Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-10 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on April 10, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED LSP 06-1980: Lot Split (HOKE, 239) Page 4 PPL 06-1920: Preliminary Plat (DEPALMA ADDITION, 487) Page 4 FPL 06-1910: Final Plat (CLEARWOOD CROSSINGS, 323) Page 4 R-PZD 06-1922: Planned Zoning District (SCOTTSWOOD PLACE, 558) Page 5 ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Forwarded LSD 06-1974 (ARBORS AT SPRINGWOOD) Reconsidered and Page 12 Tabled CPL 06-2033: Concept Plat Recommendations (HAMM SUBDIVISION, 220/221) Page 14 ADM 06-2038• Administrative Item Approved (BLUEBERRY MEADOWS) Page 20 PPL 06-1886: Preliminary Plat Approved (GENEVA GARDENS, 60) Page 23 LSD 06-1994: Large Scale Development Approved (TOYOTA OF FAYETTEVILLE, 248) Page 31 LSD 06-1960: Large Scale Development Approved (WRMC SENIOR CENTER, 211/212) Page 39 Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 2 LSD 06-1961: Large Scale Development (WRMC ADMIN SVCS BLDG., EMERGENCY SVCS, PARKING GARAGE, 211/212) Page 51 RZN 06-2008: Rezoning (CMN BUSINESS PARK, 172-211) Page 59 ANX 06-2006: Annexation (BROWN, 295) Page 62 RZN 06-2007: Rezoning (BROWN, 295) Page 62 Tabled Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 3 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Jill Anthes Lois Bryant Candy Clark James Graves Hilary Harris Audy Lack Alan Ostner Christine Myres Sean Trumbo STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Jeremy Pate Suzanne Morgan Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 4 Chairman Anthes: Welcome to the April 10, 2006 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. I would like to welcome our two new Commissioners tonight, Hilary Harris and Lois Bryant. Thank you for joining us. We were sent a copy of minutes via e- mail but we haven't seen them printed. Does anyone feel comfortable considering them? We will wait until next time. I would like to remind all audience members to turn off all pagers and cell phones. We will move to the consent agenda. We have three items on the consent agenda: LSP 06-1980: Lot Split (HOKE, 239) PPL 06-1920: Preliminary Plat (DEPALMA ADDITION, 487) FPL 06-1910: Final Plat (CLEARWOOD CROSSINGS, 323) Would any member of the audience or any Commissioner like to remove any of these items from the consent agenda? Ostner: Madam Chair, I would like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda. Clark: Second. Anthes We have a motion by Commissioner Ostner and a second by Commissioner Clark to approve the consent agenda. Roll Call: The motion to approve the consent agenda carries by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 5 Old Business: R-PZD 06-1922: Planned Zoning District (SCOTTSWOOD PLACE, 558): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at NE OF OLD FARMINGTON RD.AND ONE MILE RD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICUL- TURAL and contains approximately 5.06 acres. The request is for a Residential Planned Zoning District with 17 single family lots. Fulcher: This item was heard at Subdivision Committee on February 16, 2006 at which time it was forwarded to the Planning Commission, although we are just hearing it this evening. The site is located northeast of the intersection of Old Farmington Road and One Mile Road. The applicants are requesting a Master Development Plan and Preliminary Plat Approval for a single-family development which includes a maximum of 17 dwelling units that consist of 11 single-family detached dwelling units and six single-family attached dwelling units. Access to the site is provided by a short cul-de-sac extending north from Old Farmington Road. There will be an alley providing access from the rear that will extend to the east and west that will provide access to the homes facing Old Farmington Road. We are not recommending street connectivity to the north through the tree preservation area and significant slope in the back. Lot 9 will serve as a permanent tree preservation area containing approximately 32,900 square feet. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended accepting money in lieu in the amount of $9,435. Prior to Subdivision Committee, we did receive some public comment regarding traffic and density and items such as that. We included some of those comments in the packet — all those comments received that were mailed back to us are in the report. With that Staff is recommending approval of forwarding this to City Council with 15 conditions of approval. Condition #1 — Planning Commission's determination of street improvements. Staff is recommending installation of 18' wide street from centerline from Old Farmington Road including 18' of pavement, curb, gutter, storm drains and a 6' sidewalk. We are also requesting these improvements be continued west through the intersection to provide a safe transition through that intersection of One Mile Road and Old Farmington Road. Right-of-way will be dedicated 35' from centerline along the property's frontage. Street lights will be provided every 300' along Old Farmington Road. Interior streets will be constructed to a 24' width with a 40' right- of-way with 4' sidewalks located on both sides. With that if you have any questions, please ask. Anthes: Thank you very much. We will now hear public comment on R-PZD 06- 1922. Would any members of the audience like to address this for Scottswood Place? Seeing none, we will close the public comment section. Does the applicant have a presentation? Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 6 Hearne: Kipp Hearne with H2 Engineering. The developer is in agreement with all of the conditions of approval with the exception of the 18' improvement from centerline. Generally speaking, throughout the City where we have a collector street, even though that is a 36' back-to-back section, usually what we see is a 28' street built and a 14' improvement from centerline, so we would request some discussion on that issue. We would also like to note that we did add trees. I believe that that was an issue that was brought up during Subdivision Committee as a concern along the frontage of Old Farmington Road. We did make some modifications to the existing houses and the footprints that we had there to accommodate that. I would like to introduce Bill Helmer to give a little presentation on the houses themselves. Helmer: Bill Helmer, a representative of the developer. I think that included in your packet is the same information that we have up here which gives an overview of how the development would come together and the architectural renderings of the individual units themselves. We went ahead and put together some samples of the materials that we will be using. They would be primarily brick or cultured stone on the outside except maybe under covered porches and eaves and soffets we would be using some vinyl materials. Basically, as Kipp mentioned, we did go back after Subdivision and work with the Tree Coordinator and felt we could get one tree in front of each house along Old Farmington Road which obviously will add to that aesthetically. Other than that if you have any questions that I might be able to answer. Anthes: Do we have a Subdivision Committee report? Lack: I remember that we did talk about streets some. I don't know if I remember a determination on the 18' as opposed to 14' from centerline. I think there was some discussion about the necessity of taking those improvements through the intersection which definitely seems appropriate to not create a dangerous condition at that intersection. I think that there was some comment about the — considerable comment about the trees in front of the buildings along the right-of-way and whether we could work out a way to get trees along the frontage in front of the buildings and the street, the cul-de-sac, and the density of the cul-de-sac was an issue that you had. Otherwise, it does seem like an appropriate response to try to pull the density to the streets and get away from the tree preservation area and be able to save a large portion of trees as one preservation area. That is the extent of my recollection. Anthes: Thank you Commissioner Lack. Do we have any other discussion? Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 7 Ostner: I have a question for the applicant. You mentioned you are trying to get one tree per house or some mention of that. Where would those trees go? Were they going to go in the front yards? Hearne: The concern that was expressed to us was along Old Farmington Road, driving by. We have a 40' setback from Old Farmington Road back to the front of the homes. We have faced all the homes out to Old Farmington. We didn't want to take the subdivision into the property and put up fences, seal off the division from Old Farmington Road, embracing what is already there, up and down Old Farmington Road. What we tried to do, because of the 40' setback and easement, we tried to place a tree at the corner of each house, between each house. Ostner: So when you say front, the elevation facing Old Farmington. Hearne: Right. Ostner: Are those houses going to put up fences along those yards? As I am looking at them, if they wanted some privacy, what would they do? Hearne: The fronts of the homes face Old Farmington Road so there wouldn't be any fences obviously on the front of them, or in the back alley. Ostner: And the covenants cover that? That they are not to board fence their property? Hearne: Yes. Myres: I'm wondering if Mr. Pate has any better recollection of the discussion of the street width and why it was recommended by Staff to be 18' rather than 14'? Pate: We had discussions about that recommendation a lot, almost every development that comes through. We have to look at collector streets on a case-by-case basis, what they are serving, how they are functioning. A collector street in a residential subdivision which is only serving the residents of that subdivision is quite different than a collector street that is connecting Shiloh to Sixth Street, which is a principal major arterial. We have a number of uses on this street. We also look at the condition of the existing street and part of that evaluation is that it is very narrow currently. We also look at the development that is being proposed and how much burden and responsibility can be placed upon the applicant. We felt in this situation that 18' from centerline cross section would be appropriate given the uses that will likely occur in the traffic that Old Farmington will eventually carry simply because of its connectivity. I believe there are Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 8 some questions about right-of-way as it enters the intersection or closes in on the intersection because that is not their property and I think we could work with the applicants to do potentially an 18' from centerline of the actual road as opposed to the right-of-way there to ensure that everything — curb, gutter, drainage, ditch drainage occurs within the right-of-way so that additional property would not have to be obtained. Hearne: I believe what we are dealing with is a 40' right-of-way where the road is exactly within the 40' right-of-way subject to some discussion, but the developer is not objecting to making the improvements off site throughout the One Mile Road intersection. We are drastically improving the drainage in that area, taking curb and gutter and everything through that intersection. So those are off-site costs typically aren't enforced on a 17 - lot subdivision and we have quite a bit of frontage in addition to that along Farmington Road. We would like you to take that into consideration. Anthes: Is there any further discussion on Condition #1? Ostner: I suppose I do have a little bit of interest in discussing that. As I understand it, a 36' street, and this is a question for Staff, that 36' section is basically looking to the future to be a three -lane street. Pate: That is correct — a collector street cross section. Osmer: To allow a turn lane and two through traffic lanes. I don't particularly see this street turning into that, but that is just my opinion. It is hilly, steep and there is commercial on the west, southern end, but it basically connects 62 to that frontage road — Shiloh. It is only good if you are headed eastward, because Shiloh is one way to the south. I would be interested in knowing if anyone else is interested in talking about a 28' section. I understand it is collector status but that is my opinion. Anthes: Normally, I in favor of narrowing streets as much as possible. My question here is if this provides in the future a secondary route that parallels Sixth Street that provides some sort of a network, even though it connects to a one-way on Shiloh. I'm not sure. Clark: Pate: I have a question for Jeremy. Are you seeing eventual connections on Old Farmington from the north as it develops? Is that all slated to come in sometime soon? Yes, the Mountain Ranch Subdivision will have a connection to Old Farmington Road. We have a hotel in process that connects to Old Farmington Road. As you know at One Mile and Sixth Street there is a Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 9 Clark: Pate: Clark: signal already in place with two banks on that corner that are under development currently. There is development occurring in this area. That was the reason I was seeing rationale for the 18'. I think it will become an alternative route opposed to Sixth Street for the folks in the north to stay off Shiloh. I think that is looking ahead and I think it is wise. I have another question about drainage. I had a contact from one of the neighbors to the south of this development closer to One Mile Road worried about the impact on drainage he is going to have. I don't see anything from Engineering on this - are we comfortable that we are not going to make a bad situation worse? Yes, that is almost exactly what our ordinance states that you cannot increase the pre -development flows after development has occurred. It sounds so much more official when you say it than when I say it. I understand that you have worked pretty hard trying to clean some of that up. Hearne: That's right. I believe the City has gone out and made some improvements by cleaning out the ditches in that vicinity but we are going back to the west and installing storm sewer, replacing culverts in that area. It is definitely going to be a better situation once these improvements are made. Anthes: I have a question for Staff. My original concern on this property was the fact it seemed like we were putting the highest density development on the greatest amount of slope and in the tree preservation area, at least where it is shaded on our map. Can you talk about that a bit? I mean the development on the cul-de-sac. Pate: When we are looking actually in pencil stage, before we actually got to design, we discussed it a couple of different ways, whether connectivity should be provided up the hill through that area. That is the densest tree preservation area. We felt it was important to look at this property as a Planned Zoning District as opposed to a Rezoning RSF-4 which would likely be compatible and be supported because you have RSF-4 on three or four sides of this property. However, in speaking with the applicant, Staff felt it would be an appropriate use of the property. You would get the same density, try to cluster that some. Obviously, it could be more dense, but there is a fine line there with the adjoining property owners and how much attached housing would be compatible. In looking at that, some of the attached units could face on Old Farmington but I think that where the majority of the neighbors are seeing detached unit facing Old Farmington. I think it was more in their comfort level as far as a compatible type of Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 10 development even though they are smaller lots than what we see surrounding. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Lack: Question for Staff. Jeremy, is it a policy or a proportionality issue to deal with the 14' to 18' streets. What we generally see is the 14' cross section and then if another lane, say Rupple Road, as an example, is required, generally the City would make that other lane. I see here that if we build this, probably Old Farmington Road is not too far from that expansion if the three lanes are warranted, so we would be tearing out a lot of work that had already have been installed. Certainly, to provide that at this time, it would seem reasonable. Is it a proportionality issue or is it a policy issue on how that decision is made? Pate: Lack: I think it is a bit of both. As far as internal, not necessarily a City Council policy, we as Staff are charged to make a recommendation based upon the Master Street Plan Standards and the proportionality tests, the rational nexus calculation on which we base all site improvements adjacent to a property. We have been recommending 18' from centerline on projects that we feel warrant that utilization there. There are potential cost shares, I suppose, if the applicant would like to approach the City Council to look at that. I'm not sure how high on the priority list that would be at this time, simply because the uses have not quite dictated that amount of improvement in this area. It is a little bit of both as far as we are making a recommendation to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission utilizes that recommendation to make your findings if you agree with Staff's findings, you would find in favor of that recommendation, if not, you would make a motion to amend that. As I said, it does seem reasonable that the improvements be made at this time as opposed to being torn out in just a few years and made at that time. Knowing that the applicant would understand that ability to ask City Council for the cost share issue would allow City Council make that more of a policy issue and set that policy in a way they would determine. And with that, I would like to move that we forward R-PZD 06-1922 with the stated conditions of approval, finding in favor of Condition #1. Clark: Second. Anthes: I have one brief question. I wanted to thank you for working on the utility easements and arranging for the trees to be in the front of the houses on Old Farmington. Will the utilities allow those to be large species trees as recommended by the Urban Forester or do we have power line conflicts? Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 11 Hearne: We will work with Sarah Patterson on whatever type of species of tree would be appropriate there. She has mentioned in the past as well that she has been able to work with utility companies in trying to introduce trees to utility easement, which people don't like to hear, but we will encourage that and work with her anyway we can to do that. Anthes: Any further discussion? Roll Call: The motion to forward R-PZD 06-1922 carries by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 12 Clark: Myres: Anthes: Williams: Anthes: Ostner: Anthes: Henley: Anthes: Madam Chair, since we are in old business, I have been asked by H2 Engineering to revisit LSD 06-1974 based on new traffic studies. They would like to be heard in terms of Condition of Approval specific to street improvements. So I would like to move at this time that we reconsider LSD 06-1974, The Arbors at Springwoods. Second. Mr. Williams, do we discuss a motion to reconsider or do we vote immediately. You can discuss it if you wish to. Is there further discussion. If I am not mistaken, our two new commissioners were not privy to the first discussion. I believe that was two weeks ago tonight. I would be curious to know if the rest of the Commission thought it appropriate for us to jump in without a packet or not. I'm simply raising the question. I would tend to agree with Commissioner Ostner. I am concerned that we have two new commissioners that haven't seen it. I'm also concerned that we haven't been able to review Staff's recommendations and would like to actually see this at an agenda session so that we could fully be prepared to vote. Tom Henley, with H2 Engineering. If I could give some information. This is unusual to do this. I did not even know I could do this, to be honest with you. I thought what we had to do was appeal a decision that you had made to City Council and that was the attempt that we made. And in the discussions with a couple of City Council members, and I believe Planning, it came to my attention that we could appeal it back to you but it had to be at this meeting. That was the only condition that we were allowed to do that under. And that being the case and only having two weeks to do that, it was unfortunate that we weren't able to get you a packet and that we also happened to coincide with two new commissioners being present. I do have — I can give you a bit of background information as to why we are requesting this. Why don't we hold off on that until we know if we need to have a report or not. And just discuss the motion to reconsider. I have a question for the City Attorney. It seems to me that we could move to reconsider and then table and then they would be within their amount of time for the reconsideration and then we could also hear it at agenda. Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 13 Williams: You must act on the motion to reconsider tonight, but then assuming that motion passes, then the item would come back before you and then at that point you could table until the next meeting. But the motion to reconsider must pass tonight or they can't hear it again. Anthes: It there further discussion on the motion to reconsider? Graves: I am in support of the motion to reconsider if we are going to table it for the same reasons that have already been stated. I will feel more comfortable with it if the commissioners who weren't present last time have an opportunity, and if we had an opportunity to publish it. I don't know if there is anyone that would have public comment on this, but it is possible and it would give others an opportunity since it wasn't on our agenda. Henley: Are you all aware of exactly what it is that we are requesting? Anthes: We have been handed a sheet. We speed read it. Clark: If we do vote to reconsider, I will be making the motion to table it for the next meeting, so that everyone can read the packet and you have the opportunity to give your full spiel to all the new folks and to those of us who weren't quite awake at the last Planning Commission as it was the last item. I think that is a wise course of action. Roll Call: The motion to reconsider LSD 06-1974 carries by a vote of 8-0-0. Clark: I move that we table this item to the next Planning Commission meeting. Graves: Second. Roll Call: The motion to table LSD 06-1974 carries by vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 14 New Business: CPL 06-2033: Concept Plat (HAMM SUBDIVISION, 220/221): Submitted by Roger Trotter for property located at THE END OF MAYWOOD ROAD, AT THE NORTH END OF DOYNE HAMM DRIVE. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 26.90 acres. Preliminary Plat 05-1810 was approved on this property by the Fayetteville Planning Commission on November 28, 2005. The request is to review a conceptual plat that has been modified from the approved preliminary plat. Garner: This property is located at the eastern of Maywood Road and the north end of private road Doyne Hamm Drive. It is in the planning area and contains just under 27 acres. As this project is a concept plat, the purpose of that is to allow all interested parties opportunity to provide the developer with input and requirements before the developer invests a lot of time and money in the project. This is for informational purposes to provide information to the developer. The background — the preliminary plat for this subdivision was approved November 28, 2005 for a 53 -lot subdivision and subsequent to that approval, the applicant has had difficulty in acquiring the necessary right-of-way to make a street connection to the south as was approved with this subdivision. They have conceptually modified this plat and they have presented this plat before you and would like your opinion before they go ahead and redesign the whole subdivision and resubmit a preliminary plat. To refresh your memories, this is in the County, east of the City of Fayetteville, just south of Overton Park Subdivision. Doyne Hamm Road is a private road that would provide connection to the south, or what was originally proposed and Maywood Road is an existing road to the north. In addition, this property has right-of-way that touches the northwest property line which would be potential for a new street in that area. The developer proposed to modify the approved subdivision and revise the northwestern street connection to allow for a 20' paved road. When the preliminary plat was approved with right-of-way dedication and an assessment for a future full - street connection. In addition, the southern connection off of Doyne Hamm Road to Shelton Road, the applicant has submitted a letter and we have submitted up there. It is not feasible for them at this time to have that right-of-way connection so they are proposing to eliminate that street connection at this time and have a stub out there available per such time that right-of-way may be available for future street connection. We have listed the street improvements that were required with the original preliminary plat in your Staff report. Those are the main issues and would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Anthes: Before we open the public comment section, I want to remind everyone that this is a concept plat. The Planning Commission will not be making any formal recommendations on this item tonight, but instead the Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 15 applicant is asking for our opinions and is looking for us to notify them if we see anything that would cause us to deny this plat in the future. So with that, I will open the floor to public comment. Would any member of the public like to speak to CPL 06-2033. Seeing none, we will close the floor to public comment. The applicant — do you have a report? McLelland: My name is Jay McLelland and I am one of the developers on the project. I don't want to repeat what was just said, but basically he has covered the high points. We have added two new stub outs to the east and west as asked for in the first approval in November. We have also modified the northwest entrance and corner to be the second entrance out of the neighborhood. We believe these two entrances that we have, the one to the northwest and the northeast would work for this project. We would like to ask for your opinions and review of the concept plat. Anthes: Before you sit down, was this the drawing submitted us, was this the change in the northeast corner? McLelland: The northwest corner. Anthes: Sorry, northwest corner. Is there any discussion. Harris (?): (bad tape) I'm sorry, would you say that again — on the west side there is stub out. Or was that on the northwest side? McLelland: There is also a stub out on the west side. It would empty out to the Hayward's property. Anthes: Mr. Pate, for our new commissioners, you might describe the stub out condition that we have. Pate: With any project within our municipal planning area or City limits, we do require a policy of connectivity as established by the City Council, so when we are looking at a development or subdivision such as this, we ask standard block and lot length but we also look for properties that are adjacent that potentially could connect and create somewhat of a grid or street connections between those properties when they develop. So for instance this subdivision if it had no connections or stub outs to properties that would potentially would develop in the future, if it had none of those, it would empty out into one location, thereby creating potential traffic dangers in the future at that one intersection. So this helps disperse traffic in the future when at such time this property develops. It essentially is like you have seen in your subdivision a stub out of a street that just stops at the property line. Hopefully there is a sign up saying that the street will Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 16 continue in the future and the property owner to the west in this case and to the east, would tie into that street sometime in the future. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Ostner: I am looking at some of these comments that adjoining property owners have mailed into us. I assume you have seen them, too. I just want to go over a few. This person says the condition of Doyne Hamm will not handle additional traffic. I want to make sure that you are aware of.... McLelland: If we are not able to use the south entrance, we won't be able use that. That is part of the southern access. Anthes: The southern connection is the one that will no longer.... Clark: Sheldon Road is not available Ostner: But they will build a stub out the way I understand it. McLelland: There will be a stub out there for future development. Pate: With the preliminary plat that was approved for this subdivision, if you look in the northeast corner, that would connect to a street, so that would be a connection to get west out to Gulley Road. Hamm Road, the developer was required to connect all the way south down Hamm Road to Sheldon Road, which is a County street currently which gets you out to the State highway. The owner of Lot 28 which originally owned all of this property, owns that private drive currently in place — Doyne Hamm Road. At this point, the applicant has not been able to have the owner, the subdivider of this property dedicate it as a public right-of-way. So the issue is that even though they are subdividing the property, they are not willing at this time to dedicate that as a City right-of-way. There is also an issue where you connect to Sheldon Road, you can see there is a small, rectangular piece there, that actually does not connect to the right-of-way and that is owned by T. E. Sheldon, I believe, and they have access easements to that property. That is really the difficulty in securing that. Staff will likely recommend some sort of stub out or right-of-way access if this comes back as a preliminary plat. In the meantime, the applicants' have proposed sort of a half connection, a 20' wide connection in the northwest of the property. Instead of a full public street, right now that street and over to Park stubs out to the south property line, and as you can see it is half and half on each property line, relatively. The 20' road would fit within that right-of-way and connect, so it wouldn't be a full street cross section. It would allow for emergency access and would allow for two-way traffic, but it would be a modified -type of street section there. If Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 17 Clark: Pate: Clark: McLelland: Harr s (?): Pate: Harris: Pate: Ostner: Pate: the Planning Commission did approve that with a future preliminary plat, the traffic generated by this subdivision would head north into Overton Park and then out to Gulley Road. Those are the comments I believe the applicants' are looking for, as Staff did have concerns about all the traffic heading north. As you are well aware with many projects that sometimes is the only option and you stub out to adjacent properties and when they develop in the future, those connections are made. I think they are really looking for comments if they should proceed without a connection to the south. Let me make sure I understand. We only now have one secure in and out of here and that is in the northwest corner to the other subdivision? One to the northeast and one to the northwest. There are two. There are two northern thoroughfares are all we have. Yes. Mr. Pate, since I am a new commissioner, may I ask you this question? The Hamm Subdivision is asking for 53 lots and I believe when built out the Overton Park will have about 52 homes. I believe that is correct. Is Maywood an appropriate street for handling that much traffic? It is. It is a collector street and I believe on our Master Street Plan. It is built as a residential street — it is only built to 28' wide, but it is a brand new street. It was just constructed last year. So as far as carrying capacity for these two subdivisions, I think it would be fine. Without future connections it potentially could get overloaded but again, that is why we look for street stub outs. If you look at your overall vicinity map, we are not too far from getting Sassafras Hill Road in the future. The smaller page that you have stapled to the front. So it is not too far to get to that Sassafras Road in the future as well. I think there is potential for other connections. But at this time, you are correct, it would only be on Maywood Road. Question for Staff. This property is in the County. How far away is the City limit? It is not shown. It is a good distance. It is, it is over a mile from the City limits. Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 18 Osmer: Anthes: Myres: Pate: Anthes: Clark: McLelland: Clark: McLelland: Clark: McLelland: Clark: McLelland: Clark: If I am being asked for my opinion, I think this layout is fine. We only have authority over a few items in the County — connectivity is one of those. I believe the applicant and the project show efforts to connect and I would be in favor of a preliminary plat that would look like this. Can we have further comments, particularly about the lot block configuration. They have changed it from the original proposal. I don't really have a comment, I think it is 51 lots. That center lot 28 that has some access to it, I remember seeing this, but I can't remember what that lot is. Just a single-family home, it is just a larger one — the original home. I do appreciate the traffic movement and the lot block configuration of the new proposal, the removal of the cul-de-sac, the hammerheads a little difficult, but I understand that you have an existing home there that you are working with and that tends to solve it. I'm sure Engineering will have very specific recommendations to you on how that works and functions. Are all of these buildable lots? Yes. Because you have some serious topography going on here. Lot 13 would be a community septic system. Since this is just for our opinion, I can ask questions off the board. What type of tree coverage now is in this area? There are not many trees; there are some on a one -acre lot in the center, Mr. Hamm owns, but essentially it is pasture for the most part. There are some tree lines on each side. Have you gotten approval from the Health Department for the septic fields yet? We initiated the process. During the preliminary plat that we had approved, we did have the local level's approval for a drip field. I don't remember the original plat, but this looks like a logical configuration. I hope you can get the stub outs and the right-of-way Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 19 eventually. If not, these folks are going to be very limited in which way they can get back into town. I know you are working on it. Anthes: The applicant is asking for our comment. Is there anything else we would like to add? Lack: I would like to concur that I believe it is a good lot block configuration. It is a subdivision that I would wish we could have the connection to the south because I think that would definitely free up the traffic patterns in my mind, but given that that is not acceptable or achievable at this time, I would not hold them up on that issue in that we can get the two ways in and out of the subdivision and that Maywood is an acceptable street to carry that load. Anthes: Further comments? Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 20 ADM 06-2038: Administrative Item (BLUEBERRY MEADOWS): The request is for a modification of the conditions of approval regarding street improvements for the approved Preliminary Plat containing 23.62 acres with 73 residential lots. Morgan: This subdivision was approved as a preliminary plat. It was approved with 73 single-family lots located north of Huntsville Road with two points of access proposed on Huntsville Road and a street stub out to the west if future development occurs. One of the requirements for street improvements as part of this preliminary plat was the construction of a left turn lane onto Huntsville Road. The applicant was in the process of submitting construction plans to the Highway Department for approval of that and received word that specific warrants would be needed in order to approve that turn lane. The applicant paid for a traffic study on Huntsville and the results of that study were that a turn lane was not necessary at this time therefore, the Highway Department would not allow the turn lane due to the fact that it would not meet their warrants. It would not be necessary at this time. The applicant requests a modification of the requirements for street improvements. They are proposing to pay the money in lieu for this improvement so the City could have that money in case if and when the Highway Department will allow us to build that turn lane. The applicant has submitted a figure for this improvement in the amount of $18,651 and that has been approved by our Engineering Division. Staff recommends that this modification based on the information we have received from the Highway Department. We actually have a specific modification of the condition of approval and that is found on page 2 of your Staff report. Anthes: Ms. Morgan, before you sit down, can you tell us how long this assessment would be held and how soon the improvements would have to be made before the money was returned to the applicant? Morgan: 1 believe that we hold money for a period of five years. Pate: I would also add to that, at the end of the five-year period, it is up to the Planning Commission, and ultimately the City Council, if that money should be returned to the applicant or if it should be held in escrow further. The applicant simply has the right to petition for that money to be returned. That is part of our ordinance. Anthes: Would any one from the public like to address ADM 06-2038 for Blueberry Meadows? Jorgensen: My name is Dave Jorgensen — I am here to answer questions. Anthes: We are taking public comment first. We changed things around on you a little bit. Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 21 Anthes: Would any one from the public like to speak? Seeing none, we will hear from the applicant now. Jorgensen: Dave Jorgensen. I am here to answer questions on this. Jeremy, I missed your comment about the five year period, what happens to the funds after that? Pate: Essentially the applicant has the ability to petition back to the Planning Commission or the City Council for that money to be returned if that improvement has not occurred. Jorgensen: It seems like that improvement wouldn't be made in a five-year period. It might, but is this something that would go into a fund for future improvements along Highway 16, being that 16 is backed up big time at the intersection? Pate: Yes, we have a number of developments that have been approved or are in the process of being approved and reviewed. It is a similar situation. It does go into an escrow account specifically set aside for improvements on that highway. Jorgensen: Well, good deal. We just agree with all of this and hope that it can be used in that situation. Williams: Just for the record, your client would consent to other improvements along Highway 16 as long as this money be used rather than the specific project that it was initially allocated to? Jorgensen: Those were our thoughts, yes. We realize the situation out there....at our particular location, the traffic study did determine that a left hand turn lane was not justified, however, we realize that we are dumping that many more cars onto Highway 16, especially as you travel in a westward direction in the morning. That's the thought here. I suppose that there is a future plan for improvements on 16 and hopefully that will be happening in the near future, hopefully in the five-year period. Williams: Hopefully, obviously it is depended on the Highway Department for any improvement. But I want to make sure that we understood that this $18,651 could be used on Highway 16 East in the general area, but necessarily right at the turn lane. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Jorgensen. Clark: I am very saddened that the Arkansas Highway Department on their infinite wisdom not to mandate this left turn lane. I live downstream, a Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 22 little closer into Fayetteville and I am going to get all of these people dumped on my intersection which will just be lovely. I am also confident that folks are concerned about traffic on Huntsville and Highway 16 should call the Arkansas Highway Traffic Department and let them know their sentiments and not me, because I wanted the turn lane. Having said that, I move that we forward ADM 06-2038 with the recommendation of Staff, stating the payment in lieu. Myres: Second. Ostner: I have a question. The first question is for Staff or possibly City Attorney. Is there the possibility to bond this amount of cash for the applicant? Pate: Not for this particular application. A bond would be for an incomplete improvement that would be installed by the applicant and once inspected and accepted by the City, the bond would be returned. This is actually an assessment that goes into the escrow account and is not returned until that time period. It is in essence the same as constructing the street only they can't do it at this time. Ostner: My second question is since it is going into an escrow account, at the end of the five years, let's hope not, but if we do have to return it, does the applicant get any interest? Williams: Yes. Anthes: We have a motion by Commissioner Clark and a second by Commissioner Myres. Is there any further discussion? Pate: Just to clarify that motion is to approve as opposed to forwarding to Council. Roll Call: The motion to approve ADM 06-2038 carries by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 23 PPL 06-1886: Preliminary Plat (GENEVA GARDENS, 60): Submitted by CRITICAL PATH CONST MANAGEMENT INC for property located at CROSSOVER AND ALBRIGHT ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 2.97 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 9 single family dwellings. Fulcher: The subject property contains approximately 2.97 acres located west of Crossover Road and south of Albright Road on the border of Fayetteville and Springdale City limits. The applicant proposes to create a 12 -lot single-family subdivision. Of those 12 lots, two lots will be for tree preservation and one for detention, resulting in a density of approximately three units per acre. A 40' public street is proposed to serve lots 4-9. There was a three -lot proposal submitted under the name of Albright's Oak Hill for the subject property and was approved by the Planning Commission on September 12, 2005. Since that time, the applicants have submitted this revised subdivision. Right-of-way will be dedicated 25' from centerline for Albright Road and 40' right-of-way dedication for the interior street. There has been public comment received with the three -lot proposal last year. There were some comments at Subdivision Committee and some comments included in the report, also a small packet that I handed the Commissioners prior to the meeting. Most of the comments have been about tree removal on Albright Road within the Master Street Plan right-of-way, the density and the traffic as well as the curb cuts on Crossover Road. Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat with 15 conditions of approval. Condition #1 — Planning Commission determination of appropriate street connectivity. The applicants are proposing a stub out to the south. If that property is to ever develop, we felt with the size of the subdivision and the distance that a stub out if it headed to the east would just parallel Albright Road and just create further tree canopy removal. On Condition #2, Planning Commission determination of street improvements. These are the same conditions that were requested on the original submittal — widening Albright Road 14' from centerline including storm drains, curb and gutter, pavement and sidewalk along the property frontage and west to Crossover Road. The location of the sidewalk shall be determined at the time of construction by the Sidewalk Coordinator and Urban Forester to ensure maximum canopy preservation. Condition #3 — access to the individual lots in response to limiting the number of curb cuts as much as possible into Crossover Road. There will be a single curb cut for Lot 1, a shared curb cut for Lots 2/3 and shared curb cuts for interior lots onto the proposed street. Anthes: Before you sit down, Jesse, in anticipation of public comment, will you also address the brick fence that has been offered and the detention situation? Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 24 Fulcher: During Subdivision Committee, the property owner to the south had stated that the developers to the west of their property along Crossover and Albright were in the process of constructing a brick fence. With that the applicants of this project stated that they would be amenable to that. They may speak to that. Within our report, we have stated that this is an agreement between private property owners; it is not enforceable by the City as it is not a requirement between residential developments. Any fence or wall that is to be constructed will be coordinated with the utility providers. Anthes: Would you describe the detention system on this property and capacity to generate standing water or mosquito nuisance. Fulcher: I don't know if I can answer those well. If Jeremy has spoken to our engineer regarding that detention pond. Pate: The requirement for a detention pond as with all detention ponds, they are required to drain in a certain amount of time. Obviously the storm event dictates how fast that does drain. This proposal will have a detention in the northwest corner as you see in pond one there, which drains into an existing drainage facility. I believe the applicant can better describe exactly that occurs, however, it does comport with our ordinances and regulations regarding detention. Those improvements will occur on this property. Anthes: Thank you very much. We will open the floor to public comment. Would anybody like to address PPL 06-1886 for Geneva Gardens? Roman: My name is Jeanette Roman, my address is 4984 Crossover. I gave you packets in your packets and photographs for those of you not familiar with this property, so I am going to read some notes so that I can be succinct and not waste your time. Doc Roman and I own the home and three and a half acres south of this subject property, to the east there is a large home being built on ten acres and the owner has told us that this home will be featured in the Architectural Digest, which I believe because the landscaping has ongoing for over a year and is quite lovely. To our west is Lake Fayetteville which is across Crossover and 265; south and west is Stonewood, Mark Foster's gated project which I am sure you are familiar with. This subject property which was alluded to earlier has changed several times recently. It was first sold to an individual who intended to build a single home, this was compatible with the neighborhood. As most of the homes on Albright are on acreage or large lots. Next the property was divided into three one -acre lots, which was still compatible with the neighborhood and would retain most of the trees. Now it has involved into a subdivision. If built as presented, with sidewalks and nine lots, Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 25 most of the trees will have to be removed. The plans show two small patches of trees remaining east and west, the east being a drainage area that flows into Lake Fayetteville. The project is in our front yard, our home faces north and south. We have asked Critical Path to build an eight -foot privacy fence between the properties. Their plan does not leave a natural barrier of trees between the two properties and also the plan does not show retaining any trees on the nine lots. We do not think this is an unreasonable request due to the loss of so many trees. Mark Foster retained a number of trees on his project and his plan is to extend his brick fence from Stonewood up past that property. Since there hasn't any activity on Mr. Foster's project for several months, Doc Roman and I met with him last week and he assured us that he will continue with this project which I would imagine, because he has already done a lot of work, at some time in the future and still intends to build the privacy fence. We are highly distressed at the loss of so many lovely and mature trees, but that's the cost of progress which we understand. On a personal note, Fayetteville has always been known for their respect for their tree canopy and I will have to say that this project has been a surprise. Thank you. Anthes: Would any other member of the public like to address this item? Seeing none, I will close the public comment section. I would like Staff to address the issue of the tree canopy and the tree preservation requirements. Pate: Just want to clarify, there might be some misunderstanding about what tree preservation easements are with the residential subdivisions and our requirements for that. The applicants have shown two tree preservation lots. What those indicate to us — and those are not required in standard subdivisions by any means — within a subdivision typically you have just the trees that are preserved on the lots and don't have specific lots called out for those easements. It is allowed if the applicant would like to do that and that is what occurred on this property in two locations. However, all of the trees that are shown here on page 4 on the plat, all of those indicated to be surrounded entirely by tree protection fencing, those all will be preserved during the construction of this infrastructure. Obviously, each individual home owner will have to decide which of those remain and which of those are removed at the time of the individual home construction. As has been noted in the past, there are nine individual lots with likely nine individual decisions to be made on how their home relates to the street, what elevation they are and which trees will function as part of the overall plan for the development of that lot. However, it is the developer's responsibility to preserve at least 25% canopy. This particular developer is preserving almost 45% of the canopy on the property — 45% overall of the area of the property. We want to make that clear that not all the trees will be removed during development. There will likely be more removed after the developer has sold off the lots, because to fit a home on Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 26 each one of those lots, some will have to be removed, but hopefully each owner will pick those can be saved and do everything to save those. Anthes: Mr. Pate, will you help me remember — I believe there was a discussion on an earlier development about the cross section of Albright Road and the sidewalk placement, having to do with the tree canopy removal? Pate: As with the discussion when this was a three -lot subdivision, and we basically made the same recommendation as far as sidewalk placement. Our typical recommendation for a local street is 14' from centerline to create a 28' section. This will fall within this same recommendation, however, in this instance instead of locating sidewalks at the right-of-way line which is also our standard cross section, we have asked the developer to work with both our Urban Forester and our Sidewalk Coordinator at the time of construction so that the developer would construct the sidewalks along Albright and probably within a sidewalk easement and likely will not occur at the right-of-way line. That is an effort to preserve those trees. It is likely that the sidewalk will not be in a straight line down Albright Road essentially, they will hopefully follow outside the tree canopy and get away from trees as much as possible. Anthes: Will the applicant come forward please. Barbaree: I am Tausha Barbaree with Critical Path. I'm sure you realize that we have really worked hard on Geneva Gardens Subdivision to incorporate City of Fayetteville design standards, the tree ordinance and the comments from the neighboring property owners. The concerns that the neighboring property owners included rear facing lots, removal canopy within the site, removal canopy along Albright, and traffic speeds along Albright. Our design revisions of the property eliminated completely the rear facing lots and as well we have incorporated, as Jeremy mentioned, the two tree preservation lots that are above and beyond what the tree preservation ordinance requires. We have also worked diligently with utilities to place the layout for the utilities where a minimum amount of tree canopy was lost. We have incorporated all feasible design alternatives to integrate the comments of the City, Sarah Patterson, and the neighbors. In order to further ensure that tree canopy preservation is at a maximum along Albright, we would also like to discuss a 12' widening rather than a 14' widening along Albright. We would like to hear a discussion on that. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you very much. Commissioners? Ostner: Did I just hear the applicant ask for a 12' street section? Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 27 Barbaree: Yes. Ostner: Just wanted to make sure — that is rare. Lack: If I understand right, the recommendation was 14' from centerline and to reduce that to a 12' per the request, what would that cross section leave us at that time, Mr. Pate? Pate: Lack: Pate: Lack: Pate: Lack: Approximate 22'. I think there is 20' of existing pavement so that would leave us with a 20' cross section, a 22' cross section. Keep in mind the north side of this centerline essentially is Springdale. I'm not sure what their cross section on the north side is. The subdivisions that have been approved to the east of this have all been required to do a 14' from centerline cross section, so it would change that by 2', getting down to the intersection of Crossover Road. I think the effort is, again, to try to save as many trees as possible. I'm not sure that 2' would do that, could help. I think that is the genesis of that request is to try to save as many of those trees as possible. However, in understanding and anticipating this request is coming and talking with the applicant, I think our recommendation still remains 14' from centerline for standards of street sections. And one other question. When I look at the hammerhead which given the conditions and the street conditions, I like that much better than seeing a cul-de-sac at the end of that street but I don't see on my map that the right- of-way comes around that hammerhead. I may be misunderstanding it, but I would expect that the right-of-way would need to come out around that hammerhead to guarantee that, the same as it would a cul-de-sac, it would envelop a cul-de-sac. In all actuality, we would anticipate that this would be a temporary condition so right-of-way would not necessarily be dedicated. The reason being once — hammerhead essentially allows for Solid Waste to turn around and Emergency Services to turn around. Once this street connects through to something else and there is an adequate turn around, it would not likely have to occur at that point. It would simply function a shared drive which most likely will occur so an access easement that could go away at the time the street was constructed. That is what Staff saw as happening. An access easement — I see in the Plan that it is to be constructed at this time, so it will be constructed with the proper sections to hold that traffic. That is correct. Does that easement appear on this Plan? Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 28 Pate: Lack: Pate: Lack: I'm not sure that it does on the first page. If not, it would be required at the time of final plat to be shown as an access easement and inspected and constructed to City specifications. We would not need to make it a requirement of this. You will see this again as a final plat. You could make it a condition if you would like. I think I would concur with Staff's recommendation on the 24'. While I applaud the efforts to save the trees along the road, I think that the location of the trees there, the trees that would be taken out by the 2' of extension would probably be taken out by the 4' of extension as well, because there is a pretty continuous row of trees. That is the extent of my questions. Applicant: The cross section we were asking for is really for two reasons — help preserve the tree canopy along Albright and to also try to possibly slow the traffic down on that street. Building a 28' wide street there would seem to, if there is no parking on the street, to promote faster traffic. I know there were some concerns with the people who lived on the north side of Albright with the traffic coming down the street. That might help that situation. Clark: How big of a distance is there from the beginning of the subdivision and Crossover? How far off Crossover? Two reasons I found the 12' street section appealing is the tree canopy, but to slow traffic. And maybe if you can get them to slow down getting to Crossover or slower coming off of Crossover, because that is one, straight -shot street. If you can get them to slow down, although I don't think that philosophy actually works. In theory, if it did work, it would be a good thing. But not if it is going to be a gap. Pate: It is approximately 100' west to get to Crossover Road. Anthes: To follow up on that, a 12' lane is still a very wide lane. That is as wide a lane as you would see on an interstate, it is not a reduction to the point that traffic really slows down, unfortunately. My question of Staff would be, and I wish Engineering was here to answer this, but because we have required the 14' section further down and we are approaching a major intersection and actually choking down the road by two feet, would they consider that hazardous? Pate: Potentially, again with traffic generation on Albright Road, it will likely take a left -turn lane at some point because you are seeing numerous Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 29 subdivisions. This is the northern boundary of Fayetteville, Springdale is obviously to our north so we have two municipalities utilizing the same stretch of street. I understand the concern as well, and we often, not the City of Fayetteville, but other municipalities use chokers and things of that nature to try to calm traffic I think those have to be very well thought out though and placed appropriately and designed accordingly in the right place, not haphazardly. I think it is something that would take quite a bit of looking into to see if this is a proper place for that. I know in the north side for instance, it is not improved, so it is a 10' section and to go back to your comment about a 12' lane, the 24' -wide street does include back to curb to back to curb, so they are 10' lanes so that is two bit curb on each side, curb and gutter — so that is a 10' lane essentially. But a point well taken on a 28' wide street — those are 12' lanes. I think we would still stay with our recommendation on this particular property unless some point in the future we could research that to find that this a ? place. I don't think the traffic generation at this time would warrant that, but we are trying to plan for the future. Ostner: As much as it pains to speak against a 12' street section, I do think this is an inappropriate spot. I see a possible turn lane, 100' to the west shortly on the horizon. We have approved preliminary plats near this area consistently and I believe we will see more. Unfortunately I believe that Albright will pick up in volume, I would hope it wouldn't pick up in speed. The bureaucratic hoops, the fact that the City limit is down the center of the road in tricky. Springdale has different rules than we do and I believe it would have to be coordinated, I believe, if a true choker were to be installed. Those trees are beautiful along there. I'm not sure the 12' street section is a good idea. Those are my only comments on the street section. I would be in favor of the project as currently stated. I will make a motion that we approve PPL 06-1886 with all conditions of approval, specifically a determination on #1 of appropriate connectivity and determination of condition #2 of street improvements. Anthes: Is the motioner interested in adding something about the access easement between lots 8 and 9 per Mr. Lack's comments? Ostner: Mr. Lack, would you like to phrase an addition to the motion? Lack: I think an addition might be that an access easement be provided for general access between Lot 8 and 9 at the hammerhead that is shown on the plat. Ostner: The motioner would accept that additional condition of approval - #16. Myres: And I would second. Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 30 Anthes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ostner, and a second by Commission Myers. Is there any discussion? Would you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve PPL 06-1886 carries by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 31 LSD 06-1994: Large Scale Development (TOYOTA OF FAYETTEVILLE, 248): Submitted by BLACK, CORLEY & OWENS for property located at 1352 W. SHOWROOM DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 42.82 acres. The request is for a 9,696 s.f. expansion of the existing structure that will lie partially in the Design Overlay District. Anthes: Mr. Graves has recused himself from this item. Fulcher: The subject property is zoned C-2 and is within the Fayetteville Auto Park, previously Landers Auto Park, located north of I-540 and west of Highway 112. The Toyota building was approved in conjunction with the Nelms Auto Park in 1999. The existing Toyota building lies within the Design Overlay District and is therefore subject to all requirements of the Design Overlay District. The applicants are proposing an addition of approximately 10,000 square feet for a total building area of 31,000 square feet. The proposed exterior consists of a clear aluminum storefront glass, split face CMU of natural color to match existing CMU. Constructed materials are composite metal wall panels typically silver in color with black and red accents. Also at the main entry there will be an entry portal made up of white translucent glass panels and white composite metal panels which will be internally lit. A waiver is required for the application of metal panels that will dominate the main facade of the proposed structure which Staff is in support of'. The entry portal as shown on the elevations is proposed to be approximately 550 square feet of translucent glass panels illuminated from within. Staff feels the concerns with this is the size — with the sign on it, is out of scale and will be illuminated all hours, therefore Staff is proposing that the illumination of the portal will be turned off at 9:00 p.m. each night as is the current requirement for one half of the numerous lighting fixtures within the Fayetteville Auto Park. With that, Staff would recommend approval with sixteen conditions of approval. Condition #1 — Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards. Staff finds that the proposed building elevations, while composed of metal panels, do meet Commercial Design Standards. Condition #2 which is regarding the waiver from building materials within the Design Overlay District, Staff finds in favor of the use of the metal panels as indicated in submitted elevations. All of the other conditions are fairly standard with condition #3 referring to the entry portal and location of the sign located on it. If you have any questions, please ask. Anthes: We will now have public comment on this item. Would any member of the public like to speak to LSD 06-1994 for Toyota of Fayetteville? Seeing none, I will close the public comment section. Will they applicant like to make a presentation? Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 32 Smith: Anthes: Clark: Pate: Clark: Pate: Clark: Pate: Clark: Pate: Anthes: Pate: I am Brian Smith with Black, Corley and Owens Architects. I would like to say that with the showroom portion of the project being in the Overlay District, we worked pretty closely with the Planning Staff to come up with a design that would meet the needs of the client as well as conform to the ordinances that we have for the Overlay District. The portal itself is redesigned so it would incorporate into the exterior. We feel it is a nice compliment to have a wall sign instead of a free standing object. I am here to answer any questions you might have about the design and finished materials. Is there further discussion? This is a question for Staff. My packet reads that the existing structure will lie partially within the Overlay District. Does that mean we can consider only Overlay Design Standards for that part? That is correct. And which part is that? It should be located on your plats — the pull out here is a 660' bypass Overlay District line which crosses — really includes the front of that structure. Which elevations can I not look at? The elevations that we are considering are the ones that are being modified for this project which include the front elevation of the structure, the south elevation, the elevation for instance #2, the east elevation would be that portion that is far to the west. So basically everything that has some articulation I can consider but the rest I can't if it doesn't have articulation? The rest is existing structure. It was approved by the Planning Commission. I have a question for Staff about the lighting. I know that obviously this development was created before the lighting ordinance was in place. They are talking about relocating two light poles on the property. Can you tell what our regulations are as far a relocating rather than replaced lighting? Those lights, because they are coming down, would have to meet our ordinance even if the fixture was broken and they had to replace it, our Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 33 ordinance states that if you replace a fixture, you have to replace it with something that meets the lighting ordinance. It is possible that the lens type that they utilized could be utilized, it might be a different actual lamp, so we will have to see what kind of fixture, a lighting cut sheet for that and it would have to meet the lighting ordinance. Anthes: The second question was about the Design Standards. At Subdivision Committee they indicated that this was unpainted block. Is that correct? Pate: I would have to ask the architect to respond. Smith: The existing service has painted smooth -face block that we are going to repaint. The showroom has unpainted split face which is consistent with the split face block in the Auto Park — it is unpainted. But that is a split face, not a smooth face. Anthes: Mr. Pate, what are Staff's comments regarding unpainted block that matches existing in the Park? Pate: I think that with, in terms of compatibility with this overall Auto Park, the Commission has reviewed within the last couple of years and approved projects within the Overlay Design District — Hummer building being one, remodels to other structures. Another large scale development was approved approximately one and a half or two years ago utilizing very similar materials. They did obviously establish a design theme for the overall Park. It structure has a tower feature, entry feature — the portal here is occupying that type of feature for this particular building. It was originally was the Lincoln Mercury building and was designed as such and has changed since then. This would be a major overhaul of that facade. In keeping with the overall theme of that development with split face block is something that has been approved here and other places within Design District in the City. Anthes: Is there a discussion about Commercial Design Standards? Myres: I think the changes that are proposed are a huge improvement over what is there currently and I think as far as the materials and the design itself, they meet Commercial Design Standards. Anthes: Do you have comments about condition #2 about the waiver? Myres: I have no problem with that. Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 34 Ostner: On the main south elevation at the west end — this is a question for the applicant — it is basically the face of the building with two windows, two sets and we are seeing lots of nice lines in that material on the rendering. Smith: Inaudible. (not at microphone) Ostner: I thought the material changed from the bottom to the top, so that is entirely alucabond on that elevation. That was my only concern that some of these wall areas are unarticulated. It is a nice improvement, I'm just not sure I can find in favor of the Commercial Design Standards. This rendering is a little hard to read because it is so, I'm not sure how to describe it — shaded or artistic — it has been drawn very nicely but it is a difficult representation of the materials I believe. Because that area which we were just talking about is drawn completely differently from the other areas that are called out as an alucabond. Smith: It is split between alucabond and the ? system. Here we just have two windows (inaudible — away from microphone) Anthes: Mr. Smith, can I have you go to the microphone please? Ostner: So there is no split face on that west end? Smith: Just on the rear. Ostner: So not on that south elevation? Smith: Not on the south and west, just on the north side that would face Honda. Clark: Why didn't you continue the red stripe on the west end. Smith: Basically, that is in the image program from Toyota and that is why it doesn't. Clark: Because I share Commissioner Ostner's concern about articulation. I don't know what the exact coverage is going to look like. I have no problem with #2 - the metal panels are fine. Insofar as I can determine on Commercial Design Standards the part of the building that falls into the Overlay District seem fine to me. Your improvements will be nice. I am a little disappointed that you did not continue those improvements into the unarticulated areas that are out left of the building that I think will stick out like an ever sorer thumb, by the comparison to the very appealing front of the building. But we have no purview of that because it is not in the Design Overlay District. Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 35 Ostner: Pate: Osmer: Pate: Williams: Pate: Ostner: Pate: Ostner: Clark: Ostner: Clark: Anthes: Point of order, is the Commercial Design Standard evenly applied throughout the City, or are we only looking at the Design Overlay District for the Commercial Design Standard? It is both in the situation. The Commercial Design Standards and Design Overlay District requirements for the portion that is within the Design Overlay District simply Commercial Design Standards for any improvement that is outside of the Design Overlay District. What exactly are we looking at in the DOD that is above normal codes? One of those is the waiver from utilizing the metal siding. And the large out -of -scale signs with flashy colors. Design Overlay District requirements are also green space — 25' from the right-of-way, amount of curb cuts and distance — both of these are not being affected by this proposal. Exterior appearance — all structures shall be architecturally designed to have front facades facing street and highway right-of-way, building material — that is what I mentioned on structures with metal side walls — site coverage is not an issue; optional fencing, outdoor storage materials, access, that's it. Just to clarify we are looking at Commercial Design Standards for this building, not just the part that is in the Design Overlay District? Correct. The building as they are modifying it. The changes of course, I'm not talking about the building that is not being touched. It sounded like Commissioner Clark's comments were that we weren't looking at the other elevations. I am disappointed with the elevations — that they didn't have to change them. Are you talking about elevations they are working on? Or the elevations that are white? White. The portal is an issue that came up in Subdivision Committee. There was a recommendation from Staff at that time to reduce the amount of translucent versus opaque surface. Can you tell me how you came around to your latest recommendation which I believe that the entire portal remains translucent but there is a 9:00 p.m..... Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 36 Pate: We got some calculations essentially that what percentage of the overall structure this sign would be, essentially it would be considered a wall sign approximately 12%... Smith: Twelve percent including the front of the service reception garage. (inaudible) Pate: So if you look at the overall front elevation, the top elevation there, that lighted portion that would be illuminated with translucent glass is approximately 12%. Our sign ordinance does allow for up to 20%. Obviously, 550 square feet where we have about 150 square feet typically allowed is either is 150 square feet or 20% or whichever is greater. That is the way the ordinance reads. This is much larger than any sign probably that we have seen in the City of Fayetteville, so we thought that to meet Commercial Design Standards it would be appropriate to at least put some sort of limitation. Our first initial recommendation was to light only the portions that are behind the logos that are showing on that sign. In looking at the definition of the sign ordinance, we do believe it would meet the sign ordinance if is only 12%, so because of the lighting behind that, because there are waivers associated with this request and there have been waivers in the past for the amount of lighting, the type of lighting on Landers Auto Park, Fayetteville Auto Park now, requirements have been placed by this Planning Commission to turn down half of those lights at 9:00 p.m. We felt it was appropriate to do so with this proposal as well. Williams: I have a question of the applicant. Is that agreeable with the applicant — this 9:00 p.m. turn off time? Maxey: I am Clay Maxey, I am the Director of Operations of the Auto Park. It is agreeable with us by turning the light down at 9:00 p.m. Also, if the problem is the red stripe coming to the west side of the building, that is something that is an easy fix and we would be agreeable to that as well. We obviously want to get the ball rolling with the start of a new project. The facility in Bentonville which is a close facility to the one we are building, will be up and running within the next 45 days. And we weren't wanting to be under construction throughout the summer and offering them our business, just because we are under construction. So as far as the red stripe on the west side of the building, that would be no problem. We actually came up with the idea to turn the portal off at 9:00 p.m. Anthes: Clay, did you state your last name is Maxwell? Maxey: Maxey. Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 37 Lack: Anthes: Lack: Myres: Ostner: Lack: I think that the Commercial Design Standards, that I would see that this project would meet the Commercial Design Standards in interpretation. Certainly the metal panels would be something that would be called into question, but this is not the metal panels for which I feel the ordinance was written. On a sideline note to this project in general, I would encourage us as a City to look at what type of metal panels we are forbidding in the ordinance so we don't have to pass a waiver on this material each time that it comes through. With regards to the sign, I was prepared from Subdivision Committee to see that as a continuation of the wall and to actually see that as a part of the building wall and as a windowed wall, the fact that it is translucent instead of transparent would be irrelevant to me and that I would see the sign place on that wall. But I certainly appreciate the compromise that the owners have made and would have no problem with approving it on that venue. I would probably not like to see the red stripe carried to the left, as I think it helps the articulation of the building to not be fully continuous with all elements but to stagger those in some way. With that said I would want to state for support for those items in the conditions of approval. Do we have further discussions or motions? I will move to approve this LSD 06-1994 with the stated conditions of approval, finding in the affirmative on items # 1 and #2. Second. I think this is a good project and the main elevation is quite nice, however, in having to make a finding on the Commercial Design Standards, I am regretfully going to have to vote against this project as the motion has been formed. I believe the north elevation with the bays could take a lot of articulation as could the east elevation. Even the west end of the south elevation I believe is less than adequate. I regret to say that. If I could also mention that within the Commercial Design Standards as opposed to the Overlay District Standards, we only look at the buildings' faces fronting the street and I'm not sure the north face of the building would be applicable for Commercial Design Standards. It could be debated as to whether the east and west elevations would be. Ostner: I appreciate that Mr. Lack and you are correct. The other elevations that I spoke of, the north is fine since it does not face a right-of-way. Anthes: Is there any further discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Lack and a second by Commissioner Myres. Will you call the roll? Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 38 Roll Call: The motion to approve LSD 06-1994 carries by a vote of 4-3-0. Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 39 LSD 06-1960: Large Scale Development (WRMC SENIOR CENTER, 211/212): Submitted by USI -ARKANSAS, INC. for property located at 3215 NORTH HILLS BLVD. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 52.03 acres. The request is to construct a Senior Center containing 40,698 s.f., in three phases, on the subject property. Morgan: Several months ago the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for several additions to the WRMC campus. One of these additions included the Senior Center which consists of three buildings which the applicant is proposing build in three separated phases, based on funding and how construction goes with that. In addition to these three buildings, the applicant is proposing 78 new surface parking spaces to the east and south of the structure. Adjacent Master Street Plan streets are located on your plats. This is a highly trafficked area. With the addition of this complex as well as the fifth floor addition and the next Large Scale Development which will be heard tonight, the applicant will be adding approximately 183,000 square feet to the existing buildings, as well as 618 parking spaces. With the Conditional Use and the addition of the fifth floor, we alerted the applicant that we would be looking for a traffic study and for street improvements for all of these additions. The applicant has submitted that traffic study and based on that, Staff is recommending that the applicant pay an assessment for a traffic signal at Futrall and North Hills Blvd. This assessment would just be for the traffic signal, not for any realignment or additions to the streets or street sections at this time. That amount is $110,000 and Staff is recommending that that be paid one half with this Large Scale Development and one half with the next Large Scale Development on the agenda tonight. As far as other issues — we have discussed Commercial Design Standards at length with regard to this project and I have about ten elevation boards and I can pass those around, or if you want to see specific ones, I can show those. Staff finds in favor of the proposed materials and finding that they will match the existing hospital of which we have a picture. However, we find that the north elevation of the fitness center does not meet Commercial Design Standards and recommend either utilization of windows and/or alucabond aluminum paneling system which is show on every other elevation of each structure proposed. Anthes: Suzanne, can I interrupt you for just a minute? Is that the elevation labeled "Gymnasium"? Morgan: Yes, it is. There is also a waiver request for the landscaping. In the original approvals, the applicant planted trees within the right-of-way, approximately eight oak trees are planted within the right-of-way. Our requirements require that one tree be planted every thirty feet within a 15' landscape area outside the right-of-way. On the original approved Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 40 building plans, it showed both trees located within and outside of the right-of-way. Staff would recommend somewhat of a compromise of six large tree species being planted within the 15' landscape area where ten are typically required and those trees be staggered in between the existing trees. All the additional Conditions of Approval are fairly self explanatory. If you have any questions, please let me know. Anthes: We will now entertain public comment on this item. Would any member of the public like to speak to LSD 06-1960 for WRMC Senior Center. Seeing none, I will close the floor to public comment. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Holloway: My name is Jerry Holloway and I work with USI -Arkansas, Inc. and representing WRMC. This is a Senior Center which you have all of the information there, that is to be built in three different phases. It is possible actually, if the money comes in, that it will all be built at the same time. The hospital is asking that this phasing be placed in the planning and Large Scale Development area so that they will have that option to build the buildings in their own time. We have one or two comments that we would like to address and have the Cromwell architect here, Thad Kelly who will address the Conditional Use Permit #1 and the Design Standards for you. Kelly: I am Thad Kelly, an architect with Cromwell. Of the thirteen elevations, you have an objection to the one which is labeled "Gymnasium". That elevation, although it is going to be constructed now, there will be a pool addition provided there is a donor and a naming opportunity that will be added onto that so that this fitness center will include, right now it doesn't include, but it will include a therapy pool and an exercise pool that will adjoin and continue this elevation on. On the other twelve elevations that you don't have any objections to, we have done everything, we have worked with Staff to make all of the requirements that the Commission has asked us to. We do ask your dispensation on this one. This building is really more like an arrow head — it has an obtuse angle and an acute angle that goes around a little stream that feeds Mud Creek down at the Interstate and we are, as part of the plan shows, doing a flood survey. However, if we flood I think it will get up into Sears. Mud Creek will be like the Mississippi River at that point, but the report has to be made. We do ask your dispensation on this one elevation. It is articulated for the side of the Gymnasium, it will be incorporated inside another building when that building is added on to and is part of a therapy/exercise pool. If there are any other questions about the articulation or orientation, I'd love to walk you through it. Anthes: I suspect we will be back with your shortly. Commissioners. Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 41 Myres: I think all the elevations are very handsome. A lot of the ones that are less detailed don't show, and I know that the architects have taken great care. Applicant: A point of order. If we have any further comments, will you entertain those. Anthes: Who is we? Applicant: WRMC. Anthes: The applicant has a chance to respond if we ask you questions. Did you have additional presentation after Mr. Kelly? I didn't realize that. Please come forward. Bever: My name is Mark Bever, I am the Administrator of Washington Regional. My comments are related to the current Large Scale Development in reference, but I would also like you to consider them in relationship to the subsequent one on your agenda which is labeled LSD 06-1961. That is also part of WRMC's construction project. Under the Conditions of Approval #2 which speaks to the assessment of the $110,000 traffic light. For that same study on which this is based, we believe that the traffic study also indicates that that need is pre-existing even without our construction project. I believe that is evidenced on page 26, first paragraph under the recommendations. So it is a pre-existing conditions. For that and two other reasons, we believe that this is an inappropriate assessment for us. Second, WRMC is a non-profit entity - $110,000 is not an insignificant expenditure and unexpected for us. We reinvest everything that we have back into the community and this will require some trade offs somewhere. So we would ask you to consider. And finally, we would ask you to consider that to our knowledge, in the general area where WRMC is located, none of the other developers or businesses or commercial developments, past, current or in the planning stages, to our knowledge again, has been asked to be a part of this same assessment and they also contribute to whatever traffic is in that area. So we would ask for you to consider those three points as you look at the assessment of the traffic study. I would also like to introduce Tom Olmstead, our internal counsel, who will make further comments related to this same Condition of Approval. Olmstead: Good evening, my name is Tom Olmstead and I am the General Counsel of WRMC. I would ask that the Planning Commission in addition to its consideration of the arguments made by Mr. Bever with respect to the traffic signal, also consider the terms of section 166.05C7b and c of the Large Scale Development ordinance found in the Unified Development Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 42 Code which states that the developer may be required off-site improvements where the need for such improvements are created in whole or in part by the Large Scale Development or preliminary plat. As Mr. Bever pointed out on page 25, in addition to page 26 of the traffic study upon with the City's Staff recommendation was based, the Peters and Associates Engineers who performed that study stated that it was found that traffic signal warrants are currently met for the intersection of Futrall Drive and North Hills Blvd., Fulbright Expressway ramp with existing traffic volumes. It was found that traffic signal warrants are projected to continue to be met for the intersection with the development as planned. As the ordinance states, clearly based upon the findings that were made by Peters and Associates, we see that the proposed Large Scale Development under consideration tonight is not going to create in whole or in part an increased amount at the intersection — it already exists and furthermore, Subsection C of that same section discusses what should the developer be required to bear in the way of costs and it states that the developer shall be required to bear that portion of the cost of off-site improvements which bears a rationale nexus to the needs created by the large scale development or preliminary plat. Well here again, there already, pursuant to the findings of Peters and Associates, is a need for an intersection regardless of whether WRMC goes forward with this proposal or not. In addition, if you would look at the traffic study, particularly