Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-24 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on April 24, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN VAC 06-2044: (TOYOTA OF FAYETTEVILLE, 248) Approved Page 5 LSD 06-1974: (THE ARBORS AT SPRINGWOODS, Approved 286) Page 6 LSD 06-1961: (WRMC ADMIN SVCS BLDG., EMERGENCY SVCS, PARKING GARAGE, 211/212) Approved Page 15 LSD 06-1997: (DIVINITY HOTEL & CONDOS, 484) Tabled Page 25 CUP 06-2019: (BOHOT, 679) Denied Page 74 CUP 06-1999: (MT. COMFORT PRESBYTERIAN Approved CHURCH, 361) Page 83 LSD 06-1973: (MT COMFORT PRESBYTERIAN Approved CHURCH, 361-322) Page 90 PPL 06-2011: (BUNGALOWS *CATO SPRINGS, Approved 600) Page 94 PPL 06-2010: (WEIR RD. S/D, 244) Approved Page 99 R-PZD 06-1921 (LAZENBY PHASE II, 560) Forwarded Page 112 RZN 06-2018: (FOSTER/BELLWOOD II, 400) Forwarded Page 120 Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 2 ANX 06-202: (HAYS, 474) Page 124 RZN 06-2021: (HAYS, 474) Page 128 Tabled Tabled Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 3 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Lois Bryant Candy Clark James Graves Hilary Harris Andy Lack Christine Myres Alan Ostner Sean Trumbo STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Gamer Suzanne Morgan Brent O'Neal Jesse Fulcher Tim Conklin Leif Olson CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 4 Anthes: Welcome to the April 24, 2006 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. I would like to remind all audience members to turn off your pagers and cell phones. Suzanne, will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call Ostner, Bryant, Myres, Graves, Harris, Clark, Trumbo, and Anthes are present (Lack arrived later). Anthes: The first item on our agenda is the approval of the minutes. We have minutes from two meetings, the March 13`h, 2006 meeting and the April 101', 2006 Planning Commission meeting. We did have a meeting on the 27`h of March, but we don't have those minutes yet. I've been assured they're forthcoming. I have a few comments to both those set of meeting minutes and the subdivision committee meeting minutes for March 30` that I would like to pass down to Jeremy. Other than that, I'll entertain a motion to approve. Clark: So made (to approve with corrections). Anthes: Motion by Commissioner Clark. Graves: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Graves. Suzanne, will you call the roll? Roll Call: The minutes are approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 5 VAC 06-2044: Vacation (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 0.78 acres. The request is to vacate and realign a portion of a utility easement within the property. Anthes: The consent agenda has one item, it is Vacation 06-2044 for Toyota of Fayetteville. Would any member of the public or the commission like to hear this item? Graves: Madame Chair Anthes: Commissioner Graves Graves: I'm going to be recusing on the consent agenda. Anthes: Thank you. Clark: I move we approve the consent agenda. Ostner: I'll second. Anthes: We have a motion by Commissioner Clark and a second by Commissioner Ostner to approve the consent agenda. Suzanne, will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve VAC 06-2044 carries with a vote of 8-0-1. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 6 LSD 06-1974: Large Scale Development (THE ARBORS AT SPRINGWOODS, 286): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at LOT 2 OF SPRINGWOODS PZD. The property is zoned C-PZD 03- 08.00 (SPRINGWOODS) and contains approximately 25.24 acres. The request is for 122 multi -family dwelling units. Anthes: We have two items on Old Business tonight. The first is Large Scale Development 06-1974, the Arbors at Springwoods. Could we have the staff report, please? Garner: Yes, ma'am. This project was approved by the planning commission on March 27`h, 2006. On April 10`h, the planning commission voted unanimously to reconsider this item at tonight's meeting. Since the time of the original planning commission approval, the applicant submitted a revised traffic study assuming that this development, which is 122 multi- family dwelling units, would be totally occupied by elderly homeowners and the subsequent traffic numbers have been incorporated into that traffic study. Staff is recommending in favor of the original conditions of approval and the street improvements as we originally recommended. The applicant is requesting us to modify those. We have a memo from our engineering staff in your staff report discussing traffic volumes, potential impacts of traffic, as well as our recommendation if planning commission decides to modify the improvements, the street improvements, we have a recommendation in here as well. We'll be here to answer any questions you may have and I'm sure that Matt Casey may be able to expand on some of the details of the traffic study. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Garner. Would any member of the public like to address this large scale development of the Arbors at Springwoods? Seeing none, we'll close the floor to public comment. Does the applicant have a presentation? Hennelly: Yes, ma'am. I'm Tom Hennelly with H2 Engineering. I appreciate you allowing this back on even though it was voted to table to still be able to consider this. A little background on it, I believe you have most of the information in your packet. At the time the original traffic study was done for this development, we were not under the impression that the ITE software that is used to generate these traffic studies had a coefficient available for elderly attached or detached units. Since that time, we found out that there is such a coefficient that is regularly used by federal highway administration, state highway department, and various other agencies. Those revised traffic numbers, and a little background on this development, it is a franchise, the development is part of a franchise called EPCON Communities that does all of their marketing towards over 50 residents. I think I misspoke when I originally presented this. I called this Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 7 an active adult development, when it is actually an active retiree development. They are marketed through mass mailings and that type of thing towards people 55 and over. As you can see by the traffic numbers that are generated, even if a portion of these units were occupied by thirty- year old adults that just didn't want to deal with the yard work and that type of thing, you're still looking at almost 2/3 less traffic than what a normal development generates. What we're requesting is in light of the reduced amount of traffic, we think that that corner of Dean Solomon and Moore Lane due to all the development around it is not that far away from being developed they would certainly be required to do street improvements along their frontage just as my client has been required to and we don't have any contention with that. We do feel like because the likelihood that this would be developed in the near future that is probably excessive due to the traffic generated by this development to have to do improvements offsite on Dean Solomon Road. We do understand that there is a necessity to reconstruct Moore Lane to the curb geometric standards that the city has for city streets. We don't have any contention with the offsite improvements to the east to Shiloh and Moore Lane with curbs, gutters, and storm drainage. There is about we're talking about roughly 30-31,000 dollars worth of improvements that we'd like you to reconsider based on these new numbers. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Hennelly. Is there any discussion? I do have a question. Tom, if you would clarify for me a bit, at the time of the original development approval the applicant did state that while the homes would be marketed to elderly and aging population that there was nothing to prevent others from buying and living there. I think tonight you somewhat addressed that but you also stated that whether or not somebody who was thirty years old and just didn't want the yard work moved in, you would still expect that traffic generation? Hennelly: I don't want to leave you guys with the impression that occupancy or ownership in this development is going to be restricted to people 55 and over. It is obviously available to anybody that wished to purchase a home in there. The nature of this development, my mom lives in one down in Little Rock, it's got a community house in the middle for gatherings and that type thing. It is truly an active retiree development. The way they market these, they don't just list them through a realtor and that type thing as a normal development would. They send out mass mailings, as I said, into the homes of people that are 55 and older. That is their major source of sales. You could expect, I think the statistic from EPCON, which is based out of Ohio, is that 1 out of every 100 of these units is occupied by somebody under the age of 55. That is their national average, and there are several hundred of these developments throughout the United States. This isn't the first one they've done. There is some statistical evidence. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 8 Anthes: Thank you. Mr. Casey, can you talk about staff's calculation and why you have not changed your recommendation? Casey: In the memo that is in your packet, it states that staff s recommendation is changing if planning commission decides to accept the numbers that Mr. Hennelly has presented. The recommendation was to remove the offsite portion of Dean Solomon Road, which is to the south of the development. They would still need to improve their frontage. Anthes: I'm sorry, we're having problems hearing number one, and number two does staff accept those numbers and those calculations? Pate: That's just kind of a judgment call. We're turning it over to the commission to make that decision. We don't have any history to base this on, as far as this type of development, and we don't have any guarantee either. So the decision was to turn that over to the planning commission and ask you all to make a decision. Casey: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes. Casey: I just wanted to add to that. Part of the discussion, and I just want to clarify, there are two different numbers you have for traffic generation. I don't think those numbers are in dispute since they are ITE generated numbers. So it's not the traffic generated by the two different uses that are in dispute, what I think planning commission, and what we're recommending planning commission should decide, is that whether you accept traffic generated by a retirement type community, which is obviously much less, like 35% I believe, would be generated by a normal multi -family development. So obviously the numbers of traffic generated dictate the number of street improvements offsite that are required. So if planning commission feels comfortable that this particular development will be a retirement type development as has been indicated by the applicant as these communities typically require of their franchisees, then we would feel comfortable making the recommendation to decrease those improvements. But, again, that's a decision that needs to be made by the planning commission. Anthes: Commissioners? Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 9 Graves: I just have a follow-up question with regard to the averages that Mr. Hennelly stated. If there are approximately 1 in a 100 that are going to end up being somebody that is under the age of 55, so you could say maybe 2 of these 122 units based on these averages, does that raise the traffic number any? Hennelly: Not significantly. Graves: Okay and so the numbers that you've provided us or that they've provided us in the traffic study would be roughly the same and staff recommendation with regard to the improvements would be that that point would need to be changed. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I was one of those who was concerned about this at subdivision committee, maybe four weeks ago or so. It concerns me because it is a departure of the way we've done business before. This is requesting that we pluck a demographic and we say this type of people drives differently. It makes a lot of sense, but it worries me a great deal that we're singling out a certain group of people and banking that they won't drive differently, that they will use the roads and have a different traffic pattern. It does make sense to me, I've seen these communities, though I don't know if I've seen the one in Little Rock you're talking about, but after they get built they are appealing to seniors, I believe they will be sold to seniors, I don't doubt that. But I have a problem with us changing how we do business because you're telling us who is going to move in there. I'm not really sure how I feel about that. We don't talk about groups of people here, generally. We've never singled out other groups before and developed differently because of that. I would just appreciate any more discussion anyone had on that. Lack: I think that the only time I could see that we do is with the different type of street section, or the different types of areas of town that a traffic analysis would take into account different traffic volumes for different streets. It would categorize certainly, and certainly there is a demographic criteria within their categories and I would have a tendency to accept and trust that category. The thing that I would be concerned about is that we have no jurisdiction then if we accept that category as a reasoning to reduce the requirements that we would want to have some means to Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 10 regulate that that category is actually what is fulfilled. So I wonder if the applicant would be amenable to a restriction that would make this more palatable. Hennelly: When you say restriction, are you talking about the people that could buy that to this demographic. Casey: Yes, actually limiting to a demographic that is being stated that the traffic pattern should be regulated toward. Anthes: Mr. Hennelly, before you answer that question, I would like to defer to the city attorney. Williams: I would caution making that a condition of approval. You're getting over into things like something akin to the kinds of things that normally a restrictive covenance which we've always held were private among the property owners of an area. I think that rather than focusing on the concept that this is geared toward a group what you can consider is that the traffic study assumed a certain group but you're still only relying on the results of a traffic study. You have to make a judgment call well whether the assumptions of the traffic study are trustworthy. I would recommend against recommending who can live there as a condition of approval. Casey: If I could elaborate on that a little bit. This is really no different than what we do on every other development. We propose a use saying that commercial development and we tackle parking with the same coefficients for that use were used for the traffic generation for that particular intended use. Over time, that use may change over time as it has in Evelyn Hills, or Fiesta Square. Those commercial uses change. While they may still be within the same zoning, the uses generate more traffic that was not necessarily counted on when the traffic study was done for the development when it was constructed. This is no different than that. I wouldn't consider this isolating a demographic more than I would saying that all we're doing is using the coefficients that are generally accepted throughout these traffic studies as it's associated with the use that this development is being intended; just like any other commercial development or any other type of development that we do. Lack: Madame Chair, if I may maintain, the I guess the way I'd thought about it was not necessarily, and maybe I worded it incorrectly to convey that it wasn't to restrict who could live there but to say that if that criteria were at any point not met then the road improvements would be based on the criteria for standard development. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page I1 Anthes: Commissioner Lack, are you meaning to say that if this development was not built as presented as a retirement or an active adult community but as multi -family units that the development would come back before this board and be reexamined, is that what you're proposing? Lack: I think that would be a way to maintain that. Anthes: Mr. Williams, is something like that... Williams: My only concern there is that what practical mechanism would you have to know? How would you, six months out, two years out, three years out, maybe fifteen years out it may well change. It would, just in how uses at Evelyn Hills and Fiesta Square have changed from the time they were approved. I'm afraid you practically have to deal with the here and now. I don't know of a mechanism where you would know to bring it back. Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I believe there is a big difference with the way this is working out in compared to the way we usually do it. Residential is a use. Duplex residential is a narrower type of residential. Single-family is a narrower type of residential. That is not who lives there. Those are uses. When commercial shopping centers are as you mentioned, change uses, those uses can be any people. It is an activity, not a person. This is a complete departure. We're not talking about the density, or residential or commercial. We're talking about that type of residential or that type of person have to come together with these IT numbers, which I understand are all legit. IT is a big outfit. They make traffic counting for business, I'm just concerned. I don't want another development coming through saying you know, wait a minute, I bet you, I can almost guarantee, young people are going to live there, tots of young people. People don't tell us that. They present a development and the building and the traffic needs are put into the computers and the numbers are spit out. I'm just not sure what to do with the difference here. I don't want older people to get a special consideration. I don't want them to be penalized either. They're not being penalized. The development is being given a little bit of leniency because the traffic patterns seem to be different. What about other groups that IT says drive differently? I don't, I'm just not sure how that adds up to me. I've never thought about who lives in these developments before. I've thought about the development. So, I'm stilt concerned, and maybe I'm the only one. Clark: Madame Chair. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 12 Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: You may not remember this or not, but when Butterfield Trail Village was built, was any special consideration given to traffic patterns based on a retired population? Because that is the only similar development that comes to mind. Pate: I honestly can't answer that. I'm not sure. Their only frontage is on Joyce Blvd that may have already been constructed and improved. I'm not, to be honest, I'm not sure. Anthes: There's a development in South Fayetteville, as well. Pate: The senior center? Anthes: No, there's actually a retirement community in South Fayetteville. Pate: The Nantucket? Anthes: Yes. Pate: There are similar street improvements. That is on the subdivision committee agenda. Those are just standard street improvements based on traffic numbers. Clark: And those traffic numbers were not, I mean there was no delineation between... Pate: We made our recommendation based on a multi -family development. Clark: And I have another question for Mr. Hennelly. You are asking to not be required to improve the frontage that does not abut your development, is that what I'm reading? Hennelly: Only on Dean Solomon. We fully accept and understand the necessity to do offsite improvements on Moore Lane east of the development to Shiloh. It's merely that corner. Clark: You don't want to do Dean Solomon to Moore lane, is that what I'm hearing? Hennelly: Yes, ma'am. We are in agreement to do our frontage along Dean Solomon. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 13 Clark: Is there any indication that the piece of land that stands on that corner is about to develop or is going to develop anytime soon? Hennelly: There's rumors, but other than that, that's all you can rely on. Clark: Because honestly I can understand not wanting to improve two sides of the property that do not have frontage. Moore Lane needs to be improved and I'm glad you're development is going to do that. I agree with Commissioner Ostner that I'm not sure about the older population not driving about that. My mother was certainly the exception to that rule. When she retired she drove all over the place, more than I do. I'm not sure I can buy into that. However, I know that if the property did develop, then that development could certainly be assessed for the offsite improvements to Dean Solomon. I'm waiting to hear other commissioners weigh in. Anthes: Is there further discussion Trumbo: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: I agree with Ms Clark there is a worth hitting this development for over $200,000 in improvements. Adjacent to the property and offsite. I also feel that when this property develops that Moore Lane and Dean Solomon should be assessed for the improvements. With that in mind, I'm going to make a motion that we approve LSD 06-1974 with the twenty conditions of approval stated by staff and find in agreement with staffs recommendation on 1-D with the recommendation not to have the added improvements to Moore Lane. I mean Dean Solomon. Clark: Before I second this, they're going to go ahead and do Moore Lane, but not Dean Solomon? Trumbo: Yes. Clark: I'll second that. Anthes: We have a motion by Commissioner Trumbo a second by Commissioner Clark. Mr. Pate, could you clarify which conditions we're looking at? Because we have the regular conditions and then we have this sheet... Pate: The conditions would start on page 3 of 38 of staff report. Planning Commissions' determination of street improvements A, B, C, and D. I believe it would be item A, 14' from center line along Dean Solomon Road, those would not continue on the east side of Dean Solomon Road Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 14 south to the intersection of Moore Lane. It would only be along the frontage as oppose to... Clark: So you would strike everything on A from continue... Inaudible Pate: Yes, that's what I'm saying. Anthes: Thank you for that clarification. Is there any further discussion? Graves: I would strike any language in D show it stricken in our packet that talks about improvements to Moore Lane as opposed to improvements to Dean Solomon. Pate: If planning commission accepts all the other recommendations and finds in favor of those, then yes it would be stricken. Trumbo: That was mine, too, with the motion. Anthes: So D disappears altogether. Is there further discussion? Suzanne, will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve LSD 06-1974 carries with a vote of 7-2-0. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 15 LSD 06-1961: Large Scale Development (WRMC ADMIN SVCS BLDG., EMERGENCY SVCS, PARKING GARAGE, 211/212): Submitted by USI - ARKANSAS, INCL. for property located at 3215 NORTH HILLS BLVD. The property is zoned S -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 52.03 acres. The request is for a 64,068 square foot Administrative Services Building, a 23,397 square foot expansion to emergency services, an expansion to the Central Plant, with reconfigured parking and parking garage. Anthes: May we have the staff report, please? Morgan: This property is located at the Washington Regional Medical Center. This was heard at the last Planning Commission meeting. The applicant is requesting to construct an Administrative Building as well as a parking deck and additions onto central plan, as well as the emergency services building. Much of the discussion at the last planning commission meeting focused and revolved around the commercial design standards. The applicant has revisited these and has brought some boards and displays for your review. With regard to the Administrative Services Building, the applicant has added additional articulation on the fagade of the structure with different brick colorings to match the pattern and colors of the existing complex and the existing hospital. In addition, they have supplied drawings of the Emergency Services Building. It is to match the current look of the hospital and I believe they have those available for you. With regards to the parking deck, they've submitted some information with regard to the height and how it is relative to the existing hospital. Though it is four stories, it will be compatible with the two-story structure adjacent to it. It is screened somewhat on the west by an existing preservation easement. They have added additional coloring to the concrete structure to match the pattern and coloring of the existing ASB building excuse me existing hospital as well as ASB building. I'm sure the architect will have further comments with regard to those. We find that the proposed revised elevations do meet and comply with commercial design standards. If you have any further questions with regard to conditions of approval or these commercial design standards, I'll be happy to answer those. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Morgan. Would any member of the public like to address this large scale development for Washington Regional Medical Center? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment. Does the applicant have a presentation? Holloway: Good evening. Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Jerry Holloway with USI Arkansas, representing the hospital Washington Regional Medical Center as a client. We were here at the Planning Commission previously and we asked that it be withdrawn due to the fact that we needed to do a little bit more work. As Suzanne has mentioned, Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 16 with the articulation, the commercial design standards, and also we wanted to do other items. We have done that. We would like to present that at this time. I would like to yield my time to HKS Architects Danny Babin, and also Norman Morgan. Thank you. Morgan, N: Hello, I'm Norman Morgan with HKS Architects. What I want to do is try to go through everybody has a packet and kind of walk you through that material. Starting first with the site plan, which was on page two of your packet, just to give you an idea where all these three projects are that we are proposing. The new parking garage, Danny will indicate where that is. Anthes: Mr. Morgan? Morgan, N: Yes. Anthes: We went over the site plan at the last meeting. We have a long evening tonight. If you could constrain your comments to the elevations, it would help us all out. Morgan, N: Okay. We'll go straight to the elevations. Anthes: If any commissioner wants to hear anything, please, we'll back up and do that. Morgan, N: Going to sheet three in your packet on the parking deck, which would be the lower elevation, Danny if you could just bring that up, last time this was basically just all one color. It should be two colors. It had a dark base and more or a field color brick. However, this is not brick, this is painted on material on or pre -cast parking garage. The colors to match are down below as you see, the darker color is the base which would match the brick on the existing canvas and then the field color which you would see most of is the middle brick that you see there. The paint would match that. What we've added since last time is we've added the colored band that you'll see on the solid members of the garage. As you look at the east elevation both ends that flank that garage, we have added the buff bands and the buff color and all the columns you see on the open area of the parking deck. So again, that starts to bring more color and more articulation back into the parking garage so it's not just all one field color. There was also some concern with how tall this was back on the site plan. We've cut a section showing how this relates to the rest of the hospital. As you see on that section, and that is page five of your booklet, this structure is not any higher than the second floor piece of the hospital with the windows of how the hospital is, that entrance is only two floors. Being a parking deck, it does not have as large fourth floor heights as the regular hospital, so they're both in the 30-32 feet. They're very similar in height. With it being Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 17 lower since it's down hillside it does not come up higher than the hospital. I think that was some concern. What we also have in the packet for you, if you look on page number IA, views south from Fulbright Expressway, as you can see when you go by and you're on Fulbright looking back to the south you will not be able to see this parking deck because it is basically hidden amongst the foliage that is already there. You can barely see the two story addition, not addition but two-story piece that does stick out at the entrance. As you go around and look at views from Futrall Road, you can start to see where the two-story piece is. It would be to the right of that. Again, it's blocked by a lot of foliage. There was some concern, I believe, raised about what this would look like from the creek and the potential future walkway that would be on the other side of Skull Creek. We've indicated with the dashed line on your site plan where that proposed walking trail is, which is on the west side of that creek. You can see the center line of where the creek is. We have also photographed if you're looking from Gregg Street looking back you see that it is fairly wooded and dense looking back. You barely pick up the top of the hospital. If you look on page 1 B looking at the last view from Skull Creek Trail, you can see that the view is very screened it would be down from the walking path. You can see that it is also a very dense area as well. We wanted to show you I think was the section here how it relates to the hospital in height, it would not be protruding high as it starts to go down to the creek, but at the same time does not provide any unsightly lines for the creek. Clark: Can I ask to see specific elevations of the emergency expansion? Morgan, N: We do have some renderings of the elevations. Clark: That would be nice because I don't have any of those in my packet. Morgan, N: The elevations they should be in your pack, those are pages 8 and 9. Anthes: Do you have colored elevations of those of that building? Morgan, N: We have submitted those. Morgan: {Suzanne Morgan stated they were in the Planning office and went to retrieve them.} Anthes: I think there was some question about that at the last meeting. Morgan, N: Should I continue? Anthes: Please. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 18 Morgan, N: Let's start with the ASB. What we'd like to show you is that we've also made some revisions to this, as well. One of the things that was probably not added in the last boards that we showed you is the materials. Again we now have examples of material. We will be using a CMU block very similar to the plat on the campus now. It would have the dark base, the middle color here, what we've done is added this buff color to give you these bands that also starts to go back and tie to the rest of the hospital. If you look at illustration or photograph on page ]A viewed from Appleby Road looking back you can see that you get what you see from a distance is a field color with the buff banding. Again, we've been consistent in keeping that like that. Anthes: Now on the hospital itself, it's brick but you're saying that this is supposed to be a block in the same color as, is that correct? Morgan, N: Yes, the same color. Anthes: So these aren't actually representative of your... Morgan, N: The colors are an exact match. Anthes: The colors are, but it will be a block. Morgan, N: It will be a block. Anthes: Is it split -faced, smooth -faced, what is it? Morgan, N: It will have a split -faced broken face to it, yes. It is split -faced. It is exactly what was built on the central energy plan. The other thing that probably was not pointed out at the last meeting is that all the windows are red just like the rest of the hospital. So, again, all the articulation and the detail to help you to tie it back to the hospital. Let's go to the next image of the perspective. This is not in your packet but this is another illustration to show you that the elevation may have been a little bit misleading because it looked like one large flat plane of wall. As you can see, there are different pieces of the wall that come in and out and it's not just one flat plane. You do have a roof that comes out that raises up to it on the east side. As it goes to the west, there's another bend. This is not parallel the road, but it parallels the property line, which has a jog. What we've done to maximize our area, is to use every bit of the area that we could. I believe there was also some concern for the screen wall. The screen wall is located on all the canopies. It's not a new color to the campus. It's a material and metal that has been using for the sloped metal canopies. We would be proposing using that for the screen wall around this. As for the Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 19 ER elevations, we do have that right here, the elevations shows you the different elevations with the new entrance and the articulations that come around on the south side as well. It shows you both the canopies. Currently there is a very small canopy, this will have a full canopy in the back, as all the other entrances and a wall as well. All the materials would be what we've talked about. These materials will actually be the brick because it's an extension of the hospital. All of the colors and banding would be the same. Anthes: I believe Suzanne brought up your boards for your building. Morgan, N: What Danny is going to be showing you here is where we were last time with the parking deck and where we are today so that you can see the differences in that with the additional banding and the paint colors. Also, better colorations. Anthes: Does that conclude your presentation? Morgan, N: One last thing, now that you've seen going back to (inaudible). Is there any more questions to the Emergency addition? Danny, can you just show them where that is on the area, what part is being added so everyone can see that, if you would just point that out. Anthes: We'll get back to you with questions, if you'll just complete your presentation. Morgan, N: Oh, okay. Inaudible (not talking into microphone) Ostner: Was the ER changed from two weeks ago? Are these different renderings of the ER or... Morgan, N: All we had last time was the elevation. These are renderings. Ostner: So the ER design hasn't changed, you're just putting it out better for us. Morgan, N: Yes, just trying to give you some three dimensional drawings this evening, no changes. Anthes: Thank you very much, we'll get right back with you. May I suggest that since we have three different buildings to deal with commercial design standards that we talk about them one at a time. Let's start with the parking structure. Commissioners, your comments. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 20 Ostner: Madame Chair, I was very concerned a few weeks ago about this. I am much more at ease with the changes they have made and the additional drawings that this section is very explanatory. So I feel comfortable with the parking deck, personally. Anthes: Is there any further discussing on the deck? Myres: Madame Chair Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Myres: I would just like to echo what Commissioner Ostner said. Because of the real lack of visibility of the structure when you're actually on the ground, the fact that it had some additional details added so that it is more in keeping with the structure, I think that horizontal light colored band detail is a very important addition. I appreciate the fact that the architects were willing to make those changes, so I'm in favor of it the way it has been redesigned. Anthes: Thank you, let's move on to the Emergency Services building, if we could put those boards up. Commissioners, are there comments on the Emergency Services addition? Myres: Madame Chair Anthes: Commissioner Myres Myres: This was the piece of the puzzle that I had the least concern with. I think the original rendered elevations were somehow addressed differently so that it seemed immediately that there was a tot of differentiation in color of the materials and the way that it's actually married to the existing building both in line and form as well as color I think it's a pretty seamless addition. I don't have any difficulties with it at all. Anthes: Is there further discussion about this building? Okay, administrative services building. Suzanne, would you explain staffs recommendation on this particular building? I know the applicant has added some banding, but we do seem to have some large expanses of fairly blank wall. Morgan: In review of the commercial design standards, we felt that the addition to the building was in line with the existing structure. I'm not exactly sure which particular elevations you're referring to with regard to the blank wall. The additional canopies on the property at the entrance created additional articulation. We just found it was compatible with the overall Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 21 structure. If there is any particular side you're referring to with regard to that we can certainly address that. Anthes: Well, it's the wall that kind of bends. The lower right photograph on the board on the floor. It may be that particular perspective. Myres: Madame Chair, the upper right-hand corner, is that the south elevation? Clark: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: Two weeks ago when we saw this for the first time, I had no problem with the parking deck as it was. I didn't see a whole lot of difference between the one last time and this time, but I'll take your word on it and get to my point soon. The emergency building I'm looking at the rendition not what I consider the elevations but they look really okay with a nice continuation of the building. This one, however, I'm still having a real problem with some of the unarticulated aspects, and maybe I'm just not seeing good elevations that are drawing out some of the components that you all are talking about. I see a brown metal building, a flat building. If it's not, please show me where it's not and show me what is happening that I'm not seeing. I get what you're saying, I'm just not seeing it. What you're saying and what I'm seeing are not jiving. Morgan, N: Do you want me to respond to that? Anthes: Please do. Morgan, N: Why don't you walk up a little closer, because I don't think they're seeing the banding (ASB building). As we've mentioned, we've added the brick banding, the buff colored banding that would be very similar to what you see on the hospital. It's above and below the windows, it has window seal and window heads, as well as the red window frames we have proposed to match the existing hospital. That is indicated in all those places. The areas that were warehouse type use adding windows to those areas does not make sense from a security standpoint. So again those are more of a materials area for the service building. Again, none of this does parallel with the road, it does more or less that's another reason for the articulations of the floorplan of having the angles and having the roofs to break down that wall. Myres: Madame Chair Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 22 Myres: I think one of the things that strike me now that I've looked at it 6 or 7 different times, is that the entryway, which has the most articulation, doesn't face the road. It faces in toward the existing building and east. So what you see is basically what might be the back of the building, the side of the building from the road. Maybe it isn't a service to the building to view it from there, but it is visible, very visible from Appleby. Isn't that Appleby? That was mostly for my clarification, thank you for listening. Morgan, N: May I respond to that? Anthes: Yes. Morgan, N: This is a service building for the hospital so the main entrance is to the hospital for all the staff and physicians and people who go back and forth so having an entrance along there is not for the public. Anthes: I think we understand that, but the problem is that our ordinance states that for any commercial design, standards is that any design that is visible any fagade that is visible from the major roadway is something we have to look for a very specific checklist of items. One of those is square box -like structures, unarticulated surfaces, etc... We need to evaluate no matter whether this is a car wash, a medical services building, a gymnasium, whatever it is. So the use is not what we're looking at when we're looking at facades, but whether there is adequate articulation to the street. We're applying that standard to your building as we would to any other building that we would review. I think what we're hearing is that two of the buildings we're pretty satisfied with but we're still struggling with a couple of the facades that are very prominently viewed from major streets on this particular building. Lack: Madame Chair Anthes: Commissioner Lack Lack: The south elevation and the west elevation I guess are two of the more plain elevations with this ASB building. In the packet, the banding actually shows up better and you can see the difference in color which the brick samples would indicate. That definitely does help, the horizontal banding does add articulation and helps to get to a place where we would say that this is an articulated large wall. I think that the windows can consider to be articulation. There is one element along the existing building that we see in the renderings that is a vertical articulation with this same light colored brick or a light colored material. I wondered if that was a consideration or would be a consideration for further articulation of Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 23 this building. That wouldn't change it appreciably or change the budget of the building necessarily but yet it would add articulation. Morgan, N: We actually did look at that and I do have that display if I could just show that. Just as he mentioned, we do have that with the buff bands and so it does give more articulation to those areas, as well as the angles that we've created with the different roof planes and different wall planes. We felt that would give you the articulations that you needed. Is this what you're talking about? Lack: That's exactly what I was talking about and I think that I could definitely support that as being acceptable within the ordinance. Anthes: Could I get somebody to close the door, please? Thank you. Lack: Thank you. Anthes: Commissioner Myres Myres: Thank you, I never even have to say `Madame Chair", all I have to do is catch your eye. I'm with Commissioner Lack on this one. I think that it is sufficient additional articulation would make me happy. I think it is a much handsomer building with that addition in addition to the vertical elements even though they're not prominent with some of the other ones on the campus. I could certainly live with this one. Anthes: Any further discussion? Commissioner Ostner... Ostner: I was just going to ask the other commissioners about the street improvements. That was a bone of contention last time. Anthes: I'd speak to that, if you'd like. I think that we forwarded a tandem item to this with that recommendation intact which basically is half of this cost. When I voted for that, I intended fully that the other half of the cost would be born by this project, so I would support it as staff has written it. Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: I'd like to make a motion that we approve Large Scale Development 06- 1961 with the stated conditions of approval finding in the affirmative with the new elevations and with the addition of the elevation with the vertical articulations for number 1 and finding also for number 2, the street improvements, and also for determination of number 3. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 24 Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Lack, do I hear a second? Myres: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Myres. Is there further discussion? Suzanne, will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve LSD 06-1961 carries with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 25 LSD 06-1997: Large Scale Development (DIVINITY HOTEL & CONDOS, 484): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at 101 W. DICKSON, BETWEEN CHURCH AND BLOCK. The property is zoned C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.41 acres. The request is for a 10 -story mixed use building with a hotel, restaurant, retail space, parking garage, and condominiums with 16 residential dwelling units and 137 hotel units. Anthes: May we have the staff report, please? Garner: Before we get started, the applicant has submitted some new information that I'll just pass out here. Anthes: I think we're having some problems with the microphones. If we can try to keep the doors closed that minimizes some feedback with the television outside which is interfering with our microphones. Testing. Okay, that's working. All right, we're back, good. If commissioners would pull their mikes in, also staff, do we have a sign -in sheet available at the podium? I want to make sure that we have the opportunity to record everyone's name that would like to speak. Thank you. Garner: This property is located on the south side of Dickson Street between Church Avenue and Block Avenue. It contains approximately 1.4 acres and is zoned C-3 Central Commercial. The site is surrounded by commercial and office development in downtown Fayetteville and Dickson Street with single family residents adjacent to the southeastern border of the property. As submitted to the Subdivision Committee on March 30th, 2006, the applicant proposed a fifteen -story 225 feet in height multi -use building for 142 room hotel with some condominium units, retail space, restaurant, bar, and other hotel accessory uses. In response to comments from the Subdivision Committee regarding certain building elevations, building height and compatibility, the applicant has redesigned many aspects of this structure thereby reducing the maximum height and scale of this structure. The project as proposed before you would be a 137 room boutique hotel with some condominium units, 77 hotel only units, 60 condo hotel units, and 16 condo only units, retail space, two restaurants, and two bars. The development would provide access to Church Avenue and Block Avenue with a 380 spaced parking deck interior to the structure. It would also provide a 20 foot public alley linking the existing alley to Church Avenue. As you can see, we have a large audience here for this item and other items. Staff has received a large number of phone calls and as you know there has been a large amount of press coverage for this project. Staff has included the written comments we have to planning commission. We do not have a large amount, but we have received several emails. We have those in your packet, the ones that we had sufficient time to get to you. In addition, we had one note that was passed to me right Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 26 before we started here that the public, or one member of the public, requests being able to comment after the applicant's presentation after they've seen what the new elevations look like. Street improvements that would be required with this project include stalling a left turn lane at the traffic signal at Dickson Street and St. Charles and improved sidewalks to a minimum of 10 feet along all street frontages, continuing the sidewalk to the property south to Spring Street, replacing all existing sidewalks in the same manner as those constructed on Dickson Street. Regarding vehicular access, there is two waiver requests, one for a waiver of the driveway with the southern driveway onto Block Avenue is 16 feet in width and they're requesting a waiver for that width to be approximately 1.3 feet greater than allowed. They're also requesting a waiver for the driveway curve radii and several of these, the curved radius, are smaller than what is allowed by ordinance and staff is recommending in favor of both of these waiver requests because in this downtown area with its limited space it makes sense to allow for these. I will let Jeremy Pate, Director of Planning, discuss commercial design standards and their applicability to this project. Anthes: Mr. Pate. Pate: Before we begin that, we were also handed several other faxes and entails today just go over those. Conrad Odom sent a letter that you don't have copies of in support, Otis Robinson in support, Holly Brown which I believe I've passed out with that against this project, and O'Leary Kelly against this project, Scott Marie Kelly, Victoria Souder in support of this project, those were not included in your packets, but I wanted you to be aware of those public comments that we received either Friday or today. With regard to the process for this project, it has followed the typical large scale development process that is dictated by the planning commission. This project was recommended for denial to the planning commission by subdivision with a 2-1 vote. The applicants did submit their revisions in a timely manner with the meeting deadline of 10 am last Monday. What was different was that there were also additional elevations that were changed by the applicant. There was discussion by the subdivision committee about what revisions could be made, however the recommendations that come from subdivision committee were those elevations of a fifteen -story structure. I did want to make that clear. That is something that the planning division sets those deadlines that it requires the applicant to meet otherwise we simply will not place it on the planning commission agenda. A couple of items I would like to go over. Obviously, there has been a lot of public comments and discussion about this project. A couple of things that we cannot consider about this project, the downtown zoning code has been forwarded with a recommendation for approval by the planning commission, the City Council chose to waive the 90 day suspension of any Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 27 permits for this particular project, so by resolution the council has waived that requirement. The current amendment to building heights that is before the City Council and the C-3 Zoning District is also not applicable to this project and should not be considered. That issue, I think primarily, is the compatibility to appearance and with regard to surrounding properties for the downtown and Dickson Streets with regard to commercial design standards. I'd like to go over a couple of notes that I made if you will allow me the time. A couple of things that we consider with regard to commercial design standards, and I did issue a memo stating that building height is important and the appearance of the structure is something that is subject to commercial design standards. It has been discussed on several different occasions, most notably in the Dickson Street area with Three Sisters. We did include minutes from that large scale development that was approved. The Three Sisters project has a maximum height of 67 feet and five stories. One planning commissioner at that point did vote against the project citing specifically and I quote `I do have a concern about the height of the building. I was originally concerned about the scale in that location. That is my concern. I believe the project is oversized for that particular location, and would not meet commercial design standards' end quote. Staff has evaluated this project in a number of different ways with regard to commercial design standards. We began, as you know... Anthes: May I please have that door be closed? Thank you. Pate: Subdivision committee reviewed with a maximum 225 feet height I believe and 15 stories. After discussion by the subdivision committee, which is obviously comprised by three members of this committee, there were significant revisions made by the applicant. We worked with them over the next four weeks to present something to you that has significantly changed. I do want to applaud them for their efforts in trying to get something to you as a commission that they feel would meet the commercial design standards and that would be a compatible and attractive addition to our community. With regard to how a project fits into the context of an area, a couple of projects come to mind, about four to six weeks ago the planning commission reviewed and approved a building that was entirety metal and met commercial design standards within an industrial district. The planning commission has also reviewed and approved other projects that might not fit onto Dickson Street such as the 16 -story and 12 -story structures that have been approved out on Joyce Street. I feel that it is very important that the context in which a project is located should be evaluated in appearance and construction of a building and whether it meets commercial design standards that includes whether the area is a regional area or an industrial area, a residential area, those have a specific type of scale and type of language in regard to architectural compatibility. With this particular project, I feel the planning commission Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 28 is charged as a nine member board to make the decision whether they feel this applicant has made the effort to create a structure to present to you a structure that meets those commercial design standards, along with all the other ordinances in place at this time. We obviously there are two or three waiver requests that we feel comfortable recommending approval for, for curbed radii and entry and we are recommending approval of those particular items. I think that the materials have come along way in regard to the items that the subdivision committee recommended in making more use of brick and things of that nature that are more compatible in the downtown area. There are more materials that have been utilized with this latest proposal that you have before you and Ithink will be presented this evening. In the time since staff received full elevations, the booklets I believe you have in front of you, we've been able to evaluate those. As presented, I believe, is the maximum 10 -story building I can't remember the maximum height, I believe 181 feet. I'll reference the end of the package that you have that gives the height in stories. The height has been significantly reduced on the Dickson Street side the north elevation to primarily a four-story fagade 65 feet in height. The one component that does increase above that at the Dickson Street fagade is the cylinder at the northwest corner. The facades that have also decreased in height that are still relatively high are the west side and the east fagade, both of which go up at least 8-9 stories. Those elevations there are for your review. At this point in time, I'd like to have the applicant present, or with the chair, when the applicant does present those elevations he can present those more clearly than I. At this point in time, these elevations that you have in front of you, staff is not able to support this project as presented and would like the planning commission to obviously have the public input for this project and the discussion that it warrants. Anthes: Mr. Pate, do you have the staff recommendation in a written form for each commissioner at this point? Pate: We do not. Most of the comments that I have presented were in your staff report. I was reading from notes from the staff report. Graves: Madame Chair Anthes: Commissioner Graves Graves: Is the inability to make any kind of a recommendation right now based on commercial design standards? Pate: That is the only item that we feel this project does not meet. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 29 Anthes: Normally we would hear public comment first, but in this case, I don't know that every member of the public has actually seen this project. I'm wondering what the commission would think about having an applicant presentation first even if it could be an abbreviated one, so that the members of the public can see the project before we ask them to comment on it. Clark: Is everyone out in the hallway able to see and hear what goes on in here? Anthes: Would that be available in the television out in the lobby? I would like to get consent on that. Does everybody think that's a good idea? Why don't I ask the applicant to come forward. Mr. Hennelly, is there a way to give us an abbreviated presentation knowing that you would have your full presentation after public comment to introduce the public to the project? Hennelly: It would certainly be appropriate to maybe show some of the elevations. I don't know how in-depth we would want to get on the presentation from an architectural standpoint other than allowing the cameras to focus in on the elevations themselves so that everybody could see it. Anthes: I think that would be very helpful. Hennelly: I am Tom Hennelly with H2 Engineering representing the Barber Group. I've got Eddie Abeyta here with HKS Architects down in Dallas. In regards to the staff report, I would like to get some sort of clarification on if it is exclusively commercial design standards that you're not able to recommend in favor of the project on. I'm assuming that is specifically height. Is it exclusively height or? Anthes: Mr. Hennelly, I believe that what Mr. Pate said was that staff is supportive of everything but the commercial design aspects of this project. He also referenced context, appearance, scale, materials, and so forth. I believe that I would take it as all of the listing of what we can evaluate for commercial design standards rather than heights. Hennelly: I just want to get a better idea of what exactly that was. Ostner: Madame Chair Anthes: Commissioner Ostner Ostner: As commercial design standards change or as they might change their design to satisfy staff, other things might also change. Anthes: That's true. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 30 Ostner: So I think to state it clearly it sounds like staff has thoroughly evaluated except commercial design standards. We're not saying everything is somewhat approved except design standards. Anthes: Absolutely not. I have a lot of comments on site plan and other issues. That is the commissions' purview to review this project in its entirety. The question was directed to staff's recommendation. Pate: That is correct. Ours is merely a recommendation to this voting board. Ostner: I would suspect as this applicant might possibly change their design after tonight, other things might pop up that staff was in favor of tonight but might not be in favor of in the future. Other things can change when they change designs, is all I'm suggesting. Anthes: I guess I'd like one clarification while they're setting up. Mr. Pate, I know that you stated that neither the downtown code that has been forwarded to City Council by this body or the ordinance that I believe was left on the second reading can be used to evaluate in this project. However, I would like to ask for clarification on the downtown master plan vision document. I believe that that document was sent by the planning commission to City Council on August 9`11, 2004. The City Council approved the resolution for the downtown master plan vision document on September 7`}', 2004 with a unanimous vote. I know that this is not an ordinance, I know it's a guiding policy, such as our general plan and I believe that this document actually has some very specific recommendations and guidance for what we should look for as far as development in our downtown area. Can you elaborate on that? Pate: Sure. It is much like our general plan which also has some very specific guidance and ways to implement tools to implement those guiding policies, not all of those are followed, within the five year time frame with which we have a general plan update and what we're doing now is the city plan 2025. Much like that, it is a guiding tool essentially to look at and the city attorney can jump in here at any time, however I do not feel that the planning commission can vote on a project and base their recommendation based on guiding policies. We do make recommendations, for instance with connectivity, which is not an ordinance requirement it is a guiding policy. It would be extremely difficult to make an ordinance out of where streets should stub out for instance with subdivision in every place, so we utilize that as a guiding policy. However, it is very unlikely that we would recommend denial against a project unless there were for instance no connectivity and did not meet our block length and so, to clarify you are correct, City Council has adopted that as a policy tool. It is something that Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 31 we would look at, it has specific recommendations and ways to implement that. Obviously it has been forthcoming from this planning commission and forwarded on to the city council. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Are we ready? Abeyta: Yes, my name is Eddie Abeyta, I'm with HKS Architects and if you don't mind I'm going to pull this mike off to walk around here. Let me just kind of give you a brief presentation with regards to where we were and where we are today. These images off to the left here represent the design that we proposed a couple of weeks ago. I do want to reiterate the fact that we were proposing a 15 story building at that time. These elevations obviously are different scales but they represent the same project. The second set of images are merely proposed design. The big difference between the two are one is the overall massing of the project and number two the number of floors of the project. What we're proposing today is a project that is on average 10 stories in height. Originally we were 225 foot in terms of building height and today we stand at 181 feet 6 inches, specifically and that's to the top of the mechanical space that sits on top of the building. A lot of the things that are similar with the projects are the fact that we have maintained a four-story and I want to emphasize a four- story podium on the base of the building. That's made up of on the ground floor public space and on the northeastern corner is the hotel lobby lounge area which is a high-energy public space, on the northwest corner we have the main restaurant for the project which is positioned on that corner to energize and interact with Dickson Street. Spanning across between the northwest and northeast corner is a strip of retail for shops. That is what we're saying retail opportunities. Anthes: Can I interrupt you for just a second? Abeyta: Sure. Anthes: Is it going to be possible to bring those elevations up on the monitor for the audience to see up on the PowerPoint? I guess you can see it there, but I'm wondering if you can also bring it up there for... Myres: Madame Chair, I don't think the effort that you're making to make sure that the people in the hall can see all of this... Anthes: I'm thinking about the people sitting right here on the benches... That helps, thank you. Sorry about that. Abeyta: That street level interfacing with Dickson Street is public space associated with the entire project in terms of restaurant, bars and shops, retail Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 32 opportunities along the entirety of Dickson Street. On the second level, we have a component which is meeting space, banquet space. This facility occupies about 12,000 to a little over 13,000 square foot of meeting space that we're providing. The main banquet space at level 2, which is this location elevation, the main prefunction which serves the main banquet hall has been positioned on Dickson Street so that the 2nd story interfaces with the streetscape in terms of the public aspect. The two levels of the building directly above that are two levels of a parking garage that are disguised behind these little angled steel panels. Overall, the podium dimension from street level to the roof of that podium is a four-story component. Those are the similarities between the two projects. The big difference between the two projects is that we took the main tower which used to sit on the first scheme and pretty much eliminated that from the project in one respect in terms of its overall building height. We have taken what used to be five levels of hotel which used to sit on the four- story podium, so we have nine levels across the main section of the tower, we actually eliminated one level of hotel. Now we actually have four stories of hotel on top of the four-story podium so the majority of that mass is eight stories in total. We do have a small component which sits on the northeastern wing of the hotel which is a spa/fitness component. We still have that on top of this newly revised elevation. So that in total in terms of stories we have nine stories on this northeastern corner. As we move to the northwestern corner, we've introduced this sort of cylindrical element all the way from street level to the roof. The idea there is to really create a focal point for this project and really speak to the energy and the interface of the restaurant component with the street face and sort of allowing that energy the character of the building to extend vertically through the tower. At this northwest end of the building, this is where we have located our condominium units. We only have four stories of condo tower that sits on top of the hotel tower itself. Then we have punctuated the building at the top with a sky restaurant and bar. So we have opportunities for outdoor roofscape as well on top of this glass cylinder. We've maintained the idea of this outdoor pool deck, which we're calling the razor deck, for outdoor communal opportunities to interface with Dickson Street and look towards the campus and so forth. We've maintained the opportunities for introducing for activating the roof on top of the hotel like we originally had adjacent to the spa and fitness. Those overall are the big adjustments. We are still proposing materials that are commonly used throughout this region in terms of brick, concrete, and metal. If you look at what would be the west elevation, the Church Street Avenue elevation, it takes on a different character than what we had proposed originally. This is the original design in terms of the west elevation and as you can see the original concept was more of a vertical tower. This since the scale has been brought down the project has been spread out horizontally, we are introducing elements of brick which create Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 33 sort of gritted facades. The fagade is pulled out to allow for the depth across the building elevations and to allow for balcony space across the zone of the hotel, balcony space across the zone for the condo, and as you can see the glass cylinder as it rises up on the corner of the building. But the majority of the material that actually clouds the condo we're talking about introducing a metal plating as a contrast to the brick. Then obviously we're still introducing exposed concrete balconies that would be coated with a coating, steel pipe rail, steel, and then kind of a halo element at the top of this cylindrical element at the corner in celebration of that rooftop outdoor dining experience. So that's it. Anthes: Thank you. I think that's very useful. Before we start the public comment section, I would just ask everybody to keep your comments concise and directed to this project, and if somebody else has said something you want to say you can just refer to their comments rather than repeating them. That would help us all get through this meeting in one piece. Would any member of the public like to address large scale development 06-1997 for Divinity Hotels and Condos? Would you line up, sign in, and state your comments? Nealy: My name is Dot Nealy and I'm a resident in Ward 1. I have submitted a letter for you all to read in its entirety. My comments should pertain specifically to the building. (Inaudible) Anthes: If somebody could vigilantly try to keep that door closed, that would help us here a lot. Nealy: Most Fayetteville residents are all for economic viability of our community and many share the view that it is possible to increase commercial and residential uses in city and historic areas of Fayetteville without constructing buildings of enormous scale. New height profile construction in excess of the proposed six stories in the downtown master plan would be more appropriately sited in closer proximity to the Fayetteville Square such as west of the Bank of Fayetteville and south of the EJ Ball Building. This would also revitalize the economy and the commerce in the square. Other sites that would be more amenable to these larger scaled buildings would be in the vicinity of the Northwest Arkansas Mall. Anthes: I need you to talk about this particular project on this site, please. Nealy: Yes, on this site. I would just ask that you consider the scale of this building and the nature of this building as being inappropriate for this site Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 34 as proposed and to consider other locations within downtown Fayetteville such as to the west of the Bank of Fayetteville and perhaps the Walton Arts Center parking lot. I ask that you proceed carefully in consideration of these projects. Our city should grow sensibly and practically not in haste due to pressure of developers pressing down projects approval before the downtown master plan with its recommended scale and height restrictions goes into effect. Thank you very much. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Nealy. McGatey: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, Madame Chair, my name is David McGatey. I'm the general manager of the Radisson Hotel. This evening I am speaking in that capacity and not any other I have in the city. I can give you 137 reasons why I support having a hotel brought into downtown. We currently have 235 rooms at the Radisson Hotel, Mountain Inn is looking in to bring in an additional possibly 200 reasons. We have the Town Center which has 14,000 square feet of meeting space, CCE which is attached to the Radisson has equal amount of space, the Radisson has 14,00 square feet. This particular Barber project is looking at coming in close to 13,000 square feet. With these additional hotel rooms and this space, following the proximity of downtown within walking distance, it would give us the opportunity to bring in larger group business that we have not been able to do simply based on the fact that we did not have ample hotel rooms for conventioneers to come into town. With the project and included with the space that they have, in addition to the track facility, that would give us ample space with hotel rooms for bringing in large groups and conventions into the city that we have been losing out on because we have not had the space. The impact that it will have will be monumental. The attached space as well as all of the retail and restaurants, as well as the AP commission and 2% of the tax. Once again, you have 137 good reasons why I support this particular project. Thank you very much for your time. Anthes: Thank you. Kelly: Good evening. My name is Anne O'Leary Kelly and actually before I begin my statement, I'd like to set the record straight. It sounded like the gentlemen over here representing staff when he mentioned emails in support of this project I think I heard him correctly to say that I sent in an email in support and that my husband did as well. Anthes: I think that he actually mentioned your names as against. Kelly: Okay, great. Thank you very much, because in fact I am here tonight to strongly oppose this development. I don't think that it is at all compatible Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 35 either with the current character or spirit of Dickson Street or with the proposed master plan that so many people in this community have worked so hard on in the last few years. I think that we're in a very historic turning point as we make a decision about this project and I think it's a place we've been in before as we made decisions about how Fayetteville develops. We had to make a decision years ago about whether to have a sign ordinance and thankfully we had city leaders who recognized the importance or preserving the character of this city and they created such an ordinance. The same is true whether we face decisions about what to do about decaying old main or the crumbling Carnall Hall. We had folks here in town who recognized the importance of preserving those in order to preserve the character and spirit of our city. I think that the decision we're facing now is no less historic and no less important. If we allow ten -story modern tall buildings like this to go in on Dickson Street others will follow and I hope I sincerely fervently hope that we have the foresight not to let that happen and to preserve the unique character and spirit of Dickson Street. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you very much. Mr. Williams. Williams: I'm John Williams. I taught architecture here for 60 years. I practiced architecture during that time. I came to Fayetteville to establish a program in architecture. I was very pleased that I was able to do that in Fayetteville, Arkansas because it was a very beautiful town and I think that's special and it's unusual for more and more cities. It becomes more and more unusual for more cities in the United States. I'm here because one I'm concerned about this particular building in the context of Fayetteville. I believe it's completely out of scale. I would vote against it if I had the opportunity. I would like to take my time to explain that I think it is would be a mistake to build it. That's just not a personal opinion. That is the opinion that is based on long-time study of architecture, or city planning, of being aware of the special qualities of Fayetteville. I think as far as the aesthetics of it is concerned, that I think it is totally out of scale and I think it would be unfortunate to have it. I realize it has been lowered and a number of floors and I'm just talking about it. Regardless of how many floors, I think that if it's more than the usual floors around it that it would be a mistake. I also would like to talk just a little bit about the building. Architecture is described as a problem solving process, architectural design. One of the most serious problems that we have is energy conservation. We're at a point now where energy is a most serious problem. As I look at the elevations of these renderings the elevations shown on the renderings I'm again alarmed at the amount of glass. It seems to me a real lack of concern about heating the building in the winter time and especially cooling it in the summer time. I was curious about a south elevation because south elevations are fairly critical as far as Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 36 summer heat getting and the winter time is concerned. I didn't see that. I was concerned about a west elevation which has lots of glass. It would increase the amount of heat required by energy to cool this building. The north elevation is also a point of glass. I just think I would really like to be a nice person but I just think that this is a serious mistake as far as the building is concerned, the design of the building, and the location of the building in Fayetteville. Thank you. (Applause) Anthes: I need you to keep that applause down please. If you want to react to an item I'd ask you to go outside and watch it on the monitors. Mr. Young. Young: I'm Cyrus Young. A few weeks ago I spoke to the planning commission about the Underwood development. I gave each of you a copy of my comments. I don't know whether you read them or not. I am pleased to hear one of the commissioners mention the plan for the area that was adopted prior to this development being submitted for approval. The Arkansas Supreme Court not only talks about ordinances and laws, they also talk about the plan for the area. Nor does the city have to create a zoning ordinance or a landing plan or adopt plan use districts or commercial districts. But once it has done so it must follow the ordinance until it is repealed or altered. The issue of compatibility again comes up. All of these case laws that I've sited about the Underwood building as far as I know still apply to this. I don't think anything has been reversed since then. Anthes: Mr. Young, if you would just address this building. Young: Life Concepts vs. Harden the court addressed the challenge to the term compatibility and found that it was not vague because it had a plain and ordinary meaning that could be understood by reference to a dictionary. We agreed that the term has a well-defined meaning, it is not so vague as to leave an applicant guessing as to its import or meaning. Moreover, there is no indication that the applicant was laboring under any misconception on what the ordinance required in order to obtain a permit. We conclude that the appellant has not established the ordinance as unconstitutional in Arkansas. It is constitutional to have compatibility. This development does not fit the Dickson Street area and does not meet the goals and requirements as pertains to the historic character as is stated in Fayetteville's ordinances and policies which were requested and adopted to citizens of Fayetteville prior to this development being proposed. This proposed ten -story structure can never be considered to be compatible with the surrounding area which contains one and two storied buildings, no matter how much you may fidget with the design. I ask you to turn Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 37 down this requested development for failure to comply with existing ordinances and planning policies. By rejecting this development, you will be preserving Fayetteville's identity and character as consistently requested by the citizens of Fayetteville. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you very much. Mr. Kinion. Kinion: I'm Mark Kinion. I live five blocks north of the proposed development. I actually was very open-minded initially about this. I was in a meeting and we talked a little bit about scale and the scale of the building. A simple graph was handed to me looking at scale at that time looking at a fifteen - story compared to a ten -story and I'd like to leave this with Madame Chairman because I think it caught my attention on how out of scale this is with the area on Dickson Street. Looking at this, I'm sorry that I haven't had time to look at the overall design. I think it was rushed, which has bothered me personally. It is a really cool building. I just don't think that it should be at this location. I don't think that it is in scale with the neighborhood in which I live, so I will leave this. Anthes: If you would give it to staff, please. Chaney: Dr. Don Chaney, resident of Ward 3 and a business owner. Basically the gentlemen of the Radisson cleared up what I needed to say about that. On just a personal level, I see that if we do not evolve, if we just stagnate and keep the cute little town, the picturesque town, we're never going to grow. It's not the economy, or anything like that, we're going to turn into Eureka Springs West. That's just how it's going to be. I'm firmly for this project, we should always look for growth. I think it does come with the spirit of the master plan which was pedestrian traffic, parking garages, trees, everything like that, so I'm firmly for this. Anthes: Thank you. Brown: Madame Chair, Planning Commission members, my name is Tom Brown. My property is located at 339 N. Gregg. I opposed the project that is presented. It is not in scale or character with Dickson Street as depicted in the downtown master plan. I have a written copy of some statements I want to make, and I'll leave that for the Chair. First of all, the city is expeditiously but carefully working through the process of developing a new downtown zoning ordinance that addresses these this issue brought forth, many issues brought forth, both by the general public and by developers during the process of the creation of the downtown master plan. The new downtown zoning ordinance is going to be a critical tool for the successful implementation of the downtown master plan. Until it is adopted, we have the downtown master plan map and its documentation to Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 38 help guide the developers and the city. That is available to everyone. It has been out for over a year. The Divinity building developer has apparently elected to ignore the citizens' current sentiments regarding an acceptable height of new developments along Dickson. In fact, they're using cries of potentially economic loss to the city and threat of claiming unfair treatment to twist the arm of the city to allow them to maximize their profit at the expense of the successful implementation of the master downtown master plan. Anthes: Please talk to the development rather than the economic aspects of it, if you would. Brown: The downtown master plan is worth fighting for and we are in fact in favor of the downtown master plan, even today. The planning commission, the city council, the mayor, the city attorney need to realize that the citizens of Fayetteville expect them to stand up to the economic self interest of developers and support the successful implementation of the downtown master plan. Even if with self-centered legal action. If you do not stand up to the selfishness... Anthes: Mr. Brown, can you please talk about this particular building on this particular site. Brown: Well, that's what I am doing. It's very specific. Anthes: Well you're talking about economic aspects and the planning commission cannot evaluate a project based on economic impact. Brown: The approval of the nine -story Lofts development at the other end of Dickson should not be considered a precedent, but only an unfortunate non -conformity. The planning commission would be setting a dangerous precedent if they cave in to the development pressure to recommend a second development that exceeds the six -story height limit that is being considered under the new downtown zoning ordinance. Remember one unfortunate approval does not make a precedent, but two might. You must hold firm in your support of the downtown master plan and say no to ten or even a seven -story development project. I just have one question that I was hoping you might pose to the developer at some point during this process, and that is why did you not render the building showing the surrounding existing buildings? That might be helpful for the planning commission in making a judgment about scale and the appropriateness. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Brown. If you would leave your comments with Mr. Pate, please, thank you. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 39 Davis: Good evening, my name is Lane Davis. I think the gentleman from the Radisson and also the doctor who spoke earlier were very succinct in how they described Fayetteville and the potential growth. I think they've done a very good job in modifying the building and bringing it into a very favorable size as far as the ten -story and I think it will work very well with Downtown Fayetteville and also with the growth in Downtown Fayetteville. I am in commercial real estate in Rogers and as you all know what is going on in Rogers I just think it would be advantageous to Dickson the Dickson Street area and also to Fayetteville and I think it's going to be something that continues to add to Fayetteville and to the growth of Fayetteville. I do want to remind you of the nine -story building that was approved. .1 think that this will obviously fit into something that is going to benefit Downtown Fayetteville. Thank you. Anthes: Thanks, Ms Davis. Raglin: My name is Jim Raglin. Anthes: If I could get you to sign in while you're talking. Raglin: Oh, you sure can. Anthes: Thanks. Raglin: I came to Fayetteville in 1986 and over time Dickson Street has changed tremendously. The way I see it, and most people see it, it's gotten better if you remember in 1986. I live on Watson Street which is in close proximity. I view this as a welcome addition to the street of Dickson, not only to Dickson but to the business owners, to the citizens, and the city. This is something I strongly hope goes through, and I just want to share my opinion. Nugen: Hello, my name is Ronnie Nugen, and my father owns a restaurant on Dickson Street called Mom's Kitchen which I hope to see you all there. I know that's not the site we're talking about, but... With that said, I have a vested interest in this building and the project. I also live on Church Street, 219 right in front of Ozark. I have been unfortunate to look at this building from my window, but that said I also am in support of this building. Growth is inevitable on Dickson Street area and in Fayetteville, the historic community that we like to talk about, we did develop the character of this community. It does not have to be stopped and halted with a two- story building. These buildings do not mean loss of integrity or character or diversity of the region. One of the issues, again, is increased diversity on Dickson Street and within the Fayetteville area. This building helps us Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 40 to increase diversity and attract new business and other projects to the area. Now, the hard thing is about compatibility. I understand the Supreme Court has outlined the interpretation on compatibility. The question presented to you is what is compatible with the other buildings in this area. The future dictates that it will be inevitable that buildings like this area going to be built, they are going to come. Whether or not we consider an ordinance that hasn't been voted on with a six -story limit is not the question. The question is are there buildings around the area that are compatible with this building, such as the Underwood building, the Marriott Renaissance. Those buildings create an environment that makes this building compatible with the Dickson Street area. Therefore, if you look at the overall context not one square block, or not one square corner of Dickson Street, if you look at the whole Fayetteville downtown area as it grows and progresses you can see that this building will not be out of place and context with the buildings that are surrounding it. This building is not by itself in the context of one block. Additionally, when you are showing elevation you don't want to show all the buildings around it. You want the elevation to be by itself alone. Therefore, you can see the building on its own merits and not what it is around it. Additionally, we're talking about the other characteristics not just the elevation but the other characteristics of this building that I feel a lot of people have ignored. What does this building look like compared to other buildings? First of all, as we all know, Dickson Street is very eclectic, you have domes which is different than other buildings, you have the Underwood building which is different from the Dickson Street theater and other buildings like that. This building only adds additional diversity and retail to this area that brings in new pedestrians and new styles in development. When you're thinking about this, you have to think about the future and not just the historic matters or the past, you have to think about what is going to occur in the future in retail and new development is only going to bring new additions and while changes are scary, at the same time being like other cities that with big buildings haven't lost their integrity, for example Seattle, San Francisco, New York, lots of character. As you look at that, this city can grow and develop its history and its character for the future. Thus I feel that I am in support of this project. Thank you very much. Anthes: Thank you. Please, no applause. Before the next gentleman speaks, could I ask you guys to turn off the PowerPoint now? Thank you. Just a black screen is fine if you could just turn off the projector. Hines: Madame Chairwoman, I'm Steven Hines. I live here in Fayetteville. I'm president of Haskell Strategic Communications which offices in the Bordino's building on Dickson Street. If the Divinity Hotel is built, I will be able to see the building from our office on a daily basis. I am here to strongly support the project, and I'll tell you a couple of reasons why. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 41 One, I think that many people in Fayetteville, not everybody, but many people have realized that the Underwood Lofts were approved just very recently and that would be on the other end of the street. I do think that that is a very important factor to consider. Also, we know that on a daily basis our city is losing much sales tax money and property tax money to the neighboring counties. Andres: Again, no economic discussion here, please. Hines: I do also think that there are many people who are interested in having this type of facility within our city. I think it would attract more visitors to our city. I think that if you are looking for that type of hotel or that type of restaurant, and I do think that would be a good thing for Fayetteville. I do think that the Barber group has been able to work with the city. They have, to my surprise, been able to mark five stories off of it and still make what sounds like a (inaudible) project. I think that's impressive that they have worked with the city and the mayor on that. I do think that is something that should be considered. I urge the planning commission to strongly support the project. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Hines. Mr. Ramsey. Ramsey: I'm the chairperson, I'm Bill Ramsey, I'm the president and CEO of the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce. I promise you that I will not be here to talk about economics of the project. I would like to commend the Barber group for listening to some of the concerns of the Fayetteville constituency, the Fayetteville citizens, and coming back with a dramatically improved, dramatically different plan in going from fifteen stories to ten. That is in response to some of the concerns that they have heard from the citizens. I think they should be commended for that, and I haven't heard a lot of praise for that tonight. I did hear you say that economics is not compatible wasn't your true motive. I think what is your motive, however, is to look at the requirements that we normally have in place at the time the application was made are still in place. I think that is on reason I commend this group. You know they could have stuck with the original fifteen -story plan and met all the requirements but they chose to do the right thing and address some of your concerns, and again I'd like to commend them for that. I told you that I'm the president and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce. I just want to read our mission statement to you. The Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce is a duly organized body of Fayetteville citizens whose mission states: our mission is to serve as a leader and for membership by promoting a strong business plan of Fayetteville and facilitating positive interaction that result in continued economic development and quality of life. That is as close as I'm going to get to any economics. I can tell you folks the eyes of Northwest Arkansas Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 42 are on you. I think this is a turning point for the future of Fayetteville, Arkansas. I think the decision that is made not only here tonight but whatever the final decision is going to have a lot to say about the future of Fayetteville and our quality of life. This project is we currently I'm going to talk a little bit about competition because we don't compete. We can't attract... Anthes: Mr. Ramsey, I really need you to talk about the development, the building itself, how it sits on the site, commercial design standards, access, traffic, all the things that we can look at here. Ramsey: Thank you for reminding me of something I said I wasn't going to do. I just urge you to approve this. It meets all the requirements, the current requirements, uniform development. It meets the approval. It meets all those requirements, and we just appreciate a good vote and thank you for your time. Anthes: Thank you very much. Kvamme: Hello, my name is Joanne Kvamme. I sent letters to people but some of them didn't come by. I'm a very visual person and I have a question very similar to that one of the other people asked and its why do we never see a picture of this building next to anything else? I went down Dickson Street and I'm not an architect and that's very obvious but what I did do is I have one block for each height. This is Dickson Street and you have to remember that it actually turns like this so this building would be actually quite a bit bigger than it looks because it would be remember that we have the hillside ordinance on the edge of the hill, things really stick out, it's right on the edge. When you put this building in, this is the ten -story building compared to the rest. I think it's a very good visual compared to what we've seen. Anthes: Please. Thank you. Kvamme: Oh, I'm sorry. Anthes: No, not you. (Inaudible) Kvamme: The other comment I have is the city of Fayetteville has been going in a great direction. We have brought outside people in to help guide us into the future. We don't want to stagnate as a lot of people say. Just because we don't see this as progress doesn't mean that we don't want to attract business, we don't want to have progress. But we want to control our progress. We have a master plan that is not complete, but there's not a person in this room that doesn't know exactly what is in it. I find it odd Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 43 that the developer who wants to work in our community wouldn't embrace what our community has said we want for our future and work with that rather than just coming in and saying no you need to be Dallas, I'm sorry. Why not embrace what we want for our community and work with us and that's what I think we need. I just think that growth does need to be customized to us. I don't think there's a person in here that wants no growth but I don't think this is. This is not appropriate. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you very much. Allen, Nate: Good evening. You should have received a list about 400 either emailed or consent of people to put their names on a list about concern about preserving Dickson Street by preserving the view to Old Main. I'm here tonight strictly as a husband pitch -hitting for his wife. My wife Nancy was too sick to come tonight, but she did rally today and was able to use the phone. That's why I'm here. The developers talked of Dickson Street being the Fayetteville's 6`h Street of Austin and we quite agree. Today Nancy called Austin and she talked to a Linda Corpey who is in the staff office and George Zackalack who is on the city planning staff of Austin. It turned out that Linda is from Wynne and went to school at the UA, so it turned out she was both familiar with Dickson Street and 6`h Street. She mentioned buildings on 6`h street must abide by a view corridor for the state capital building, and we'd certainly suggest before it's too late a similar strategy for buildings on Dickson Street and elsewhere in regards to Old Main. She also said the buildings that have concerns deviating from surroundings and compatibility on 6th Street are made conditional uses and are evaluated on a case by case basis. We also would like to see that implemented. In light of the pending but not approved downtown master plan we would like to see a moratorium placed on building on Dickson Street until either the master plan is approved... Anthes: Mr. Allen, that's a City Council action. Allen: That's right and I'll take that back. We do think that it's the citizens the type of downtown master plan with six -stories on one hand and then waiving through a ten -story building like a frantic third base coach in the 9th and it's about to rain. My view on the matter is a no-brainer it should be zapped on the spot, I think in all fairness to both sides such a mammoth project should be viewed deliberately and not in a rush as to why we were ruled before the rule begins. Buildings grandfathered in before the new ordinance ought to be truly grandfathers and not baby Hueys on a crash diet just to be conceived. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Allen. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 44 Sutter: I'm William Sutter. I guarantee you I won't be that entertaining. I grew up in Fayetteville. I had the marked privilege of growing up in Fayetteville in the 1940s and 50s. At that time, the square had one block of it two hotels, the Washington Hotel on the southwest corner and the Mountain Inn. Dickson Street had about 5 or 6 hotels, most of them were limited to one or two stories about the pool hall or grocery store here on Dickson Street. A big part of our city was the ability for people to stay with us. I think it's interesting that no one's mentioned that Hillcrest Towers is at least thirty years old and the last time I counted the floors it had eleven floors and that's about three blocks of where this building is. I also read the paper that eighteen floors may be going into the Renaissance Marriott. It looks to me like we need to accept the fact that the square and Dickson Street or downtown Fayetteville, or old town, or uptown, Dickson Street used to be downtown and the square was uptown for most of you that are as old as I am. One of the questions, John Q. Hammond, a nationwide renowned builder and owner of hotels out of Springfield, MO has built three hotels in Northwest Arkansas and has planned... Anthes: Mr. Sutter, please talk to this project, if you would. Sutter: This has to do with this project and why Mr. Hammond hadn't built one here. I thought it was pertinent, but I apologize for putting that in there anyway. I've lived all over the world, and in several large U.S. cities. The ones that have hotels integrated into their central areas are the most interesting and the most successful ones in my opinion. I fear that if Dickson Street doesn't grow in the future it might end up looking a lot like Springdale. I rest my case. Please support this project. It's noteworthy. The building is lovely and special. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you very much. Davison: Good evening. Thank you for all being here, I appreciate the new faces that have taken on this challenge and I appreciate you all listening to all of us tonight. My name is Sharon Davison. I am here to say please vote against this. I am still in a wow state. Staff recommends denial. Wow. I'm still shocked, personally, but I'm very happy and I'd like you all when you do consider that. We all know how staff sometimes says well they've met all these requirements we have to there have been all kinds, but this is one of the few strong denials that I've heard in coming for quite a few years to these meetings. So, thank you very much, staff for looking out for our interest as individual citizens, individual property owners with no vested personal financial business. I think most of what I've heard tonight on the pros are pro business financial folks. Most of us are really appreciative that the staff is recommending denial. I think that this is true a turning point for us, not just on the size but scope. There are certain things that Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 45 bother me with the adjectives used in this project, in boutique. I think that we go to France and find little boutique hotels there. They've little two and three storied buildings. I see a huge block of concrete. Personally, I've been to East Berlin where buildings go for blocks. This is more so what this looks to me instead of small and boutiquesque. I'm concerned with the special accommodations that have been given... Anthes: Ms Davison, let's talk about the project itself rather than the political process, if you would. Davison: Okay. Well, I didn't know we couldn't talk about the politics because the politics have forced us all here tonight to accommodate them and I knew we couldn't talk about the economics. Anthes: The planning commission has voted to put it on the agenda tonight. They made the application, it was put on the agenda. We have a public hearing. Please, lets talk about the building. Davison: That's it. It's part of the problem, rushing these things like this. We haven't even, let's look at the bigger part of parking. When I look at this, it's not going to have enough parking for its traffic. We're in a serious crunch here in Fayetteville, and I think part of the hidden secret of the parking problem is our caverns. I know there are caverns under EJ Ball parking lot, I think that's been part of the problem, the weight. I know there's a cavern under the back corner of the Hilton that we have to be concerned about, excuse me, it's the Radisson now. I would want to be concerned also that we haven't thoroughly checked our geological aspect of this because that's a little hush-hush secret around here that that's a big problem. You talk parking decks and weight and that's a big problem. Hillcrest Towers has been brought in as comparison. With that defective motor, we know that building is going to be coming down in the not too far future as a safety hazard. That's a little secret, too. Here's a big problem I have for this building at this time and developers expecting accommodation asking for waivers variances and all. It's speculation. It is speculation. This building for these speculative purposes is not compatible with the neighborhood. When other folks want to bring in something that might be built, something that might be passed, I think you are given the tools here to say no to this because of incompatibility with the neighborhood. I just loved the Lego demonstration (by Joanne Kvamme) because I think that showed it so clearly. Please, I appreciate your time. Don't allow yourselves to be forced to do anything. Our city staff have said they recommend denial. You have lots of folks, individuals, residents, begging you to deny it. Please deny this. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Mr. Fennel. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 46 Fennel: Planning Commission. Joe Fennel from Bordino's down on Dickson Street. I've been on Dickson Street a while and I've seen it develop, thank God. I'm a business owner down there, and a property owner, and I thank God that we're making progress. We need to make additional progress. We need to make a lot of progress if we're going to stay competitive. I've been down there since 1980 and I think that everyone in this room can say that Dickson Street is a lot better place than it was in 1980. I opened Jose's in 1980 and had three murders. One body was laying outside my back door. Compared to where we are today than when I opened my taco shack down there, we've come a long way. Thank God that we had the foresight to put the Wal-Mart center down there. That is the initial thing that saved Dickson Street. Other than that, Dickson Street would have been gone, would have been gone a long time ago. When you make that kind of commitment to an area then good things are going to happen, so I am in favor of this project. Do I like everything, the design here? I'm not going to say that I like it. Do I like the project? I think the project is fantastic. I think everybody is hung up on the height issue. The lady before me mentioned the parking. If you look at downtown Fayetteville, what's ugly about downtown Fayetteville? Those ugly parking lots out there. We would all like to correct that. Do we want to look like downtown Tulsa? It costs money to build parking decks. These developers here have come forward now with the project they are going to provide parking. There have been a whole lot of parking who have come to Dickson Street who haven't provided any parking. That's why we've got a parking problem down there. So, if you look at their project and you take out the 380 parking spaces then you can shrink this project three stories. So if that makes the project better then take the parking out of it and let these guys develop their project like we let a lot of other developers on Dickson Street and not provide parking. A parking arrangement was done for 10-12 years down there and has provided the parking crunch we have now. These guys are willing to foot the bill on a parking lot, on a parking deck 380 spaces. We haven't had a developer in Fayetteville that wanted to spend that kind of money. I commend them on the fact that they're wanting to build a responsible project and they want to do things that are right. So if we're hung up on the height issue then let them do away with the parking situation. I don't know what the parking garage costs. Someone told me it costs anywhere between $12,000-$20,000 in space. They could save themselves a whole lot of money. They could handle that by buying the rest of that block and knocking down all the houses and putting up one big old asphalt parking lot. Is that what we want in Fayetteville, or do we want to take a parking garage and hide it in a nice building so that we don't have to look at parking? We've got a parking problem in downtown Fayetteville. If we don't address parking as we develop, then we're not going to make it. I'm just here to tell you. I will be Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 47 back because we've got a parking lot issue to deal with with UBC. If we don't do that then the Arts Center is going to die, and Fayetteville is going to die. I've got customers that walk to my businesses every day. The reason they don't come to Dickson Street and spend money is because they don't want to fight the parking problem. So I do commend these guys for spending the money and incorporating parking into their project, and I appreciate it. So, that's my two cents worth. Adair: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Brittany Adair. I'm a business owner on Dickson Street, and I'm also a Fayetteville resident. I just wanted to pass on what was said a second about the parking. I'm for this project 100%. I think it will be a beautiful asset to Dickson Street. I think that it is located perfectly with bringing in the Dickson Street and making the tum onto the square. The downtown master plan, one of the things that they really wanted to do is try to put traffic in all these areas. I really think that it will help with that a whole lot, and of course the economic that we can't really talk about. I think that it's a very lovely building and I commend these gentlemen for bringing this to our area and for funding this, for sure. Thank you very much. Anthes: Thank you, Ms Adair. Bowman: My name is Scott Bowman. I'm a business owner, a multiple property owner. Off Dickson Street, I own Theo's Restaurant. First thing, real estate speculation, you speculate on something that's actually I came here in 1990 to go to college and... Anthes: Let's not begin the definitions about... Bowman: No, no. The Walton Arts Center, if someone had told me in 1990 that was going to go up there, I would have called them crazy. That was a visionary project. There's no reason that another 15 years this cannot be considered the same thing. It meets the demand. It's not speculation. We meet a demand here, condos, mixed-use buildings, that's the reason they're selling out right now. It does meet a demand. On parking, I can't tell you how much I pay for valet parking to go through that process to get my customers in there. My customers from North and all that, these guys have done that. They've handled that in all the projects. One thing I don't want to see happen with, we've said that it would promote diversity and the eclectic nature of Dickson Street, the entertainment district, why not a little modern architecture? I don't see how that doesn't fit into the definition of what we're trying to promote down there. I'd hate to see this turn into a city where our downtown mid -town areas are not taken not left to see their full potential. We have a city like Atlanta, Georgia was a long Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 48 time ago with a series of strip malls. We look like our neighboring cities up north. I'm in favor of this project. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Bowman. Mitchell: Hi. My name is Jim Mitchell. I live at 224 West Watson. I'm not sure who else here has referenced this. I can sit on my front porch and see this property. I got home this evening, and I was not coming down here because I get really tired of these civic meetings. But after Cox got my cable back on and they were broadcasting you, I tuned in and Mr. Williams was speaking so I decided I was going to come down here. So, first, I want to thank you all for the time you've given this, and I really want to thank you Commissioner for running a very good meeting. That's pretty important at this point. I do not have a problem as a private citizen with the height of the building which I would be staring at. The neighbors asked if it was going to block the sun and kill our grass. I think what the issue is for me and what I'm hearing and again just my personal opinion is is that if the architectural fapade of the building reflected Dickson Street, reflected Old Main, reflected the character of downtown area, I think a lot of these issues might have gone away very early on. At the same time, I have to point out I'm trying to play both sides of the card, I guess we're all here now, but if I had my way, the square would not have the east and northeast and north side of the square developed as it is. Those are probably three of the ugliest buildings I've ever seen in my lifetime. So, if people were worried about architectural vision, maybe the developers could look at reconfiguring this in light of Mr. William's comments about economy and energy and so forth and look at a design that would fit in with the architectural history of the area with regard to the rest of the height of it. Thank you very much. Anthes: Good evening. Dortch: Hello, I'm John Dortch. I've lived in Fayetteville since 1981 and I'm a business owner of the Gypsy down on Dickson Street. I'd like to address a few things real quick. The parking on this project I like the parking it provides. As far as the overall height of it, I did see at one time the overall height of this building compared to other buildings such as Old Main and maybe the EJ Ball building and it seems to be compatible and even lower than those buildings so it's not like it's projecting out like other buildings here in town with the way that they've dropped the size down. One thing that might help is having a hotel on Dickson Street, with all the bars, with having a hotel might help with all of the drinking and driving situation. I'm in support of a local family, the Barbers have lived here in the community, in investing like this and taking the risk. I hope they continue to be receptive to requests. Thank you. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 49 Razinsky: Hello. My name is Wilson Razinsky and I'm on the faculty of the department of architecture at the university. I'm here to support the project wholeheartedly. All the reasons that have been stated are very valid. I wanted to make a few comments about tall buildings and the significance they plan in cities in our country. The tall buildings are an American art form because it embodies optimism. Optimism lies at the heart of building tall. Tall buildings were born on the soil of American ingenuity. A lot of people don't know that. The idea of tall buildings in the early life of American cities is rooted in the heart of American opportunity and fed by the hard work and the vision of those who choose to take the risk. Tall buildings look to the horizon of the future as the only horizon of opportunity and growth. Fundamentally, tall buildings in America are an expression of the undeniably American desire to push this culture and in this case Fayetteville forward. We can be clouded by nostalgia for a kind of environment that may have once existed on Dickson Street. The bottom line is the biggest detriment to the character of Fayetteville isn't a 15 -story building on Dickson Street. It's the thousands of acres that are being devoted to single-family housing. Thank you. Bennett: Hello, my name is Clinton Bennett. I'm a citizen of Fayetteville and was a participant in the downtown master plan and the 2025 plan. The message I took away from that was to make our downtown viable we need to increase density and some creative development. I think that is what this project provided. It was very exciting to leave those sessions and see the potential for what could be done in the downtown. I feel like it's taking place. The parking is built it, but it's a fantastic feature. You're got retail, residences, and hotels, which all provide a needed service. I think it's a great project and in line with what the city has been trying to make up in the downtown area. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Griffith: Hello, my name is Matt Griffith. I'm not originally from Fayetteville, though I do live at 422 East Lafayette, so very close to where this project would be taking place. I also work on the square. I choose to work on the square because I love working downtown and I love the number of people that are in the downtown already and I hope to see the downtown continue to become a vibrant place to work and live. It's the place I'd like to live in. I've come tonight to offer an ambivalent opinion about the building. Certainly the arguments against the height of the building, the arguments against its position on Dickson Street, should be taken seriously and those are arguments that have been well articulated, and they're arguments that I have some sympathy with. But there are two things about the project that I think really in the end bring it to a point of barely supporting it. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 50 Everybody else has been so extreme, but I'm ambivalent. I think that at a point earlier I think it was Mr. Williams that made the point that environmentally it's not a particularly sensitive project. I think that one of the arguments he talked about with the elevations and the light and heat gain, one other way to slice that is in comparison to what is happening in the western parts of Fayetteville and in comparison to what is happening along Joyce Blvd. where things seem to be approved kind of whenever they come up. This is an incredibly environmentally sensitive building because it is resting in the corner of the city next to existing infrastructure. It is required of the city to build more infrastructure it is not requiring a tax payer moving downtown to subsidize the infrastructure where there is much less dense development. So I think environmentally to a much greater extent than with the facades and heat gain with solar energy the project is in many ways very environmentally sensitive. The other thing that those of you who know me really gets my back up is when we start talking about modern buildings. For me it is very difficult to construct a seamless character on Dickson Street when along Dickson Street you have several art deco buildings, you have a modern building, you have an international style post office, you have the train station, you have the American mainstream building. It's a very eclectic mix of buildings. You also have parking lots and several monstrous 45 degree angles. We have an incredible mix of buildings on Dickson Street. That's probably what I love about Dickson Street. What I find really interesting is all the styles most of which people are willing to latch onto and have a great deal of sentiment for is if they were relatively short lived styles in terms of when they were built. They were at their time authentic representations of the era from which they grew out of. After that period of time was over, they have only been poorly imitated and have often looked somewhat inappropriate. I would ask people to think what is appropriate for our time? Is it not okay to have a modern building along Dickson Street, a building that looks like it was built sometime in the last twenty years, along Dickson Street? I think that people certainly in future generations might get as much enjoyment from learning about our time as we get from learning about the times previously that are so nicely represented along Dickson Street. So let me add I have my reservations with this rendering here that shows people on the street. I would ask that you all consider approving the project. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Griffith. Durham: I can't really write and talk at the same time. Hi, my name is Julie Durham and I live at 230 West Meadow. I'm about four blocks from the development that is in question this evening. I just wanted to voice my opposition to this project. There's been a lot of talk about the master plan and what's been passed through the planning commission and that's not Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 51 law yet. I do feel that that embodies the vision of the people, myself included, that participated in that process. A lot of the issues that are being brought up by others this evening about the need for development, need for parking, need for development on Dickson Street, those things are addressed in the master plan that is being held before the city council. Those folks seem to point to this building and say this is the answer to those problems and I tend to disagree to that approach saying that is why we need this particular building on Dickson Street. I think development can be achieved without having to have a ten -story building on such a large footprint. I think the master plan embodies those types of developments. I certainly don't want downtown Fayetteville to become another Rogers. I look at the development up there. That's a unique development. As far as I'm concerned they can have it. I think Fayetteville's charm is what we see on Dickson Street and enhancing that the best that we can to improve our development downtown. I really do feel that the form and the height of this building do not meet the design developments in the code regarding compatibility with the surrounding area regarding its ability to enhance Fayetteville's appearance and preserving the scenic resources that we have and I consider Dickson Street a scenic resource in Fayetteville. Thank you. Crawford: Good evening. My name is Neil Crawford. I'm the owner of Jose's on Dickson Street. (inaudible) I've been on Dickson Street for 18 years and I've seen a lot of development. I'll just give you a brief history. I'll be brief because I'm sure you're tired of hearing the same old squabble. I watched the Walton Arts Center be built, I watched the Brew Pub be built, Jose's be remodeled, I watched the Three Sisters be built, and I've seen the Underwood Plaza be approved. My concern is that these guys are coming in and are trying to be pioneers of the street, to really push it to the next level so they're under such strict scrutiny that I think surpasses what has happened in the past. We can argue that it is apart to the master plan but the fact of the matter is that the master plan has not been integrated yet. It wasn't integrated when these other developments went up and should not apply to this one. Another piece of the puzzle that I think is very important to this is that they picked the location of the corner of Block Street. To be on Dickson Street so long it is extremely hard to tie in aesthetically downtown Dickson Street and downtown Fayetteville. We know that Block Street has been a challenge to develop all the way into the square. It's going to take years. I may not even be alive when that happens. I know one thing and that is that these guys are willing to put the cornerstone of that happening on the corner of Block Street. I'm extremely excited that they're willing to make a forthright effort, take the challenge, and make the investment to make this happen at a quicker pace than maybe some maybe than the business owners on Dickson Street. Lastly, I'd like to say that looking at this building I've not seen these plans up Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 52 until this evening, Dickson Street it is the arts and entertainment district, it was formed that way, it's about music, arts, music, fun, food, festive. These guys could not build a better building that signifies that to be a key way to that street. They're taking a high end look, looking into our street to know not to be low end anymore. I commend them for what they've submitted. I wish that when you decide to approve this that you really take into consideration the fact that these people have bent over backwards to invest a significant amount in our community. Thank you very much. Anderson: My name is James Anderson. This building is about going up, it's about growth in the community and growth in Fayetteville. I've only lived here in the district for about four years, previously I spent most of my time in Missouri and the Midwest. You grow up, I grew up, cities grow up, they've got to go up because the land is expensive. You build a building to make the performer work. You build it so that the owner can get a profit margin. Anthes: Can you please talk about the building, the physical form of the building and not the economics. Anderson: Yes, ma'am. The physical form of the building will be just like any other building in any other city. It goes and it goes and it goes, eight -stories, nine -stories, ten -stories, twelve -stories, twenty -stories, thirty -stories. Whoever thought the Hyatt Regency in Kansas City would be forty stories? Back then in the 30s, 40s, and 50s it was three and four, in the 70s and 80s it was seven, eight, and nine, in the 90s it was twenty and thirty, and here we are thirty, forty, and fifty. If we want to be stagnant community, then we won't go up, and stay small. John Q. Hammond is 86 years old. He's still going up, goes up every day. Height is a requirement he has because land costs more. I am the national accountant for John Q and I do all the work for him in the country. He specifically looks for downtown markets to build wonderful hotels. That is what the Barber Group has done here. During the time I've been in the city of Fayetteville, I've seen a non -growth. Our sisters Rogers and Bentonville have. We need to grow. We need to have a new downtown hotel and no better place than Dickson Street, the heart of downtown, to have it. I ask you that you support this. Thank you. Brosh: Good evening. My name is Patrick Brosh. I want to stick my comments, stick closely to what we're talking about the physical (inaudible). I do want in reference to say that in 1966-1970 I was a resident on Dickson Street. I spent a tot of time on Dickson Street. I also have a house presently on Rolston and I've purchased in the Legacy Building where I will move in at the first of the year. I particularly like this building. I appreciate the Barber Group investment. I think that it adds character and I Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 53 think that it will continue with the look that we need on Dickson Street. Thank you very much. Blackwood: Good evening. I'm Mark Blackwood. I'm a property owner on both Dickson Street and Church Street. I'm here to register my support for this project and ask that you evaluate it on the height standards that exist today rather than something that we want in the future. Thank you. Critendon: I haven't done this since I was a senior in high school so this shows how I feel about this. I'm a homemaker. My name is Marsh Critendon. I drive down these streets at least three times a week. Ever since I heard about this project, I tried to visualize what a building of this magnitude would look like on a two -acre lot. Okay. I thought, well it's going to be shadier. We're not going to be able to see the sunlight, but that will be okay. So I said to a friend of mine, what do you think about it? She and her husband said well look up there at the high rise, it's ten or eleven stories and it's okay. So I went up and looked at the high-rise and I said you know it is about the same height. I went around the high-rise again and said what is it that bothers me about the little piece of property compared to the high- rise? It's because the high-rise is on the center of the city block instead of it being on a two -acre lot as this building would be. That bothers me. I couldn't tell from where I was standing over in the corner where are these 380 cars going to be pulling out onto? Are they going to be pulling out onto Block? Because I need to know that. Or are they going to be pulling out onto Church Street? Because then I will avoid that street. Or are they going to be pulling out onto Dickson Street? Which street will they be on? Anthes: Ms Critendon, you need to direct your comments to the building, to the commission, and we will get back to the questions when we debate this issue. Critendon: Okay, so you don't know which... Anthes: We do know, but we... Critendon: You can't talk about it, okay. Anthes: We don't have a back and forth during comment. Thank you. Critendon: The only other comment that I have is that if we allow this ten -story project I'm afraid that eventually the joke will be on us because we're not going to have a view to view from in these large buildings. Thank you. Reese: Hi, Commissioners, I'm Karen Reese. I'm the President of Washington Willow Neighborhood Association. This has been a big topic of discussion Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 54 on our list serve and I would just like to say that so far our neighborhood is overwhelmingly opposed to this project. While I can't speak for each individual in our neighborhood, we gathered over 120 signatures in three short days on our listserve opposing this project. I'm all for a hotel on Dickson Street. I'm all for a sidewalk cafe. I like the way this looks. I think it's exciting and beautiful except that it is just too tall. My problem with this is the height. I think that it is not compatible to the surrounding area and I would be on board with this project if they would lower it. I know they're trying to make the economics work and we're not supposed to talk about that but I would just like to say that as it is currently I am opposed to it simply because of the height. Thank you. Palmer: Hi. My name is Larry Palmer. I live at 1539 North Rhonda. I appreciate the opportunity to express my support for the project. I appreciate your patience. It has been a long night and you've heard a lot of things so I'll try to be brief. Probably no one you're heard from tonight spends more time on Dickson Street than I do. I enjoy it. I use it. I could never support anything that I thought could be damaging to it. I see this as a real asset. With every asset comes tradeoffs, with growth comes changes. There's been a lot of questions with compatibility. You don't have to go far up and down Dickson Street to find several examples already of non - compatibility. Everything is not going to be compatible with everything. The assets I feel greatly outweigh any negatives or offsetting negatives that could be brought up. It's a good thing for Dickson Street, it's a good thing for Fayetteville. The developers have gone a mile here to try to show you compassion and interest in what is good and what is compatible. It can't be a perfect situation, a perfect scenario never is. There are tradeoffs and there are assets that greatly outweigh anything that would be a negative. They've done a great job in compromising and I would hope that this board would equally attempt to compromise and see the assets. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Palmer. Die: Hi. My name is Benjamin Die. I'm a resident on Jackson Drive, which is about a mile away from the proposed building. I just want to I appreciate you letting me come up here and say a few words. Unlike some of the people that have come up here, I really think that the height is a welcome addition. A lot of my friends and people I've talked with love coming over I-540 and seeing the different buildings. It's compatible with our current skyline. It can link the University and Lower Dickson with the Square. There is a lot of architecture here, you know I think we don't have a building that is this modern yet, but obviously that is going to bring some resistance. With change, some resistance will come. This building meets the need with many of my neighbors, friends, co-workers, it meets Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 55 the need. The longer you wait I think it's going to be less and less feasible, especially if we set some sort of precedent of not allowing, of putting a definite height restriction on it. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Pritchard: I'm Mary Pritchard and I live a block off of Dickson on Gregg Street. I have several concerns about the height. They've stepped back off of Dickson but my concern is on Church where you're supposed to have this wall of ten stories high. I did go to the Bills of Code and talking about human scale and walkability and not being intimidated by a building. If you're walking down Church towards downtown, having ten stories rising right off the road it's pretty intimidating. My other concern is a view shed. It becomes very evident with the rising of the Legacy Building that the views if you're at the bottom of Dickson facing going towards College your view is being cut off. With tall buildings, that's going to happen. We're all concerned about it and I hope that you all consider that the height of this building is a real problem. I hope that you deny it. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Ms Pritchard. Scarlett: Hi. My name is Lee Scarlett. I'm a homebuilder here in Fayetteville. First of all, I thank you all for your time. I wouldn't want to be sitting where you are right now. I've been on the board of the HPA and I know you've got a tough decision. What it comes down to, the second lady who spoke tonight said something about the historic aspect of Dickson Street. I know a little bit about history. I have a Master's in history. The one thing I know is that you can't stop progress and you shouldn't stop progress. On Dickson Street, most of those buildings especially the one that was torn down on this property are form the 50s, 60s, and 70s. They were built in place of other buildings that were built in the Victorian era style and so on and so forth. Buildings are built on top of other buildings. That's just the way of the world. I think that it is a great project. I have a lot of clients that come into town and they end up staying, if I'm lucky they stay at the Holiday Inn in Springdale but most of them end up staying at the Embassy Suites because that is the nicest. There's no place to stay that is nice in Fayetteville. The Radisson, if you all have stayed there recently and my parents were there a week ago, the carpet was taped together in the hallways. We need this. It's going to fit Dickson Street. It's going to fit the style. I think it is an eclectic look and that's where it should be. They didn't stop Frank Lloyd Wright when he had a different idea about buildings and we shouldn't stop them. What they're doing is solving the problem on Dickson Street parking. I don't go down on Dickson Street very much and when I do go I valet park. We need that here. The city of Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 56 Prague is a perfect example. In Prague it's the most beautiful city and has been voted so ten years in a row, they have Rococo style, Renaissance style, and Gothic style. So I hope you approve this building. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Ms. Alexander? Alexander: Fran Alexander. I want to talk about the focus if any of you have been to city planning sessions with the type of atmosphere where you were told to design around a town, quite often they will tell you that you need to pick the focus points of the town. This will become a focus point due to its height, immediately to College when you turn down College. It will take away from the focus of Old Main which is our most recognized building. If we have this kind of height then people will see that when they come to town rather than Old Main. We're going to be drowning the old Courthouse, we're drowning the (inaudible). These are the images that people have come to their minds when they think about Fayetteville, except perhaps the Razorback Stadium. It's very important that we understand tourism is quite often based on design and the memories of that design. This is on the isle -way to Old Main. This is going to definitely impact that symbol. I want to point out to you, too, I don't believe it's been stated tonight that although this has gone from fifteen stories to ten that does not mean that it has actually dropped that many feet. We need to talk in feet rather than in stories. From 225 to IS 1.6 is more in the realm of 20% lower not 33% lower. I think this is a very important point because we don't have a definition of how many feet a story actually is. That needs to be taken into consideration. I think the lady with the Legos did the best. Wish I had thought of that. The height also determines the human scale underneath and that is what people are talking about on this charm issue about Dickson Street. I put on my environmental hat along with John Williams who passed me this. He says that he had to leave. There is a serious need to conserve energy. I do not see any evidence to concern to deal with this design of this building. This has become more serious in the last four months. Design should be based first of all on conserving energy. My brand new son-in-law will be going to Iraq to defend our energy. I don't like that a bit. I hate to think how much is going to be poured into this building. If they're going to build it, I suggest they try to make it a building like our library. Thank you. Smith: Good evening. I'm Jim Smith. I'm a local lawyer by day and an anything but lawyer at night. I'm here in that capacity as opposed to discuss the merits of the case laws out of respect of rather or not we have legal issues. Who knows whether we do or not. What we're talking about is one of compatibility. We're talking about an arts cosmopolitan town. We're talking about a location that is the focal point of a university town that ten years ago wasn't even ranked anywhere with respect to the financial Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 57 capacity of the university or how good a university it was. All that has changed. Huge amounts of money are committed to the university. I'm not talking about economics as far as this project but just all the benefits that are going to grow from all the benefits that are going around Dickson Street from an arts and entertainment aspect, which is our single most important aspect in Fayetteville. We do not have sufficient hotel and upscale hotel space. At the benefit of having lots of clients come in from all over the world, it would be a real treat to have a facility like this, something that they're used to. Something that they're accustomed to. The gentlemen that owns Jose's referred to it as a cornerstone between the square and Dickson Street. When I've been taking notes all night tonight, about an hour ago I looked at is as more of a bridge. I think one thing is certain. We've got to find a way to bridge downtown, the square, and Dickson Street. I think that if you'll study it and look at the successful cities throughout America, hotels and entertainment facilities are the cornerstones or the bridges or the foundations. You don't have to go very far in Arkansas. I don't think we have to worry about being a Rogers or Bentonville. That's not who we are. You're right. We do have an opportunity here with private folks with no tax issues to build something like that. I know I'll enjoy it. I hope very much that my six-year-old and my three-year-old sons who are home tonight with their mother because I felt that it was extremely important tonight to come out here and to take stand, that they'll enjoy it and that their friends will enjoy it. as someone earlier said tonight, it will be a monument to here we are today. We all respect the facilities that exist from the 30s, the 40s, and the 50s, but I think it is equally important to live in today and to enjoy all the benefits. One thing I do want to ask, not ask but you to consider, is that I talked earlier about energy tonight. I'm not an architect, but I do serve on the board of a couple of companies at a LEEDS building that has more glass on it than any other building in town. It runs through that. That's how it operates. That's how it runs its electricity is through the solars. I don't know, obviously I'm an outsider on that, but I do know that there are ways in this day to handle those energy issues. Thank you for seriously considering this. Kramer: I want to say thank you for all of you and your sitting power. This has been an education for me. I've learned a lot I didn't know. Anthes: Ma'am, could you please introduce yourself? Kramer: Okay, I'll get to it. I've lived here for fifty-five years. I have an abiding questions about this, why the top of Dickson Street, why so big? There have been suggestions that it could be not quite such a shocking project if it were scaled down somehow or is there some kind of special prestige that attaches to being the 12,000 pound gorilla at the top of Dickson Street. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 58 Hard to tell, there has been a lot of commercial interest resulted here. One of the things I didn't like is the kind of insulting tone with words of old- fashioned we don't know about frozen project or progress. One of the things that I would like this assembled group to remember is that this is a university town and we do have values that surmount the entire community that have to do with the life of the mind and there are entertainments for people who like to use their abilities on the campus every single night. We have scholars from all over who are implementing the idea of a university. I would love it if this project and its very prominent place could reflect the fact that this is a university town. Thank you. Anthes: Ma'am, would you mind stating your name please? Kramer: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Louise Kramer. The university up there is my university. I love it when they do things right and I get very angry when they do things wrong. Anthes: Mr. Shirkey? Shirkey: My name is Mike Shirkey. I live in a house that is not far from the view to Old Main and it is 101 years old and it happens to be about five feet from this proposed development. I think that a setback is five feet from the boundary, I'm not sure. Anyway, they have gone to considerable effort to show us what this look likes but I will be living in a shadow of 180 foot tall canyon. I'm here of course against this. I think it if can be scaled down to a reasonable level that everybody, including the developers, would be happy with this project. Thank you. Anthes: Would any other member of the public like to speak to Large Scale Development 06-1997? Please come forward. McQueen: My name is Mark McQueen with Athletic World Advertising. I've been in Northwest Arkansas since 1979. I love Fayetteville for what it is. A part of what it is is what the planning commission has done over the years to make Fayetteville a beautiful place. That being said, I do support what the Barber Group is trying to do here. I think it's wonderful that we're growing, that Northwest Arkansas is growing so fast. I think we need to seriously consider giving some opportunity for some advances that is going to bring some money to Northwest Arkansas, it is going to bring a lot of tax dollars into the Fayetteville High School. I would like you to please consider this. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. McQueen. Would any other member of the public like to speak to this large scale development for Divinity Hotel and Condos? Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 59 Seeing none, I will close the floor to public comments. I have a question of the commissioners. This item has been before us for two hours. We have ten more items on the agenda tonight. I just want us to keep that in mind as we go forward. Does the applicant have a presentation? Hennelly: Yes, ma'am. In light of having gone on for two hours thus far and everybody sitting here I wonder if a couple minute break for people to use the restroom and get a drink of water, that type of thing. Anthes: If you're willing to relinquish your time or step your time back for that. Hennelly: That would give us time to get these renderings together for the in-depth presentation. Anthes: That would help us a lot. We'll take a ten minute break. Break Anthes: Okay, we will reconvene the meeting. Mr. Barber, before you get started I would just like to ask the commission whether we might change the order of the agenda tonight. Item number 11 conditional use permit 06-2019 for Bober there are quite a number of elderly people waiting outside to speak to this issue. In all likelihood it will be near midnight if we leave them on the agenda where it is now. I would like us to be able to consider that item following this large scale development if that would be acceptable to the rest of the commission. Mr. Whitaker, do we need any kind of formal motion or do we need to just state that we're changing the order? Whitaker: It would probably be best for the record to have a motion, second, and a vote. Although we won't have any trouble getting the votes. Graves: Madame Chair Anthes: Yes. Graves: I move that we switch the agenda around so that conditional use permit 06-2019 item number 11 on the agenda is moved to become item number 5 on the agenda and that the others then fall in order accordingly. Clark: Second. Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Graves and a second by Commissioner Clark. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to move item 11 to item 5 was passed 9-0-0. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 60 Anthes: Thank you for letting us take care of that. It's your floor. Barber: Okay, thank you. I'd like to thank the commission members. I will ask for just a little flexibility if I veer off. I'd like to introduce our company and if I go into what could be close to economics just stop me. Anthes: I'll catch you. Barber: I know you will. I think it will be important that I introduce my company and myself more because it's been a rough couple of months here as we've taken this through. There's been many things said about me and my family, a number of things that is part of the job when you're in the public eye. I've never been to one of these meetings primarily because we have a large staff. We always try to partner with who we think are the best engineers and architects. So I haven't been here. I have met most of you. I have met most of the city council members, but I wanted to just introduce myself to you. I want to throw out a few things that flow with the fact that I am from Jonesboro. I am not from Dallas, Texas. I've a real estate company in Dallas. This is because my partner lives in Dallas. This has nothing to do with Dallas. I have a family relationship and I wish to invest more money here so we can do more economic development. I assure you it is more speared to what we're doing right now. I just wanted to get that out here. Also, I just again going back to I want to thank you for your time, specifically your job is a thankless one. I can't imagine being here listening to people like me speak this long on a bi-weekly basis, so I appreciate your time. As I've said publicly and privately, I look forward to debating this economics or not. I think it's healthy that tonight we saw a more balanced part of our government and our city here in the meeting. I know normally we don't see the balance because those people are busy civically and business -wise and that's just what it is. I'm glad that you all... Anthes: Mr. Barber, I need to interrupt you one more time. I would just like you to state your name for the record. Barber: Brandon Barber. Anthes: Thank you. Barber: Thank you. I left that out purposely. I think it's important and I'll get started, I think it's important that sometimes when we talk about development we forget what was there before we started, for better or for worse. I think we ought to remember and I just want to touch on a few projects that go into Divinity and I think have a purpose to what we're Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 61 talking about tonight. The Legacy Building was former Shulertown (inaudible) you saw the Legacy Building on Development. Bellafont that we brought through and Wellspring because these are significant developments. We've done a number of subdivisions, we've built a number of homes, but when you look at those three developments, I think that all three in their own way will have great significance to Fayetteville. This is the building that used to be on the corner of Block and Dickson, a purple gas station and the Petis Law Building is still there. I think that one thing that Jeremy Pate has seen is that we've been very easy to deal with, when we deal with the city I was shocked, and I want to make that for the record, that the city didn't approve it. We come here to be recommended for approval tonight. There can be a perception that we move fast, we do move fast. Jeremy has been very blunt to us. He's never seen anybody like us. I don't think that is completely positive or negative. We work hard. We work 16-18 hours a day. It's amazing what HKS did to get this design to you by the time they did in what was a complete redesign of this property, which was a complete cry of the public. We do work hard because the project is so big Fayetteville has not seen these kinds of projects come through so it's been a little overwhelming and we respect that. However, that does not mean that we are irresponsible developers. I do want to get out for the record, too, the name Divinity, because I think that's what we're here to discuss tonight. I never knew that my grandmother's candy would be such a sensitive subject. There's no higher calling. I never meant to be offensive. I will make sure that this is not a reference to religion. I think most people know this, so I want to move on from there. We've been planning this project for over a year. We've been visiting with planning since I believe October or November. I want to just hit the highlights of the building. This is a $70 million dollar investment. I think that it is important to know that whether we talk economics or not, we might be the biggest idiots in town for investing this much money on something that we have no help on. We've literally I've never seen a hotel developer and Mr. Hammond has been mentioned a few times tonight, it's always what are you going to do for me and then I want to come in with my development. This has been single-handedly a completed project. I'm not saying that's the smartest move, but that's what we're going to do. That's what we want to do. I wanted to talk about revenue for schools, but I think that touches on economics. Anthes: I need you to go to the next slide, please. Barber: Let's go to the next slide, no revenue for schools. The elevations are more for to be debated to go over. Specifically, during the project this is what we're talking about. I think this will. We're talking about commercial design standards. Keep going. I want to show a slide that's... Commercial design standards, we found this from the city website. The established Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 62 regulations apply site development standards that include landscaping, landscaping provisions, streaming, fences, site coverage and driveways. Structure standards require that certain elements are to be wooded and a development with more than one building should incorporate a recurring unifying and identifiable theme for the development site. I said at subdivision committee meeting and I do think that it's worth stating as well the reason we asked to be forwarded to planning commission even though we were denied if we were to have three more planning commissioners we would have eventually been talking to everybody anyway. All we wanted was a debate in front of our planning commission that by no means was supposed to be a cowboy effort where we're just going to go right through and go all the way to the top. This was specifically we wanted to have this debate here. In that meeting, I said I was looking forward to how you guys would look at compatibility and design standards. I'm reading this and when we're talking about a recurring and unifying theme for a development site of more than one building, that reminds me of Bellafont, that reminds me of a project that you recently approved that has one or two buildings that are right there the same and they all look the same, with slate roofs and stone. The design standards barely passed that by. Compatibility is the favorite code ordinance that states that development should provide compatibility and transition between adjoining developments. Again, it should provide compatibility and transition. You shouldn't drive over the 55 speed limit. I think that we in my opinion we have conveniently in the spirit of we do know there is a downtown master plan coming, we know that there are other tall buildings and it's a bad time for us to come through downtown, so we might be getting more flack because of timing and we respect that but shall and should these are standards. These are not binding and hard and fast rules from the way we looked at that in the sense of specifically height. These are guidelines. Anthes: Mr. Barber, I just would like to remind you that this commission looks at commercial design standards every single meeting on numerous projects. We know what the ordinance is. We have interpretations of that ordinance by our city attorney. We have interpretations of that ordinance by our planning staff in terms of developments and administration. You don't need to read the ordinance to us. Thanks. Barber: That's fine. I was more talking to the public. I apologize. Here is a slide that I think someone mentioned they saw when we were talking to some of the business owners on Dickson. If you look at the elevation, I don't have to walk you through this, I'd be glad to bring this back up, but we're just kind of right there in the middle and that's what we've been saying. We don't feel we're piercing the skyline. We have significant buildings that have been built, or that are proposed to be built, or that are proposed to Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 63 add stories that are taller. Again, there is one side of the building that is 181 feet, which is a 20% reduction, but again I'll let Eddie speak to how it is closer to 120 feet on the east side and that one area on Church Street which I assure you Church Street and Block Street we want to see more pedestrian traffic, we've one some pedestrian studies, there's just not much pedestrian traffic right now and I think that's what is exciting about this project is that we are connecting and making a gateway from the square to Dickson Street and I think that's exciting. We can come back to that to look at that closer. I want to talk about three instances that I think we talk about precedent we usually don't talk about precedent until recent. March, let me look in my notes, on March 13`h we had the Malco Theater come through definitely a box -like structure, no one here is more excited about a theater in Fayetteville than me, but we did look at it in the sense that it is a box it doesn't meet the requirements and two commissioners were quoted as saying "we'll be tarred and feathered not to pass this tonight." I've always been an anti -box person. There's no... Anthes: Mr. Barber, could you please talk about your project? Barber: I'm getting there. I think this is very relative to my project because I can't talk about the design rule. I just want to talk about three things that have to do with my project. Just a little flexibility, please. "Knowing that earlier this evening I would definitely be murdered and be found dead somewhere in the community if I didn't vote for this theater." I could talk about economic benefit about this hotel you did a good thing when you did that for the Malco, that's my point. The Lofts at Underwood again it's about the driver, maybe a three wood, from our building, same surroundings, same as the Divinity project, close to the 7 -story Legacy building found in keeping with all the rules of design standards despite its height. Again you made a good decision. The Renaissance Tower, the funded project that will be coming back to you to add two floors for economic benefit. I don't know if they're going to talk about it or not, it will be too political. Two floors so they can get their hotel and be in competition to us, I'm very excited about this project, I think we need more rooms downtown. I think the idea of compatibility with this project more than anything amazes me. I don't know whether it was discussed before the start of this year, everything that would happen at Underwoods, Bellafont, that was three or four weeks ago where we have twelve to sixteen story buildings up on Joyce Street that we're building, but specifically all these buildings we look how closely it is to the Renaissance site that will be eighteen stories and one story two story three story buildings... Anthes: I believe that project has been approved at sixteen. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 64 Barber: It has been approved at sixteen, yes for now. It's coming through for 18 along with the downtown master plan and a number of things are coming through. I guess my point and I'll finish up is that to me I'm not talking about economics. I have C-3 zoning and I want to talk about what the planning commissioners look at. We're talking about commercial design standards. We have a minimum on a lot of our codes and design standards. If you look at the projects that we do, and if you look at what is going to be inside of this building and outside of this building, when you see the copper and the materials that we put there's not a minimum that we do in any project. That's something that we don't have history on our side so we respect that on some of the projects that we've done. When I purchased the property, it had C-3 zoning, and all I'm asking is that we want to be placed on a fair scale. All of these other buildings that I've talked about have C-3 zoning. If you had told me that we could build a three story building on this site then I would have done one of two things. I either wouldn't have bought the site or I would have put a three story building on it. I think that is the beauty of Dickson Street, that's what we've got to remember. You're heard this tonight and you'll hear it a lot more, we can't talk about diversity when we're gearing up to have something that might be approved for six stories although it is not in the spirit of I want 20 -story buildings on Dickson Street but in the spirit that it's all the same. That's not what beautiful about Dickson. Dickson is diverse, it's a patchwork. The whole downtown is a patchwork, you've got a train, a caboose on the end, you've got modern buildings, you've got historic buildings. All that Divinity will do is add unique flavor and character to an already diverse street, and that's the beauty of the street is that that many people can come and go to Roger's Rec or Bordino's, sometimes two different walks of life, and we feel safe. I think that you'll hear us over the time of this argument specifically talk about Walton Arts Center because that is when a significant amount of money was invested, that is when it became safe, and to us Divinity is compatible with its surroundings. It's compatible the same way that the Malco and Underwood Lofts are compatible to their surroundings. No one loves Dickson Street more than us. We're ashamed how much we've been on Dickson Street since 1994. We're big fans. I think that as far as Dickson Street being a destination, if that was every misconstrued during subdivision meeting, Dickson Street has never been better than it is right now. We all know that. This will only enhance Dickson. This will only take into another level, and specifically from the sense of revenues and school districts we've got to respect that competition, we've got to respect that the (inaudible) of this will be. I think it will enhance the character and energy, and obviously I would appreciate your support in voting for it, and I will let Eddie talk about the specifics of the building. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Barber. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 65 Abeyta: Again my name is Edde Abeyta and I'm from HKS Architects. I want to just back up here a second and try to talk about the project from the ground up so that you can understand how we see this project and how it relates to the surrounding context. Before I go specifically to the architecture, I want to talk a little bit about the idea of the place. I've been to the state of Arkansas on several occasions for business and one thing that I truly recognize is the beauty of the state in terms of the character, the rolling hills and trees, the rural character, the agricultural character of the surroundings. When I came to Fayetteville in December for the first time I was really wowed by the sense of place of Fayetteville. When you couple Fayetteville with the state of Arkansas it is just, to me, a beautiful amazing place. I think our project can truly identify with it. One of the key elements in our mind in terms of how we kind of analyze the surrounding context is that Fayetteville has these sort of distinct elements, whether it's downtown or whether it is Dickson Street. Dickson Street, in itself, lends itself to a really awesome place. It is a place in itself. It is pedestrian oriented. It gives back to the community by the types of businesses, restaurants, and bars that run along that streetscape and interfaces with the pedestrian. It has great character and eclectic quality just like Brandon was describing. This is not about one particular style. It has character because the building facades change, the materials change, the buildings undulate in and out, there's rise and fall of the building tops. We think that that is what makes Dickson Street so special and because it is so special it has a great spirit and a great energy about it that we think our project usually identifies with. If there was a goal behind this project the goal behind the project and the vision for it is to identify with that spirit of Dickson and Dickson Street itself. I really want to talk about the project threefold. We think it is more than about architectural style. We believe that it is about how the site is organized in terms of the functions of the particularly building is organized onsite to interface with Dickson Street to how the project is masked in terms of how the volume of the project has come about and its relationship to Dickson Street and compatibility. Thirdly, really about the characters of the building, the architectural I guess you could call style. I want to first begin talking about again the site, how the site is organized. One thing I would like to describe is that we have really critically looked at how the site is organized in terms of where public functions fall in terms of where back of house functions fall to really support and interface best with Dickson Street. If you know the zoning, the northwest corner of our site I know I've explained this we've got the main restaurant to this facility on the corner of Church and Dickson Street. It is a high energy public space that we've placed there to energize that corner and take advantage of the interaction with Dickson Street. On the opposite side of the site, on the northeast corner, on Block and Dickson we have what we're calling the lobby lounge and bar. That's another high Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 66 energy public space anchored at the opposite end of the site to encourage people to move and energize Dickson Street. Falling between those two anchors we've got the retail space which could be shops and retail components that will interface with the public along that streetscape. As you turn the corner down Block Avenue to come south we've extended that sort of public aspect of the street down Block Avenue. That's where we've positioned the main entry to the hotel. As you come off, we think that visitors coming to the site will come off of Church Street circle down Dickson and they will be confronted with this sort of key element which is the main dropoff for the hotel which is going to be a very public animated activity zone that will nicely interface with the streetscape. As you go to the west end of the site, we've positioned just south of the main restaurant, the condo dropoff and lobby which is another public component of this project. So the majority of this perimeter of this site is energized with public space. We think that is a key element to have. That is how the building has come about. One additional thing I would like to mention on this floorplan is that all of the service components of this project in terms of the docks and trash comes in and out servicing for the hotel for the condos for the restaurants, it all has been positioned at the southern end of this site, as far from Dickson as possible. We've tried to enhance the pedestrian experience along Church Avenue by screening the ramping that goes down to the below ground parking and the service areas with potentially retail showcase windows so that retailers and advertisers can take advantage of that zone along that service zone to disguise that and screen that from view. We're trying to be you know do things for the pedestrian along that streetscape as they circulate up and down to Dickson Street. As you move to the second level, as I have mentioned previously this is the second most public area of the project. This is where we've located our main banquet and meeting space. The key element here is that the two anchors at the corner are opened up and spaced volumetrically so that the energy of the restaurant connects vertically to the second level. We have a VIP lounge with the grand stair that connects you from the main restaurant level below to this upper second level public space. There's opportunities for outdoor terracing that will go off of this outer edge. Opposing on the northeast corner of this site we've also opened up the lobby with the grand stair that comes up to this public space. All of that is connecting with the main prefunction which serves the main bound. The prefunction has been positioned along Dickson to energize and interface with Dickson Street. A lot of people will be gathering in that zone. We'll have a nice connection with the streetscape below. As we move vertically, directly above the banquet facility as we have spoke there are two levels of above grade parking garage. We've disguised those and I'll talk about that in a moment with the elevation and architecture. As we get to the top of this podium thing it is a four story podium that I spoke about earlier again we've tried to energize the roofscape of the people Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 67 space. The people space is defined with sort of a u -shaped plan with the main hotel. This is thought of as a communal space like pre -game post- game parties, weddings, whatever there might be that can really enhance this project and start to lend itself as to how the public character and energy can extend from the street level up to this outdoor pool environment. As we continue vertically. Anthes: Excuse me. Abeyta: Sure. Anthes: I'm sorry. Could you put that on the other well just because it's very difficult for the camera to see what is on the left-hand side. I want to make sure that everybody can see it. Abeyta: As we extend vertically through the building, this is where we have a combination of condominium units which sit on the northwest corner of the project and extend down into this zone to where the hotel sits. This is all hotel function and this is all condo. So we've got two levels of condominiums that interface with the hotel and once we get above the hotel we pick up all condominium units which are potentially six units on one floor. Directly to the east of this condo tower this is where we've positioned the spa and fitness center which sits on top of the easternmost wing of the hotel. Again we're trying to energize the roof environment with an outdoor public space for the fitness and the spa and condo owners. As we rise above that, obviously there is one additional level of condo and then at the top this is where we've tried to terminate the building with again another public function. We're proposing a specialty restaurant with outdoor dining and deck space that will really take advantage of the view towards University and down Dickson Street, as the terrain actually drops. So that's kind of a brief description of how the project interfaces in terms of how the site is organized. In terms of the massing, I think I clearly described it last time but again I want to emphasize the fact that our project across 90% of this entire Dickson Street elevation is a four-story podium. The wing of the hotel that comes out stops short of this four-story podium by approximately ten feet so the building is transitioning above the podium back to the hotel. Again we did drop from five levels of hotel back down to four. That four-story component actually wraps this outdoor zone of the Razordeck. On the western corner of the project, we've emphasized sort of energy at street level by this restaurant on street level and so forth, we have introduced what we're calling the glass cylinder. This glass cylinder rises from street level all the way up to the top level restaurant outdoor deck space. It does transition in scale down to the base is wider and as it goes up across to the condo it comes in and comes to the top of the restaurant and actually tiers in again. Our idea is to really Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 68 energize that corner let that becomes focal point to this project off of Dickson Street and really celebrate it through the architecture. I'm going to go ahead and walk around all of these elevations real quick. This elevation right here is the west elevation. Again, in terms of how our project we think our project is compatible with the design guidelines and with the spirit of Dickson. As you can see there is not one common theme across the fagade. There are a lot of elements, changing elements, in terms of material, in terms of plane change, in terms of depth, in terms of elements. We've introduced brick as sort of a main platting element to the hotel. That is sort of expressed with the open grid concept that runs across the face of the hotel. As that punched look open grid extends down the face of the garage down to the podium level, it would introduce a level zone to naturally delineate the parking garage which would be screened from view by these screening devices. We are introducing contrast material of metal to define what would be condo in contrast to what would be hotel and then again reinforcing the corner with this glass rotunda at the northwest corner of Church and Dickson. This brick element at the base has been introduced as a sort of frame element, not only as a visual composition but also to allow the base conditions which occurs across Dickson Street to actually turn the corner and relay itself back on Church Street. This is again not a flat fagade. There is varying degree of depth to the fagade. We have a series of balconies for each of the condo owners across the zone of the condo fagade, across the top of the hotel. The hotel itself also has incorporated a series of balconies for depth. So we've got balcony opportunities, shadowing capability, layering, and depth to that fagade. As we extend around to the south fagade which was a little bit of controversy last time we actually has changed that up a bit in a way that actually grouped a series of four windows that make up four guest rooms in such a way that we're actually creating sort of a vertical element of glass. We'll play with layers of slab edges to create shadow to push back the face of glass to create depth and shadow and character across that fagade. We're trying to contrast the character of the hotel from the sort of podium garage element below through the use of a screen wall. The screen wall is on the backside and is an open side where it has depth. If you look at it from an angle you really don't see the cars behind it will become just a screen element from view in front from the streetscape. That would really clad the southernmost face and come along the easternmost face the garage element and span across zones of the building. As you can see, we've introduced that metal concept of the condo expression integrating the metal into the layer of brick. Also that metal is expressed as an element to distinguish the spa from the hotel itself. We're trying to build a series of elements to create contrast from one fagade to the next. As we move around to the easternmost fagade, this is really the approach into the hotel entry. Again, that created a fagade of punched windows defined with a perimeter of brick defined by a sort of hotel component, the spa comes Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 69 across with copper and turns down the fagade to integrate these two materials and really anchoring the corner the northeast corner of the project on Block and Dickson with sort of a massive contrast to the glass you find on the northwest corner of the project. I'm trying to hit those three elements of how the building is organized onto the site, how we have responded to interface with Dickson Street so that the mass and the scale how the project steps back. The majority of the hotel across the face of the pool deck is sixty foot back off of Dickson Street. We're trying to emphasize that four-story podium. You can really see it in this upper-level perspective as the northeastern leg of the hotel actually steps back at ten feet you really start to read that four-story scale in relation to the project. Some of the really kind of cool elements that we'd like to talk about with regards to how the building speaks to the pedestrian scale, there's a series of perspectives along the base over here. This left perspective from street is at the corner of Church and Dickson and that is really trying to describe the character of the experience with that restaurant that sits on the corner. The key in describing that is the number of elements that create a series of layers across that fagade. There's canopies that drop down to reduce the pedestrian scale. There's a change in the diameter of that cylinder from larger to smaller at the entry zone. We're changing materials across the base of the column expression going from copper to glass, lots of detail, lots of character. As you move to the center perspective, that's a view moving east along Dickson still adjacent to the corner restaurant, looking up at the prefunction zone of the meeting zone, and I failed to mention that the prefunction zone of that meeting space actually angles out and hovers above the sidewalk. The design guide actually encourages elements of structures to engage and encroach into the building setback zone to enhance the pedestrian scale along the streetscape. That's what we're suggesting in sort of a modern way. This is not a traditional application. It takes the ideas and interprets them. It tries to insert them in a way that is creative, modern, and interesting to the pedestrian. Just below that prefunction element that hangs down is a series of canopies about twelve foot off of street level. It's really to enhance that pedestrian character along Dickson Street. The third perspective is looking back sort of standing at mid-section of the block looking back towards the restaurant and looking at how we would suggest undulating the fagade of the retail. The contrast and material become sort of projecting bay windows that undulate for each of the individual tenants across that fagade. We're trying to introduce detail in the layering of the character of that space. The design guildelines speak to trying to integrate approximately 70% of your glass frontage for retail components being all glass. We're promoting that. We're suggesting that. This is not going to be a highly reflective application of glass. We believe in using glass technologies where there are clear planes of glass with a coating that actually keeps the heat out of the building. There's ways of doing that other than just using what a lot of Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 70 people might think is a reflective glass to where it becomes all glare to the surrounding context. We want to encourage people to engage with the interior where the interior looks out and the outside looks in. With those series of images we're trying to speak to the pedestrian. That sort of character that we're showing in that third perspective would extend along what would be the western elevation along the screen wall which actually screens the service area of the hotel. I do want to mention one last thing with regards to how we've been compatible and respect the design guidelines. I've gone through I've identified a series of specific examples out of these design guidelines about how we're trying to promote the design guidelines and respect them. On page twenty of the design guidelines it calls out that balconies shall curve forward of the principal fagade and encroach on the right-of-way. We're encouraging that. We're encouraging the fagade which actually interfaces with Dickson, we're encouraging that with the fagade that interfaces with Church Street, we're encouraging that with the fagade that interfaces with Block Street. On page twenty-five it states that the facades of the building are encouraged to be finished with more than one material. We are suggesting multiple materials layered against each other, maybe in a modern way but in a way that creates an interesting composition, an interesting relationship to the pedestrian. The design guidelines on page twenty-six talk about composition of facades of how you have a base condition, a middle condition, a top condition. If you look at our fagade along Dickson Street, the way in which the retail speaks to the base condition, the introduction to the element at the prefunction becomes the middle condition of the fagade, and how we have actually treated and framed the articulation across the garage becomes the top across that podium. That idea extends itself into the overall picture of the architecture with the base being the retail prefunction, the middle section being the fagade that covers the garage, and the top being the expression of the hotel, and finishing off with the special element at the top the glass cylinder. Going on to page forty, there's a specific example of a modern building in these guidelines and it's talking about the use of a metal standing seen roof material. That standing seen roof material in this example has been used as a fagade application. It's taking the guidelines interpreting them and trying to use them to present them in a new and interesting way. That's how we feel our project is responding to the spirit of Dickson Street. The permitted materials within these design guidelines they call out for brick they call out for concrete block they call out for metal. We're proposing to use those products on this particular building. Then again one last specific example, on page thirty-three it talks about a minimum of 75% of glass across retail fronts. We're encouraging that interaction between indoor and outdoor across an entire streetscape as we're anchoring the northeast corner of the project all the way to the southeast corner of the project. Brandon, do you have anything else? Thank you. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 71 Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Abeyta. Commissioners? Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: This project as we knew it would has generated a great deal of considerable public interest and it will continue to do so. It's my feeling that it was appropriate for planning commission to keep this on its regularly scheduled agenda to get that discussion going. But, we have nine more agenda items tonight. We have lots of applicants waiting to have their items heard. I don't think that just simply moving this or tabling this to our regularly scheduled meeting, that's not going to solve the issue because we'll have other agenda items next time as well. I'm going to move that we table this to a special meeting to allow any new and additional public comment that there might be at that point in time, any new information that the applicant might want to present at that point in time, but primarily to allow this commission a full and fair opportunity to fully debate this without having waning attention spans and things of that nature. So, I'm going to move to table at this point to a special meeting on May I't at 5:30pm just to take up this issue so that we don't have other agenda pressures on us whenever we start debating this. Ostner: May I make it a friendly amendment to make it 5:30 as our other meetings are? Graves: What did I say? Ostner: I believe you said 5:00. Graves: I meant 5:30. Ostner: Thank you. Anthes: I don't want to throw a wrench into this but as far as I understand it, this room is occupied at 5:30 next Monday May I" with a street committee meeting. I would think that we would need to coordinate availability of facilities with... Pate: We can work with the city clerk's office to determine what facility would be available if the street committee meeting could be moved. We could certainly look into that. Ostner: Madame Chair. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 72 Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I would like to second that motion. I think it's a great idea to set aside a special meeting to only hear this item, for the applicant to have more time in the evening, for the public to have more time, and for us to have more time, as Mr. Graves stated. Barber: If I could just ask one question. We're certainly agreeable to that. I think it's a great idea. I just want to make sure that from a planning perspective it's not going to create any problems with public notification or anything like that, being one week from tonight. Pate: Correct. The planning commission is announcing it as a public forum that they can sit through, a public meeting, that's perfectly fine. Anthes: So we have a motion to table by Commissioner with a second by Commissioner Ostner. That table would be to May ]s`, which is next Monday at 5:30pm with the location to be determined and advertised. Do we have any discussion? Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Mr. Graves. Graves: Just in furtherance of the motion, as far as discussing it, I would like to thank the applicant and the public who came to comment tonight. We've heard those comments, and I don't want anyone to feel that because we're tabling this for a week that anybody needs to comment or repeat their comments again. We've all taken copious notes up here. We're aware of the concerns and we're aware that there is both support and opposition to the project and the reasons for both. I don't want anybody to feel that they would need to come again and say it again because we heard it unless there's I want to stress that when I made my motion the new and additional part for both the applicant and any public comment that would be involved. That's my personal feeling. Barber: Is the intention of this to resume basically resume this meeting one week from tonight from this point starting with discussion? Graves: My motion is not to cut anybody off if they want to make comments, or to cut the applicant off if they want to present any new and additional information at that point, but primarily to allow us to take it up and begin discussing it. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 73 Barber: Okay, thank you. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Harris: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: Madame Chair, yes, I was one of the ones who voted to put this item on the agenda tonight, and I just want to echo what Commissioner Graves has said in that this meeting has accomplished exactly what I needed for it to do, not that that matters to the city of Fayetteville, but I appreciate it. I think that we have had a lively and vigorous conversation both the applicant and the public. I think that's what we needed with a project of this complexity and with the potential significance of this project, so thank you very much. Again, I would echo what Mr. Graves is saying in that if additional information comes to light or somebody has additional comments to make, we are certainly not shutting off public comment nor applicant comment. But we do have nine other agenda items tonight, so thank you very much. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to table LSD 06-1997 carries with a vote of 9-0-0. Anthes: Before we start new business tonight, I know that we have several items on the agenda that are going to have a lot of public comment. We have nine or ten additional items to hear tonight. That is going to take us some time. What I'd like to do is ask the members of the public and the applicants to confine their comments to the development that is at hand and specifically to the items that the planning commission has jurisdiction to review. I know that there have been some comments about having an economic discussion at the meeting tonight. I would just advise the applicant and the audience that the planning commission is not charged with looking economic effects of any particular project but rather with the development standards as written by ordinance. We would ask you, if you want to bring up and have a discussion about economic items that you do that at City Council, who can evaluate those arguments. That would just be to help us move the meeting along tonight. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 74 CUP 06-2019: Conditional Use Permit (BOHOT, 679): Submitted by WILMA BOHOT for property located at 124 E 26TH CIRCLE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.38 acres. The request is for a daycare in the RSF-4 Zoning District. Anthes: Could we have the staff report, please? Fulcher: The subject property is located at 124 E 26`h Circle, in Country Club Estates subdivision which is located just west of School Avenue. The property is zoned RSF-4 and contains an existing single family home within the subdivision. The best view we have of this site is on page 12 of 36. It should have the subject property marked out. The applicant is proposing a conditional use permit for a home child care facility in the RSF-4 zoning district which is limited to a maximum of ten children. There will be two employees servicing this home child care facility. It will be located in approximately 2400 square foot single family home which 400 square feet will be required and devoted for child care use. A section in the back will be fenced off for the use as an outdoor play area which is required by ordinance in the amount of 800 square feet which permits 10 children at one time. The proposed hours of operation are from 7am- 5:30pm. Staff has received considerable public comment on this item regarding traffic, noise, compatibility, safety concerns with the children, and past problems with an illegal child care facility that was operating in another structure in this subdivision. They have stated concerns that the covenants of the subdivision restrict commercial activities within the units, although the City of Fayetteville does not regulate or enforce these private covenants. Staff has reviewed home child-care facilities in the past within residential neighborhoods and have always found that these provide a good service for neighbors and others in the area that require day care for their children. We've also found that based on the location the subdivision is serviced by one ingress and egress which services the entirety of the subdivision and the golf course located at the country club estates. The increase in traffic from a maximum of 10 children would not compound or create a dangerous traffic situation and would be of minimal impact to existing traffic on that street. With that and the other findings that we've made in the staff report, we are recommending approval of this site with five conditions of approval. Condition number one and number two refer to issues of certificates of zoning compliance, meaning that prior to them being built all child-care facilities receive their zoning compliance and they shall provide staff with a license from the Department of Health and Human Services stating that they have been approved through their program and that the fence which I believe has not been constructed at this time will be constructed to provide an outdoor place for the ten children. Also, condition number four refers to having no signage or advertising Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 75 material on the subject property. If you have any further questions, please ask. Anthes: Mr. Fulcher, before you sit down, in anticipation of what we've received in letter and public comment, has staff been able to verify the claim of the police activity that has been on this site in the past week? Fulcher: Yes, I did speak with a corporal in the Police Department and previous items the commission has requested information from the police department. I simply requested the same information which is a police log. It's just calls that they have received for a given address. We did confirm that there had been calls to that address in the past. I also called back when I heard about some more recent activity there. They said there had been a call in the last week or two and those were just stating that there had been calls there but nothing substantial or further than that. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. Would any member of the public like to address this conditional use permit 06-2019 for Bohot. Please come forward, state your name, and if you could sign if there's still paper there. We'll get you a new one. Mitchell: Marie Mitchell. My husband and I reside at 37 East 29`" Circle. We are co- chairs of our neighborhood watch number 25. Many of our residents have already left due to age or health. Some couldn't come due to health because we have a lot of retired people a lot of middle-aged and of course we do have many elderly. Some of these elderly they are here the immediate neighbors. If I may, I'd like to give this information to Jeremy which will expand on your question that you just asked. All of the neighbors that contacted me via email or telephone were in opposition to this. It's definitely not anything personal. There's nothing personal about this. Just as Fayetteville is great at recycling, we recycle very well on the hilltop. We recycle grandchildren, they come and they go. So it's not a matter of disliking children. It's not a matter of disliking this woman. All it is, is we simply do not want any commercial activity in our residences. We are residential. We all purchased or built our homes for the sole purpose that there were not that many children in the neighborhood and it was a quiet place for middle-aged, you could grow old, you could enjoy the country club. Many of us are members up there. It's just as simple as we do not want commercial activity in our residential area. As I said, there are neighbors here that are immediately effected that did indeed receive the certified letters. Anthes: Thank you, Mrs. Mitchell. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 76 Cooper: I'm Robert Cooper. My wife and I live at 2957 South College Drive. I'm here with the somewhat unique perspective that until six months ago my wife and I lived next door to a day-care very similar to this for almost ten years. I'm here to tell you, I've read Mr. Fulcher's report, and I'm here to tell you that the decision about whether a day-care should be up on the hill or not is not a matter of whether there are three parking spaces or four parking spaces or whether the sewer is properly hooked up or whether she uses the right sized trash cans. That's the kind of bureaucratic listing that Mr. Fulcher had to go by. I can tell you that the traffic situation is not so much at an appreciable volume. The problem is that there is a rush in the morning and there is a rush in the afternoon when people are bringing their children and are picking up their children. Mr. Fulcher says that this is compatible with our neighborhood. As Marie has said, we are primarily a retiree area. We also only have one way in and one way out. There is only one street into our area. The traffic must come in and out that street. We're not convenient to anybody. We're not on the way from point A to point B for anybody to drop their kids off. If they're going to come to drop their kids off, they have to make a special trip to our neighborhood. Mr. Fulcher also says that a day-care would serve the needs of the neighborhood. I can tell you after living next to a day-care in that neighborhood for ten years, not a single customer of that day-care was from our neighborhood. They were from all over Fayetteville, but they were not from our neighborhood. The idea of this day-care serving our neighborhood is not correct. I would ask that you not approve this request. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Cooper. Harvey: Hi, my name is Steve Harvey, and I happen to be in the unfortunate position in living at the first house going into the subdivision. I see every car that comes in here, whether they're going to the residences, or to the country club. I also happen to be one house down from the proposed day- care would be. I really am afraid of the noise, the traffic. It's difficult to get in and out of our driveway because of landscaping. Secondly, let me reiterate what was said. When we bought that house up there twelve years ago, we were handed a set of covenants, plans that dictated no commercial use in that neighborhood ever. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Harvey. Pope: Good evening. Jerry Pope. I also live on the hilltop. Let me take a second here. I certainly agree with my predecessors. There are a couple of things that I would like to add. One is that Mr. Fulcher's recommendation stated that this use would be compatible with the neighborhood. I certainly can't agree. It also states that the hours of operation are between 7am and Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 77 5:30pm. It doesn't say that it's five days a week. That's seven days a week. Imagine yourself in your neighborhood, I buy the house next door to you, I open a child-care center, and on Sunday afternoon you intend to have a family barbeque. Mr. Cooper can tell you that when he does that the kids are out there throwing stuff over the fence and yelling and screaming. Who wants to live next door to that? We all bought houses in single family residential neighborhoods because they are zoned single family residential neighborhoods. If we wanted to live in a commercial district we would live someplace else. I think you are in that exact situation and I don't think any of you would want it next to you and we don't want it next door to us. Please consider what we're saying. Please let's not commercialize a very quiet and very good neighborhood that is very well kept. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pope. Hutchings: My name is Ada Hutchings. My property is directly across from the proposed day-care. I oppose this because at another time about eight kids I go from teaching, I love kids, I have all my life. I bought this property and built a home on it, my retirement because it was a nice quiet neighborhood with mostly retired people. I just don't think that it's a place for a day- care. That's all. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Smith: My name is Joyce Smith and I live at 160 East 24`h Street and my property adjoins this other property. I bought an old house up there, the first on the top of the hill, about four years and I totally redid it. So, I've got my life's savings tied into it. I feel that if we give in to this we will be setting a precedent to give in to some things later on. I would appreciate it, and I think you all received a letter from me today, I haven't changed my position one bit, but I would appreciate it if you would deny it. I haven't changed my position one bit. I would appreciate it if you would deny it. Thanks. Anthes: Thank you, Ms Smith. Could we just see a show of hands about how many people are here to oppose this item? Thank you. We understand. It's been a long night for all of us. Would any other member of the public like to address this conditional use? Seeing none, I will close the floor to public comment. Does the applicant have a presentation? Would you please come forward? Bohot: I am Wilma Bohot and I live at 124 East 26"' Circle in Fayetteville, Arkansas. I am not here to bring down the value of any of my neighbors property. I, too, own property there. I plan to have a day-care with ten Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 78 children, three to five years old, which I plan to keep the children Monday through Friday 7-5:30, depending on people's hours. I don't plan to stay open later than 5:30. I do not plan on opening on the weekends at all. I do not plan to have my kids outside in the front yard which would face most of my neighbors. I plan to have them on the backyard supervised. I work with kids every day. I work with 20-25 kids every day. I'm a substitute teacher. I know how to structure kids. I have no problem controlling my 20-25 kids in a classroom. I don't think 3-5 year-olds are going to be very hard to control in my living room. As far as traffic goes, ten cars coming in and out from 7:00-5:30, like someone mentioned we have the Fayetteville country club up there where people fly by. I have three kids, my oldest is eighteen, my other two are thirteen and eleven. I supervise them and warn them always to be very careful of that road. It's very busy. If I felt a concern that too much traffic or there might be a child hurt, I would definitely not even consider a day-care. I close, and I hope that you will award me my thing. On another thing, I am not retired. I have to try to make a living to provide for my family. I understand where they're coming from. I hope that we are not just because we're a certain age we think that we can't have children any more. I felt that way for a while. I love kids more than anything. They are your future, and they spark up my life every time I look at one. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Ms Bohot. Pardon me, we have closed the floor to public comment. Thank you. Commissioners? Pate: Madame Chair. Anthes: Mr. Pate. Pate: For the record, I was asked by Alderman Robert Reynolds and Brenda Thiel that for the record they are not supportive of this conditional use request. That's the ward that they represent. Anthes: I believe that they sent an email to all of us. Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I have a question for staff or whoever wants to answer it. On page two of my packet, it says that adequate area requires 250 square feet per child. Does that mean that they have to have 2500 square feet in the living room? Fulcher: That's referring to lot area. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 79 Clark: Just overall lot, okay. In terms of the backyard play area, how much of the backyard space is actually playground? I drove up there this weekend and just drove by. There are a couple of buildings in the backyard and it would seem to diminish the amount of playroom the kids would have. Did you calculate the square footage? Fulcher: They are required to have 800? Clark: Can they get that with the deck and the buildings and all that stuff? Fulcher: I would assume 800 square feet in the backyard, it's fairly large looking at the property. Of course that is one of our requirements for conditions of approval to have a fence constructed around there, an 800 square foot area for a play space prior to a certificate of zoning compliance. Pate: Let me just add that the state also has a requirement and we'll inspect that as well before issuance of their permit. Clark: Okay, so far no permit has been issued? Pate: An applicant cannot apply for a child-care permit unless the city in which they are located has already approved. Clark: They have to do this first? Pate: Right. Exactly. Clark: Okay. Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Madame Chair, a follow-up for staff. The way that it sounds to me is that regardless of whether they have 800 square feet free and clear if we pass this and they don't then they are not in compliance. So we really don't have to find that out tonight, okay, thank you. Anthes: Commissioners. Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 80 Clark: Like I said, I drove by and I don't think this an ample place for day-care. I'm sorry. I think that day-care is needed. There's a lot of commercial space in commercial areas that are properly zoned. I think there's a lot of places where this can happen. I'm concerned about one of the issues I've heard neighbors refer to. Traffic, getting out of that corner is just not healthy. You're right. People drive really quick by the country club and that's a whole other issue. There was just a child that was backed over in a driveway in I think it was Farmington a couple of weeks ago at a day-care in a similar situation. That concerns me. There are places I think this is needed, and I truly applaud the applicant's wanting to work with children. It's certainly a skill I don't possess for three to five -year-olds. More power to you. It's needed. I have employees who need child day-care. I just don't think that this is an adequate space so I will be voting against this conditional use. Anthes: I have a question of the city attorney. Would you or Mr. Pate please state, there was an issue about the covenants, and I would just like you to state for the record and for the people who are in attendance tonight about this board's ability to look at protective covenants. Whitaker: I'm certain it's of concern to the folks who have moved in there and have created a certain expectation on their behalf but the city does not enforce the restricted covenants. Those are private agreements between property owners. The property association or the home owners association are the proper way to exercise one's rights under a restrictive covenants is to go to court in a private action against her. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Whitaker, and while you are at the microphone, I don't know that in three years on this commission I've seen a police report maybe once or twice before and I don't know what our charge is when we are handed a sheet like this, how if at all we can consider it or how that plays into what we're looking at. I'm specifically saying it since this is a conditional use. Whitaker: I think it's not improper to consider such, but I think it goes more to the weight that you should apply to this document. I looked at a copy and it appears to be a printout of a log and doesn't really go into a whole lot. It just registers calls which could have been made by anyone about anything and certainly doesn't indicate that there was any action taken or charges filed or any arrests made. I think the... Audience speaking Anthes: Please, please, please... Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 81 Whitaker: I think the weight of the evidence is something you should consider if you want to consider that document. From my viewing of it, it simply is inconclusive. It shows that there were calls made. It's a printout of a log sheet, no more, no less. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Whitaker. I have one more question of Mr. Pate or Mr. Fulcher. This subdivision obviously was planned a long time ago, before we had the policies we have now with connectivity and so forth, and there has been a lot of discussion about the traffic condition and the fact that there is one way in and one way out of this neighborhood and I'm pretty sure it's on pretty steep terrain. Do you know how many houses are built there and how many undeveloped parcels there are so that we understand the magnitude of the traffic and how this might affect it? Fulcher: I counted approximately 150 residences. There are some unbuilt lots. There is one right next door that has not been built to the west of this property. I've seen a few more, so approximately 150. Pate: After that, there are also subdivisions approved in the recent past, in the last five years, that actually add on to this particular development. You're right it was developed before the policies of connectivity. The challenge with this, however, is much like Lover's Lane on Mt. Seqouyah. It's hard to find another way down. The street has been improved by the city. It's a relatively wide street, thirty-one feet I believe, up to the intersection of this particular street, which I believe is twenty-six. After that it decreases. A typical 28 foot wide street will handle between 3,000-5,000 cars per day. One hundred and fifty homes generates about 1500 trips per day. Keep in mind there is also a country club which generates traffic. People come to that country club and golf course from other portions of the city, as well. As Jesse mentioned, there are undeveloped parts in this area, as well. Audience member says "If I may..." Anthes: I'm sorry the public comment section is closed. Thank you. Are there further comments or discussion? Harris: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: I'm not thrilled about the apparent lack of specificity on the document we were handed, but I'm also willing to take Mr. Whitaker's advice and let it weight to some degree. I also would like to echo what has been said by Commissioner Clark about I too have visited the site this weekend and I Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 82 would have a hard time approving this based on the site alone without having to weigh this vague document. Anthes: Thank you. Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I would have to agree with the comments by Commissioner Clark and Commissioner Harris that the particular site involved causes some concern to me as far as traffic and safety, as far as pulling in there and dropping off children and then pulling in to pick up children and the number of additional vehicle trips is not probably percentage wise a big concern and I understand that is what staff looks at. As far as the location and children being dropped off there, is of concern. I also have concerns about compatibility given the makeup of the neighborhood. There's no question that these cars coming in and out dropping off children could cause safety issues. That many children will create some additional noise for those particular residents in that area. As far as the police calls, I would have a concern whether or not they were resolved or whatever of the calls are, the fact that the police are being called to that residence for whatever reason and the fact that there would be children involved to that alone would be of concern to me as well. I, just in light of all that, I wouldn't be in support of the conditional use here. Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: It sounds like if your neighborhood watch had reported people driving in your neighborhood this weekend, it was us. We all went at a different time. I'm glad that other commissioners went and saw what I did and they concur. I move that we deny conditional use 06-2019. Tr umbo: Second. Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Clark and a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there further discussion? Suzanne, will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to deny CUP 06-2019 carries with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 83 CUP 06-1999: Conditional Use Permit (MT. COMFORT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, 361): Submitted by ASHLEY GRIFFITH for property located at N & W AT MT COMFORT AND RUPPLE ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-1, SINGLE FAMILY — 1 UNIT/ACRE and contains approximately 2.86 acres. The request is for a church (Use Unit 4) in the RSF-1 Zoning District. Anthes: If you would please move to the outside of the doors before you start talking, I would appreciate it. Our next item tonight is Conditional Use Permit 06-1999 for Mt. Comfort Presbyterian Church. The tandem item is Large Scale Development 06-1973 for Mt. Comfort Presbyterian Church. Andrew? Garner: This property is located on the northwest corner of Mt. Comfort Road and Rupple Road in west Fayetteville. It was developed as private property in Fayetteville city limits as a church. It currently contains a church building, a hall, and a parking lot. Mt. Comfort Cemetery is located to the north and west with residential uses to the east and south and an existing school to the north of the site. The applicant proposes to develop an approximately 8800 square foot church building and new parking lot with a total of 53 spaces with an additional 14 spaces. The property is zoned RSF-1 district which requires a church used only by conditional use permit. This is a conditional use permit request for this new building in the residential zoning district. Staff finds the location of this church would not adversely affect public interest with appropriate and sensitive design measures in place. We find that this site has been used as a church for many many years, since maybe the 1800s. Maybe the applicant can tell you it. We found that it is compatible with the surrounding school, agricultural, and residential uses. We are recommending approval of the conditional use permit and a large scale development. There are several conditions in your staff report. The main ones to bring to your attention for the conditional use permit is condition number one which is planning commission determination of compatibility in the same zoning district. Most of these conditions are relatively straightforward. As part of large scale development, applicant would be required to construct a sidewalk along the street frontage on Mt. Comfort Road. We recommend an assessment be taken for that amount as this road is identified to be improved in the near future. We'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Garner. Would any member of the public like to address the conditional use or the large scale development for Mt. Comfort Church? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment. Does the applicant have a presentation? Bodine: Good evening. In everyone's interest I'll keep this as brief as possible. My name is Dave Bodine. I am with HKS Engineers and I am representing the Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 84 applicant, Mt. Comfort Presbyterian Church. With me this evening are members from Marlon -Blackwell Architecture, Matt Griffith and David Tanner. I will speak really briefly to the site issues. There's an existing facility on the site that serves as a fellowship hall. Our intentions are to demolish the fellowship hall and construct what you see before you in the renderings, a new sanctuary building that will also have room for a fellowship hall, associated parking. We've made every attempt to leave as much of the surrounding greenspace intact. We'll work with the utility companies to extend the proper service. If you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer those, to talk about the building portion is Matt Griffith. Griffith: As Andrew mentioned, the church has been used for a very long time, and the site has been used for a very long time as a church property. It is in fact older than the city of Fayetteville. It was founded in 1828 and is the oldest church that has been continually operating in the state of Arkansas. It is, needless to say, a very historic site. It is in addition one of the oldest churches and the oldest Presbyterian church west of the Mississippi, so it is a very historic site. The way we approached the design of the building, our office is actually to apprise people, the first thing we did is we drove around the western part of the county for about two hours and looked at many barns, the agricultural structures we're very fond of, many of the traditional homes, and we tried to work with ways where most of the suburbs are popping up out there, look at the way these buildings rested on the land the way they were oriented themselves, the way they addressed the topography which is certainly an important issue around here. The building ends up in many ways looking different. These are many of the renditions that we have in the way the project has been designed. I know you have in your packet the site plans that show how the building is located. It is located on the current location, the location of the current fellowship hall which is the less historically significant of the two buildings currently on the site. This was built in the 1930s. The new building which will replace it in section, that is in height and width, is nearly identical to the existing building. It is simply a longer building. Rather than putting a large parking facility on the street as most projects in this part of town are doing, we actually decided to put it as close to the building as we were able to off of Mt. Comfort Road, thereby creating compatible parking and landscaping on the north part of the property. It becomes a very nice usable outdoor space for the people of the church and also uses the building to screen the view of cars and asphalt from the road. I can actually say that you have a large square footage of paving on the new scheme that we currently have on the property even though we're increasing the capacity of parking, we'll have twice what we have now. I won't go much further past that. I think that since the subdivision committee has recommended approval of this I think more information Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 85 can be unfolded if you have questions or critiques of the project. It is something that the church is excited about. There are some church members here. I represent the ultimate conflict of interest because I'm a member of the church, so I would like to recognize that the members of the church are here. I'd point out that the members of the church that are here actually met at the church going through the process for designing a remarkable building that at least historically is very remarkable rather than selling property to move into a strip mall or a larger property or building something as unremarkable as many of the other churches nearby. I'll be here if you have any questions. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Griffith. We've read the staff report and public comment and heard from the applicant on both items. Let's discuss the conditional use first. Do any commissioners have any comments? I have one comment. I would like to propose a change to the condition of approval number nine. I believe that this building is distinctive and will be an identifying device all its own on the property. Because this is an RSF-I zoning district, which is very specific when it comes to signs, I will move to amend condition nine to state signage within the RSF-I district is limited to any existing non -conforming signs on the property must be removed and any new signage must comply with current sign ordinances for the district. Ostner: I will second your motion. Anthes: A motion and a second to amend condition number nine. Is there any discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to amend condition number nine carries with a vote of 6- 3-0. Anthes: With that stated, I will move to approve conditional use permit 06-1999 subject to the conditions as amended. Clark: I'll second. Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Anthes, second by Commissioner Clark. Is there any discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-1999 carries with a vote of 9-0-0. Pate: Madame Chair, this may be late in coming, but if I may ask a question of the applicant. Are there any historic signs that are significant to the church that may be affected by this? I think that this is the reason that we put the Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 86 condition in there as it is stated. I'm sorry. I should have spoken out. I would ask Mr. Griffith to... Griffith: I had a feeling something was slipping passed me there. Young people get tired, especially when they have little kids that wake them at 5:30am. Pate: I'm not that familiar with what signs are on the property but I think there were some historic sign elements that may actually be located within the right-of-way that unless the city comes through and removes them they will not be removed. I just want to make sure and ask the applicant that. Griffith: There are three potential things. One is not actually on the property and there are a number of gravestones many from the 1800s many within the new proposed right-of-way. This is on the adjacent property which is the cemetery. On our property we have I don't know if it's an official historic marker I don't know enough about those things, but we do have a historic marker right on the road that lists the members of the early Mt. Comfort Community, most of who helped form the Ozark Institute which that eventually led to the University of Arkansas, so certainly some historic important people. The history of the region probably the most visible is the arched entryway into the property which says Mt. Comfort 1828, though the stone has been rebuilt at some point I know the iron portion says Mt. Comfort 1828. Anthes: Are those located within the right-of-way that was to be dedicated for this property? Griffith: They're not located within the old right-of-way but they are within the new one that is to be dedicated. I know for sure the entry sign is about four or five feet within the right-of-way. Anthes: Mr. Pate, to me those sound more like historic marker items rather than a sign with the name of the church on it. Griffith: With the exception of the arch with the name on it. Anthes: My intention in that was any sort of monument signs or any signage that was on the site that was specifically in contradiction to our sign ordinance to that district. I would not have any problem at all with leaving historic markers in place. I'd just like your comment that. Pate: Procedurally I always ask this question Anthes: Since we've already do we have to reconsider to talk about that? Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 87 Pate: Is that the understanding of the entire commission who voted on both the amendment and the approval that that's the case? Anthes: Could we have a physical nod from everyone? Griffith: It was brought to my attention that we do have an entirely not historic sign that is in the right-of-way to be dedicated and it's the standard church sign that was put up about... Anthes: That's the one that I wanted you to remove. Trumbo: If I may, the reason I voted no was that I have seen that arched sign for many many years and I do recognize it as both a historic marker and a sign. I would I don't know that the right-of-way will always allow that or there won't be some reason that a future generation may have to remove that sign I certainly would not want to try to perpetuate that at this point. Anthes: So, staff, do you think you have a clear enough direction? Pate: If all the planning commission agrees with the amendment and the approval for this conditional use, the arched sign and other historic markers that likely would be located within the right-of-way, not technically on this site, remain unless they are removed of course probably by the city since it would be a city right-of-way. Any other non- conforming signs such as internally lit things of that nature would either be replaced or removed to meet the current ordinance requirements. Is that what I understand? Ostner: Should we make a new motion to clarify this? Whitaker: You know my preference is to always get things on the record with a vote. Anthes: Do we need to move to reconsider and then do that? Whitaker: No, you can just amend that to make it clear that you don't mean the historic markers or the arched sign. Anthes: Even though we've already voted? Whitaker: What's that? Anthes: Even though we've already voted? Whitaker: Yes, if anybody wants to amend that on condition number nine. If somebody else could make a motion to further amend that. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 88 Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I'll move that we reconsider the conditional use permit 06-1999 to address the issue of historic markers appropriately. Anthes: I'll second. Motion by Commissioner Graves, second by me. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to reconsider CUP 06-1999 carries with a vote of 9-0-0. Anthes: Since I got us into this mess, I would like to move for approval of the conditional use permit subject to the amended condition clarified by the verbage that Mr. Pate specified a few seconds ago which I think was very clear and I certainly wouldn't be able to state any better than he did. This leaves the historic signs intact and removes any modern signs. Griffith: Could you say that again on the microphone? I think we're all a little confused. Anthes: Could you state that again, please? Pate: Essentially, any existing non -conforming signs on the property may remain including the arched sign, historic markers, things of that nature. However, any modern type signs that are internally illuminated would need to be replaced to meet setback requirements based on our current sign ordinances. Griffith: They need to be removed, not discarded? Anthes: No, they need to be removed. Pate: If they're not allowed within the RSF-1 district. Anthes: So the brick arch and the historic marker with the peoples' names can remain. Any additional signage that doesn't meet the criteria for historic marker but is rather signage that is not complaint with the RSF-1 zoning district would have to be removed. Griffith: So I guess we have to wait on the interpretations of the sign that is there? Anthes: I think it's pretty safe to say that is one of the ones that would have to be removed. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 89 Graves: Second. Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Anthes, second by Commissioner Graves. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-1999 carries with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 90 LSD 06-1973: Large Scale Development (MT COMFORT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, 361-322): Submitted by ASHLEY GRIFFITH for property located at N & W AT MT COMFORT AND RUPPLE ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-1, SINGLE FAMILY — 1 UNIVACRE and contains approximately 2.86 acres. The request is for an 8,795 square foot church building. Anthes: We'll now discuss the large scale development portion. I have one question about the plat. The applicant has stated that their intention is to remove the existing church. I believe there is some additional comment as to the condition of that property. However, the building itself does appear on the plat without indication that it will be demolished. I have a question for staff about how we handle that as part of the project. Griffith: Can I just offer clarification on that? Anthes: Sure. Griffith: There are two buildings on the property. The one that is the church is the one that is white and it will remain. It has not been shown to be demolished. Anthes: Okay. It's just the one that is actually under... Griffith: The one that is yellow is where the new building will go and will be demolished. Anthes: Got it. Thank you. A question about there appears to be an existing thirty foot utility easement that goes through the new church building. Will that be processed as a separate request? Pate: Yes. Anthes: The other thing is that I was unable to find the dumpster location or the bicycle racks on the plat. Maybe I'm just missing them? Clark: In subdivision when we talked about that, Andrew didn't you say that solid waste said they could still use their cart? Garner: Right. Solid waste division did review this and didn't have any major comments. We do have a condition of approval that any trash enclosure shall be screened so that's our standard ordinance requirement. The bike racks are identified near the existing church to the west of the driveway. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 91 Pate: I'd also note that number five under key notes it refers to the size of the concrete pad where the dumpster location is located. Anthes: Where is that? Pate: On the first page of site plan, key notes number five. Anthes: So it's on a note but it's not actually on the plan? Garner: On the southeast corner of the parking area. Pate: It's also called out as number five. Anthes: Thank you very much. That means that that dumpster enclosure is actually right near the road. That's usually something that we discourage that the dumpster enclosures actually face away from major rights-of-way. Can the applicant consider moving that to a less visible location? Excellent. Then I had a question for the applicant about the bike rack placement. Obviously if your building has substantially improved facility it might bring people there, I was wondering why you were locating the bike racks across the street and away from the new building. Griffith: Well, they're located on the fronts of the two buildings wind up facing each other as the current two buildings do so the primary point of I guess of arrival or decision as to which building you're going to or which portion of the property you're going to occur in that zone. So that's why we located generally that part of the site. As far as being located across from the entry drive, that's a great question and can be moved if necessary. Anthes: I would personally like for those bicyclists to be able to park and not have to cross a lane of traffic to get to the major building if that's compatible. Those are my only comments. Other commissioners? Yes, Commissioner Ostner? Ostner: Yes, Madame Chair, I believe that some basic landscaping can do wonders. I was wondering if you all had any plans for that retaining wall that was built several years ago out on the street? Griffith: It was built by the city, I believe. We hadn't really.. Ostner: It was gifted to you. Griffith: I'm sorry, what did you say? Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 92 Ostner: It was gifted to you. Griffith: Actually we'll end up gifting it back. However, we were commenting at the office that the presence of the building actually makes the retaining wall look better. Beyond that there were no properties that fell within the plans to do anything with it. Ostner: That was a question or a suggestion. My second comment is on the second page you have this sort of tree preservation or limits of construction area sort of blacked out on the east and south. My question is to staff, most of that is a utility easement, how does that work? Pate: Some of the utility easement is going away, and will go away, correct me if I'm wrong... Ostner: I'm talking about the notes that say proposed twenty foot utility easement. Pate: On the south? Ostner: And the east. Pate: Yes, those are proposed. The one I'm referring to really is the one across from the building that Commissioner Anthes mentioned earlier. Those were required by utility companies to relocate those easements. I don't think the applicants would be protecting them during construction. They're not allowed to count those as part of their tree preservation requirements. A lot of those trees are located within the right-of-way as well. I believe the city's efforts to improve Mt. Comfort Road will take those into consideration, as well, when we decide to align that. Ostner: Thank you. That's pretty much what I was afraid of. So that answers my question. I do see a nice landscape plan on the last page or the next page but most of that on the east side is still within this utility easement so I just wanted that brought up. Utility companies don't like that. I was wondering if you all had talked to them about that, about planting all of those trees. Griffith: It was one of the first meetings I had on the site I met with I think his name is Michael Phipps from Ozark Electric. I guess our primary preservation and our drawing puts the construction that far to the south and east was primarily to indicate that we have reached an agreement once the LSD process is approved with Ozark Electric to relocate the lines that are currently cutting across the existing building and would obviously cut across the new building to the appropriate utility swamp in relation to the new right-of-way. We view that as activity on the site and we just wanted to be clear about where stuff was going to be happening. In terms of the Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 93 new, on the south side and east side, the new plantings and trees, they're going to be the planting of several of the existing trees will actually be removed as all of those happen to be dead at this point. So all of those will be removed in order to enable this relocation of the utilities. Then the new plantings will be coordinated with Ozark Electric. That's something that will develop as we get into further discussion with them which we haven't been able to do yet because they're usually wanting to wait until they know the city is okay with it. Our site plans are showing the numbers of trees that are currently there right now. The elements on the southeast side is kind of a double spacing of the number of trees required by the recommendations of the city. It's just to show that we intend to put those there. You can count those and hold us to that. But it will need to be coordinated with the final locations of those posts and lots. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Motions? Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I'll move the approval of large scale development 06-1973 with the conditions of approval as indicated. Myres: I'll second. Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Clark and a second by Commissioner Myres. Are there any further comments? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve LSD 06-1973 carries with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 94 PPL 06-2011: Preliminary Plat (BUNGALOWS @ CATO SPRINGS, 600): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS for property located ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF CATO SPRINGS ROAD, WEST OF CLINE AVENUE. The property is zoned RESIDNETIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT (R-PZD) 05-1797, BUNGALOWS AT CATO SPRINGS, and contains approximately 5.52 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 30 single family lots. Anthes: Mr. Garner, could I have the staff report? Garner: This property is located on the north side of Cato Springs Road, west of Cline Avenue in Fayetteville. The property totals about 5 '/2 acres. Its background, this property was rezoned from RSF-4 to residential planned zoning district 05-1797 the Bungalows at Cato Springs back in December of 2005. With that new zoning, it allows single family development. The applicant is proposing to develop this property in accordance with the zoning requirements for the site with thirty-one single-family units and a one and half acre preservation and trail area associated with the Cato Springs branch creek on the western portion of the site. This development proposes more traditional type of single-family uses adjacent to the existing neighborhood to the east with higher density and more formal units along the western portion of the site. Staff is recommending approval of this preliminary plat with conditions. Condition number one is planning commissioner determination of appropriate street connectivity. Staff does recommend in favor of street connectivity as shown to add an additional street to the north as recommended by subdivision committee and planning staff. Condition number two is planning commission determination of street improvements. Staff recommends taking an assessment for improving the road fourteen feet from center line in accordance with the master street plan designation of this street. I wanted to call your attention to number seven which states that all existing structures and driveways not incorporated into the subdivision be removed and areas be revegetated where necessary prior to recordation of the final plat. Condition number six also references that permanent barricade shall be approved by the planning division, transportation division. That's just insuring that there is no additional access to Cato Springs Road. Condition number eight is referencing that exterior alleys should be extended to the northern property line to provide alley access to lots 18 or 19 or shared access shared driveways be required for lots 17, 18, 19, and 20. Condition number nine is that the site plan shall be modified to depict the central entry lane street section extending to the northern border of the property. The temporary cul-de-sac should be eliminated and the turnaround for fire assistance be provided for these alleys. Other than that, these conditions are relatively straightforward. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 95 Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Garner. Would any member of the public like to address this preliminary plat for the bungalows at Cato Springs? Seeing none, we'll close the floor to public comment. May we have the applicant's presentation? Morgan: Good evening, Mike Morgan with McClelland Consulting Engineering. We appreciate my client and the city's willingness to work and continue the progress of the Bungalows at Cato Springs. We're excited about this project. As you know, it's a PZD for the City of Fayetteville off of Cato Springs Road. We've worked with staff to make the site plan modifications which you have in front of you with street connectivity to the north, widening up of the alleys directly across from one another across from the central driveway. I would like to discuss real briefly comments number twenty-four and twenty-eight regarding especially twenty-eight regarding the planning of trees prior to the final plat being recorded. We will have a bond in place and would like to construct the actual houses before the trees and plants. So we would like to possibly as long as we have 50% bonded in place, be able to have the final plat and then plant the trees after the houses are built. Other than that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you all may have. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Morgan. Can I have a clarification from staff on condition twenty-eight and what we normally recommend? Pate: Staff would be agreeable to change that as opposed to must be planted to bonded and plants submitted and approved. Tentatively those will be planted as each house develops so that they're not destroyed or damaged during construction of the home. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Is there discussion? Commissioners? Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I recall this PZD when we rezoned this to the specialized custom zone. I don't see any big issue with this. I would be in favor. I'm going to make a motion that we approve Preliminary Plat 06-2011. Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Ostner. Do I hear a second. Trumbo: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Trumbo. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 96 Pate: Madame Chair. Anthes: Unfortunately I also have questions. Mr. Pate... Pate: I just want to be clear, does the motion also include the change to condition number twenty-eight? Ostner: Yes. Including the changed condition number twenty-eight as we have just discussed. Trumbo: Second. Ostner: And the motion includes the finding of connectivity and determination of street improvements. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Ostner. I have some questions. As I understand it from staff report, the main street central entry lane will actually extend the north property line, the temporary cul-de-sac will be removed and basically the alleys will serve as a hammer -head condition to turn around, is that right? Garner: That's correct. Anthes: I have a question on the north -south alley configuration, it's two -fold. First of all, I appreciate that lots 1-3 are facing Cato Springs Road and I'm assuming that they will be serviced and their driveways will be from the alley, is that correct? Garner: That's correct. Anthes: So the intention is that those houses the fronts will face Cato Springs. I would like to see that condition also applied on lots 30 and 31 if those were divided in a north -south direction rather than an east -west direction. I think it provides a better frontage on the street and doesn't do anything differently to the interior configuration than is already happening with lots 1 and 3. To follow that comment, I'm confused about this the north -south connections on the alleys, particularly I don't understand why you take the eastern loop all the way to Cato Springs Road and then erect a barricade when really what we can do is take it into service both lots and have it stop. Therefore, not be confusing and have a barricade that would be visible from Cato Springs Road. Similarly, on the north side of both the western and eastern loops those alleys rather than extending completely to the property line could be extended to the lot line between 17 and 18 and the lot line between 20 and 19. That way all of the lots have access off the Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 97 alley and could be serviced from the alley but we wouldn't have these kind of strange extensions to nowhere. It would also provide for larger lot sizes on 18, 19, and 31. Is the applicant, able to clarify why that would have happened another way? Morgan: You are correct on lots 1-3 for the access to be from the alley in the rear. On lots 30 and 311 do believe we can make that adjustment and cause that to be facing onto Cato Springs Road. With the removal of the proposed turnaround it's opened up a design option of even pushing that out all the way to the northern property line and coming around. With the idea of street connectivity, it gives a wider range of places for that to hit. More than likely it would come off of the central alley, but the results are the same. The lot lines could be adjusted to give an overall larger sized lot and then everybody would have access off the alley with the central entryway actually having no driveways onto it. I believe that's some wonderful ideas. Anthes: Could you also address the eastern loop as it heads south to Cato Springs? Morgan: The permanent barricade we have thought of putting a landscape berm there rather than a wooden barricade or something more unsightly. Again, if those lots were turned and faced Cato Springs like 1, 2, 3 it would be more symmetrical and would decrease the amount of I think that is an improvement that could be incorporated here. Anthes: I think that would really improve the plan and would be something that would cause me to want to vote for the project. Morgan: Very good. I certainly agree that a permanent barricade can be a lot more aesthetically pleasing than a podium -type thing or a wooden barricade out there. Anthes: It seems to me if you do it the way we just mentioned you have two large lots to sell and less street to build, so that should make you happy. Is there further discussion? Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I want to amend my motion to eliminate the hammerhead to the east of thirty and thirty-one if the seconder would agree. Trumbo: Yes I will. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 98 Ostner: And to turn thirty and thirty-one to face Cato Springs Road. Trumbo: Yes. Ostner: Thank you. Anthes: We have a motion and a second, motion by Commissioner Ostner and second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there further discussion? Pate: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes. Pate: There are no revisions then to lots 17, 18, 19, and 20, is that my understanding? Anthes: I believe that there were two different options discussed. I was discussing just taking the north borders of those alleys to the property lines of 17 and 18 and 19 and 20 instead of to the northern property line. I believe the applicant just suggested that instead of having the cross access between lots 16, 17, 20, and 21 that you would actually more that cross access to the northern property line to complete the loop. Morgan: That would assume that the fire department would be in favor of this condition versus the previous. Pate: Thank you for that clarification. Ostner: I would like to once again amend my motion to what she said. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve PPL 06-2011 carries with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 99 PPL 06-2010: Preliminary Plat (WEIR RD. S/D, 244): Submitted by PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC for property located at SE CORNER WEIR AND HUGHMOUNT ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 17.64 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 34 single- family lots and 40 town homes. Anthes: May we have the staff report, Jesse? Fulcher: This is a preliminary plat request. It was heard at the last subdivision committee meeting. The subject property contains approximately 17.6 acres located at the intersection of Hughmount Rd and Weir Rd. It is actually just north of Lierly Lane subdivision that was approved last year. This property is within the planning area. Just to cover with the planning area, we discussed this at subdivision meeting, the items that we can actually review and regulations we can enforce in a planning area that is the appropriate division of land, minimum lot areas, lot widths, right-of- way dedications in accordance to our master plan, on and off site improvements as it relates to the impact on traffic generated by the development, septic system approval, and street connectivity. The applicants are proposing a community septic field on approximately two acres in the subdivision. As heard at subdivision committee, we did hear public comment regarding drainage, traffic, and compatibility regarding the lot sizes and the use of townhouses in the subdivision. Also, another item of discussion was street connectivity which is covered under conditional approval number two. Given that this subdivision will access to existing streets that will be improved and the property to the south and east are in existing subdivisions which again connect to another street. We do not recommend any connectivity. Subdivision committee found in favor of that recommendation. Given that the applicants have met all the requirements that we can enforce in a planning area, staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat. Condition number one refers to street improvements. Staff is recommending widening Hughmount Road 14 feet from center line, which includes storm drains, curbs, gutters, pavement, four foot sidewalk along the property frontage with all improvements continuing south to join up with the improvements for Lierly Lane Subdivision which connects this street section with their improvements and the same type of improvements to Weir Road, fourteen feet from center line and again storm drains, curbs, gutters, pavement, four foot sidewalk along the property frontage. Ultimately we want both streets to provide a minimum of 20 feet of asphalt pavement or according to county standards whichever is greater. Of course streets will be built to city standards. The other conditions are pretty straight forward. If you have any questions, please ask. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 100 Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. Would any member of the public like to address this preliminary plat for Weir Road? Thrillkill: Hi. My name is Connie Thrillkill. My husband and I have the property immediately south of this proposed subdivision. We have several concerns. The main one that concerns us is drainage. That's something that the city has jurisdiction over, if I understand that correctly. Today we had a nice rain. It was dry enough that we didn't have a lot of runoff but when we do have rain when we aren't in a drought condition we have a lot of runoff coming off of that property. As I mentioned in the subdivision committee meeting, there's about a 37-40 foot drop from Weir Road to our property going across this. I know you all have a copy of the plat. You've looked at it. Maybe some of you have been out to the property. One of the things that I wanted to bring to a point was the pond that exists there in the southeast corner of the property pretty much serves as a detention area now. When we have heavy rains when we're not in a drought condition that pond does not overflow. The pond is such that when it does get full the water backs up to the north to a ravine. That pond does not overflow into our property. When they remove that pond and put in a detention pond it will overflow into our property. If you all will look there on a copy of the plat you will see that the storm drain coming from the street from the north and coming in from heading east coming in from the west side of the property, all of the water from the homes on both of those streets will come into the storm drain and into the detention pond. At the back of the detention pond and the corner there you will see that will drain out onto our property. That is more flow of drainage than what we have now by a large extent. When you put this many homes on an area you cover up this much of a ground area that is normally absorbing the water you have a huge amount of runoff. That's going to go right onto our property. That particular piece of property is an individual lot, a platted lot in that subdivision. We have three lots, our home is on two, and that's a separate lot. If at some point a sewer does arrive in that part of the county that lot will be sellable but who would want it with drainage coming off of seventy units right onto that property? Something has to be done in order to make sure that the drainage from this subdivision does not there is no natural drainage field going across there. There's not a wet weather creek bed. There's nothing. It's just a low spot in what we call the bottom of our yard. We're very very concerned about that. We're concerned about the fact that this is going to be an eyesore, for lack of a better word, to have this concrete thing there, this detention pond. The other thing we're concerned about is that if we at some point want to sell this lot or sell our home that with that included that no one is going to be interested because you have a drainage pool at the bottom of your yard that this subdivision is draining into. When I spoke with the engineer he mentioned that they were going to slope these lots toward the street so that the runoff would go to Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 101 the street and be managed runoff and that this wouldn't come back into our yard which is directly south of this property but you're going to have gutters on those houses. The houses are peaked. Half of that that comes onto the roof is going to run down the back of the house. They put gutters on homes and they're allowed to come to the back of the house that's going to come onto our property. I would like to ask that one of the conditions be that they would gutter these homes to the street and not towards the back of the house. Another concern I had was that the alleyway that goes around the town homes is that a private alley? Am I to understand that that is supposed to be privately maintained? If that is the case, well I just think that's a bad situation. I think the town homes are a bad situation there, too. I want to clarify and have clarified for us from the developer if these town homes are going to be two-story or one. It certainly looks like on the plat that there's not enough room for these to be one-story quote unquote patio homes or garden homes, but that these are all connected and certainly look like two-story homes. I would like for it to be clarified that those are not going to be two-story homes but are going to be one-story homes. It makes a big difference on the impact on our neighborhood. These people could be in a two-story home staring into my two-story home and my deck all the time. That concerns us, as well. I had a couple of other things. Another question I had is how can you be sure the developer will actually follow through with any conditions that you might add, for instance, sloping the lot with the front so the runoff goes to the street and be managed. How can you be sure after you sign off on this and it goes wherever it goes next that this will actually happen. When you get the heavy equipment out, when you get the bulldozers and what is actually going on in front of our house right now, how can you be sure that that's actually going to happen? That was another question. We're interested in possibly asking the engineering firm to redo their numbers on drainage. It looks like they possibly did their numbers with that pond overflowing into our property and that they could match that particular flow and not increase it, but that pond does not overflow into our property. We've lived there for six and a half years and that has never occurred. We're just really concerned about that. I know you all can't say anything about property values and so on and so forth, but drainage is a huge issue. It impacts our property an incredible amount. It will impact the saleability of our property in the future. We're basically an island between these two subdivisions by the same developer and we want to make sure that we don't get the short end of the stick as far as that goes. Also, one thing I noted on some notes on the plat is that the state health department requires that there be an alternate site for the septic system and there's no alternate site listed on the plat. I didn't know if that was something that had already been discussed or fixed but if there needs to be an alternate site according to the health department then it needs to be on the plat and right not it's not. Also, I wondered who monitors the septic system once it is in place. I Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 102 just want to make sure that that is understood at some point. Also, if any agency whether it would be the city or maybe the state health department or whoever monitors the wall at Clabber Creek which is directly south of both of those subdivisions and then runs into the Illinois River. I'm sure Oklahoma will monitor that, if nobody else does. Anyway, the main concern for us is the drainage issue and the fact that those town homes are so packed in there. Within a few years, if they don't start that way, they'll definitely end up being rental properties which does not hold its value. We all know that. That's my main concern. I appreciate your time tonight. That's all. Thank you very much. Anthes: Thank you. Yell: Hi. I'm Garland Yell. I'll make this brief because I'm too tired to think. I have four acres that directly joins this subdivision. We've been out there almost thirty years. This subdivision changes the whole complexity of our community out there. That's my main thing right there is how it changes the whole area. While I was sitting out here, I kept looking at Fayetteville Vision 2020 and the number one thing on there. That's going completely against it. The drainage is going to be a huge problem. I'm the one that took the pictures that were passed around on the flooding on the property. I don't know if you saw those or not, but they were there. I don't think that they can channel that water like they're planning on doing. It can be very flooded down there. I've seen the road under water. Like I said I'm too tired to think, but believe me I'm against this. I think if you all know who is developing this you all will understand even more. That's all I'm going to say. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Good evening. Strigler: Hello. I'm Gary Strigler and my family owns the property directly to the north of the proposed subdivision. I've actually lived out there a little bit longer than the Yell's. A lot of things have changed out there. I don't know when Garland took that picture but it's probably safe to say that there's more water coming faster through that property now than at the time they took that picture because there's more development in that area. I've also seen that road underwater a lot of times. I guess my concern I know the City of Fayetteville's job is to study that and make sure that's not an issue, but I want to state our concern about the drainage issue which is I guess there's two drainage issues some to the north and to the south. One of my other questions was to be clear one of the roads is an asphalt road I guess Weir Road is an asphalt road and Hughmount is actually a chip -and -seal county road. My question on that is will that be because there's going to be tremendous amount of traffic through there will that Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 103 road be upgraded and torn out and put back in as an asphalt road to hold up the extra traffic? Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Strigler. Would any other member of the public like to address this preliminary plat for the Weir Road subdivision? Seeing none I'll close the public comment section. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Kimmet: Good evening. I'm Bruce Kimmet with Project Design Consultants representing the applicant on this preliminary plat request. We're basically proposing 34 single-family lots in accordance with the county of Washington's standards and 40 town homes. I would just like to address a couple of the comments on drainage. We were following the city of Fayetteville's drainage manual and the ordinances required for the city of both Fayetteville and we're addressing all of those issues for drainage. Anthes: Thank you very much. I'm sure we'll get back with you. Before we start our internal discussion I would like to get some clarification from staff. There's been a lot of people referring to some photography but that wasn't included in our packet. Was that submitted to staff? Fulcher: Those were some photos that Mr. Yell referred to that we had for subdivision committee. All three subdivision committee members saw those and our engineer also saw them. Staff saw them. They did not make it out of the subdivision committee meeting. I spoke with Mr. Yell and explained that to him. Those photos ended up with some plats and I believe ended up in the trashcan. They were photos indicating standing water on the site again that I showed to Mr. Casey. He's aware of the drainage issues that I've spoken about. Anthes: Okay. Can you also tell us what the resulting density on this site is? Pate: Approximately four units per acre. Anthes: Excuse me, could you say that again? Pate: Approximately four units per acre. Anthes: Four units per acre. For the public, Mr. Pate, can you describe our compliance process? Obviously this is a preliminary plat, and we have a final plat that we review. Pate: Correct. The process is that within the city's planning area an applicant that wishes to subdivide property does come before the Fayetteville Planning Commission. If it's within one mile of the city limits, it has to Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 104 meet all City of Fayetteville requirements including street improvement and drainage improvements. Those recommendations have been made in your staff report. Staff is recommending approval of those. The following meeting after this the process following the planning commission, if the Fayetteville Planning Commission finds that this application meets its requirements would go to the Washington County Planning Board for either approval or denial or at least for a public review and I believe they take public comment there as well. Following that, I believe the applicants prepare and submit construction plans for review and approval. Our city engineers' office looks at those and submits a letter of approval. For the septic system, it actually goes to the health department and they actually issue those permits and approvals for the septic system as well as the water system. I'm not sure exactly how that works but it is not a city function to look at that process for sanitary and sewer for the county planning area. Following that, it is constructed and the structure is inspected. If approved, comes back for final plat to insure that the conditions placed on it by the planning commission are met. Anthes: The grading that has been designated is inspected prior to final plat? And it is the city's responsibility to make sure that the grading is per the drawings? Pate: For the detention, for the street... Anthes: No. I'm talking specifically. There was some discussion about, it's hard to read, the lots on the southern property line being graded towards the street rather than the south. Casey: We will review and inspect the grading for all the street construction, storm drainage, retention ponds. However, after the streets have been accepted and the final plats have been signed, the building process for the homes we have no control over. We will not be able to review each individual lot for the lot drainage. Anthes: That's what I thought. To follow up, Mr. Casey, I know that if you have an individual septic systems for individual homes you have to identify an alternate site. Is that the same case if you have a large centralized field, or not? Casey: I'm not sure. We may have to refer back to the applicant. I'm not familiar with this type of system and what the requirements are for the state and the county. Kimmet: We do have an alternate drip field area. It is noted on the plans. It may not be on the plat that the neighbors have seen. But that is a state requirement. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 105 It may not be on the plat that you have, but we have it on our design plans that we have to submit to the health department and the city. Anthes: Can you describe it for us? Kimmet: It's just to the north of the main drip fields. It doesn't have it shown on it, it's just open green area. Anthes: So it would still be within the lot shown, it just would be in a different part of it? Kimmet: Yeah, immediately adjacent to the main drip fields. There's a letter in your packet from Lance Jones I believe or Craig Corridor from the health department that states they agree with drip fields area and give us the minimum size of what those drip field areas need to be including alternate field areas. Anthes: One further question for Mr. Casey. I'm looking at this lot 28 detention area and seeing how much surface it is collecting from the street and obviously even if these southernmost lots are graded to the street, the street is going to collect the water and dump it into the same detention basin anyway. It does look like the outlet for that area is directly in the southeast corner of this property. Can you comment on the drainage calculations and what you expect to see coming out of there? Casey: They have submitted a preliminary drainage report for this project. It does not have the full detail that our final report will have once it goes to review if it is approved. We will look, let me back up for a minute, the preliminary report I do not believe addressed the pond that was talked about earlier tonight. We'll make sure that is included in the future calculations. Anthes: Could I get you to speak up just a little bit? Casey: Sorry. We'll make sure that that's included in the final report and make sure that's addressed. As far as the outlet, that is some information that I asked for in plat review and have not seen yet. As far as the conditions of that outflow where it is pouring through what is there, that's something that I'll have to have the applicant submit at the time of construction review. If there is not a defined area for that point discharge they'll have to address that off-site whether it's an extension of the pipes or channel, that's something they will have to work with the adjacent property owner to get easement for. The extent of that right now is unknown. We'll have to review that and see what improvements are necessary. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 106 Anthes: Commissioners? Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: We saw this at subdivision and asked an awful lot of questions about drainage because these neighbors showed up and voiced their opinions. They were very consistent. We had three or four very vivid photographs that I'm very sorry were lost. Nobody told us to keep up with them, so we didn't apparently. But it does show a lot of drainage issues. I guess I thought we were going to hear more definitive answers by the time we got to this step. I'm very uncomfortable with these great unknowns. This is in the planning area. This is not something I would have jumped to approve if it was within the city limits. It's in the planning area. Can we look at drainage as a viable up or down decision -maker? Pate: As a decision for the overall project? Clark: Yep. Pate: If they're meeting the ordinances that we have in place then no. Clark: What if we don't know if it's going to work? Pate: Most detention systems and drainage systems, their final design does not occur until a construction plan review. There are a lot of details that are not worked out in the preliminary plat stage. I believe that is what Mr. Casey was referencing that if for instance a drainage easement is required if they can not prove that the outflow structure point of discharge meets the city ordinances that's something they would have to either obtain easements for or discharge in a different location for instance. Those are typical issues that are worked out during the construction review process when more details and information are presented. There is quite a bit of work that happens after planning commission sees a preliminary plat. Clark: So, that's a sort of. You can sort of look at it. Pate: You can certainly look at drainage. If the applicants weren't proposing a detention or any drainage we would likely not be recommending approval of this project because it is within one mile of city limits. Clark: Thank you Jeremy. Pate: Yes, ma'am. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 107 Anthes: I'd like to follow up on that a little bit with Mr. Casey. I understand we have ordinances that need to be met with regards to that. Usually we have some level of comfort that the calculations have met with some preliminary review and comfort on the part of city staff before we forward a project. In this case it sounds to met like you have not been shown where the outlet is and how they plan to deal with it. To met that is a little I'm questioning whether you're satisfied enough that this basic configuration will work. Casey: I'm sorry if I misspoke earlier. They have provided information on where it will discharge. What I was referring to earlier is what is actually there, is there a channel there, is it just flat ground, is the property as indicated? That is the type of thing that will be worked out during the construction review typically. As far as overall drainage concept, I'll take a look at the amount of flow going to the south and the amount of flow going across Hughmount and we'll have to evaluate the impact on both of those areas. Anthes: Another question. Are the streets going to be maintained by the city and what is the alley designated as? Pate: The streets will be maintained by the county after they are dedicated and accepted that they are to city standards. The alley is private which would be maintained by a property owners' association. Is that correct, or is that public? Kimmet: Originally we had that shown as a private street. We've changed that since then to a public alley so it will be maintained by the county and if it is ever annexed into the city then it will be maintained by the city. Anthes: And could you tell us about the configuration of the town homes since that question was asked? Kimmet: I did confirm with the developer this evening that they are two-story town homes. Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: This is for you, Mr. Casey. According to our ordinances, the drainage situation can be no worse because of a development. Is that true? Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 108 Casey: That is correct. We will be looking at the peak flow that is leaving the site in all areas that it drains to. In this one it will be to the south and to the center of Hughmount. Clark: I know it is late and we're really tired, but do you think that their drainage proposal and grading proposal is going to keep the situation where it is or better or not improved or do you know? You should never say we'll leave that up to the planning commission... Casey: You're paying me back. I'll keep that in mind next time. When I do the construction review on this then I will have requirements on there before they will be allowed to be approved for construction, whatever requirements are needed to get that to that point will be addressed then. Clark: So you won't approve anything until you are sure. Casey: We won't sign off on the construction of the subdivision until they show to me that they are not negatively impacting as far as runoff or point discharge on the adjacent properties. McDonald: Madame Chair, may I speak to the commission? Anthes: Sure. McDonald: My name is Mike McDonald and I'm here representing the developer. We have several projects that have been through the planning commission process and been approved that are still waiting the final engineering approval. We have prepared a file during the report that has been submitted to the city and we will comply with the City of Fayetteville as per stated. Once again, we'll be sitting with the commission and we'll have a pre -conference to confirm that we have done in accordance with the ordinances. So this is not the last time you will get a shot at the drainage issue with this. Anthes: Is there any words or comfort or reassurance that you can give the neighbors that are here tonight about that issue? McDonald: We obviously were using an engineer that has done this process with you many times. Project Design Consultants has looked at the runoff and done their evaluations and we will comply with that. They will provide a design that your city staff is comfortable with. That's what we're required to do. I'm not making a promise above and beyond what we're required to do. And we will do that. Ostner: Madame Chair. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 109 Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: My question is for Matt. Thank you for that. I don't have any doubt. It is the grey areas such as off-site. We understand that you're going to follow the rules, but when pipes or drainage leaves your site things get grey. It's difficult for you. It's difficult for staff. Stuff has to be worked out. My question for Matt is if I see some general utility easements running between these lots so there is a place where drainage pipe or a culvert or something had to be built, what if there wasn't enough room and they needed to ask for a drainage easement from these property owners? Pate: Madame Chair. Anthes: Mr. Pate. Pate: If I can just quote a section of the ordinance maybe it will answer that question. Under required off-site improvements Chapter 166.07 subsection 3 off-site drainage improvements shall be required whenever a proposed subdivision causes the need for such improvements. So there are improvements or easements that are required to be obtained because the impact because there is a need for such improvements created by the impact of this subdivision. Those are required of the developer by ordinance. Ostner: Okay. Thank you. I guess what I'm trying to say is who is to say what type of need? Personally I don't think that these people to the south of them should have to build a creek that only flows twice a year because of this development. That doesn't seem fair. Even though the flow is the same, that's just a question and it sounds like the engineers haven't quite gotten to that point yet whether a structure or outflow will need to be made. I'm sure it can be answered at some point. I think it should be answered here instead of a few weeks or months away in emails. So that's my concern. Kimmet I have an answer if you want it. Ostner: I would love to hear it. Kimmet: There are two different drainage basins on this property. The drainage basin that Connie is concerned about on the south property is only about one fourth of the project site and it is just on-site drainage. The bigger drainage issue is the rest of the site and all of the 500 acres to the north of that that we're collecting that are passing through our site and passing onto Hughmount Road. I think we're getting wrapped around the axel about the little drainage issue that is a big drainage issue for Connie but we're going Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 110 to make sure that whatever leaves the site is going to be at the same rate as it is pre -developed as it will be post -developed. We'll make sure that the outflow structure to the detention pond will release that water at a rate that is less than what it is right now. Her main concern is where exactly is it going to come across my property? We'll work with her on that. Right now the pond kind of forces it a little bit further to the east, but there is an actual drainage way that comes across the corner of her property over to Leirly Lane and crosses to there. That's her concern. Ostner: Does that water run freely or is it intermittent? Kimmet: Pardon? Ostner: Does that little drainage area flow regularly? Kimmet: No, it does not. It's just like she said, not very often. Ostner: Under heavy rain. Kimmet Right. Ostner: Okay. Anthes: Commissioners, we need to go over condition of approval number one and two determination of street improvements and determination of connectivity. Are there comments on those two items? Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: (inaudible) in favor of staff's recommendations and to work with the folks the neighbors we are recommending that Hughmount Road gets widened 14 feet from the center line to include storm drains curbed gutter paved four foot sidewalk as well as improvements to Lierly Subdivsion at the intersection of Hughmount and Lierly Lane. We're also recommending widening Weir Road 14 feet from the center line to also include storm drains curbed gutter and a sidewalk. There will be a minimum width of 20 foot asphalt pavement or to county standards whichever is best. So we are recommending some of the street improvements that you all talked about. Inaudible Kimmet: That is a 20 foot wide alley with no curbed gutter per city standards. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 111 Anthes: All streets within the subdivision will be public streets at this point including the alley and they will be developed according to the City of Fayetteville street standards and maintained by the county. Kimmet That is correct. Inaudible (someone off a microphone keeps talking) Anthes: No, the streets will be wider. That's an alley which will be both a smaller street section and a lower profile as far as sidewalks and things. I'm sorry, we really have closed the public comments section. Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes. Ostner: I'm having faith that staff can work this out with the applicant. I'm going to make a motion for approval of preliminary plat 06-2010 with all conditions of approval including determination of street improvements and determination of connectivity. Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Ostner. Do I hear a second? Lack: I'll second it. Anthes: A second by Commissioner Lack. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll, please? Roll Call: The motion to approve PPL 06-2010 carries with a vote of 8-1-0. (Commissioner Graves is absent from the meeting from this point forward). Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 112 R-PZD 06-1921: Planned Zoning District (LAZENBY PHASE II, 560): Submitted by LANDTECH ENGINEERING for property located at RAZORBACK ROAD, NORTH OF 15TH STREET. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 1.34 acres. The request is for 2 buildings with office, retail, and restaurant space totaling 8,400 square feet. Anthes: Suzanne? Morgan: This property is a 1.34 acre site which was approved by subdivision committee to be divided from the overall tract with an access easement to the residential property to the west of this tract. This is a little bit of background. It's a Lazenby project that was approved in 2003 for a mixed- use development with residential and commercial adjacent to Razorback Road. In the construction of this development and improvements on Razorback Road additional right-of-way was dedicated which resulted in the need to relocate water lines and therefore the applicant was unable to obtain building permits for one of the structures, actually all three commercial structures due to the changes to the plans. Therefore they are requesting approval of this PZD for these two commercial structures totaling 8400 square feet area to be used for retail, restaurant, or office use. The applicant has submitted drawings of the commercial structures that I will place on the easel so that you can view in just a moment. With the original approval, the planning commission and city council found in favor of commercial design standards. Staff finds the revised elevations are more in compliance and more articulated than the original approved plans. With regard to street improvements, there are very few street improvements on this street with regard to the fact that the state will be constructing improvements. They will be paying for sidewalk, however, along their frontage. There is an additional condition that was not discussed at subdivision committee, the planning commission determination of a waiver of five foot greenspace requirement adjacent to the western property line. There's a requirement that there be a five foot landscape area between any parking and a property line. The western property line is about a foot or two off of the parking area. Staff finds in favor, however, of this waiver because there is an adjacent 20 foot utility easement in which no structure could be constructed so there will be a minimum of 20 foot between this parking area and any building. We are recommending approval. If you have any questions, please let me know. Anthes: Thank you, Suzanne. Would any member of the public like to discuss this planned zoning district for Lazenby Phase II? Seeing none, I'll close the public comment section. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 113 Hillis: Good evening. It's kind of late. I'm Don Hillis from Landtech Engineering. I'm here with Ronnie Ball, the developer who can answer most of your questions if you have any. I can address any questions you may have about the large scale itself. As Suzanne has said, I am asking for a variance a waiver rather of the landscape requirement. Like she said, we do have a green space. There is an existing grass area between the parking and the apartment complex and another reason to grant this waiver I would think is one of the comments from the planning department they wanted us to address was the use of the parking area that we're providing for retail and restaurant area to be used also for the apartment complex. The apartments that face that one area can use that parking area and go to the back door if they would like to. We are allowing that, so we're requesting a waiver. If there are any questions, I would be happy to try to answer them. Anthes: Thank you very much. Commissioners? Harris: I have a question. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: Excuse me. We've been here so long the pollen is in the building. On buildings nine and ten, am I right that the north view of 9 is facing the south view of 10. Is that correct? Hillis: Let me give you a full view. Anthes: There is a slot between the two buildings that is pretty blank but doesn't face a major roadway. The buildings face each other. Harris: Right. My next question is and this is actually a question for staff or anyone, building nine's west view then looks towards the parking lot and looks across to apartment number five? Pate: Yes, that's correct. Harris: And this is a question for staff, is the relatively unarticulated nature appropriate across that parking area into the apartment? Pate: This project was originally all approved at one time. Commissioner Harris and Commissioner Bryant don't have the luxury of knowing, and maybe some of the other commissioners here of knowing that this project when it originally came through... Ostner: I was the only one. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 114 Pate: ...This was our third or fourth planned zoning district process through the city planning commission and city council. It was a mixed -used project with a combination of commercial and residential spaces. The residential components are constructed, almost finished. The commercial spaces were attempted to be permitted, however the highway department intervened and required more right-of-way due to their improvements that required more easements that forced the applicants to have to eliminate a building and come back before you. The elevations that you see before you are not the ones that were approved originally by the Planning Commission. They are actually more articulated. Some of the structures, the sides and the rear were metal as opposed to brick originally because they did not face the right-of-way. Some articulation was given, I believe, to the eastern - I'm sorry the northern face of building 10 because it was relatively visible. I believe that was their requirement for the brick materials. It is, to be honest, more unarticulated than we typically see with a commercial structure, however Planning Commission did find in favor of that at one point in time using the same criteria that we use now. That is why staff is recommending approval. The primary facades obviously are the east view of both of those structures. On the north view of building 10, a lot of those windows were added. That's one that kind of faces the government building. A lot of the articulation was added by the Planning Commission and more has been added since that time. That's really why it is more articulated than any of the other sides. Anthes: Thank you. I have a couple of questions. As far as I understand it, this new lot line that is shown is going to be processed as a lot split. I recall at Subdivision they were talking about splitting off the commercial property. Hillis: That's correct. I came through with a combination lot split/easement plat to clarify the separation of the tracts. We put it so that we have tract A, B, C, and the easement plat would reflect the easements within all three tracts. So it all came through at one time. Anthes: So, I guess a question of staff, if this is actually going to be split off and be basically a stand-alone commercial development, my question is two -fold, why is it an R-PZD and not a C-PZD? My second question is how are they going to work out this whole idea of the shared parking for the adjoining properties which would be owned by someone else? Pate: The original planned zoning district encompassed all of this. Had it been processed under our current ordinances it could have been simply an amendment to that. We've kept it as a Residential Planned Zoning District because on the overall project more than 50% is still residential in nature. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 115 That is the requirement for that being a Residential Planned Zoning District. Anthes: And is that because the lot has not been split yet? Pate: That is correct. I think it could be a Commercial Planned Zoning District if we would like to change that designation. I believe the legal description is actually just 1.3 odd acres of this tract so it could be considered on its own merit as a Commercial Planned Zoning District rather than it being residential. There are essentially then two single -use planned zoning districts side-by-side. Originally it was processed under one. That's what I mean, they've obtained their original residential nomenclature thus far on it. Your second question, parking... Anthes: They were talking about the parking. Pate: I think that can be like with any property that is shared and split off, shopping centers for instance all the time have shared parking agreements so I think that is the essence of that. It will be allowed to require a plat that all the parking is shared on this site. Morgan: With regard to that comment on the shared parking, I believe that the parking supplied on the 1.34 acre lot should be sufficient for the 8400 square feet. The property line on the western side does somewhat encroach onto the existing parking, so we would allow that to be shared. Anthes: I guess as a matter of housekeeping and just -intent as this goes forward. As we know, they are intending to sell this property. I would prefer to see it designated as a C-PZD because I think that it is two commercial buildings that will be on a separate lot. That seems appropriate. Do we need to do anything if that's... Pate: Not necessarily. Just when you make your motion I would change that designation to C-PZD 06-1921 and we'll make sure that is forwarded to the Council as such. Anthes: Okay, and then would we need to add a condition of approval about processing the shared parking agreement for the apartments for this property? Pate: Is that in there, Suzanne? Morgan: There is a condition of approval... Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 116 Anthes: I believe it's stated though as if the same property owner owned both parcels. Morgan: It states in number thirteen "The applicant shall include a note on the site plan that all parking shall be shared between the commercial and residential uses on tracts A and C." Anthes: That would be retained even if the lot was sold? Morgan: Correct. Pate: Yes, under the zoning criteria. Anthes: Okay. Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark Clark: I have two questions. First of all, we saw just the easement and lots at Subdivision, didn't we? We didn't see these elevations, did we? Pate: Yes, they were there a month before. Clark: We did? What a great world we live in. Anthes: And we have Subdivision minutes. Clark: Which sides of these buildings, Jeremy, do you consider facing a thoroughfare and which is... Pate: The east side is facing onto Razorback, and the north view of building number 10 and south view of building number 9, while they are not facing directly onto a street, are more visible, and that is why staff has recommended that further articulation that you see. Clark: Okay. It all kind of comes back to me now. I will make a motion. Ostner: Madame Chair. Clark: Well never mind. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 117 Ostner: I have a few questions. In 2003, when I helped approve this, the building on the south side was up against the street. Hillis: That's correct. Ostner: That had to go. Hillis: That had to go. Ostner: "Big Brother" came down the pipe. Okay. Hillis: Yes, sir. Ostner: That parking lot is for what? Hillis: The parking lot is for building 9 and building 10, additional parking. There was no room to put a building so we made a nice parking area. Ostner: I'm just wondering about the efforts and the willingness of the applicant to do a building facing a street three years ago instead of a parking lot in front of a building as a standard suburban mall. If the applicant would be willing to do that again, the parking lots could work just as well, in fact I think better, the way that parking lot works over at an office it would be better if the parking lot were to the west of these two buildings. The State has done a nice improvement to Razorback Road. I'm just wondering if you all had considered that. Hillis: We did consider it. When we worked with staff on it, we put a nice berm between the parking and Razorback Road on the south side to hide the parking area. The other one does have the large trees and we've got landscaping in front of it to soften the effect of parking. This is the way that it was originally done I believe in the original PZD with a building facing the street. The only reason the building faced the street on the south side is that we didn't have room for double parking. We had single parking so we put it in the back. Ostner: There was a great deal of discussion on that. Hillis: Yes, there was a lot of work done on this project. Ostner: There was. Some commissioners would have voted against it had that building not been on the street side. Pate: Madame Chair. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 118 Anthes: Mr. Pate. Pate: I'd like to add to that, too. The requirements for the new water line easement required for that sized water line are greater than what we looked like originally. With the right-of-way if you will note on your larger plats sheet two there is actually a 50 foot utility easement and a building cannot be located within that, but parking can. That really impedes the ability of the applicant to move that building and still have parking on that associated structure. We did work through that. Chairman Hoover at the time, I think, she made the motion to move the building forward. If we had that ability to sit the building back that is something I think we would have recommended initially, but with that easement for that large sized water line being moved outside the right-of-way I think it really impedes the ability for the applicant to actually have parking at all if that building is moved forward. Ostner: Since it is microscopic scale for us, I can see that now what you have pointed it out to me. I would be in favor of calling this a C-PZD. Anthes: One further question for Suzanne. Are we in excess of the parking requirements for those two commercial buildings? Morgan: I do not believe so. With regard to parking, if you look on the left hand side of your plats, the total required spaces are 65 and the spaces provided are 74 and that is within 30% above the required spaces. Anthes: Thank you. Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: Jeremy, is this R-PZD 06-1921 a unique number to these two commercial buildings or is it shared? Pate: It's unique to this application. MOTION: Clark: All right. I will make the motion that we forward Commercial Planned Zoning District for Lazenby lI C-PZD 06-1921 to the City Council with findings as indicated and agreeing to the waiver of the five foot green space, agreeing that they meet commercial design standards, and agreeing with the determination of street improvements. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 119 Ostner: I will second. Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Clark. A second by Commissioner Ostner. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to forward C-PZD 06-1921 carries with a vote of 8-0-0 (Commissioner Graves is absent from the meeting from this point forward). Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 120 RZN 06-2018: Rezoning (FOSTER/BELLWOOD II, 400): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at RUPPLE RD. E OF MEADOWLANDS. The property is zoned RSF-1, SINGLE FAMILY — 1 UNIT/ACRE, R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, C-2, COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE and contains approximately 20.35 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, RESIDNETIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS/ACRE. Anthes: May we have the staff report, please? Morgan: This property is located on Rupple Road. It is located south of preliminary plat for Bellwood Subdivision. That property is currently under construction. The property to the east of this was recently approved as a PZD for Wellsprings Community. It is a mixed-use community. They will have various types of residential and commercial areas within it. With regard to this property, the applicant requests a rezoning from multiple zoning districts - R -A RSF-1 and C-2 - to an RSF-4 zoning district which would allow development of a residential subdivision compatible with that to the north. There are a variety of zoning districts surrounding this property. Staff finds that the RSF-4 zoning district is compatible and will provide a use which is not necessarily a need to those new subdivisions; however, with the variety of residential type uses in this area we find that RSF-4 will be compatible with regards to density. Anthes: Thank you, Suzanne. Would any member of the public like to address this rezoning request? Seeing none, I'll close the public comment. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Jorgensen: Yes, ma'am. My name is Dave Jorgensen. I am here to answer questions basically. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Jorgensen. Commissioners? Trumbo: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. MOTION: Trumbo: I would like to go ahead and make a motion for approval... Anthes: Forward? Trumbo: To forward, yes, RZN 06-2018 in agreement with all of staffs' recommendations. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 121 Anthes: Thank you. We have a motion by Commissioner Trumbo. Do I hear a second? Myres: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Myres. Is there further discussion? Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner Ostner: I would appreciate a little discussion. I know it is late. This property is one small commercial lot on Wedington Drive. It is currently commercial. It's going to face Wellspring, which is a town. It's going to be larger than Elkins and Farmington put together. I'm not so sure this is good to give up commercial zoning. The gas station to the south of it could easily be absorbed. Large commercial lots are scarce within our city limits. I see part of it looks to be R -A, part of it looks to be R-1. We don't have any delineations visible. Morgan: If you look at the handouts submitted by the applicant in your packet, it should separate the areas of R-1 and... Ostner: So it's a small, maybe an acre of land. Pate: About .49 acres. Ostner: Yeah, okay. So much of it is RSF-1. Is that a "I" or an "I"? Pate: It's a 1. It's one of the islands that was annexed in 2004 when the island annexation did come in. The piece of commercial property was fought for to be rezoned C-2. It is limited under very strict Bill of Assurance, allowing only one business owner of the property. Ostner: Is that the electric company? Pate: Yes. Ostner: I see with a better map. Clark: Madame Chair. Were you finished Commissioner Ostner? Ostner: I guess I'm still concerned that so much homogenous pure 4 units/acre residential gets rezoned so quickly and then everybody wants commercial so lets go out to the county. I guess that's my concern. This is going Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 122 extremely quickly. When I saw it at the back of our packet, this is all I saw. That's my comment. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I was initially concerned that this is surrounded by higher density and that we were possibly underzoning this. But since this is across the street from Wellspring, I don't know. We might get a variety of things from PZD to probably a PZD with mixed-use and I would encourage that in this area. I think that Allan makes a very good point about commercial being needed but we can accomplish a very nice mixed development in this area. So I'm not going to and it's late, so if you want RSF-4, you can have it. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Ostner: Yes. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: That's a good point, however land rights are being distributed tonight not in the future. I will probably have to vote no. I just think as a member on this Commission, it is part of our job to think like the citizen. I think a lot of citizens are looking at commercial development and wondering if there are any more larger tracts other than the mall or Rogers. I know this is not a commercial tract, but it is mostly undeveloped and RSF-1 is a very low zoning district. It is an ideal carrying zoning district like R -A to stay in the city but difficult to develop potential zones. I don't think we will see this again other than a large scale development with a preliminary plat so I think the decision is being made now. So I'm going to vote against it. Anthes: I would just like to say that I agree with Commissioner Ostner. I feel that the zoning is too low in this area. It is surrounded by a large RT -12 commercial zonings, residential office, C-1 and C-2, and a large PZD that we have seen across the road. With the amount of single-family property that we have rezoned in the west part of Fayetteville I feel like we are missing opportunities for commercial nodes and density in areas so close to other amenities. For that reason, I will also vote to deny this rezoning request. Is there further discussion? Pate: Madame Chair, I just want to remind the commission, both of you mentioned Wellspring which incorporates almost half a million square feet of commercial space which is quite significant for a community especially with a Harp's and commercial area half a mile, three quarters of a mile from here as well. So, that is a pretty significant development that has already been processed for a preliminary plat. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 123 Anthes: I agree. It also puts enough residential property on that acreage to support whatever retail they have proposed. In addition, I'm not saying necessarily that this should be commercial or anything else but I just feel like the RSF-4 zoning is too low. It needs to be higher density or something else that remains to be seen. Is there further discussion? Ostner: Yes, ma'am. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: That's a good point about Wellspring incorporating its own commercial fronts and square footage. The old way to develop commercial land is to buy the dirt and (blanked out on both cassette tape and video tape). Why can't there be a larger grocery store west of Wal-Mart sort of in Farmington because that traffic is backed up so far there aren't any large parcels available. They're all chopped up into tiny pieces. So it's the large parcels that are rare. That's the extent of my comment. Anthes: Any further comment? Will you call the roll, please? Roll Call: The motion to forward RZN 06-2018 fails with a vote of 4-4-0. Ostner: For a point of order, can we hear the process for appealing a failed zoning petition? Pate: The applicant would need to submit a letter of appeal to the City Clerk within 10 business days for this item to be heard. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 124 ANX 06-2020: Annexation (HAYS, 474): Submitted by LANDTECH ENGINEERING on behalf of Joan Hays for property located on Double Springs Rd., N of Dot Tipton Rd. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 7.5 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Anthes: We have two tandem items as our last items on the agenda, annexation 06- 2020 for Hays and rezoning 06-2021 for Hays. Could we have the staff report, please? Morgan: This property contains 7.5 acres. It is located south of property recently annexed into the city which did create an island of county property within the city limits. This applicant requests to annex into the city and rezone it RSF-4 for the development of a single-family subdivision. With regard to this annexation, it will create a one acre island. This property is currently owned by one property owner. This owner is in the process of receiving an Order of Annexation to come into the city. I was asked on the specific dates for that. The hearing for the county is scheduled for May 15`h. They could submit an applicant to the city for annexation on May 18`h and go to the Planning Commission meeting on the 26`h of June. With regard to this annexation, staff is supportive of the addition of property within this area that is surrounded on two sides by city limits. However, knowing that the owner of the property to the north which would be an island if this were annexed is in the process of annexing, we would recommend tabling this annexation until such time that we can consider both items together for a comprehensive view of this proposal. With regard to the rezoning, we are also recommending that it be tabled along with the annexation, however staff finds that RSF-4 is compliant in this area. It adjoins the city limits and RSF-4 zoning district to the east and the west. If you have any questions, please let me know. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Morgan. I don't think there is public here but I will ask for public comment. Seeing none we will ask the applicant to make his presentation. Gabbard: Thank you, Madame Chair. Leonard Gabbard with Landtech Engineering representing Hays Trust tonight in regard to this matter. We've talked with Suzanne in regards to coming before you tonight. We have a situation where we really, I guess the sale of the property is depending on us doing something about it now. So at any rate that's why we're trying to ask you to consider this tonight. The main reason we want to be in the City of Fayetteville is we actually designed a subdivision out there and started through the county process and had a [septic] system designed. Dave Jurgens asked us to petition the city because he did not want to have to take over that system. At any rate, we're here tonight to ask you to give us Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 125 special consideration by forwarding this to Council so that we can consummate this land sale. If you have any more questions, I'd be glad to try to answer them. Anthes: Thank you very much. Commissioners? We can discuss these together and vote separately. I have a question for the city attorney. Can you speak to the order in which this would be happening and staffs' recommendation particularly if an annexation was requested from a city staff member? Whitaker I'm not sure what you mean order... Anthes: Well, it seems to me like staff is recommending tabling this item because they want to wait until the adjacent property comes through.. Whitaker: They would like to avoid creating an island. Anthes: Right, because we have that specific directive. It seems to me that it's happening. It's tracking nearly together and by the time this gets to Council those other processes will probably already have made it through the county, at least. It's getting pretty near to this board. When an applicant talks about sale of a property being dependent on that action I'm sure that is nothing we can consider at this juncture, but I would like you to tell us about that, as well. Whitaker: The term, I believe, would be "contingent upon." I'm not certain it probably has to do with closing date and the contingency that if it doesn't occur by such and such a date the real estate contract would fail. Barring the other party voluntarily agreeing to stand up it shouldn't be of concern to you. You should be looking at the standard factors you do with annexations and rezonings. Anthes: Okay. And so you would concur with staffs' recommendation that we have a policy of not creating an island and we should be looking for this to track together with the adjoining property? Whitaker: It certainly is the preferred method since these two are so close in time to try to get them together so that the Council understands that they're not creating an island here. I would concur with staffs' recommendation. Anthes: Mr. Pate, is there something that you wanted to add? Pate: Just to add to that... Anthes: You looked like you were about to burst. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 126 Pate: We have been speaking with this applicant and the applicant that is currently tracking for several months now in an attempt to try to get them in this process and help facilitate the process of both of those applications coming together. Unfortunately, being two different property owners, it just has not occurred but that really is the impetus for this request. We feel "burned" is a strong word, but that has happened before when we have made a recommendation to the Planning Commission and to the Council and an applicant stated that an island was coming through the process and simply never came in and is now an island in the City of Fayetteville. We would like to, if at all possible, and this one is a possible scenario that will come in, we recommend that they track together so that we can fully know and understand a more comprehensive approach as was requested by the Planning Commission with the annexation directly to the north of this four weeks ago, six weeks ago. Anthes: Commissioners, is there further discussion? Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: For the record, I have always voted not to create islands or peninsulas. That's what we were told to do and I believe in it. I think once you tandem the area that comes in this will be a slam dunk. But I think that Jeremy raises a very valid point. We cannot look into it thinking they will behave the way we think they should behave. So, until they actually petition to annex I don't know they're going to, so I will not be voting for this annexation. Anthes: Is that a motion? Clark: I've motioned enough tonight. I've reached my quota. Anthes: Would any other commissioner like to voice their comments or make a motion? Myres: Weren't we asked to table this? Anthes: That's staffs' recommendation. We can do what we would like. Myres: At this time of the night, I'm not inclined to go against staffs' recommendation particularly. Ostner: Is that... Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 127 Anthes: Is that a motion? MOTION: Myres: That's a motion. You want me to include both of them or shall we do them separately? Anthes: We should do them separately. Myres: All right. I'd like to make a motion that we table Annexation 06-2020. Ostner: Second. Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Myres with a second by Commissioner Ostner to table. Is there further discussion? Whitaker: Madame Chair, in view of the fact that it appears to be a motion to table to an indefinite time no discussion is in order. That's one of the perks. If you're tabling to an indefinite time no discussion is in order. Anthes: All right. Would you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to table ANX 06-2020 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission April 24, 2006 Page 128 RZN 06-2021: Rezoning (HAYS, 474): Submitted by LANDTECH ENGINEERING on behalf of Joan Hays for property located on Double Springs Rd., N of Dot Tipton Rd. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, and contains approximately 7.5 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, RESIDNETIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS/ACRE. Anthes: Since the rezoning is dependent is on the annexation do we need to take further discussion? MOTION: Myres: Since I'm on a roll, I'll go ahead and make a motion that we table Rezoning 06-2021 for Hays indefinitely. Clark: I'll second it. Anthes: We've got a motion by Commissioner Myres and I think Commissioner Clark squeaked in there on a second. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to table RZN 06-2021 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Anthes: Before everybody gets up and leaves I'd like to announce that the May 4`" agenda session will be a regular agenda and tour. For those of us who were at the work session last time we voted that we would have no downtown work session meeting at our next agenda session so please mark your calendar for that on May 4`h. My question is we may not need that room and would probably meet at the engineering conference room, will you confirm that by email with us? Pate: I will email you or announce it. One announcement, just don't forget there is a special Planning Commission meeting Monday May I't 5:30pm. I will email you the room, hopefully we'll be in this room. Please keep your old elevation packets and your plans for that particular item so that we don't have to redistribute those. Thank you. Anthes: Are there any other announcements? We're adjourned.