tie into existing streets to utilize the existing right-of-way and money that has been deposited with the previous development. In addition, this project is in the Mud Creek bridge assessment area and the engineering division has calculated an amount that would be required based on traffic numbers. We did receive public comment at subdivision committee from a property owner in the Brookhall subdivision with questions and concerns about connecting Stearns street to their subdivision. It should be noted that we also received a letter from the Bellafont Gardens PUD indicating objections to the street connection. The current applicant is also the property owner of the Bellafont Gardens PUD. Staff is recommending approval of this large scale development with conditions. Condition number one is planning commission with determination of commercial design standards. Staff is recommending in favor of the building elevations finding that the buildings are well articulated and compatibile throughout the development. Due to the large scale nature of this development, we have added conditions of approval that we're recommending just to be sure that at the time of permitting with staff and the applicant that if there is a disagreement about the building facade that the issue shall be referred to a subdivision committee or planning commission for a final decision. We've added condition number two which is that all parking structures visible from the public right-of- way shall utilize materials and colors compatible with the architecture of the overall structure. The elevations in your packets do depict some parking structures. We just wanted to make sure that condition was in there. Condition number three is determination of street improvements that I've already covered. I wanted to call your attention to condition number four. Staff does find that due to large amount of improvements that are recommended that the Steams Street connection and the Mud Creek Bridge Assessment we're recommending an either/or on both of those. We don't find that both of those are proportional to the impacts caused by this development. We are recommending in order of priority that they connect the Stearns Street connection first. That is where the order of priority would be finding that it was clearly tied to this right-of-way when the adjacent development to the north was platted. Fees have already been deposited for this connection. We also have the option in there as well that the fees will be paid to the Mud Creek Bridge Assessment. We're recommending that if you find the street connection not be provided that they pay into that assessment. Again, condition number six is reiterating that due to the large and complex nature of this project that a detailed review of all aspects of this site and landscape plans shall take place prior to issuance of building permits. We have reviewed the plans we have and find they meet ordinance requirements but that's just to make sure that in the large scale nature of this some of the details aren't to the level we would normally see in a large scale development. Those are the highlights Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 75 Ostner: Washburn: Ostner: Thompson: I wanted to cover. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. At this point I will call for any public comment. Please step forward, give us your name, and share your comment. I'm Christopher Washburn. I live at 1715 East Stearns. This property is adjacent to both Bellafont Gardens and Bellafont Phase II. I speak on behalf of my mother Marian Washburn who owns the property. We opposed Stearns Street running through. We believe the neighborhood as it is now is a quiet little neighborhood and we feel that connecting Stearns would ruin that. I have a number of concerns should Stearns Street go through. We're kind of a unique location our property. In order to get to Stearns past our house you have to kind of dogleg around our property. I've gotten assurances from H2 that there will not be any dramatic twists or turns in Stearns Street and/or our property won't be turned into a corner lot as a result of this property going through. Yet I'm not totally convinced that this doglegging around our lot won't create some problems and hazards. I'm particularly worried about speeding on this street. I know that at some point homeowners years ago had circulated a petition that was probably the biggest issue they had with Stearsn going through. I was just wondering is there going to be any design elements in this street that will address speeding such as speed bumps or something like that? My mom is in her mid seventies and is getting around slower. I don't want her getting creamed backing out of our driveway. This is something that would be a shortcut through our neighborhood. The second issue I have is privacy. We started getting some estimates last week for six-foot high privacy fences. We realized that we're getting this fence specifically because of this proposed connection. I'm dreading headlights in our kitchen windows at all hours. Again, I've been assured by the fellows at H2 that this would not be the case, but nevertheless I have some concerns. Regardless, we will be sacrificing considerable privacy for the sake of this expansion. I don't know if there's any chance that the City of Fayetteville would be willing to split the cost of this privacy fence with us but if there is a chance we would appreciate it. In closing, I just want to say that I don't although I see the benefits of finishing Stearns I think that doing so will impact this neighborhood adversely and change the personality of it for the worse. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any further public comment? I'll close the public comment section and allow the applicant to make a presentation. Good evening. My name is Jeremy Thompson of H2 Engineering. We're representing Bellafont. Also tonight we have some representatives from the architectural firm for the firm and the landscape architect of the project. They will be available to answer any questions you have regarding Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 76 architecture and landscaping. As far as the conditions of approval go, we are in agreement with almost everything except for just a few items we would like to discuss as far as how the conditions are worded. The first one is item number three which addresses the street improvements through the project and along Joyce. We are in agreement with making all of those improvements. The only comment with that has to do with the wording and the second sentence which says that staff recommends the following street improvements be paid for in full and constructed by the developer. That portion be paid for in full is what we would like to have removed. It is our intent to speak with city council about a possible cost share with some of these improvements and we just want to make sure that that option is available to us. If this is approved by planning commission tonight with this wording in here it could prevent us from getting that possible cost share from the city and still having approval of the project. We understand in the past there have been some issues with misunderstanding on developers being responsible for construction of the improvements that are not the developers full responsible with the city partially responsible. We want to make the statement that we understand the developer is responsible for these improvements. We just want to make sure that we have the option of going to city council and discussing possible cost sharing. So that is the only issue there if we could remove that last portion of that sentence. The other item we would like to address is item number four which discusses either the extension of Stearns Street or the payment of the Bridge Assessment fees. We would offer the Stearns Street connection and the only thing we would like to take away from this one is the final sentence which states this recommendation is based on the developer paying the full cost of and constructing all improvements listed in condition number three. This goes back to the first our first issue with item number three which was possible cost share with the city. As this is worded right now, if we were to go back and get a cost share with the city for those improvements, this wording in item number four would allow the commission to come back and say that you didn't pay for all the improvements in number three so now you're liable for the extension of Stearns Street as well as the Bridge Assessment fee. We just want to make sure that we are allowed the possibility of cost sharing and aren't penalized if we do get that. That's the all we have on that. Also, Mr. Washburn whose concerns about headlights being in his home and that sort of thing, we would be willing to make any screening improvements necessary to prevent that as well as taking into account his concerns into the design of that. That is all I have right now. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. I'll move the issue to the commission for discussion. Vaught: Mr. Chair Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 77 Ostner: Yes, Commissioner Vaught Vaught: I'd like to see if this works with staff and the city attorney on that. I suggest that leaving payment for full by the developer and just add in unless cost share is approved by city council. The easiest way to do that. Williams: Well there and also at the end of four B. Pate: The end of four B is simply staff commentary, and I would appreciate if that would remain the same, simply because our recommendation is based on these improvements being paid in full by the developer. That is the only reason we're recommending either/or on condition number four. Staff is not supporting cost share in the development at this time. Williams: That is not an official part of the condition at this time is it? Pate: Correct. Hennelly: Hello, I'm Tom Hennelly with 112 Engineering. I guess really the only concern we would have with that is that there are many other options, not just cost sharing with the city. There are assessment districts type thing that could be utilized to help offset some of the cost for this construction. Just because those were implemented shouldn't penalize the developer for having to take on some additional improvements just because an alternate method of payment was used to fund those improvements. Vaught: If we just put, unless approved otherwise by the city council that leaves it kind of... That way if they approve the cost share district that would be covered. If they did anything different than this improvement it would be covered. Williams: I don't know if the city council is actually going to be put in a situation to approve anything but a cost share, though. If you do a business improvement district or something like that, it's done pretty much independent of the city council. So I would still leave it unless city council decides to cost share any of these projects. If in fact you do want to do something else totally different you can always come back here and say we'd like this condition changed because we're financing this another way. Unless you have some sort of improvement district in mind, since you own a lot of property here it would almost be your own improvement district, and that means that you're going to be paying for it. Hennelly: Right, there has been some discussion with the adjacent owners, Proctor & Gamble and Liberty Bank, and some of the undeveloped property around there to try and accomplish this. I guess it just seems like it's an unusual situation that this condition being made subject to this developer absorbing Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 78 all this cost. If there was another way for him to finance all these improvements it doesn't seem like he should be penalized for that. Williams: Well normally these determinations for street improvements are always almost all paid by the developer. So this is really a more standard way of doing it. It's just that we're being more careful to make sure that the developer is going to pay, and I think it's probably appropriate to give you an opportunity to go to the city council and see if the city council wants to cost share with you I think beyond that you need to probably come back here to get these conditions changed if you actually work out a road improvement district that you would do there. You could certainly come back here for an amendment to these conditions of approval. I don't know, Jeremy, if that would be something you could change administratively without it coming back to the planning condition Pate: It would need to be an administrative item before the planning commission. We wouldn't have to process another project by any means but we would need to bring something back to the planning commission. Hennelly: I'm a little confused at to the method of payment. If the developer assumes responsibility for funding all the improvements that have been agreed to why I guess I don't understand why it should be a concern of the planning commission as to how those funds were made available. Pate: Technically, it's not really a concern that how fifteen other people could be a part of an improvement district and pay for that. Ultimately this condition assures the planning commission that you as an applicant representative for this developer is paying for those improvements, and you're not going to put half of them in and say well we expected the city or some other entity to pay for the other half. Hennelly: And that's exactly why we made the statement that we made. We understand that we're 100% responsible for these improvements to be done and all the improvements that are recommended in the conditions of approval be constructed, otherwise the approval is not valid. How that is funded, to me, doesn't seem like it should be part of the condition of approval. We do understand that if all of these improvements are not completed that the approval is not valid. Williams: Under Subsection B the city is kind of going on saying that you only have to pay 50% of that. Evidently the city is going to pick up 50% of that traffic light. Hennelly: No, I believe that is being funded by Proctor & Gamble. That's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. That's an improvement that's being agreed to that is being funded by another entity, or a portion of it is. But Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 79 we understand that we need to put that money toward that traffic signal and all the rest of the improvements to Joyce Street and all the ones to Vantage, and everything else that was named will be constructed. I just don't want to lock us in, I guess is what I'm saying, I don't want to get locked into... Ostner: Mr. Vaught wanted to speak a moment ago. Vaught: I guess with that language we don't care who pays for it as long as the developer does it. Even with this language, if a business improvement district is set up and is an agreement among private parties and they donate to it and that pays for the improvements I don't think we care. I think that's still an option because if no one does that then it falls on you, and you're left responsible. Hennelly: We understand that. Vaught: I think that if that is an agreement between private parties then that is something that I don't think this condition rules out if I'm understanding the city attorney right. It wouldn't be an official city district. We do have improvement districts that are official like the bridge assessment district. It wouldn't be one of those. It's just, you guys are responsible ultimately, is all I'm saying. Hennelly: Does that also affect condition number four, which really our concern was that if you don't pay for it yourselves 100% that they could come back and assess the bridge as well. If you decided to take either/or the Stearns extension or bridge assessment. Vaught: I don't think that is commentary by staff and I don't think as long as either is done and the city pays nothing for them, then they are fine with the either/or. Pate: If the street is built at the end of the day there's no other assessment is what this condition reads. Graves: Mr. Chair Ostner: Commissioner Graves Graves: Would there be any other problem, and I don't mean to confuse everything and get tied up with this too long, but just saying that staff recommends that the cost of and the construction of the following street improvements will be the responsibility of the developer unless cost shared? Inaudible Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 80 Graves: And if the commentary concerns on the same thing is done it could say this recommendation is based on the developer being responsible for the costs of and construction of all improvements being listed in condition number 3. If that makes everybody feel comfortable. Would staff be comfortable with that? Pate: I believe so. Graves: Would city attorney be comfortable with that? Williams: That's fine. I want to make sure I understand, though, on this $183,000 bridge assessment district. Is that going to be paid if they go ahead and build all of these other things or is that going to be waived if they go ahead and pay the costs? Ostner: It's either A or B and they're requesting to build Stearns Street instead of the $183,000 bridge assessment. Williams: So if Steams Street is built through then they won't have to pay the $183,000 bridge assessment? Pate: Correct, staff will recommend that the planning commission make the determination on which one of those is more appropriate for this development. We are recommending option A. Ostner: Those two projects are roughly the same cost. Staff determined that one or the other would be a fair rational nexus, I believe. Inaudible Hennelly: That's exactly what we were looking for. Clark: Mr. Chair Ostner: Commissioner Clark Clark: This question is of staff. Have we ever approved a large scale development to this extent with this many buildings without seeing elevations and approving the commercial design standards on the buildings? Pate: I don't believe we've ever seen a large scale development of this size, to be honest, with this many buildings, no, that's why we've included two specific conditions stating that at the time of building permits that we would review and insure that what is shown is constructed. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 81 Clark: I've seen all the pictures, but I haven't seen each picture for each individual building, and that's kind of what I'm getting at. Not that I don't trust you with my whole heart, but it's a lot of buildings and I'm a little troubled by that. I know we did the itty bitty building and you told us that great big stuff was coming in after. Boy was that an understatement. Hennelly: We did, and you said that you reviewed the pictures that were submitted and they covered roughly 75% of the buildings that are shown in plan view and I believe that's rather than submitting I believe there's one building on there that might be 750 square feet. Rather than submitting four elevations and a packet that thick of every single facade of every single building the bulk of the project was submitted for your review and then the individual smaller ones will be required to match those same design standards. Clark: Pate: The fact of the matter is that if we did not have one individual developer that we would see each building come through separately as a large scale development into itself. Having one developer gives you a lot of continuity, with connectivity issues, which I applaud. This is just a lot of buildings. I can't even see the material board, so I feel left out. I just...thank you, people on this end always get left out. It was staff's intent with the conditions of approval that we anticipated concerns because every single building every single elevation we would be here much later to review each of those. Clark: If you're on the clock, what's the difference? Pate: If what we did was include a condition of approval we obviously know the overall theme of development, the materials, the colors of those development. We did have specific concern about parking structures, that's always a concern, especially when viewable from the right-of-way. So, what we did was include a condition of approval that states just like staff reviews many more commercial design standards and buildings than planning commission sees on a daily basis with building permits. At the time of building permit, if we have a disagreement, if the applicant has done something we do not feel meets the intent of this project or commercial design standards it would be forwarded either to subdivision or planning commission to make that determination. That's our recommendation as a condition of approval for this large scale development. Hennelly: And if we were to subdivide the property prior to all these buildings that are shown in the large scale being built or building permits applied for, we'd have to bring that back to large scale development, anyway so you'd Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 82 Clark: have that opportunity to review. Like I said, I understand the concept of bringing it all through as one large scale development, you've saved yourself a fortune just in application fees. If nobody else is uncomfortable with this, Three commissioners express that they are uncomfortable. Clark: The drawings we've seen and the renditions we've seen are absolutely gorgeous. I think that opposed to the structure on Dickson Street, I don't have a problem with height compatibility or anything on here. I just have a problem with it not going through our normal process. Ostner: I was on that subdivision committee, and it clearly states that subdivision found in favor of this condition. I did not understand it to be the key statement if at the time permitting staff and the applicant disagree the issue shall be referred to subdivision or planning commission. I glanced at it, and I didn't see the "or." I thought they would come to subdivision. I just don't think something of this importance should be left to staff. No offense. We were put here to be the citizen reps on the commercial design standards and I think this body needs to make the call, at the very least subdivision committee needs to make the call. Vaught: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes, Commissioner Vaught Vaught: I guess I'm just a little...are these not elevations? Hennelly: Those are elevations Vaught: Of the buildings. So the concern is...which buildings are not depicted? Anthes: You don't see all of them, they're very small. Vaught: I'm comfortable with if we do see the different elevations and different angles on the building it might not be in the same package, but I definitely feel comfortable with what we have. Having enough information, I think it's a very nice development. I commend the applicant for their investment of a parking garage, honestly. A lot of people would just come in and pave the site. I think that's a very key part of this, that they're building parking decks from what I can see on this, which I assume is every side of the structure. Are there different facades I'm not seeing that aren't included in our package that look differently or do they all look pretty. I mean they're square buildings, I would imagine that the four sides and the tower look the same as what we see. On the other commercial buildings, the retail Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 83 buildings I would assume is the concern, is that correct? Anthes: Mr. Chair Osmer: Yes, ma'am. Anthes: If I might respond, what I'm looking at is what we require of anybody that comes through -whether it's one little drive thru restaurant or one athletic club or a major development. Just because this applicant has the wherewithal to develop all of these buildings at the same time, why should they be held to a lesser standard of documentation than the fellow who has the drive-thru restaurant where we scrutinize the facades? We require full architectural elevations with labels on each side with all the materials labeled and all of the material boards labeled. We look at every little side and we say is that square or box is there enough articulation. I'm sorry but something that is small on a drawing if I have trees in front of it, it gives you an impression of what it's going to be like, it is not the same kind of review that we've given every other project in town. I just don't think it's fair. Vaught: Then why is it here? Anthes: What do you mean? Vaught: Why did subdivision forward it? Anthes: I don't know. Vaught: Well staff thought to come to us with it Ostner: It's up to us. Vaught: I know. The people that are on subdivision that saw this, I would like to know. Lack: Mr. Chair Osmer: Yes, Mr. Lack Lack: I think that with the understanding of what staff had recommended from subdivision and the different views that we do have, and the fact that everything in the development looks the same, we don't have a wide variety of articulations of different views of different looks between the buildings: some are taller, some are shorter, but they all have the same group they all have the same materials. With those items, I was comfortable with staff recommendation that if anything when it comes Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 84 back for a building permit, if anything is not consistent with that, that they would bring that back to us. So that's to answer your question, that was this commissioner's idea at subdivision committee and why it could come forward. I felt comfortable with staff making that judgment. I probably would not have asked staff to make that judgment, but in that they had become comfortable with that and offered that I think it's fine. Vaught: Mr. Chair, to follow up on that, a question for staff: what is required by code on elevations? Pate: By code, it's just to show an elevation that you can see from a right-of- way. Vaught: And do we see all elevations from right-of-ways with what we have? Pate: I believe so. Obviously they're not as detailed as some other buildings that we see because they are a smaller scale and are showing residential structures, which we don't require at all. But all of the retail, the garages, they're generally indicated as far as materials. The material sample board is here, which again is something that the commission requested as part of this review. It is not required by ordinance. We felt comfortable recommending approval of the overall large scale development subject to our review of each and every structure, each and every elevation at the time of building permit. Vaught: So I feel comfortable about that. I don't know about you guys, but it meets our code. I would only say we don't normally see projects of this scale, but I feel comfortable that staff will take what is on these and if something is different if we have a big blank wall facing a primary road way, they're not going to approve it. Our staff does an excellent job of that, so I'm comfortable with it. I understand the concerns, it's different than anything that we've seen before. But the fact that it meets our requirements is what I was curious about. Ostner: The staff report is a recommendation about requirements and we're here to decide whether it meets our requirements and it does not meet our requirements until we prove it. Vaught: Right, and I'm seeing that I can make that determination from these drawings and from what we have. Hennelly: As I've said, we've depicted approximately 75-80 percent of the buildings that are shown on the site plan. What we would like to offer up is any building that you do not have an elevation for right now, when a building permit is going to be applied for prior to a building permit being applied for, we'd like to be able to bring those elevations back to at least Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 85 subdivision committee prior to permits being applied for on those. That would give you the opportunity to review them. But the buildings that you do have elevations for gain approval on those tonight. Graves: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes, sir Graves: Just to follow up on what Commissioner