figure 3 found on page 28, the engineers did a study of the existing traffic patterns at this intersection and found that we have a daily volume of 17,219 vehicles passing through that intersection currently before we add this project. Page 24 of the same study, the engineers project that an additional 3,314 vehicles will pass through this same intersection as a result of the WRMC Large Scale Development. That would be a 19% increase to the traffic that is currently at that intersection. What the City Staff is asking is that WRMC pay 100% of the cost of this traffic signal and this seems to me to be out of line with what would be required in the way of a rationale nexus between costs and the impact of the project. Furthermore, as we move on, one of the other requirements that I understand is being imposed or suggested by the City Staff is contributing one half — item #4 — of the required assessment as part of the first building permit to be issued, whether that be LSD 06-1960 or LSC 06-1961 and talking with our engineers and architects this evening, it is my understanding that this requirement was put forth this evening. This is the first we have heard of it and we are unaware of what the cost that is contemplated by this off-site improvement is as well. I think the same issues that we have discussed just a moment ago under the ordinance would apply to that recommendation as well. Thank you. Anthes: This Condition of Approval I believe was at the Subdivision Committee because there was a finding specifically in favor of that subdivision. That Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 43 should have been in your prior report. We were not given a copy of the traffic study. We may have specific questions but I wanted you to be aware that we haven't read it. Is the applicant finished then with the presentation? Applicant: Yes. Graves: I happen to be on the rotating Subdivision Committee when this came through and the items addressed by Mr. Olmstead in his presentation came up there as well and it was the feeling of the Subdivision Committee that a substantial portion of the traffic already present there is also generated by the Hospital that is already there. And there was a rationale nexus and there was a specific finding that it was appropriate to recommend in favor of this condition. I wouldn't see any reason to change that here, in fact, I would not be in favor of the proposal, the LSD plan without this condition and without condition #4, because I would be concerned that we would be generating a traffic hazard in that area. So on that basis, because of the traffic concerns, I would vote to deny this LSD without those conditions. Ostner: The applicant has brought up some good points about rationale nexus, however, some points need to be addressed. Yes, there might only be a 19% increase in the traffic at this intersection, however, the City is not requiring the applicant to improve that entire intersection by 19%, meaning widening all lanes, installing signals, etc. The entire package I'm sure would be much more expensive than a $100,000 light. That is why the Staff has suggested what I think is very appropriate and even generous to only ask for the light as the appropriate portion that this development incur and be required to pay for in lieu. On this issues of other developments surrounding this, I assure you I will vote against any development in the future in this area that is not paying its fair share. Hindsight is always 20/20 and simply because we didn't assess everyone ten years ago when the problem started is no reason to not to attempt to fix it today. I would be in agreement with Commissioner Graves that without Condition #2 and #4, I would have to vote negatively on this development. I would prefer to vote positive. Williams: I am not disagreeing with any of the comments made here. I think you and the applicant should also consider this as an appeal under Section 155.06 5A which talks about not only a rationale nexus but the proportionality, the impact of this development of the City infrastructure needs and they certainly have a right to say that rough proportionality is not right and ask you for relief and you could reduce or eliminate it. But I wanted to make sure that you have that appeal right, too — to appeal to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 44 Clark: I had a question at agenda if we could see a whole artist's rendering on what the entire complex is going to look like when it is all built out. Did you get that request. Holloway: I understand that that was suggested but we have not had an artist's rendering like that. Clark: I was just wondering. I agree with Commissioner Graves and Commissioner Ostner in terms of the impact has on that whole area and quite frankly I'm a little surprised that only $110,000 is being requested in improvements. As I look at Appleby going into Gregg and North Hills, I see those intersections also needing attention and I am assuming that the City or other developments in the area will be hit with that cost. I think that this light is necessary, the improvement is necessary and it is one of the reasons I am very enthused about this project in general. I think the expansions at the Hospital are commendable, we already passed the addition of the fifth floor. I think that was a very well thought out and well presented plan. I think this one and the next one coming up will both bear similar scrutiny and approval, but I think these conditions are absolutely right on. And with that, I will make the motion, recognizing your right to appeal, that we approve LSD 06-1960 with the Conditions of Approval as state and findings of facts as indicated by Staff. Ostner: Second. Anthes: We have a motion by Commissioner Clark and a second by Commission Ostner. Harris: I think I need a point of clarification. I am a little uncomfortable knowing exactly how fair share is determined in this and I am little uncomfortable knowing what other entities might or should have already provided that they haven't provided therefore what WRMC is now going to be called upon to provide. I would like some discussion about that. Anthes: Mr. Pate, would you give our new commissioners some background on traffic and street improvements and off-site improvements and how those happen with development. Pate: Certainly. By ordinance, the ordinance says there is no set formula to determine proportionality or rationale nexus. It is looked at in a case by case basis, traffic generation, the existing conditions. We spoke about this in the downtown area for instance, if you are adjacent to or within an existing infrastructure that you will benefit from because it is already there, you are developing in a place where you have infrastructure that you may not have to improve. In other areas, that is not the case. For instance, Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 45 subdivisions and developments out in the west side of town, east side of town, potentially have more improvements, roughly proportional to their development than one would have in the downtown area. In looking at this particular area, actually reviewing escrow accounts today, there have been assessments made for a signal at the North Hills Blvd and Appleby intersection. There have been assessments made for Longview Street. We actually looked at and requested the applicant look at the intersection of Appleby and Gregg, however, knowing that there are street improvements planned by the State and funded in part by the City, those improvements are occurring at this time, so we are not requesting additional funding. We know those are funded improvements occurring at this time. Otherwise we would have likely seen improvements at that area, too, because major traffic generation obviously from this development is coming from North Hills from the north, off Futrall and I-540 and from the west off of Appleby and the east from Appleby. In looking at development, to get back more directly to your question, in assessing those improvements, Staff makes a recommendation to this Planning Commission. You determine whether the traffic generated by that development and looking in context with the infrastructure that is surrounding, whether there is an improvement needed at all. If there is an improvement needed, Staff would then make the recommendation on what proportion of that improvement would be borne by this developer. In reviewing the traffic study, based on the traffic study, North Hills Blvd. and Futrall already warrant a traffic signal and then based on the same subsection that the one gentleman spoke, the Subdivision or Planning Commission may refuse to approve a large scale development if subsection 4, the proposed development would create a dangerous traffic situation and then it goes on the say what that dangerous traffic situation is. In this case, if a traffic signal is warranted and more traffic is put into the intersection without some improvements, it could possibly compound a dangerous traffic situation. We felt it was evident that improvements should occur and we felt that the full cost should be borne by this very large development, the largest in this area based on the significant expansion that they are looking at. The reason condition #4 breaks that improvement up into two different large scales is because obviously those two large scales plus the fifth floor of the hospital all have different impact. And what we propose to do is to try to distribute that cost among those two projects. There are two different large scale developments and we proposed to simply assign half to one and half to the other. Harris: Thank you. Anthes: I'm surprised we haven't heard more about Commercial Design Standards. I was wondering if someone could move the colored board with the sky out where we could see it a little better. I certainly understand Staffs Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 46 position on the north elevation of the Gymnasium and while I understand and sympathize with the applicant on that one elevation that it is waiting to accept an addition, we also don't know whether that addition will be forthcoming and how long it will remain in that way. As I understand it, it is the elevation that directly faces North Hills Blvd. and is closest to North Hills Blvd. Is that correct? Kelly: No, it is perpendicular to North Hills Blvd. Anthes: Right, but North Hills Blvd. is serpentine and you look directly at that end from the portion of North Hills that is snaking around as far as I understand it from our site plan. I think it is very visible. Whether or not it actually fronts it, it is extremely visible. In fact, I am looking at the site plan and I am looking at the streets and how this sits in the site and it appears like even the interior faces in this sort of courtyard or around the stream, it looks like almost every single building faces is really highly visible from one of the main streets either North Hills or Appleby Road and when I look at these elevations I don't believe that they have the degree of articulation that we often require on other commercial designs, either in the area or around the City. So I was hoping that we would have some further discussion on Commercial Design Standards and would ask if any other Commissioners have any comments. Graves: Just to relate back to Subdivision, there were a number of these walls that looked sort of like the north elevation of the Gymnasium looks now and they have done a good job, in my mind at least, of fixing what we felt were a lot of blank walls and at the same time tying it to the structure that is already there. I wasn't here when the original hospital came through, but some degree you are working with trying to make this look similar to what is already there, whether this particular Commission would feel like what is already there matches what we get approved today on Commercial Design Standards and so we were, as we made recommendations to them on Commercial Design Standards, recommending some more use of glass and some brick column -type things that looked a lot more like what is already out there. From that stand point I think the applicant has done a really good job of going back and reworking these renderings and making it look like what I know in my mind's eye the existing hospital already looks like. While, it may not match perfectly with what might get approved on other things, we require awnings and things like that on some buildings — awnings on the hospital, I'm not sure that would be a thing you would do for example, so we were trying to get them to tie it in from a design standpoint to what is already out there, and I think they have done that. So I would be in favor of these elevations with the exception of the north elevation on the Gymnasium. Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 47 Anthes: Any further comments? Myres: I have to admit that the composite up here is a little daunting. I believe it is looking directly into the education center entry way from Appleby. It appears that, and correct me if I am wrong, that the large dark block section here is actually curved? Kelly: It is actually an obtuse angle, it is the lobby that connects between the clinic and the education so it is not a 90 degree, but it is a greater than 90 degree angle. Myres: So we are looking at a curved corner in the center and then it goes back. Kelly: And then there is an exit canopy that is not illustrated for the clarity of seeing the building, so that there is a canopy. That is the curved portion that you see on the plan. Myres: I still find that the individual elevations by themselves very attractive and I think there is enough variety and material and color to meet Commercial Design Standards. I don't find this view particularly persuasive in convincing me that I am right when I say that. I know there have been a lot of significant changes made at the request of Subdivision Committee and I have to agree with Commissioner Graves that I think it is in keeping with the existing building. I think the additions that you have made have improved the variety of what you see in terms of materials. So I don't have any problems with it. Morgan: May I add that the picture on the easel was done prior to this submittal, so there is a little more articulation but this is the only view I had of what it would all look like together. Anthes: That helps to know that. Harris: Kelly: Mr. Kelly, to go back to Commissioner Myers' question about the canopy — is that the curved linear structure? Do you mind pointing to what the materials on that will be - are they up here at all? I really don't have a depiction of it. It is going to mimic what we have at WRMC and also Walker-Harton Vascular which is a sloped canopy what cars can pull under. It is a cantilevered canopy — you have columns in the back and the roof just hangs out. It is supposed to be one way, but the clients may come and go as they please, but we have designed it so it is one way so the passenger side is adjacent to the front door to come in. That is a lobby. It is a round structure. It is to give some of the same language as Chair Anthes said of the hospital — we wanted the same Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 48 Harris: Kelly: Anthes: Kelly: language so you know that it is a common element with the whole hospital I think the next project has more things that help with the — the Emergency Room — we are not the architects of that project but they are still doing the same languages throughout the whole campus. And again, ours is two acres out of this 52 acres, but we are very happy to have this project before you. The canopy brings these buildings in conversation to the main campus and at the same time, again looking at this, does it bring the buildings themselves sort of in relationship to each other as well? It is more of a curve against a point. The angle of the lobby is going away from it and it is curving at the front. Mr. Kelly, are these the main walls with the windows on it essentially flat or is there any kind of articulation of the wall surface itself — each of these square volumes? We do have different materials so the different materials will be in and out. There is an alucabond wall panel system, there is brick, there is split face block, smooth face block and different colors of brick so that we do have articulation visually as well as the different materials so there is color as well as materials. Anthes: Can you tell me what the support enclosure elevations — where they exist on the plan? Kelly: The supported enclosures are for the trash container, the dumpster and also for our transformer. They are about five feet tall as you view them from the existing parking lot. If you were looking at it, you would see North Hills Blvd. past them. The transformer is actually eight feet lower than the bottom of that wall, so it is about 12 feet of structure and things we can have behind it. We are trying again to keep the same materials, the same language, but have these things so that they go away. This would be the west end, as we call it, of the clinic. Now you would see a little bit about it on the south of the clinic as you look at the clinic from the parking lot. But from that you would see that this isn't a front door, you see to your right, you see the canopy, the drop-off canopy, you see the alucabond of the lobby and you know there is portal, there is entry, that is where I need to go. These are block and different things to fully screen all four sides. Anthes: So that is sort of on the northwest corner of the clinic as it is angling over. Kelly: Yes, pretty much. Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 49 Clark: Kelly: Clark: Kelly: Clark: Kelly: Clark: Anthes: Clark: Anthes: Clark: Anthes: Ostner: The north elevation of the Gymnasium. I know that your explanation is perfectly feasible that there will be an expansion with a pool. If a benefactor is listening tonight and wants to phone in an offer for that pool, where would it go on that elevation? How would the elevation change? That would be an interior wall. There would be a new wall along North Hills Blvd. and a new wall along the stream bank and a new, basically west elevation, the north elevation. So there would be a new north elevation — there would be three new walls around a new pool and therapy pool. I also understand the concerns from the other Commissioners that that could be a long time in coming and looking at this blank, unarticulated portion of that wall could be what we see for a while to come. Would there not be some room to compromise to put something on that totally blank space that still could be utilized if it became an interior wall, like some lower windows? It was an entirely blank wall prior to Subdivision as Mr. Graves said and we have added windows and different things that we thought would still beneficial to the clients as well as take some of the plainness of that wall off. And it worked on one end. If it becomes a swimming pool, it will be utilitarian. I could go for it if you could just put a window or two or something. We are going to see that; it is going to be visible. I'm sure our clients are agreeable to that. We will work something in for you. That would help me tremendously. Windows would get 13 out of 13. Are you amending the motion? Yes. Would that be an administrative review by Staff? Yes, subject to Staff review and approval. Does Commissioner Ostner agree? If we phrase it a little more specifically. I'm not sure how to phrase it specifically. Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 50 Clark: Anthes: Ostner: Anthes: Pate: Anthes: Pate: Williams: Clark: Williams: Clark: Ostner: Roll Call: With revisions to the northern elevation with the addition of windows or other means of articulation subject to review and approval of Staff. And that would be added to the favorable finding on condition #1. That would be fine with me. Is there further discussion. One quick question of Staff. On item #3, the Shumard Oaks that were apparently not ever planted, although were existing on the original large scale development, were those part of mitigation or required trees, or were they just trees they wanted to put in? I think they were probably just that they chose to put in. So we don't have an issue there of being short. I think it is just the location — in the right-of-way as opposed to the landscaped area, so we are recommending a compromise. It fulfils the same function. As part of condition of approval #2, I want to call your attention back to the appeal process. It says the Planning Commission shall determine after public hearing which you just had, whether the required dedications and improvements meet the rough proportionality of the impact of the development on City infrastructure and services. If the requirements are in excess of rough proportionality, the Planning Commission is empowered to modify or reduce such requirements to achieve rough proportionality, but I would like some sort of finding on that since it was brought up tonight by the applicant. My motion would indicate a finding of approval for the indicated amount. If they meet the rough proportionality test. Yes. And as a second, I would concur. The motion to approve LSD 06-1960 carries by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 51 LSD 06-1961: Large Scale Development (WRMC ADMIN SVCS BLDG., EMERGENCY SVCS, PARKING GARAGE, 211/212): Submitted by USI - ARKANSAS, INC. for property located at 3215 NORTH HILLS BLVD. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 52.03 acres. The request is for a 64,068 s.f. Administrative Services Building, a 23,397 s.f. expansion to emergency services, an expansion to the Central Plant, with reconfigured parking and parking garage. Morgan: The proposed development has several additions including a 362 parking space parking deck as well as some surface parking and some expansions to the existing building as well as the new building. Again issues with this LSD that we have identified are street improvements, finding that this would potentially compound a dangerous traffic situation therefore, we are requesting an assessment for a traffic signal. One of the items discussed at Subdivision Committee was the internal traffic circulation requesting to connect the proposed and the existing parking areas. The applicant has attempted to do this and has done so in one of the most western most parking lots, but they were not able to connect the two main parking areas due to grade and based on this information Staff recommends in favor of the proposed parking circulation. One of the other main items discussed was Commercial Design Standards. The Subdivision Committee and Staff found that the elevations of the Administrative Services Building as well as the parking garage presented at the Subdivision Committee did not comply with Commercial Design Standards. Upon further review we have taken a look at some pictures submitted by the applicant of the view from the vacant adjacent property to the west, looking to this piece of property where the parking deck would be located. There is an existing tree easement located to the west of the parking area which has existing tree canopy and would screen the parking garage. In addition, the proposed Administrative Services Building would screen the parking garage to the south. Therefore Staff finds that the parking structure appears to be sufficiently screened and the materials would match the existing hospital and therefore finds that is compliant with Commercial Design Standards. However, we do recommend further articulation of the east, west and south elevations of the Administrative Services Building. The applicant has submitted pictures to represent what the existing structure looks like and larger elevations of the colored renderings of the proposed structure. I believe that in my discussion with the applicant, this is intended to be a service building and not stand out as much as the hospital, however, we have evaluated this as just a building which would have to meet Commercial Design Standards. Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 52 Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address LSD 06-1961? Seeing none, I will close the floor to public comment. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Holloway: Jerry Holloway with USI -Arkansas. Suzanne has probably mentioned everything that I needed to say and we would welcome any comments or questions that you have. Olmstead: Tom Olmstead — Washington Regional Medical Center would request that the same arguments that we advanced in respect to LSD 06-1960 be considered by the Planning Commission in this LSD 06-1961. That is an appeal of the Staff recommendations. Anthes: Does the applicant have any further presentation? Commissioners. Do we have a Subdivision report? Ostner: I believe I was chairing that Subdivision Committee. This item, as I recall was a little more difficult than the last item at Subdivision Committee. Discussion over Commercial Design Standards was thorough. That's about the extent of my recollection. If the other two Commissioners recall anything more.... Graves: The main thing I recall and I may be thinking of something else, but we had hoped to get a sample here because there was some question as to whether the color in the rendering was actually what we were going to see on the building itself. I think it was represented at Subdivision that the color was maybe a little bit darker and than matched up with what is already on the hospital a little better than what it appears to on these boards. With that said, again I'm trying to recollect what we had in front of us at Subdivision, but I'm not sure I have seen much that has changed and Staff can maybe help us with that. We stated that we didn't find in favor of Commercial Design Standards on these particular elevations. Lack: As the third member of that Subdivision Committee, I would concur with that assessment. I think I did have a feeling that the parking garage was screened very well by the trees and in that those were a tree easement and not just a stand of trees that were not protected in anyway on the site. I felt that it did give credence to an approval for the parking garage. I am also looking at the parking garage just as a matter of materials at this point and I am looking at in my investigations today of the drawings that it seems that it is just a colored concrete and not consistent with the building materials on the rest of the campus, but consistent in color I would assume. The color has been shown on the renderings. With the Administrative Services Building I think that this building was one that we all concurred on in Subdivision Committee that it did need more Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 53 articulation. When you assess this building purely by the ordinance and the creation of a box -like structure, I think this building fits that. With exception of possibly the east elevation which is the entry and the elevation directly responds to the rest of the hospital. With that I think the screening of the parking garage was the only thing that I can recall that there was any wavering on. Whether there might be some meeting of the Commercial Design Standards. Anthes: Mr. Pate, I know that landscaping doesn't count as mitigation for Commercial Design Standards and in this case, Staff did find differently? Pate: I think because it is unique as opposed to a tree to be planted along a wall that could be removed at any point, tree preservation easements are very specific — no tree removal can occur without City approval under the authority of our Urban Forester. This is a trail corridor and as part of this overall project, there are tree easements that were probably not the best located on the site when the original large scale development came through. Those have been abandoned and significantly improved along the trail corridor and along the creek corridor, so these tree preservation easements will be in place for a very long time, permanently at this point. That lends credence to that argument as Commissioner Lack mentioned. The very fact that the Administrative Services Building is pretty much in front of the parking garage as well, I think is also part of that. We have recommended approval of, a thing that comes to mind, a mini storage unit that had a commercial building in front of it, because obviously you could not see that. This is also at a higher elevation and a higher story level than that parking garage too so we felt, though it is not as articulated if it were adjacent to the street as we saw the one on Dickson Street that had full frontage onto a public right-of-way, the actual visibility of this will be limited and that is really the point of Commercial Design Standards is from the public right-of-way and the public realm to meet those Commercial Design Standards, so we recommend in favor of that parking structure. Anthes: And because the north elevation of that parking structure is really visible from the internal parking circulation and not from a major road. Pate: Correct. Anthes: Are there any more comments about Commercial Design Standards. Clark: Has any changed on these elevations from Subdivision to now? Morgan: I would be happy to read some excerpts from the letters from the applicant. They state — "the elevation board for the parking garage was Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 54 Clark: Morgan: Anthes: Graves: not submitted because they did not change anything on it" So they want to use the original board that we already had. They have provided photos of the existing structures on the campus to show the materials that will be used on a proposed ASB building and from the architects specifically — this is on page 15 of your Staff report — regarding the Administrative Services Building, the architect states that "we think what appeared to be horizontal banding fueled their request for vertical banding. This new colored rendering shows how it was meant to look. We have also included two pictures of the central plant to use as an example of how the building compliments the appearance of the hospital, without all the articulation of the hospital" I think they were trying to give us pictures of the central plant to show how they wanted this to be separate looking from the hospital and if you can't find those pictures, I would be glad to supply some to you. That is a picture of the hospital and that of the central plant. Have the elevations changed or the elevations? The parking elevation has not changed. Subdivision and I actually have the old can see the differences if any. I can't tell renderings changed about the It is the same one that was at ASB building elevations so you what they are. It looks like it has not changed, although the renderings are more true now. I would state that I cannot find in favor of Commercial Design Standards on this building. I understand that the client is saying that it is Administrative Services and it really isn't as important as other buildings but we evaluate gas stations for Commercial Design Standards, car washes, all sorts of projects and the use of the building is really not an issue in our review. It is the appearance of the building, that is what we are changed to look at. This has a very prominent, particularly the southern elevation, directly on Appleby Road which is very well trafficked and with that additional consideration of that elevation, I will vote against this project. I just wanted to state that at Subdivision, I don't remember there being any misunderstanding about horizontal or vertical banding. Our comments were directed at the fact that it just didn't seem to match the look of the rest of the hospital and there needed to be more articulation as Staff recommends. There wasn't any misunderstanding on my part and I don't think there was on the other members of Subdivision Committee. I am particularly about Commercial Design Standards on the Administrative Services Building when it is being used as part of the justification for approving the parking garage because the ASB is going to be screening the parking garage. So I have could vote in favor of the parking garage with the understanding that there is a tree preservation easement there that Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 55 is not going to be removed and helps screen it. And with the understanding that the ASB helps to screen it, but I don't want to screen one non -conforming building with another non -conforming building. That lends itself to having even more concern about the way the ASB looks because it is being used to help screen the parking deck. I would not be able to approve the vote in favor on the building as it looks right now. In fairness I said as much in Subdivision Committee. Anthes: Question of the City Attorney. It sounds like we have had a lot of discussion about Commercial Design Standards and that we are not finding in favor of them. In deference to this applicant, what are the courses of action whether we deny this project or if we would table this project and ask them to come back to us. Williams: You might ask the applicant what they would prefer. It is possible that they might not get a positive vote on this LSD without any further changes to the ASB and see whether or not they would want to table it to work on it harder or not. Clark: My packet says that looking at the ASB emergency services and parking garage. Where — point out if you would Jeremy, the elevations for the Emergency Services Building. Pate: Your 11 x 17 packet, it would be the first — it is a stand alone sheet. The materials, the banding, etc. Ostner: I'm not sure I evaluated this at Subdivision — this particular elevation. That is a concern. Anthes: Can you locate this building on the plan for us? Pate: All of the shading, the structures that are shaded, are the expansion. Anthes: That is labeled Emergency expansion? Pate: Yes. Anthes: These elevations don't have the materials called out on them, which is one of our general requirements. Myres: It does state that all building materials to match existing. I don't know if that is sufficient. Holloway: I would like to recognize Kyle McCann, WRMC. Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 56 McCann: Anthes: Clark: Myres: Anthes: Pate: Clark: Anthes: Clark: Pate: Holloway: Anthes: I am Kyle McCann, Chief Operating Officer at WRMC. To your question as to what we would like to do — being that part of this LSD application contains our Emergency Department expansion, we are currently at capacity. We are closed about 20% of the time. It is very urgent that we move forward, for community need purposes with this project, we would like to request your permission to table this issue until we could work with you all to come up with a suitable architectural design. Thank you very much. If someone will entertain a motion... So moved. Second. A motion to table by Commissioner Clark and a second by Commissioner Myres. Is there further discussion? Just for the applicant. If they would like to sit down with Staff if possible, to work out calling out materials and looking at ways as we did with the Senior Center to go through that I think Suzanne worked with Thad Kelly to go through all those elevations to come to something that Staff would recommend. I would recommend the same. My motion (timeline) was at the discretion of Staff. That is your option — you can refer the item back to Subdivision with your motion and we can vote on that or we can vote to table and bring it back to this meeting. Jeremy, what would Staff's recommendation be? I would recommend it come back to this level, since it has already been at this level. I think we have an understanding, at least the materials and things of that nature, from a Staff perspective — we can work on ideas, we understand what the hospital looks like already. The Planning Commission has approved this structure here that is before the podium which is similar to scale and materials. I think we could look at that. As I understand what your concerns are — the Commercial aspects of the ASB building is the main concern, correct? So that is the main building we would be working with? That is the main concern. There has been some discussion about the fact that the Emergency Expansion building may not have been reviewed very thoroughly at Subdivision. They may not have understood that the Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 57 elevations were submitted and the elevations do not have materials called out on them, so there might be a little bit of work to clarify those with Staff and we would ask that you would work with them on both of those buildings. Graves: My recollection from Subdivision is that we addressed the Emergency Services and they told us essentially that is was going to be a typical looking emergency area and they would provide elevations at full Planning Commission. It was a relatively small portion of the overall project and we forwarded it with that understanding and also with the understanding that we had some issues with the Commercial Design Standards on the other buildings and so if we were going to be taking those up. We didn't have a lot or problems with the rest of the plan. Commercial Design Standards were the main issue that was left hanging at Subdivision and we went ahead and forwarded it instead of holding it up on that one issue and felt that on a big project like this it would be good to have full Planning Commission opinions to weigh in on that. We were aware of emergency services buildings and aware that we didn't have renderings at that point. We did ask for, though, material boards and things like that at full Committee, so I am hopeful that when you come back in a couple of weeks, you guys can provide that to us, so we have a little bit better look at what it is going to be constructed of as opposed to these drawings. Anthes: In addition, I would say that the linear footage of the elevations on that expansion are at least as large as the ASB from the plans, so we do need the full renderings and materials and labels. So if you would work with Staff on that. And to clarify the motion is on the table, and that motion is to table indefinitely and we think it will come back to the next Planning Commission. Williams: At Staff's discretion. Anthes: At Staff's discretion. Is there further discussion? Ostner: Before we go ahead and shut this for tonight, I was at Subdivision, one who was concerned with the parking deck and I first have a question for Staff. How exactly is that deck shielded from Fulbright Expressway? Excluding any landscape. Pate: On the western side from I-540/Fulbright Expressway and Futrall which is actually between those, there is the tree preservation which goes all the way down to Futrall Avenue, the Skull Creek corridor for instance is planned to underneath I-540, so the tree preservation easement goes all the way along the western side of that. Additionally, there are several large Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 58 parking areas, existing ponds, existing landscaping along Futrall Avenue as well. As you can see, the WRMC is directly to the east, so that provides screening at least from the northeast, but otherwise it is a matter of distance and elevation. Elevation difference is quite significant from this to Futrall and Fulbright. Ostner: I appreciate that, however, I would like to disagree. I believe the tree preservation area we are talking about is depressed, lower. That drainage easement is all much lower than the Expressway and Shiloh which are all in the same right-of-way. I think the north end of this parking structure will be highly visible from a public right-of-way. It concerns me that it does not meet the Commercial Design Standards. On the west side, I understand there is a good argument being made for the tree preservation easement being a mitigating factor to not requiring the west part of the parking deck to comply with Commercial Design Standards, however, on that same logic, that trails corridor is a form of public access. The citizens of this town and the Council have been pretty vocal that alternative transportation in this town is determined to be as important as the car, not to be cast off as a little trail for kids. If that is the case, the trail corridor should at least be given the same amount of respect, so to speak, as a public right-of-way, which I would argue it is. It is simply not a vehicular right-of-way. So I would have to vote against the parking deck as it is drawn today — it is simply short of the rest of the development, the existing hospital that is very nice and needs a parking deck. I wanted to say that before you went back to the drawing board and assumed that the parking deck is going to breeze through. I don't think it will. Anthes: Thank you Commission Ostner. I was actually following up on a question to Mr. Pate earlier when I was asking about the landscaping not being a mitigating factor for Commercial Design Standards and ask him what side of the trees that trail is going? The other thing I would state to reinforce what you are saying that we required other projects to add articulation to sides facing trails. The Wal-Mart addition at CMN is one of those projects that we requested additional articulation for the very reasons you stated. I guess I would like Staff to have another look at that and come up with recommendations. Is there further discussion? Please call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to table LSD 06-1961 carries by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 59 RZN 06-2008: Rezoning (CMN BUSINESS PARK, 172-211): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS for property located at CMN BUSINESS PARK II PHASE III, NW OF VAN ASCHE AND STEELE BLVD. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 53.93 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Fulcher: The subject property contains approximately 54 acres known as CMN Business Park II, Phase III located east of Gregg Avenue and north of the proposed extension of Van Asche Drive. The tract consists of both C-1 property which is composed of about 17 acres and R -O which is approximately 37 acres. There are various surrounding zoning districts included RSF-4 to the south, R -A to the west and C-1 to the east. Mud Creek and Skull Creek traverse the site along the eastern and northern property lines. The applicants are proposing to rezone that portion of the property which is currently zoned R -O to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Staff is recommending approval of the requested rezoning. This site is designated as Community Commercial and Office on the future land use plan which consistent with the C-1 zoning district. The property is within a large area of commercial development within the City and within the vicinity of major thoroughfares, specifically I-540, Gregg Avenue and Van Asche Drive. The extension of Van Asche Drive west of CMN Business Park to Gregg Avenue in the near future will further connectivity and access in this area. A traffic signal is also proposed or planned at the intersection of Van Asche and Gregg Street. If you look at the map probably on 25 of 26 which is the best view, gives a good outline of the property and the proposed extension of Van Asche Drive to the intersection of Gregg Avenue. There is a residential subdivision to the south here, however, the property we are looking at and what is adjacent to it is currently zoned C-1. What we are reviewing is a portion of it that is zoned R -O north of that. We did take that residential neighborhood into consideration and obviously with any proposed development of those proposed lots we will take those residential homes into consideration with screening, outdoor lighting and compatibility. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this proposal for CMN? Seeing none, I will close the public comment section. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Sunneson: My name is Chris Sunneson, it is a pleasure to be with you again this evening. I think Staff has pretty much wrapped up our request. If you have any questions, I would be happy to address those. Anthes: I have a question for Staff. How much of this property is within the floodway and flood plain? Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 60 Pate: That I cannot answer. Obviously, on page 24 of 26 you can see the outline of the flood plain and one of our primary trail corridors and so protective easements for the wetlands and for the trail corridor will be in place for any type of development along that area. The City and its design for Van Asche is also planning on having the bridge or box culverts over the creek be large enough for the trail corridor to have a low grade crossing, so that is something we are very excited about as well to continue to facilitate this corridor as well as the Mud Creek corridor as development of that nature, that hopefully we will take advantage of that creek being there. Anthes: Being that there is so much of this property in that flood plain and flood way, what are the differences in building heights, setbacks and amount of land that can be covered in the R -O versus the C-1 zoning districts? Pate: There are no differences in the amount of land that can be covered, that is just Commercial Design Standards so that is 15% of your residential office, C-1, C-2 — that doesn't change. The building height within R -O, the only difference is that if you are adjacent to a residential property, you have to step back the building height and in C-1, the building height is even more restrictive — if you exceed the height of ten feet, you have to be set back from a boundary line of a residential district a distance of one foot for each foot in height. Residential Office is actually 20' in height, so it is even more restrictive in height requirements. Anthes: What about total building height? Pate: There is no total building height in either one. Anthes: And set backs? Pate: They are close to the same. The C-1 is a 50' set back. The R -O is a 50' unless you don't have parking in front which reduces it to 30'. I believe the C-1 district allows for a reduction of 25' for a front building set back. As far as the sides go, there is zero in C-1 and in R -O, they are 10' — 15' when it is contiguous into a residential district and C-1 when it is contiguous to a residential district, it is 10', rear is 20' and 25' R -O, so they are relatively very similar. The uses are the primary difference. Anthes: And because we have two new commissioners who are looking at rezoning requests for the first time, would you indulge me by telling us the difference in use units between R -O and C-1. Pate: I believe those are found in a reference on pages 5 and 6 of your Staff report. We always include a comparison basically and that is copied Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 61 directly from our code. R -O allows for single-family, two-family dwellings, manufactured home park, offices, studios and related services, and professional offices, as well as the conditional uses that we see there, such as eating places, multi -family dwellings, etc. What C-1 allows and introduces into this area would be offices, studios, related services, eating places would be a use by right, drive-in restaurants — that is use unit 18 which is gasoline stations, and drive-in restaurants. That would be permitted there. Those are the type of different uses that would be allowed by right versus by condition. It would discuss, actually when looking at the minutes, some of those, when this was all zoned as part of CMN, there was an original request for this to be zoned C-2 or C-1. Because Van Asche was not going through with the overall development when we were looking at that, Staff actually recommended that is be a lesser density until we had some improvements coming forward. We do have the improvements now which would include obviously Gregg Avenue which has been improve significantly since 1996 and Van Asche which would also allow for much improved circulation in that area. Anthes: Also for our new commissioners. Rezoning requests do go to City Council after we hear them here; they required five affirmative votes - it can go either way to City Council because there is an appeal process, it takes 5 affirmative votes to pass. Are they other comments or motions? Clark: I make a motion that we forward RZN 06-2008. Myres: Second. Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Clark and second by Commissioner Myres to forward this rezoning request. Roll Call: The motion to forward RZN 06-2008 carries by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 62 ANX 06-2006: Annexation (BROWN, 295): Submitted by BILL WATKINS for property located at THE EAST END OF TOWNSHIP STREET. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 3.38 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 06-2007: Rezoning (BROWN, 295): Submitted by BILL WATKINS for property located at the EAST END OF TOWNSHIP STREET. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 3.38 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE. Morgan: The applicant is requesting an annexation of approximately 3.4 acres. It is located adjacent to the Covington Park Subdivision located adjacent to the City limits to the north as well as to the west. Township currently dead ends into the subject property. It is currently built as a cul-de-sac though the right-of-way was stubbed out to the property to allow for future extension of the street. The applicant requests that this property be annexed and rezoned RSF-4 to allow for a subdivision of the property for single-family use. Staff would look at connectivity and future street connections at the time of development. This is a portion of an overall 14 - acre tract and the property owner also owns an additional 11 acres extending from this property to Mission Blvd. At this time, however, the applicant only requests annexation of a portion of this property. Based on findings from Fire Department and Police Department, we find that services can be provided adequately to this property. We find that a zoning of RSF-4 would be compatible with the existing development in the area and that the boundary created by this annexation would be appropriate and will not extend the City limits out any further to the east or south. With that we are recommending approval of the annexation as well as the rezoning. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to speak to the annexation or rezoning for Brown? Seeing none, would the applicant like to make a presentation? Watkins: Good evening, my name is Bill Watkins and a lawyer in Rogers. I have been retained by these folks to talk to you tonight. I don't have much to add to the comments of Planning Staff, but two points. Number one, just for the record, this property was properly released by order of the County Judge on January 23`d so it is ready for annexation by the City. My client has sold off these 3.38 acres that is why it has come before you to be rezoned. The rest of the property he still owns and he has no desire to annex or rezone at this point. It looks like the developer is looking to come back to you with a large scale plan for approximately seven lots, so even though it is a four units per acre density permitted under the RSF-4, Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 63 it is going to be about two and a quarter. It will be well under the requirements. I would be happy to address any questions you may have. Anthes: Commissioners... Ostner: I don't really have many questions about the annexation specifically but in the report it talks about there is a cul-de-sac stubbed out where I'm assuming this property will be accessed, since it is the only means of access. My question is more on the preliminary plat — will that cul-de-sac be given back and turned into a proper street or will it stay a cul-de-sac? Pate: It depends on how it was constructed. If it was constructed with the bulb, that would be removed, that is our standard recommendation to remove that and curb and gutter. We have seen projects actually at Subdivision Committee level last week that that requirement was made as well. Yes. Ostner: That is really not relevant to the annexation. I would be in favor of this annexation. I will make a motion to forward ANX 06-2006 to the City Council. Clark: Second. Anthes: There is a motion by Commission Ostner and a second by Commissioner Clark. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to forward ANX 06-2006 carries by a vote of 8-0-0. Ostner: I will make a motion that we forward RZN 06-2007, tandem to this property. Clark: Second. Anthes: There is a motion by Commission Ostner and a second by Commissioner Clark. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to forward RZN 06-2007 carries by a vote of 8-0-0. Anthes: Does Staff have any announcements? We are adjourned.