The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-05-01 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A special meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, May 1, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED LSD 06-1997: (DIVINITY HOTEL & CONDOS, 484) Page 3 ACTION TAKEN Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Jill Anthes Lois Bryant Candy Clark James Graves Hilary Harris Audy Lack Christine Myres Alan Ostner Sean Trumbo STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams Suzanne Morgan Matt Casey Jesse Fulcher Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 3 Anthes: Good evening and welcome to the May 1, 2006 special meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. We have one item on the agenda today. I would like everyone to remember to turn off your pagers or cell phones. Also, if you're coming and going during the meeting please be sure to try to keep that back door closed as much as possible or we'll get feedback from the monitors in the lobby. Will you call roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call Anthes, Bryant, Clark, Graves, Harris, Lack, Ostner and Trumbo are present. (Myres arrives late) 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, 2 restaurants, retail space, parking garage and condominiums with a total of 84 residential dwelling units. Anthes: We have one item on the agenda tonight. That is Large Scale Development 06-1997 for Divinity Hotel and Condos. Jeremy will you be giving the staff report? Pate: Yes. On April 24, the last regular meeting of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission heard the staff report and recommendation with regard to the Divinity Hotel and Condos Project. There were at that time revised elevations from those submitted at the time of the subdivision committee which was back on March 30`h. There was a large amount of time required for public comment and applicant's presentation. The Planning Commission moved to table this item to a special meeting to be convened today. In response to the recommendation and the comments from the subdivision committee on March 30th, the applicant did revise primarily their elevations that were presented. The site plan remained relatively the same. The project still covers the same amount of square feet on the site, a percentage of 97% on a 1.42 acre site. It did, however, reduce the overall scale and overall maximum height of the building. In redesigning the structure, the square footage of some of the uses did change and a rooftop restaurant and bar was proposed in addition to a street level restaurant. Those were all included in the revisions that were submitted in time for the meeting on April 24`h. As you are aware, the proposal is for approximately 137 room boutique hotel with 77 hotel only units, 16 condo hotel units, and 16 condominium only units. It also includes retail space, two restaurants, conference space, two bars. The hotel also has ancillary facilities such as a pool, fitness facility, ballroom, banquet, and meeting facilities and those are all included in square feet in table 2 of your staff report. In response to some of the comments from staff and meeting with the applicants over the last two weeks since they Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 4 submitted on March 2, 2006, and with regard to comments received by the subdivision committee, the applicant did redesign the overall elevations on south, east, and west for this project. Materials such as brick, glass, concrete and design features such as balconies, overhangs, terraces, outdoor dining, and deck areas have been incorporated with the revisions that you have before you that were discussed last Monday night. The use of brick materials in a large percentage of the building has aided in helping this project be compatible with other projects on Dickson Street. One of the concerns voiced at the subdivision committee and by staff was that in order to be more compatible, other design elements and color, should be brought into play with this particular design. Projects and other surrounding buildings such as Colliers Drug Store immediately across the street also have elements of metal. Obviously, most of the structures along Dickson Street have retail glass-type frontages which this project also has The elevation on the west side was discussed by the subdivision committee as well and it was revised to incorporate shop windows that can serve as display areas for retail merchants. That was one issue that the subdivision committee specifically identified as a problematic issue and a problem with blank unarticulated wall surfaces. With regard to the building transition and height, it has significantly diminished since its initial review by the subdivision committee. The subdivision committee did recommend with a 2-1 vote for this item to be forwarded to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for denial based on the fact that those two members did not feel this project was compatible and nor did it transition well enough with regard to its surrounding context. The original maximum height was approximately 225 feet and an overall 15 stories. That has been reduced significantly to 181 feet and 10 stories. The tower feature that was originally presented has been omitted. The highest portion of the structure along Dickson street which has been changed the most is a transparent glass, cylinder shaped feature that you can see in your elevations. It approaches 136 feet at its maximum measurable height. The Dickson Street facade has also been stepped back approximately 65 feet above the 4 story level with the exception of that glass cylinder area. This is a component of the project that the staff does support in that it starts to help transition from adjacent surrounding properties that are primarily 1-3 stories in height. The west elevation facing onto Church Street has the most dramatic rise in the building height adjacent to the street. It comes up approximately 159 feet and directly off the street to the top of the parapet and then the 181 feet is stepped back behind that. The staff cannot support that elevation at this time, finding that it does not adequately transition from surrounding properties, which the project should do to meet commercial design standards. Additionally, the staff and Planning Commission subdivision committee identified the east elevation that fronts onto Block Street, that also rises approximately 108 feet and 8 stories, without transitions with the smaller surrounding structures. As Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 5 discussed by the Planning Commission, more appropriately the subdivision committee, staff has supported other projects in the Dickson Street area and those have been mentioned. I do have a list of those projects, if you have questions tonight about overall building heights. I could not confirm in time for this meeting some of the elevations of those so I did not pass that out to you, but I do have some of those building heights that we did take a look at. In most of those instances, staff worked with the applicant to find an appropriate transition level of compatibility and appearance using all the things I've discussed this evening: building material, colors, the stepping back of facades, to transition from lower surrounding properties. In 1999 the Three Sisters building on Dickson Street was approved at a 5 story height of 67 feet located 52 feet back from Dickson Street. Staff did support this project though one Planning Commissioner as I mentioned at the last meeting did vote against it, finding specifically that it did not transition nor was it compatible with surrounding property, thus it did not meet commercial standards. In the case of the Legacy building that you all see the steel rising currently under construction, the structure does step back from the property as it rises to a maximum height of 7 stories and approximately 112 feet. And more recently, as noted in the last meeting by many members of the public, the lofts at Underwood Plaza has a 2 story Powerhouse Avenue facade that steps back before it goes to 4 stories and then steps back further. The Dickson Street facade is a 4 story facade that steps back also before it rises. Ultimately it steps back several times before it rises ultimately to a 9 story height and 138 feet. The applicants and architects for this Divinity Project have worked with staff and shown a willingness to work with staff on numerous occasions to help better address these issues as you can see