Lack said, my reasoning for forwarding it were the same. I've felt comfortable with it strictly because of the size of it and that in itself makes it an unusual situation. It is not something that happens very often. You know, I understand that we normally have more detail, but we normally don't have multiple buildings to deal with. You could spend several planning commission meetings just going through the elevations if that was what we were going to require on this particular project. It's just a different situation than what you normally have and I guess we could decide that we don't want them to come through this big, but I don't know that we have any requirements along those lines, either on the scale of how large a project somebody can bring through. So I was and am comfortable with both subdivision and here in allowing us to have a good concept of what these are going to look like and seeing a good portion of the buildings and seeing the elevations that we have and knowing that this is going to be a more scrutinized probably than normal because of it's size and staff is going to be watching what they're doing and if there's a problem we're going to see it again. I might point out that part of the unusual nature of this is the fact that it's even here. Subdivision normally would approve and could approve this at the subdivision level. Because of its size, strictly because of its size, we brought it here. So, it's just a different project type in its scale than we normally see. I guess I agree with Commissioner Ostner that it's up to you all to decide if what we felt at the subdivision level, which is that we have enough detail, and we felt comfortable with the layout of the project and the improvements that are going to be made along with the project, to go ahead and go forward with it or you don't have that comfort level. If you don't, I guess we need to decide what to do from here. Is it something that I don't know that the full planning commission is the right place to hash out 500 elevations. I guess we need some guidance from that point, but I think that it ought to go forward to the city council and let them hear it. I feel comfortable with the condition that allows staff to look at it and bring it back to us if it doesn't match what we've seen here. Ostner: That makes me nervous because staff, well staff is not us and commercial design standards are a judgment call. There are four, maybe five, general criteria that we don't always agree on. So, I don't think it's appropriate for this scale for this cursory set of elevations. If it's a specific request, these have quadrupled their scale, quintupled, which is getting close to what we Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 86 normally see with this one little building being part of the application. Just these drawings are. I'm having a hard time imagining or scrutinizing it. I don't want to bog it down or drag it out for eight meetings. I would like to do it here, but I don't think the scale of these are appropriate for approval, as well. Hennelly: I believe that is what is required on the application, is eight and a half by eleven colored renderings. Really those buildings were connected. That is a parking structure connected to an office building. Our intent was not to try and just get a broad brush approval on this project, and I think that an approval of the elevations that you were submitted and then any subsequent building permits that are going to be for buildings that were not submitted but are shown in plain view be brought back before you so that you can review their compliance with the commercial design standard for a project this size. It seems to be certainly appropriate. Ostner: I just want to understand that better. For buildings that are not in plain view? Hennelly: No, any of the buildings that you do not have elevations of that are shown on the plan that were not required elevations or elevations that were not required of when we made our submittal. When building permits are required for those buildings that we would have to submit elevations that would go through either subdivision committee or planning commission if that's what you guys need to get your comfort level up then we would certainly be willing to do that. As each one of these buildings were brought in you would have the opportunity to review their compliance with the commercial design standards. Ostner: It sounds like that is part of what I want, but I'm still not sure you're offering on the buildings we don't have here. Hennelly: As building permits for those buildings are applied for that building permit process would be to come before you so that you would have to review those elevations. Ostner: I appreciate that offer, however I'm not able to review these commercial design standards at this scale with these drawings, for me. Maddox: I'm Bob Maddox from PSA Dewberry. This might help to know that in order to try to satisfy the time frame we're working in, if we wait til we had all of the elevations done, it would delay a start by six to nine months. We've shown on these elevations the character of everything that we want to do. I apologize if the scale you have in front of you is not as readable as you would like it to be, but when we go through this we're going to have at least four bid packages, the office buildings, the condos, the retail areas, Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 87 and each one of those when they go for permit for those we would be happy to review those with you in whatever format that you want. We will be meeting with city planners and building inspections as we develop these plans, and as we go for permit, we'll have complete renderings and elevations for each building when we apply for our permits that we would be happy to review with you at that time. As we develop those, with the office building package first with the office building and parking garage first, with the major retail area second, and then the condominiums third, we will have complete elevations of everything. And for your information, this is the first retail building that will be constructed and all of the retail buildings will be in character with this. Vaught: Mr. Chair, it sounds like the developer is offering and what I heard the concern be, is that at the time the building permit if we changed...where is that condition? Just change it to say at the time of building permit subdivision committee review elevations for commercial design standards, is that what you're saying? Pate: At subdivision or planning commission after we've got drawings to present to continue that process. Clark: What if they're not sufficient? Isn't that a little long to wait in the process if you submit some elevations that the majority of us don't think meet design standards? Pate: That occurs all the time with our review for building permit. Clark: Oh, I understand, you're talking about a time (inaudible) ready to build this thing and then we stand up and say don't like it doesn't meet, you're going to have a heart attack. Maddox: We probably would, but if that meets the design criteria, then we think that we're fully confident that all of the following submittals will meet the design criterias as well that you've set forward. Vaught: I think that by the time they get to that point that they and staff would have sufficiently hashed out and I think that anything that we make minor aesthetic issues that they can handle. If they're willing to go that route, I don't see why we can't accommodate that. Clark: We agree 95% of the time, but there is a percentage of the time we don't agree when staff says they meet design standards and we say no they don't and then we end up changing stuff. Maddox: That's why I said it would come back to subdivision or planning commission. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 88 Clark: That's putting a lot of pressure on staff to make stand -along decisions that we can, good lord I wanted to pass this, and we may have to make second- guessing about, and that makes you very vulnerable. If you say it passes and then it comes to subdivision says oh no it doesn't then you're ready to break ground we're saying no when we should have seen these months earlier. I also want to know what the threshold is, how many buildings does a developer have to submit before we weigh these standard requirements? Is it this many, is it one less, one more, when is the next one going to come through and claim that they have a lot of buildings and need to build at the same time so they shouldn't have to present, and that's a rhetorical question. Vaught: This does meet the minimum requirements for what they set. Clark: I don't think it does. Anthes: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes, ma'am. Anthes: I want to talk about another issue for a minute. I'm looking at commercial design standards and not only do I find it difficult to find in a positive manner for commercial design standards without the elevations on all of the buildings, but I'm also looking at the compatibility and transition portion of our commercial design standards. We sat through quite a debate last week and earlier this evening about potential compatibility between a two story building and a nine story building on Dickson Street. A lot of people were pretty uncomfortable with that. If you look at that and if you look at your proposal, I don't know if I can find for compatibility between the buildings in your proposal. We've got everything from one story and two story buildings to twelve and sixteen story buildings with a jump of a minimum of ten stories differential between those two buildings. I find those to be incompatible with one another. The other thing about that is that I look at what we have as guiding principles in our future and how we're looking at developing the city of Fayetteville, and it seems to be that it would be preferable, and more in keeping with our city's development process and envisioning process as well as compatibility within the subdivision itself, if there was a more uniform height, that the parking would be shielded from the block with the buildings' creative street edge instead of this sort of suburban office park of development pattern. I just think that it wouldn't developing in the pattern I'm suggesting would not restrict your development potential in any way on the site because you'd still get the same number of square footage, it would just be a development that would be more cohesive and more in relationship and scale to itself and to the surrounding properties. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 89 Williams: I would just like to remind the planning commission that this project was presented not only here but to the city council with these drawings and renderings. When they saw the rezoning so that they could build buildings of this height, they presented a bill of assurance to the city council to limit the buildings to certain heights and it was accepted by the city council. City council passed through the rezoning to specifically allow the height of buildings that they were requesting. Some of these policy arguments have already been decided by the city council. If you look at the commercial design standards that are in the code, it says design element guidelines for commercial structures. The elements to avoid or minimize include unpainted concrete precision block walls. Do you have any of those in your design? Hennelly: No, sir. Williams: Square box -like structures? Hennelly: No, sir. Williams: Metal siding which dominates the main facade, large blank unarticulated wall surfaces and large out -of -scale sides or flashing colors. The renderings that have been shown I think you could probably use those to look to see whether or not those basic commercial design standards which a developer is supposed to avoid or minimize have occurred on this site or not. I don't know, I just fear... Anthes: Well, earlier this evening you talked about compatibility and transition between developments as being part of what we can review... Williams: That's true, it says that construction, appearances of commercial design standards for structures goes on that a commercial structure shall be designed to avoid or minimize the elements set forth that I just mentioned to you, be a commercial development that contains more than one building should incorporate a recurring, unified, and identifiable theme for the entire development site, and a development should provide compatibility and transition between adjoining developments. It's that third one that the city council has already looked at because as part of any rezoning decision you look at compatibility and so the city council looked at that as one of the things they were looking at for this rezoning having the pictures that are presented before you they've been presented to this body before and the city council I think in agreeing to rezone this with a bill of assurance that was given has already made an implied statement about compatibility. You certainly can consider compatibility, I think you should. Osmer: We are still charged with determining commercial design standards. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 90 Williams: That is correct. Ostner: I understand that some policy decisions have been made, however if I have to sit here and determine whether this building I believe it says garage 2 is not a large unarticulated wall I would say well I'm not sure so no, because there is a person scale figure that is about as big as an ant, so I can't tell and would say no. I don't want to say no. I want to say yes. Hennelly: I would like for you to say yes, but again I want to reiterate that we submitted this project in accordance with a specific application that's made available by planning. We are required to submit colored renderings to you. That's exactly what was done. The buildings that are shown on there are connected to there, but it was assumed that that was one building otherwise it would be impossible to show all four sides because two of those sides are connected. Ostner: There have been single buildings that have more pages to their packet. I'm just saying that this size of paper doesn't mean five acres shows all at once. I'm not trying to throw stones, I'm just saying that I can't scrutinize it. Hennelly: I understand, it's and this is an unusual project, it's an extremely large project, a very long -drawn out process has been gone through to match the plan of this site so that you guys could look at it at one time. And not have it piecemealed together. Clark: I would be happy if the buildings were coordinated and in some places they are coordinated with my site map so that I knew which was building G if I had a rendition of building G or if I had a rendition of building L. They're not coded. Ostner: They're labeled, they're not coded. Myres: Mr. Chair Ostner: Commissioner Myres Myres: Commissioner Allen tried to speak about twenty minutes ago and I wanted to give her the opportunity to say something. Ostner: Commissioner Allen Allen: I was interested in asking staff about the street improvements. That's a big concern to me. That's such a terribly dangerous intersection out there, we all take our lives in our hands when we're in that area. Are you saying that Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 91 Pate: by making these improvements that will be it will be a wash or it would be better? We think it would be much better as far as the improvements that are proposed. We think as far as trying to measure what will ultimately will happen as far as traffic goes, we looked as far west as the intersection of College and Joyce. We don't want to see widening of College and Joyce at this point. Even the traffic study said that more lanes there would not help anything. That's going to be a major undertaking and something we are studying at this time to actually reduce traffic going through that intersection, but in this area, the signal at Vantage and Joyce will be helpful since it's hard to turn left. It's a crucial connection to get to Lake Fayetteville from Mud Creek trail, but right now it's a dangerous place to cross. This will greatly help with pedestrian safety and will allow for those left turning movements and a higher capacity of traffic along Joyce Avenue. It will basically take improvements that are near the Arvest Bank and extend them down to the Post Office, so that will be extremely helpful as well for the pedestrian trail network and bicycle network with the bike lanes that you see along Vantage. If you drive along Vantage they're painted and you see them very well; they're working very well and greatly utilized now to make a connection between the Lake Fayetteville area and Mud Creek trail. I think that our recommendations again are based on the cost and contribution being born by the developer that those will improve the situation. Allen: And this won't affect my vote, but this is my opportunity to ask the question that everybody is always asking me who are you? Who particularly who exactly is the Barber Group? Who are those people? Hennelly: Brandon Barber and is the president of the company and Seth Kafka those are the two owners of the company. Allen: Do they live here in Fayetteville? Hennelly: They do, and have for many years. Allen: Okay I just have an awful lot of people ask me that so I just thought I'd ask who are you. Clark: Can I ask about the Stearns Street connection area? Because I drove out to this area this weekend and it seems like we're bringing Steams down an awful long way. There seems to be a definite distance between the end of your property and Stearns. I'm just wondering what advantage we have to make that connection. Pate: This wouldn't align Stearns, this was a misconception at subdivision Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 92 Clark: committee that it would align somehow. To be honest I don't think we would recommend that because that would actually promote and encourage traffic to cut through Stearns Street to the east. This Stearns Street connection right now as mentioned in staff report, the right-of-way is dedicated to the property to the north as indicated that this property if this street connection would be made. The city council and staff recommended to the planning commission that the collector street status be removed so that it wouldn't be deemed a cut -through so that it's a local street status. It would improve, in our opinion, traffic mobility I think it's about a 600 foot connection, or 700 feet. You can see it here on your second page how it does connect; it does angle down to the south adjacent to this property. That's where the right-of-way was dedicated. That angle down to the south is just what threw me because that is the one that I could live without easily. That would save you money and I can't do that. Vaught: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes, sir. Vaught: I would like to go back to commercial design standards. I think that it is an incorrect interpretation to take height into that and use compatibility argument against the height which would specifically limit height in our code. We saw this as a rezoning and we okayed the height. We basically gave them a green light and the city council did, too. I think in this case it is an improper finding to try to pull that out the compatibility issue when we just saw this months ago and I believe we unanimously if I'm correct agreed to the rezoning. The city council approved it. We told them the height that these buildings could be, they told us how many and how tall. Ostner: The previous approvals were before for what they were. They rezoned and allowed 16 stories. I don't think that I've heard a commissioner say we shouldn't let them build sixteen stories. What has been said is fair it is on the table that commercial design standards are a difficult decision. They take a lot of factors into consideration so I don't think they've got the previous approvals for these commercial designs and I believe it is a valid issue that is on the table. Vaught: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes, sir Vaught: I'm not saying that commercial design standards aren't a valid issue, that's not what I'm saying. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 93 Myres: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes, Commissioner Myres: I want to make a motion. I know I've given you guys cake again, no more sugar after 7 o'clock. I would like to move for approval of large scale development 06-1939 with the amended conditions of approval finding in favor of commercial design standards and the changes to item three and four as stated earlier and the amended conditions through number twenty- seven. Ostner: Would the motioner change condition one as the applicant and planning commission have discussed about the last sentence. Myres: Yes, I would accept that. Vaught: Mr. Chair to clarify that I would say that at the time of building permit that elevations be reviewed by subdivision or planning commission for compliance with commercial design standards. I would second that. Osmer: Would you also be changing number three? And then on number four also make it in favor of Stearns Street connection and not the bridge assessment. Vaught: Yes. Myres: Yes, everything we've discussed. Vaught: I would second that. Ostner: Commissioner Myres made the motion to approve with the changes to the conditions as stated and Commissioner Vaught stated. Graves: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes, Commissioner Graves Graves: I would just want to make a comment I was about to make which is a follow-up to what Commissioner Vaught was saying regarding the use of the comments regarding compatibility and commercial design standards in relation to height. I know that nobody has said that they're against 16 stories, but there have been some comments made with respect to comparing the height of the office towers here to the retail space. I understand that's all connected so it's all sort of one building, but my concern with that type of interpretation is exactly the sort of slippery slope that it can head down which is that what is compatible without having a Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 94 zoning classification that tells us how many stories you can have in that zone and instead using an interpretation of the term compatibility in the commercial design standards, which my strong belief in reading that entire ordinance is that that is intended to make sure there is a unifying theme in the color structure and things of that nature and it's not intended to use for height. My concern is that it becomes extremely subjective. What is compatible? One story extra, two stories extra, three stories, five stories? There's no definition and that is why I don't think it is a fair interpretation to use compatibility to compare height and discuss height or construe height. If we want a height restriction of some kind or we want a relationship of heights when they are in proximity to one another then we need to change our ordinances to that effect, in my opinion, and not try to stretch that part of the commercial design standards to try to fit something that we're trying to do. With regard to the commercial design standards themselves, I understand that this is not what we always see but that doesn't mean that we're entitled to what we normally see. This particular elevation I believe meets what we're technically allowed to see or what they're technically required to submit to us. We may want more I understand that commercial design standards to some degree are a judgment call, but we have approved projects with drawings like these. I recall at type of restaurant retail situation out behind Old Navy or out behind Goody's and that area that we approved a year or so ago that had drawings very similar to this where we had an architect actually walk up and draw us some red columns on the ground at the meeting. Those drawings were very similar in scale, it was a huge long building and the drawings looked like that. They didn't look like... I don't think it's appropriate for you to start arguing only one item for developers. I understand you disagree. Ostner: You're correct, I apologize. Graves: I just try not to do that to anybody else. There have been other ones, I recall that one in particular and there have been others where there have sort of been some longer larger buildings that were connected together where we saw a bigger picture and not a lot of detail on elevations. We nevertheless approved those. They, of course, weren't to this scale, we weren't dealing with the type of acreage that we're dealing with here. These are labeled in correlation to our drawings, the elevations are and they are tied together for that purpose so you can compare, for example, on the front page where it says M residential and 0 residential on the two towers and that ties in to our drawings and the labels there the letter of labels. So I think that we have what we normally have it just maybe isn't as big as we would like to see. That is because this is a bigger building. They're required to submit it on the sheets they submitted it on, and I'm not willing to personally try to stretch compatibility to fit some type of height restriction. I'm not willing to stretch the elevations that they are Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 95 allowed to submit to us to require more. I'm satisfied with the way that we've restated condition one and I was satisfied with allowing staff to do it. I'm satisfied with allowing these to come back before subdivision on each building permit so that we can determine what I believe will already be the case which is that they comply with commercial design standards. Allen: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes, ma'am, Commissioner Allen Allen: I spoke earlier about compatibility and tall buildings. That is not my issue at all with this. I think the tall buildings fit in this area. I don't think that's not a concern. I don't see any problem with compatibility. I do have concern about the design standards. It's just an enormous project and I would like to be able to see it in more detail. Maybe I don't know whether how other commissioners are feeling, maybe we want to table it and show us more detail. I don't know. That's my concern, I just wanted to state that it does not have to do with compatibility so far as my feelings are concerned or height. Clark: Mr. Chair, does the motioner and the seconder, is seconder a word, assume that they'll come to subdivision with elevations as the buildings come through. Hennelly: That was one of the things that I wanted clarified. Are we talking about elevations for all of the buildings, or just the buildings that you don't have in your packet? All of them, okay. Ostner: That's the way we phrased it. Maddox: If I may, to answer your concern, we could submit for review prior to issuing for permits so that we could go ahead and get your review and comments prior to permitting. Ostner: I think that would speed things up. Clark: That would be wonderful. Vaught: So we would just say prior to permitting in condition one. Clark: How many votes does this take to pass? Ostner: A simple majority. It would have to be five, a simple majority. Inaudible Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 96 Vaught: I don't think elevations will be ready in two weeks, that's what they're saying. Graves: They're saying they're not going to bring them to us one at a time, that's what they're saying. Clark: Okay, that's your choice. Graves: Before they get a permit. Osmer: We had a motion and a second. Any further discussion. Allen: Mr. Chair I'm having some issues about it, the other elevations and when they would be seen and how the other commissioners feel about that. Ostner: Is your confusion, can I explain this to you? Allen: Sure. Ostner: The way we've phrased it so far is that it will get large scale development approval tonight and they will carry on but before they can get a building permit at any time it doesn't have to be that day, they have to come back to staff and process these elevations through subdivision committee and possibly through planning commission. Am I stating that right? Pate: The condition I have here is that all building elevations shall be reviewed by the subdivision committee or planning commission prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure commercial design standards are met. Ostner: Any other questions before we vote? Could someone call the roll please? Roll Call: The motion to approve LSD 06-1939 carries by a vote of 5-3-0. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 97 LSD 06-1974: Large Scale Development(THE ARBORS AT SPRINGWOODS, 286): Submitted by 112 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at LOT 2 OF SPRINGWOODS PZD. The property is zoned C-2 PZD 03-08.00 (SPRINGWOODS) and contains approximately 25.24 acres. The request is for 122 multi -family dwelling units. Ostner: If we could have the staff report, please. Garner: This property is identified as Lot 2 of the Springwoods PZD. It is located in West Fayetteville north of Morlane, east of Dean Solomon Road. As part of the Springwoods Commercial PZD, this lot was specified with multi -family uses to allow a maximum of 18 units/acre. The applicant proposes122 multi -family dwellings. The development would be a patio home development with two or four condominium residences in each building with two car attached garages with each unit. It would also have a neighborhood swimming pool, putting green, and clubhouse. This project was forwarded to planning commission because at the time the project was on the agenda only two members were on the committee so it could not be approved. Staff is recommending approval of this project. I just wanted to call your attention to condition number one which is planning commission determination of street improvements, 1A; subsequent to the city meeting staff went out to the site again and reevaluated the street conditions so we have changed a couple of these recommendations from subdivision committee, so I'll just call your attention to those. IA is on the Dean Solomon road frontage, we're recommending 14 feet of pavement from the center line. This would match the existing improvements to the north on Dean Solomon. Condition 1B is to improve Moore Lane to master street plan standards along the project frontage, 14 feet from center line, curbed gutters, storm drainage, and sidewalks. Item 1C is construct Moore Lane to a full 50 foot right-of-way east to Shiloh on both sides of the street and Shiloh is currently improved on north side, so this would be mainly on the south side of the street. And item 1D we have stricken that recommendation from the condition; on further evaluation to add approximately two feet of pavement to Moore Lane would not really serve our purpose. The main purpose is to encourage traffic to Shiloh Drive which is the nearest improved street. The only other item to bring your attention to, I guess, is condition number three that prior to building a swimming pool and a clubhouse they would be required to get a conditional use permit. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I will call for any public comment. I don't believe there is any public left so I will call for the applicant to make his presentation, please. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 98 Hennelly: Tom Hennelly with H2 Engineering. This project has been described as patio homes. It is on a partial property that is zoned RMF -18. The density we're proposing is roughly 4.9 units/acre, significantly below the zoned density. We're representing Jim Von Grimm and Fred Steiger who are the owners of EPCON Communities of Northwest Arkansas. It's a franchise development company that has been very successful marketing active adult communities throughout the country, roughly 200 of them, I think, exist throughout the country right now. These developments are very unique in the demographic that they target. They mainly do their marketing through mailouts to people 55 and older. The reason I'm telling you all this is because the traffic study that we have down assumes certain trip generations and they're not necessarily compatible with a development of this nature. The data from these 200 communities I believe one out of every 100 units has a child living in the house. Most of these units are owned, they're condominiums and they're owned by either widows or elderly couples that are still active that are 55 and older. They normally travel at off-peak hours and roughly generate 4.9 vehicle trips per day per household as opposed to the 10 vehicle trips per day per household. Having said all that, we have a disagreement on the offsite improvements that are being requested. Obviously on-site improvements to Dean Solomon along the frontage to this property are necessary and appropriate. As a condition of approval for Springwood Subdivision and this is one of the lots in Springwood Subdivision that is being developed, as a condition of approval the developer of this lot was required to reconstruct Moore Lane; I don't know if you guys have been out there recently but it makes two sharp 90 degree turns and we have been required as a condition of approval of the final plat to realign that so that it is in accordance to the current geometric design standards that the city has. That's basically a new street construction. We're not able to use any of the existing Moore Lane. We need to demo the whole thing and reconstruct that entire section so that you don't have those two ninety degree turns. That's certainly appropriate. These guys went into this project having that on their plate and already knowing about it. The extension of Dean Solomon Road south offsite of the property down to the intersection with Moore Lane we have a little bit of issue. I don't necessarily think that that as well as the extension of Moore Lane to the west with curbing, gutter, and storm drain is appropriate for the amount of traffic this development generates. Certainly we can't guarantee you that no college students are going to move in here. That is a possibility. But the data does not support that in over 200 communities that this franchise markets to. That demographic doesn't normally live in these types of communities. If this were developed as an RMF18 subdivision I guess there could be more significant offisite improvements, but recently Springwoods Commercial properties, commercials to the east were developed and only the north side of Moore Lane was improved. We would suggest that maybe Moore Lane east of this site be improved so that it handles the traffic better. If traffic is Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 99 the concern as opposed to storm water management using curbs, storm drainage, and that type of thing, we would be agreeable to widening Moore Lane east to Shiloh to 28 -foot wide pavement from back of curb to edge of pavement as opposed to adding the increased cost which is significant, somewhere in the neighborhood of $84,000 to make those improvements to Moore Lane in addition to the $31,000 to Dean Solomon Road. You're looking at $115,000 in offsite improvements in addition to the new construction of Moore Lane that has been required. Outside of that, I don't think we have any problem with any of the conditions of approval. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Hennelly, I'll bring the issue to the planning commission for discussion. Allen: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes Allen: 1 wondered, the price range of these units. Henley: They range square footage I believe is 1650 x 1800 is that right? Yes. The price is around $ 120 per square foot. Vaught: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes Vaught: I just wondered the exact problems they had with the street improvements we could ask, you're willing to widen the pavement but you don't want a curbed gutter and storm drain east of the site, correct? Henley: On the offsite improvements, correct. Vaught: And to the west... Hennelly: There aren't any requirements for improving Moore Lane west of the site. Vaught: And then Dean Solomon, you mentioned Dean Solomon, I was trying to follow... Hennelly: Dean Solomon we would be agreeable to along our frontage curb, gutter, storm drainage, and sidewalk standard improvements. Vaught: What you don't like is the continue street improvements on the east side of Dean Solomon and the intersection of Moore Lane without sidewalks. That's curb, gutter, and storm drainage, right? Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 100 Hennelly: Right, we don't necessarily see the benefit of improving Dean Solomon south of the site at all. East of the site on Moore Lane we certainly see that there would be a benefit for widening that to improve traffic capacity, but not necessarily be responsible for the storm water management aspect of the standard street section with curb, gutter, and storm drain. That function any improvements that need to be made to the existing roadside be for capacity of storm waters would certainly be something that we would incorporate in those improvements. Vaught: I guess that I would ask staff to further elaborate on any of those changes. Pate: Sure, after subdivision committee meeting at the request of the applicant and some of the subdivision committee members we did reevaluate and actually backed off two of our requirements. It's rare that you ever see staff back off of a requirement after it has been published at subdivision committee. We did look at Dean Solomon Road, however, what the requirements were for Springwood Lots 3 and 5, which are 14 feet from center line. This right now this plat shows 18 feet from center line. That's the difference at the wider section. We've recommended decreasing that so that instead of 18 feet from center line section to go to 14 feet, reduce four feet of pavement. We did continue our recommendation to complete this section down to Moore Lane simply because on the west side the apartment complex that went in there improved that section. This improved the intersection that we would at least have a section of improved road that would be 20 feet wide minimum all the way down Dean Solomon to the intersection of Dean Solomon and Mt. Comfort Road. Traffic exiting to the west down Dean Solomon would likely go through that intersection. Along Moore Lane our original recommendation, item D, was to improve that to a 20 foot section. It is below 20 feet in several sections however it's close, 17 and 18 feet in a lot of sections. It would take considerable amount of removal of pavement just to add 2 feet more because you can't just add 2 feet, it would fail. So we did remove that recommendation to improve that section of Moore Lane altogether. One of the reasons for that and it's listed here is that we're trying to encourage traffic to go to the nearest improved street. As we all know, Dean Solomon Mt. Comfort intersection is not near the intersection. We have engineering studies underway this year that will look at realignments of that intersection and improvements to that. We discussed that with Springwoods when it came through. At 18 units/acre we likely would have seen improvements or contributions or assessments as well. Obviously this is way below that number, closer to five units an acre so we did not make the recommendation for any improvement to the intersection. Instead, we concentrated on getting to Shiloh which is improved. Mr. Hennelly mentioned the commercial subdivision. They improved the north half of Moore Lane, they also improved about a mile Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 101 of Shiloh including the trail along all the way down to Sam's Club property from Moore Lane, which is significant improvement on Shiloh with curb, gutter, storm drains, things of that nature. So that will be a significant improvement and does allow traffic to move, so again an encouragement to simply have an improved street out to Shiloh and that is the basis of the recommendations. Vaught: Not just widening the pavement, but having curb, gutter, and storm drains on both of those. Pate: The north side was improved two weeks ago - paved, curb, gutter, and pavement. The south side would likely just need to be milled and overlay applied with curb gutter and storm drains if it's needed. It's really hard to determine if it's necessary at this point without studying that. Clark: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes, Commissioner Clark Clark: I make the motion that we forward no that we approve large scale development 06-1974 with stated conditions of approval. Ostner: Motion to approve with conditions as stated. Clark: And I'm not going to take the street Moore Lane off simply because they've already taken other things off after reviewing this after subdivision. Ostner: Do we have a second? Myres: I'll second it. Ostner: Okay, Commissioner Myres seconds. Mr. Hennelly? Hennelly: If I could just elaborate on that comment a little bit. Simply because they initially required 18 feet from center line on Dean Solomon and reduced it to what everyone else on Dean Solomon was required to construct, that wouldn't necessarily be considered to be a reduction, only a readjustment to what would have been appropriate in the first place and that corner piece of property that is currently housing all the horses I don't think that it's unreasonable to think that that property is not going to have horses on it for very much longer. I don't know how much longer it will have them on there, but certainly when that property develops, when this property develops it makes the property value go up tremendously, the improvements along Dean Solomon and Moore Lane that would be adjacent to that property would certainly be appropriate to happen when Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 102 that property develops. Again, this is a development that is only 4.9 units/acre, not much more than a residential subdivision, and on top of that, the trip generation that comes from a development like this is significantly less than that. The improvements, while improvements to Moore Lane east of this project would certainly be appropriate, we don't feel that the extent we're being asked for are necessarily appropriate. Ostner: We have a motion and a second. Allen: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes Allen: I was curious as to whether or not there's anything unique about this development other than labeling in terms of assistance for an aging population. Hennelly: It's not necessarily a retirement community, per se, or an assisted living community like Butterfield is. It's not really... Allen: I understand that, but I wondered if there were ramps or any kind of amenities for that kind of population. Hennelly: The grades that we use in grading this site were specifically geared towards people who may need assistance walking and tried to minimize those as much as we could. There is a clubhouse with a pool, has an exercise room, kind of a meeting room that could be used for public gatherings, parties, that type of thing. Ostner: Everything is one story? Hennelly: Everything is one story, correct. Ostner: Thank you. Vaught: Mr. Chair Osmer: Yes, Commissioner Vaught Vaught: On the street improvements, I guess the Dean Solomon was the one I was wrestling with the most. I understand making sure we have access one way, but extending those improvements down the intersection of Moore Lane is the one I was kind of questioning more than anything. I was thinking about trying to remove that as long as the pavement meets the minimum width in that section. I don't know whether it does or not, but curb and gutter in that section, I don't know how we got that as Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 103 requirement especially when we're requiring so much offsite in other places. I don't know how the motioners feel about that. Hennelly: There's one other thing I would like to throw in. On the east side of Dean Solomon, in the section we're talking about widening, the existing ditch there is in great condition, appears to carry the runoff that reaches that point very well. Any widening of that would mean reexcavating that ditch out and realigning it further into those peoples property that it is adjacent to. It's not necessarily needed right now from the storm water management standpoint. Anthes: Mr. Chair, I would like to call the question. Ostner: Okay, anyone opposed to calling the question and voting? Would someone call the roll, please? Roll Call: The motion to approve LSD 06-1974 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission March 27, 2006 Page 104 Ostner: Are there any announcements. Allen: Mr. Chair Ostner: Yes, Commissioner Allen Allen: I wanted to make the comment that I think it's appropriate that a geezer/geezerette issue would be my last item to vote on, but I also wanted to pitch out one more thing about Old Main. I'm pitching it out just because it will get on our records somewhere. I talked to some people at the University of Arkansas today and they do have a design review committee on campus. Buildings that are built on Old Main they give significant weight to how they interact with Old Main. I was told that one building that was proposed recently was a red brick nearly the same shade as Old Main and the committee actually went up to the cross at Mt. Sequoyah to actually take a look at that with some sample boards. I don't know how they did that, but they determined that it was inappropriate and so I'm hoping that at some point our city will do the same thing and not lose our wonderful landmarks that we have in our city. I would like to take this time, also, to thank Alan for being a wonderful chair for two years. It's a lot of work, and thank all of you for everything and I would like to be the one to adjourn the meeting. Ostner: Well, you can't do that because this is my last meeting as chair and I want to thank each of you. It's not easy being here and it's ironic this is... I wanted to thank each of you for helping to argue with respect as I interrupted a fellow commissioner earlier as very few of you ever do, and I hope I won't do again. It's difficult; we get involved in the issues, that's why we're here. Each of you has made it easier for me to do my job and I appreciate it a great deal. I believe that this is the best working group I have seen, so... Pate: Mr. Chair Osmer: Yes, Mr. Pate Pate: Before you do that, I just would like to say thanks to Nancy and Christian. You guys make our job wonderful, and all the planning commissioners, but I really appreciate all of your hard work. You volunteer your time coming to this meeting after 11 o'clock on numerous occasions, the long subdivision meetings that go on to 3 or 5 or however long it is now, but I do appreciate all of your hard work and we hope to see you again. Allen: We thank you and we appreciate you, and we thank everybody. Meeting adjourned.