in the revised elevations that are significantly different from those the subdivision committee recommended against. However, staff does find that the two principal east and west facades, both of which front onto public streets, and overall building height, especially in feet, do not provide adequate transition and compatibility and therefore do not support this project as presented. I would like to go over a couple of things. In our e-mails and phone calls to staff over the last few weeks there has been a lot of concern about compatible use and I just wanted to address that very briefly. It is staffs' opinion that compatibility of use is not in question at all. That's not part of the appearance or construction of a structure and commercial design standards. A zoning district has permitted uses and uses by conditional use. All the uses by this particular applicant are uses by right. Furthermore there are also, even though we are not reviewing this under the downtown zoning ordinance, they would be (inaudible) with that discussion as well. So, this mixed-use project, I think, is certainly supported by staff. This project could also potentially accomplish at least one of the goals of the Downtown Master Plan which is to provide a link from the Dickson Street area to the Downtown Square. However, it is still Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 6 a matter of compatibility and transition for which essentially the staff cannot support the project at this time. There is obviously significant public comment that took up the majority of the 3 hours of discussion at the last meeting. All the public comment that we've received in writing has been included as an addendum in your packet as well as a synopsis of those who spoke verbally and the order in which they spoke and whether they were in support or not in support of this project as they presented their case at that time. In general, those opposed to the project cited that it would not be compatible with surrounding area on Dickson Street and would result in adverse impacts to community character. In general, those in favor of the project cited that the introduction of the proposed structure would add to the eclectic mix of architecture in the area, would be compatible, and would be an economic benefit to downtown Fayetteville and the entire city. I would note that we've included a list of citizens that have signed a petition, approximately 400 citizens, I believe. I've been speaking with several people actually on that list that were concerned that it was presented at the last Planning Commission as something that they were against. Based on what was submitted to us, it simply states it's a list of those "concerned about preserving Dickson Street and the views of Old Main." So, I just wanted to set the record straight that that was not a petition for or against this project but rather a list or sign-up if they were concerned about preserving Dickson Street and the view of Old Main. As you know, this is a request for a large scale development approval of this submitted site plans and elevations. At this time staff is not recommending approval as submitted. It is the charge of the Planning Commission to determine if a project meets with current ordinance requirements which do include commercial design standards. Staff would recommend that the building height be stepped back from the public streets surrounding, utilizing a reduced height of 3 to 4 stories as a start at the street level to be more compatible with surrounding lower story development on the 2 -lane Dickson Street, Block Avenue, and Church Avenue that has already been noted on Dickson Street, and again staff does support this component of the project. A step -back design would provide a transition so that the street front is on a pedestrian scale and also utilize materials as much as the applicant has presented, but they're also more on a pedestrian scale then the original chrome and metal that the applicant presented. We believe more attempts to reduce the overall height are warranted especially in the floor to floor ratio. In looking at that it seems like in comparing other tall structures within the downtown area the floor to floor height ratio seem to be extremely high. I would hope that the applicant could at least discuss that potential for reducing that overall height. Not necessarily losing floors, but at least reducing the overall height in feet. I think that would help. With that I would like to turn it back over to the Chair and if you have any questions I'm available. Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 7 Anthes: Chambers: Anthes: Chambers: Anthes: Thank you Mr. Pate. For those of you who were with us last time you know that we have heard public comment on this item and closed the floor to public comment. We have also heard from the applicant and closed that session and we're bringing this item back to the Planning Commission for discussion and debate. Because we have set a second meeting and because so many of you have shown up we really have no intention of stopping you from speaking if you have something new to add to the discussion. We would ask that if you have already spoken or if you are going to repeat what has been said, either verbally in this forum or on the multitude of e- mails that we have all received that you please note that we have received them, read them, and heard you, and restrain yourself a little bit in your comments so that we could have time for the Planning Commission to actually discuss this project this evening. In knowing that, if I could get a show of hands of people who are here to support the project? Ok, and a show of hands for those that are here and are not in support of the project? Thank you. If you have anything new to add to the public comment section, if any member of the public has something that has not been brought up before and you would like to speak, would you please approach the podium. Good evening. Hello there, I'm Janie Chambers and I am a native Arkansan. I've lived in Fayetteville for five years and I'm a designer. I've worked on many many projects through the years: condos, homes, offices, banks, hospitals, apartment buildings, lake houses. I've done everything from Wal -mart design, which I'm certainly proud of, to very high style design. I do this because I love it not because I have to. I am a part of this program because I, these two young gentlemen in Barber Group are married to two of my daughters, I love them, but I love good design and I love Fayetteville. I've worked on many projects, many many projects in the five years I've been here and all of my design throughout the entire span of my career has always been based on two things. That great design is based on the best of the old and the best of the new and a combination of the two. I tell my clients if you don't walk into your home and you don't go, (ah of satisfaction), then it's not good design. It needs to be a place where you are drawn into and it is your refuge. I think the same thing about your business, your offices. You ought to gain warmth there, you ought to be invited into it. I say that your home should include and be based around the history of your life. Your office should have the same theory. The history of your life in your business.. I'm sorry to interrupt you, are you part of the development team? I am an unpaid part. Ok. Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 8 Chambers: Anthes: Chambers: Anthes: Chambers: Anthes: Pate: Anthes: Chambers: Pate: Anthes: Chambers: Anthes: Chambers: So, I am a resident. I work for labor of love not because I have to. But have you contributed work to this project. Yes. Ok, I need you to speak as part of the applicant team not as part of the public. But since I'm not paid am I not a member of the public team? I'm going to look to our development administrator and our city attorney on that aspect. I think they are a citizen if you are not part of the applicant team. What if they are working on the project in an unpaid capacity? Ok, just tell me what you want and I'll do it. I think that's really your call, you're running the meeting. Alright, continue. When I first came here, I've been here for many years in and out of Fayetteville anyway, but I told a volunteer to Coach Broyles that I would decorate for free Stan and Ramona's house, the basketball coach. Could you please address this particular project. I did his offices and I'm getting there. I'm trying. I'm getting there. I apologize because they recognized that I wanted to bring the history of their Razorbacks into his office. That's why this building will be based on the best of the old and the best of the new in Northwest Arkansas. You may have heard the term it has been described as a boutique hotel and I don't know if you are familiar with that design or not. We've been blessed to be in several of these and they exude warmth. We've heard so much about this thing as too cold and contemporary. It's not a cold and contemporary style. It exudes warmth, vitality, wonderful colors, and the history of the area. That's what this design will do. I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak to you tonight. As a citizen, on the projects I've worked on, I would be so exuberant about Fayetteville to these new people coming to town; they asked me if I worked for the Chamber of Commerce and I always talked about how open and wonderful Fayetteville is. Please Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 9 be open to the new ideal that you will be proud of, that well be proud of, that will exude the best of the old and the best of the new. For birthday parties, proms, graduations, Razorback victory parties. This is something that I promise you will have wonderful intrinsic value and that you'll be proud of as well as us. Anthes: Thank you Ms. Chambers. Good evening. Goforth: Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Robert Goforth. I'm the president of Beta Rubicon here in Fayetteville. We've had an office in the Square, in the Executive Square Building, for a number of years since 1999. I'm a long term resident. I was first in Fayetteville when I was a student at the University and College Avenue was lined with maple trees so I have some history. But I wanted to address the issues this evening with a particular perspective. My company has recently been involved in a pre -feasibility study for the possibility for regional light rail or a rail based commuter system for Northwest Arkansas. And when one does that you have to consider carefully all of the socio-economic impacts and the reasons for having the light rail or the reason for not having one. Some of this logic will flow, I believe you will see. There are arguments, I believe, for having a light rail system. Although the question always exists, sort of the chicken or the egg question: Which comes first the light rail or the denser population to support the light rail? And in fact the opportunity is to bring these things up together and light rail has a number of potential benefits for the system, but it also implies that you're going to have a certain degree of increase in density particularly clustered around rail stations. Things like TOD or transportation oriented development. I believe an increase in density of the population in Fayetteville is going to happen and for a number of reasons, whether a commuter system emerges or not. Population growth will drive that a substantial way. If the population distribution is increasing in density and the land values are going to be going up and there are no additional, particularly urban lands to be developed, then there is only one way that happens and that's to go upwards. Now, that's for housing, but we have seen the affect locally of increasing condominiums, but I think that building upwards is inevitable and so we should plan, you should plan, assist us in planning for intelligently managed upward growth. The question is how you maintain quality in doing that. How can the quality of life be preserved? I think we need to avoid controlling the developments to the lowest common denominator. I would worry a bit about compatibility issues, but what is it that we are trying to be compatible with? Is it the kind of future that we really want to see? Do we want to have this building that is under discussion, this building to be compatible with things that are of the future or things that are of the past or some sort of transition. I think that we really need to be looking forwards rather then just backwards at things in Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 10 the past. I know that you have constraints in the way you administer regulations and the like but I hope that you will also consider bounding the problem correctly. In addition to such issues of compatibility and view sheds, those kinds of things that are important, but important more to some people then others. It is very difficult for me to see how you can not have to take into account the potential for economic impact and other socio- economic impacts from a project of this sort. Another thing that bothers me a bit is in some of the discussion that I have heard is a concem for the risk that is associated with this project, but we do live in, ostensibly at least, a capitalist environment and when the private sector investors and developers are taking the financial risk, I think that is not part of the bounds of the problem. That we should accept that and really do things to encourage the kinds of developments that adds to economic development, quality of life issues, compatibility with the future. What kind of future do we want to have? Finally, I would like to urge the Planning Commission to encourage and support quality development. And to do so with the, please don't be insulted by this, I'm not accusing you of having not been doing this, but have a real rational application of regulations and processes. Not just by greasing the screeching wheels but really do it carefully and considerately and very importantly to it expeditiously. In the private sector time is money and protractive delays and reworks is a very costly endeavor. Not the type of attitude or approach that I think is beneficial to the development of our city. Thank you very much. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Goforth. Good evening. Brian: Hi, my name is Victoria Brian. I am 16 years old, I live at 107 North Olive. I am adamantly opposed to the construction of the Divinity development on Dickson Street. Recently my sister was playing with a set of dominoes. She stood them all up in a line and pushed the first one, just as has been done so many times. Each fell as it was pushed over by the one before it. As I see it the Divinity Project is a metaphoric line of dominoes just waiting to be pushed. I grew up knowing a beautiful culturally diverse downtown Fayetteville and quiet frankly I want it to stay that way. I do not believe that a 181 foot tall glass and chrome building would continue to keep Fayetteville funky. I urge you tonight to not just think about the now, don't just think about 5 years from now, think about 10, 20, 50 years down the road. Think about your vision of Dickson Street. If you see a downtown Fayetteville with towering buildings and too many condos that people don't know what to do with, go ahead and vote for the Divinity Project. But if you see something different, make a move towards that. As each new generation comes of age they have the mistakes of the previous era to clean up as well as the legacy to follow. Well, what are the errors that my generation will have to fix? What proverbial shoes will we Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 11 have to fill? All I know is that I'm not willing to pick up those dominoes yet. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Good evening. Davis: I spoke recently last Monday. My name is Lane Davis and I am in Commercial Real Estate in Rogers. Anthes: Ms. Davis? Davis: Yeah? Anthes: If you have already spoken - Davis: I've got a couple new things to add and the fact that I have no vested interest in this project whatsoever and I know Brandon Barber and I know the type of integrity he has and the type design integrity and what he can bring to this. Anthes: I don't think anybody is questioning Mr. Barber's integrity. Davis: Growth is inevitable and I don't think that we just want to keep Fayetteville as a funky, pardon the expression, but I think you do need to consider some of these things just going forward. This is a very unusual opportunity that I don't think Fayetteville can just pass by. Opportunity rarely knocks twice and I think this is something that really needs to be considered and I really hope that you all do consider this. It's what's going on in Rogers and Bentonville - Anthes: Could you please just talk about the development? This development in terms of what we can assess for commercial design standards and compatibility and transition. What this body is charged with looking at. Davis: Davis: I think it could fit in nicely in Fayetteville. I grew up here and I just hope that you all consider and to try to move forward with this project. I think it would be a great advantage to downtown Fayetteville. Thank you. Hey, how are you all doing? Gray Davis, resident of Fayetteville. I've lived here a long time and I've spent probably way too much time on Dickson Street. But you know change is a funny thing; I remember that 100 years ago they said that City Council was trying to get rid of all the trees on College. Now we're different. You know I think we should embrace change. I think we need some diversity. We've got a guy that lives on a railroad car down on Dixckson and no one complains about that because it's diversified. You know I like the project; I like having new and Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 12 different places to go on Dickson. I think a lot of people that do go down there, that spend their money in Fayetteville and do that type of thing want new places to go, new places to stay. Anthes: Do you have anything else to add to the discussion? Because this is something we've heard many times. Davis: I understand but I haven't spoke before and I wanted to show my support for the Divinity Project and I hope you pass it and I sure do appreciate you spending your time doing what you do. Thanks. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Davis. If you have anything new to add, please come forward. Hossa: My name is Jim Hossa. I am a resident here in Fayetteville. I am not opposed to the Divinity Project I am opposed however to the scale of the Divinity Project. So when you are opposed to something you have to come back with what you think, you have to give an alternative. What will work if you don't like the scale? So with just a little bit of research that I did I just wanted to present a model that I think would work and it has to do with probably one of the most walkable, enjoyable cites in the United States and that's Washington D.C. And the model that they have is, which dates back to a law in 1910, did away with any fixed maximum heights of buildings, which back then couldn't be any taller then the top of the capital. In the new law, which is still in effect by the way, states that no building may be more then 20 feet taller then the width of the street in front of it. And if you think about that and think about the narrow streets in Washington where there are scaled down buildings on Constitution Avenue, Connecticut Avenue, where some of the taller buildings are it gives Washington D.C. a very walkable, a very enjoyable city. Anthes: Mr. Hossa, I appreciate the comment but we don't have an ordinance like that on the books. Hossa: It's just a model I think we can think about. Anthes: Thank you. Coxgrove: Hi, I'm Mark Coxgrove and I wrote my stuff down so its just a page. I understand that elements to be considered by the Planning Commission is only two things I think: the zoning compliance and compatibility. Concerning the zoning I understand that the Divinity Hotel project would be complete within the requirement of the law and I would think therefore there is no more discussion there. I can understand that there is some room for discussion regarding the compatibility element of the Planning Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 13 Commission decision. I know that there are commercial design standards that must be considered. As I understand it these are guidelines and not law. It appears to me that the city has already set the path for development when it approved the 9 -story Underwood Lofts Office and the 16 -tory Office Tower and the Malco Theater Projects. I believe that the city has set the precedent when it approved these structures. Because of these acts by the City I feel that many developers and investors can see that Fayetteville would be a good place to invest in the future. So if this project, which is just as compatible as those mentioned, be turned down figure what the message will be sent out to many who might be considered in investing in Fayetteville. All a person has to do to see in Northwest Arkansas where major investments are being made is drive up 1-540. Anthes: Mr. Coxgrove, would you please address this project on this piece of property in Fayetteville. Coxgrove: Yes, ma'am. Well, let me, just forget about what I wrote. But I believe that the location of this project is something that we could use and I understand what the girl back here said, but I think we got a project that will make the City of Fayetteville better. Other cities have had other problems with other urban development. They have spent lots of money trying to make their cities better while people move out because of buy -up. When I moved here in 1972 I was warned to stay away from Dickson Street after the sun goes down and that's not the case anymore. The City of Fayetteville has some great projects here to make it better and I think this is just one more project that can make it better. I believe that it'll affect not only Dickson Street but downtown Fayetteville. I believe it is something that can be used to better the city. And the last thing I want to say here is when I was in college one of my management professors told me he said, he told the class he said any time you're not making forward progress you're making backwards progress because nothing ever stays the same. I just hope that Fayetteville can continue to move forward. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Armstrong: Good evening. My name is Eddie Armstrong, Fayetteville resident. I'll speak briefly as to four points as to why I support the Divinity Project and Mr. Barber and his group have done great efforts here in Fayetteville. One in particular, coming back to here a couple of years ago from Washington D.C. I watched the transition of growth at the University of Arkansas campus and I think that the Barber group has taken a conscious effort to make the connection not only to the campus but to the rapid growth throughout the city of Fayetteville. So, point one and I don't know what was spoken of last week, this is my first week in town here so if I repeat someone else's comments I apologize. Point number two, the centralized Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 14 Anthes: Armstrong: Anthes; Armstrong: Anthes: Mansfield: Anthes: Stout: focus for an additional convention space in the area to host particular events... That's been spoken of. If it's been spoken of please stop me and I'll continue. Number three that it fits into the diversity of multi -use facilities that are now going into the area. Also been spoken of. That's been spoken of. These are just my points written on a card at home today. And then last but not least it's additional parking so that I don't have to walk from miles and miles away. So, I support him and I hope that you guys will do the same. Thanks. Thank you very much Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Mansfield. I'm Steve Mansfield and I'm a local resident of Fayetteville. Also, involved in the Train Depot Project. I'm very much in support of this Divinity Project and Barber group's effort to develop this site. Just real quick a couple points. We have gotten, we being the development group at the Depot, numerous calls from citizens here in Fayetteville wanting certain types of uses downtown. Want a grocery store, want a restoration hardware type property. They've had calls for Dave and Buster's type properties. Those kind of tenants will not come to downtown Fayetteville unless we create a scale and mass of people and mixed -uses that are compatible for them to come. So, if the citizens of Fayetteville want those kind of uses this is exactly the kind of project that needs to spearhead and start a different type of scale on the street. I think that the redesigned building is very much in tune with the neighborhood. I think it is an excellent project and am very much in support of it. Thank you. Mr. Stout. Hi, Kevin Stout. I am very much against this project. Last Tuesday, the day after the last commission of this meeting, there was a woman who died. I didn't really remember her name but I had heard something like this. Jane Jacobs wrote a book called the Death and Life of Great American cities. She died last Tuesday. The reason I bring this up is three things. Three words: neighborhood and for the community. She won against, she was the first one to rally the people of New York against Robert Moses running highways through the city and she stopped the lower Manhattan Expressway. Ok, the reason I mention this is that she stood for a neighborhood and not just against growth. And I think what we Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 15 Kvamime: Anthes: Kvamime: have here, everyone who comes up to speak seems to drive the notion toward us that if we are against this project we are against growth. There is no way Fayetteville is going to lose anything like this, let's face it folks. For a project, we are looking for a responsible person to come in here and to build something responsive to the community's scale. I don't see why we can't do that. We should not be afraid of this. Somebody mentioned last time about us being West Eureka Springs. That's ridiculous. There is one other thing I wanted to say is that Bentonville and Rogers, I think we may have a kind of an aesthetic split here. And maybe this is irreconcilable, but if you've lived in Fayetteville long enough or if you've adopted it as your home you realize it has a sense of belief to it that is different from Bentonville and Rogers. Particularly now that those cities have defined what they want to be or don't care what they are. There is an aesthetic up there that is very different then what I want to live with. And maybe that's what we are coming down to. So, I just wanted to say again it's for neighborhood and not against growth. It's about being able to walk outside and sense that you still have houses around here and a 10 story building dominating, I don't care what they say it's only 20% less then what they said last time. A 15 story building being 10 stories. It sounds like a third less, it isn't. It's 20% less if you add up the feet. So, I'm very much opposed to this and I hope that we rally against this project. I just had a couple of new things I did. Some people at the university - Would you please state your name? I'm sorry, Joan Kvamime. This was just a shadow, a summer shadow and a winter shadow of what this building is going to do to the surrounding which I'll give you. And this I don't want this to be misconstrued this obviously is not a square building but this is the area to be displaced by this building. This is looking down St. Charles directly at it. What we're going to be seeing. Now obviously it there'll be multiple stories but the ultimate product, it's the same. This is it looking up Dickson Street. I just have a real quick thing. First of all, the first project, it was 15 stories. Each story was 15 feet. Now with the new 10 story building, each story is 18 feet. So, we haven't had quite the drop it appears to be at all. Secondly, I agree with the last person that it doesn't not mean that you are not for change or development if you are not for this huge project. We spent a lot of money that could've went to our schools, could've went to our library on a Master Plan. Now, everyone knew about that Master Plan before this was even conceived of. We need a developer who wants to develop the image, our image of Fayetteville. Not somebody else's. It needs to be our image. Thank you. Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 16 Anthes: Would any other member of the public like to speak? Please come forward. Good evening. Dallas: Hi, my name is David Dallas and I was not here last week. So, I also apologize if I repeat anything. Someone said a minute ago that whether or not they're for this project, they want a responsible developer. Anthes: Would you please state the nature of your connection to the project. Are you in business with the applicant? Dallas: I am in one business with the applicant. I have no involvement in this project whatsoever. Anthes: Thank you. Dallas: You're welcome. Responsible development, I would think as a developer, would mean being responsible to the commercial design and development standards that we have set forth here in Fayetteville. It's already been addressed that apparently the zoning here is a C-3 which currently has no height restriction. The second thing that I would say is that apparently we do not want to talk about the economic impact of this project, but 166.14A number 1 - Anthes: Mr. Dallas. Dallas: Yes. Anthes: This board is very familiar with the Unified Development Code and what's in it. We understand that the intent of commercial design standards includes some language about economic viability of project. But if you also then look at what we can use to vote for a project - to either support or deny a project - we have a very specific checklist that does not include that. I don't think that anybody on this Commission is under any misconception about the amount of investment and what that would translate into for property tax revenues for our schools. It's just not something that we can use to vote on, so we would ask that you would please make your comments relevant to the items that we consider in our vote. Dallas: Thank you, you just made my points for me. The main thing then is, I guess I would say is it's been said that we want to keep Fayetteville unique and compatible and I would use Dickson Street as a current example that I don't know that Rogers Rec and the Walton Arts Center are really compatible but they're across the street from one another and it's my understanding that there is also a no overlay district currently as there is Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 17 on I-540 as there is on Dickson Street as well. So, until there is I would say that, I would hope that you would support this project under the current zoning. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Dallas. We appreciate it. Bandy: Hello, I'm Benton Bandy, Fayetteville resident, business owner. I came here tonight not because I have a side on one or the other. I have a side for Fayetteville. I actually own two businesses that this property is pretty much in-between and I dreamed about something like this happening. I think that even though it brings more competition, it'll bring more people down to the street, down to the downtown area. And as far as compatibility, my buildings don't look anything like the buildings around me. I can't imagine how anyone could say that something fits with something else on Dickson Street. You look at Joe Fennel's building and it might be the most unusual building on the street. Then you look at the building across the street where my business is and it doesn't look like anything else down there. So, I am whole-heartedly supporting this and I hope that you guys will also. Like I said, economically, I know you're not suppose to consider that, but there is, planning for the city takes in economics. And as a business owner down there, even though it would bring competitors down there, I think it would be great for the city tourism and just Fayetteville walking life in general Thank you for your time. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Bandy. Brian: Good evening. I'm Holly Brian I live at 107 North Olive and I apologize, we had a death in the family yesterday so I'm going to read my statement. During the past two weeks since our last meeting here I've struggled to articulate effectively why exactly I'm opposed to this development as it is being presented. We all want to beautify this wonderful town that we have and encourage growth. We all want to invite commerce while protecting the diversity and eclectic feel for which Fayetteville is famous, but we all must be stewards of our community. We must develop with compatibility and safety in mind. This past Thursday it hit me like a Mac Truck, and I mean almost literally, why I'm opposed to this project as it is being presented this evening. I witnessed a 53 foot long, tractor trailer jack knifed at the intersection of East Dickson and Olive Avenue. This vehicle was blocking both lanes of traffic so cars traveling neither east or west bound on Dixon could get past. One can only imagine the traffic and safety issues that would have occurred had this incident happened on West Dickson Street versus East Dixon, East and Olive due to construction of this proposed development. Later that same Thursday, there were several residents that live in the 100 block of North Olive, myself included, who were unable to pull out onto Olive Avenue from our driveways to do our Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 18 various things. Pick up kids from school, get to play rehearsals, etc. Due to the four dump trucks blocking the road, two of which were parked side- by-side and I mean not just waiting, the drivers were out. So, nobody could come in and out. Had there been an emergency on our street on North Olive there would have been no way for that emergency vehicle to travel down Olive Avenue in a timely manner. It is my opinion that one of the most pertinent issues is the safety of Fayetteville citizens. Given this location of this proposed development, it seems highly unlikely that this construction can be completed without traffic problems, traffic snares, and even safety issues. So, this evening I respectfully urge you to reject the Divinity Project as it has been presented and proposed due to the incompatibility and traffic and safety issues. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Does anybody have anything new to add? Lenear: My name is Steve Lenear. I'm a local merchant on Dickson street, a resident of Fayetteville, and also a homeowner in Eureka Springs and I am for the Divinity Project for a number of reasons. One is it will provide continued growth for multiple diverse cultures without alienating the other cultures that haven't been represented here. I think I could represent several different walks of life and I like other people here am for the project. Thank you. Lamanack: Hello, my name is Chuck Lamanack. I own a company called World Granite here in town. [inaudible] I built a house in Bentonville to move, to get away because Fayetteville didn't offer any entertainment and residency in the same place like a lot of other towns. Memphis, Washington D.C., Dallas. So, I made up new residence, on Watson Street at the Legacy Building which I'm looking forward to moving into. First of all, I would like to thank you guys for looking out for our best interest you know. For not just me but for the whole public. You guys are doing a great job. In Memphis there was a very similar situation. A dome building that went into downtown Memphis that looked absolutely nothing like the town. The Fed -Ex Forum. It's a 255 million dollar project that was opposed by many people and later was approved by the Council. It has brought not just a phenomenal economic growth to the city and money, things of that nature for schools and other things that you've talked about of course but also entertainment. Adjacent, less then 600 feet to the center of the entertainment district of the town, Beale Street, if anybody, other then me growing up in Memphis, Tennessee, knows anything about history like Memphis, Beale Street is a pinnacle of history and entertainment. So, I wanted to say that I am for the Divinity Project not just for the construction but for the amount of people that will move there. For condos and for Mike's Barbecue. We need a hotel, another one you know in Fayetteville. There is not enough room to put people up and we are in the Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 19 center of economic growth of the world and we have to prepare for that so I am for the Divinity Project. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Just for the record, we have had numerous comments on the need for hotel rooms in downtown Fayetteville so we've noted that. Long: My name is Brandon Long and I am a Fayetteville resident and a business owner and I am very much in favor of this project. The reason I am down here now is because some friends of mine were not able to attend. Suzy Stevens and Brian Crown are owners of George's Majestic Lounge on Dickson Street in Fayetteville. They wanted me to echo their sentiments that they are very much in favor of this and another dear friend of mine who couldn't be here bought a business downtown. Probably before most of us were born. Maxine Miller has been at Maxine's Tap Room since 1950 and about 6 years ago I attended a couple of meetings with her about joining Dickson Street to the Square and one of things was to enhance the walk -ability of the pedestrian way of Block Avenue. To my knowledge nothing has been done yet and the Divinity Project would be a cornerstone for joining Dickson Street to the square and create traffic both down Dickson Street and down Block Avenue towards the square. So, myself and the people I've mentioned are very much favor of this project so please vote for it. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Ms. Arsaga. Arsega: My name is Cindy Arsaga. I hate to speak in public, you guys have to know this. I am a business owner in town. I have two businesses downtown. I am very opposed to the design of this building. Not the idea of it. Not the concept. Not the fact that we don't want more business downtown, but the way it looks and the footprint it leaves on this very very important piece of property, which is the segue into Block Street and Dickson Street. It couldn't be more important that we don't build this type of building on this piece of land. Please, I know you are very serious about your considerations, I just beg you to really be careful with this one. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Does anyone else have anything new to add to the discussion? Martinez: Hi, my name is Luis Martinez. I am a resident of the area. Even though I haven't been here a long time, I've been coming down since 1999 and I see the change that your town has taken and my town has taken. And I think everything that happens in this town, basically progress and all of the buildings that have gone up it is exceptional for what is going on for all of the small towns that are becoming larger towns in the United States. We own a multimedia company here and we run DicksonStreet.com which is a Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 20 website where we handle and we actually list all of the merchants in Northwest Arkansas and we promote them for free. So, none of our business institute our development. One of the things that we see is that, what I've found amazing is that the citizens should be proud of [inaudible] and not try to bring it down and work against it. We think that the Divinity is a tremendous project and is going to change the city in many many ways. Anthes: Mr. Martinez do you have anything new to add to the discussion tonight? Martinez: Absolutely I think one of the things I should mention is Dickson Street is a miracle of entertainment and it needs growth and it needs to bring down people from other places. And you have to provide them with the product that they require which you are not providing at this time. Anthes: We've had that discussion. I'm sorry that I keep interrupting you guys; it's not that we don't value everything that you are telling us, it's just that we also need to have to have the debate within this Commission. We want you guys to be able to receive the awake, alert debate of this Commission and also for you to be able to witness it and to know what we are talking about. And if that happens at midnight tonight, I think we are going to lose a lot of you. So, that's why... please go right ahead. Martinez: You have to remember 10 to 15 years ago what Dickson Street looked like and what it looks like now. And its really been thanks to Fayetteville Downtown Partners and all of the progressive companies that have come in that have changed it and made it much better. One of the things that everyone should remember is that it does meet all the specs. When they purchased the property it was a C-3 zoning. So as far as the height, everybody complains about the height, but it's not really a tall building. I come from New York. Tall is 100 floors, 75 floors. For a small town like this it is a great proposition. The other thing is that if a building like this doesn't go into this property, would you rather have low income housing go into the property? Anthes: That's not what's on the table tonight. Martinez: This is a tremendous opportunity for you guys, because we could very easily put in low income housing which doesn't make a lot of money or do anything for the town. So, just a thought. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you very much. Mr. [John] Williams. Williams: Commissioner Anthes and members of the Commission, I said what I felt about this building at the last meeting. I continue to feel that way. I have Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 21 submitted additional information but it has been suggested that I discuss that at City Council meeting so if there are no questions I will wait until that time. Anthes: Just so everyone is clear in the audience, this proposal is a large scale development. The Planning Commission is the final vote on a large scale development unless that vote is appealed to the City council. So, you cannot be guaranteed that it will end up at Council and if there is something that you feel like you need to state that's relevant to the nine items that we can evaluate here, I just need to be clear that now is the time to do it. Would any other member of the public like to address this item? Seeing none I will close the public comment section. Good evening, would you state your name? Lloyd: Eric Lloyd. I've lived here 35 years and what I've got to say is I haven't seen anybody from Dickson Street that's against it. I have probably the largest view shed in the area. I got like 2.5 acres. I'm surrounded totally by parking lots, which in this body right here is part of the parking lot situation. Now you can either vote to approve it or you can just keep going on with your minimal ways. That's all I got to say. Anthes: Would any other member of the public like to address this body? Seeing none I will close the public comment section. I will ask the applicant to come forward if they have any additional information to provide. Hennelly: I'm Tom Hennelly with H2 engineering. For some reason I can't seem to get away from these controversial projects. This one is a little bit unusual. We did receive the staff report this afternoon. I've had an opportunity to go through it. Just a couple of things, a few points I'd like to make. The debate is obviously centered around commercial design standards and this project's compliance with them. I just ran a little word count on the commercial design standards and there is 1,350 words in there and we're hung up on two of them that are "compatibility and transition," that are suggestions as far as commercial design standards are concerned. A project "should" do that. They are guidelines, they are not hard -thatched rules. This project is in compliance with 99.9% of the commercial design standards. The other one-tenth of 1% is a judgment call, it's subjective. In reading the staff report, I don't think I've every seen one quite like this. We're in agreement with it and obviously not in other places. This project's handicap is, what I mean by that is it has frontage on three separate streets. We're subject to setbacks along 3 sides. This project, this block is only so big. The main focus appeared to be Dickson Street. All the effort to make that as compatible as staff saw fit and what we thought that you would see fit was focused on Dickson Street. Eddie with HKS will speak more on the pedestrian scale, but I would just like you to consider the staff comments. Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 22 They are in favor of the Dickson Street side, they can give the recommendation on that. Block Street maybe, Church Street maybe not. I would just like you to consider the complicated nature of this development and it is evident in the difficulty staff had in writing a report on this one project. It was difficult for them to assess the entire project because it almost like three separate projects in that it has got that frontage on three streets. I just want to make those few points and then turn it over to Eddie with HKS. Anthes: Mr. Abeyta, you have eloquently described your project before, if you could just.. . Abeyta: I'm not going to go into great detail. Anthes: Ok, thank you. Abeyta: I got a few images that I would like to present. And again my is Eddie Abeyta with HKS architects. And the images I am going to go into in a second really address building mass and height as it relates to Dickson Street. But before I go into that I would just like to make a few comments with regards, try to clarify a few of the design concerns, with regards to compatibility as it relates to architecture. What you see and what you've seen in the past is a modern building. I do want to stress from the bottom of my heart this is not high modern contemporary architecture. This is not a building you find in New York. This is not a building you will find in Chicago or Dallas or Houston. This project was designed specifically for this site and its relationship with Dickson Street. You know it strives to address the character and the eclectic quality of Dickson Street and interpret the design guidelines and present it in a new sort of fashion. The reason this building looks the way it does it specific to its site. The reason there is a dramatic glass cylinder on the corner of Church and Dickson Street is a response to the high energy that takes place at that corner at the pedestrian level and it is expressed through the architecture. The reason the bring a functional element at the second story along Dickson Street kind of waivers out over the sidewalk is to address issues at the pedestrian scale. Address issues of all that sort of quality of experience the pedestrian is suppose to have along Dickson Street. So, we are trying, I just want to make that point that this building is a modern building. Yes, it is, but just like the image I presented to you last time I was here with regards to page 30 of the design guidelines. There is an example again of a modern building in your design guidelines which interprets the guidelines and uses it in a new and expressionistic way and that's all we're doing. We're trying to maintain and trying to honor that sort of character and feel that you read along Dixckson Street as part of this project. So, that's my speech on that. But, let me go ahead and present a series of images with regards to and Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 23 well put them up on the screen up over here. I want to first talk about the way in which this building addresses and responds in terms of scale and building height along Dickson Street. We spoke about this last time, and there is again a four-story podium that runs along Block Street all the way to Church Street. 90% of that facade is four stories and a maximum of 65 feet tall. We go to the next image. As we introduce the cylindrical glass out on the corner of Church and Dixon Street that will represent 10% of the facade which interfaces with Dickson Street, which stands at 136' 6" tall at that corner. So, 10% of that facade, which really interfaces with Dickson, and it is on that setback line. It is the only portion of the project which exceeds that four story component. If we go to the next image, as we start to layer this building in how I presented in how the hotel actually sits upon this four-story podium, it's a [inaudible] plan. Again we're animating the roofscape of this podium with the outdoor public space. But the eastern -most wing of that hotel sits on top of the podium. It is setback to the main volume of that facade 15 feet to the face of the balcony; it's 10 feet but back to the main facade it's actually 15 feet. So, we are addressing compatibility and transition along that eastern edge of the hotel by transitioning it back. It's hard to see it in this elevation but we do have some perspectives up here. This perspective in the upper -left image shows how the building actually steps back. We have done an analysis of, we've been hearing that there will potentially be a zoning ordinance that limits the building height of new structures within this district to 86 feet. So we went ahead and actually illustrated, if there was to be two buildings being built on either side of our project on the western side across Church street and on the eastern side across Block Street, what those masses would look like in comparison to the structure we are proposing. And if you look at the height of that 86 foot mass, it is much taller then again a four story podium, 65 -foot dimension that really interfaces with the pedestrian along Dickson Street. So, really if you look at it and really even compare the hotel, the hotel mass which extends above that 86 foot height limitation, that mass is actually pushed back. Again, like Jeremy said, 65 feet from the face of Dickson Street. So, we are not going to be able to see that mass from the street itself'. We do have - Anthes: Mr. Abeyta, do you have a slide without the ghosted images of the future development? Abeyta: Do we have what? Anthes: Do you have that slide without the gray boxes of future development? Abeyta: No, we do have sort of shaded in there the existing structures as you can see with the base of those boxes if that's what you're referring to. I don't have an actual printout of that. We do have, and these aren't in slide form, Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 24 a series of two images right here and off on the right hand side of this a board that shows the corner again of Dickson and Church as it relates to that 86 foot mass in relation to our building. We do want to emphasize the fact that the maximum height of this glass cylinder we sit at 136' 6" and originally what we were proposing for the mass that actually sat on that corner was 225 feet. So, we actually substantially dropped the vertical dimension of that mass on that corner as it relates to this comer. This lower image shows the south elevation as it relates to that 86 foot mass, just to give you a comparison from both Dickson Street and from the backside of the site. And with that I'm going to turn it over to Brandon Barber and he can address additional issues. Anthes: Good evening. Barber: Good evening. My name is Brandon Barber, chairman of the Barber Group. Looking at the notes that I have prepared, you would be interrupting me, you know that I'm out, you'd be killing me right now. So, I've got a 1 minute conversation again, thank you for your time. I respect the tight ship you're running and again you guys are here for another Monday night. I don't know if that's good or bad for me in the sense of in your normal schedule. I appreciate your time and effort to the special meeting. Specifically, reiterating three things. One, and I say this again because I've had a number of people tell me they were glad to hear me say this. My wife Carrie and I are not from Dallas, Texas. So, I wanted to make sure we know that again. Two, if we say we are going to judge Divinity's approval or denial based upon compatibility we feel it's certainly in our favor as this project is just as compatible to our downtown offices Underwood, Renaissance Tower, two fantastic projects that were found compatible in the past few months by the governing body. I want to shut up because I've been waiting for a long time just to hear what you guys have to say about this project. And I appreciate your time and thank you for listening and hopefully eventually supporting Divinity. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Barber. Can I ask staff if there is a way to move these boards around? The public is having a hard time seeing the Commission and we're having a hard time seeing them. It's like a barricade. In fact, we have a lot of these things in our packets and you could sit them along the front so the public can read them. If we need specific ones to call back up we can request that. If you want to go ahead and walk right up in front and line them up. Commissioners, who would like to speak first? Well, I can start with conditions of approval. Let's go to the easier ones. I'm going to start at the end and work up. Ok? I have a question of staff about the Tree Preservation and Mitigation plan and the tree planting plan along Dickson. Can you clarify where the trees will be planted, how many there will be, Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 25 Pate: and the number of mitigation trees required and the staffs recommendation for payment to the fund. Because the site is covered 97% by the proposed development and with the requirement for landscape trees as required by the ordinance along the right-of-way, it was the Urban Forester's decision to not recommend on- site mitigation for this particular site. And so the approval was based upon the applicant submitting money in escrow in the amount of $5,500 into the tree escrow account. And the goal of the Tree escrow ordinance is when money is submitted into the Tree escrow account it is to plant in that neighborhood or general vicinity. Anthes: I have a question about condition of approval number 6, and that is right- of-way dedication as submitted on the large scale development. What this seems to tell us is that there will be a planned turn lane, left turn lane. Can you discuss that for the public? Pate: As part of the traffic study that we requested the applicant do with the site access study, it was indicated that one of the concerns with additional traffic loading from this particular site will be an increase in the delay for east bound track on Dickson Street. Primarily because the way our block system is setup with the offset between Church, St. Charles, and Block. As you are all well aware, the city recently made St. Charles a two-way street, which has improved some traffic movements and some site circulation in the area. There is a plan ultimately, with this project to change Block to a two-way street as well. That is one of the things that the Downtown Master Plan identified as one of its goals is to turn a lot of the one-way streets into two-way streets, so that is something that was identified. Block Street would be turned into a two-way street. The turn lane on Dickson Street would essentially be a left turn lane to allow for movements onto St. Charles and that's included as part of the conditions of approval I believe. Were we recommending approval, it would be in the conditions of approval. Number two, in determination of street improvements, the left turn lane would be located on Dickson Street. That's something that we would have to work with in detail at the time of construction because of existing traffic signals, existing tree islands, sidewalks, thing of that nature, in an effort to disrupt as little as possible to incorporate that turn lane. Anthes: So, that turn lane would basically be located where the median is right now that has the rocks and planting in it? Pate: It would be a turn lane heading east so it would be through traffic east on Dickson and a tum lane left onto, for east bound traffic, left onto St. Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 26 Charles heading north. So, the median I believe would stay unless it had to be removed. Anthes: Ok. Mr. Hennelly. Hennelly: Let me explain that just a little bit. The way were are achieving that turn lane, and I'm sure all of you have been stopped on Dickson Street with people wanting to turn left going to the Post Office. Some of the parallel parking on the south side of Dickson Street will be eliminated. There is a median, a bump -out on the south side of Dickson Street, that will be eliminated which will allow for through traffic and allow adequate stacking distance for I believe its 10 cars to turn left onto St. Charles going north. Anthes: Mr. Hennelly do you have a drawing of that condition? I don't recall one in my packet. Hennelly: Sure, it should be on the site plan that we submitted to you. Anthes: Oh, ok. Yeah. Hennelly: That should also indicate the two-way traffic for the conversion of Block Street from Dickson to Spring to two-way traffic as well. Anthes: So, it's the ghosted -in bump -outs that you are saying would be removed and that would actually become a lane of traffic? Hennelly: Yes, ma'am. And it will, Jeremy was right in saying that there will be, some coordination need to be done with the City in order to minimize the disruption to the traffic signal there for St. Charles because that one bump - out, the eastern most one that we will be removing for through traffic, contains the traffic control signal box. So, that will have to be relocated and all of the controls switched over before that one is removed. Anthes: Thank you. Are there any other comments on conditions of approval 6 through 20? Clark: I've got a question. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I'm concerned, and we talked about this in subdivision, about the stacking distance coming off of Dickson onto Block and coming off of Church back onto Dickson Street. When you turn you're going east or west on Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 27 Dickson Street down the block to get into the hotel site. How much room is going to be afforded from corner to entrance? Hennelly: There is some flexibility there, and I'm not trying to evade the question. But that is such an unusual intersection with that island that had been redone several times and the fact that that west bound traffic on Dickson Street is stopped so far back from St. Charles intersection that that could be modified I believe somewhere in the neighborhood of five to eight vehicle stacking distance to get the vehicles turned in there. Now, I'm not sure because we haven't turned in a detailed traffic plan to engineering which will be part of the construction plans. As to whether or not they would want any additional lane configuration changes there to maximize the circulation there at that intersection because St. Charles and Block Street are kind of offset by that. Clark: And I'm talking about just from the corner, once you make the turn how many cars can fit between the turn and on Block Street? Hennelly: Oh on Block Street. I believe - Clark: And then coming out on the other side of Church Street. Hennelly: It looks like there is enough for five vehicles but four they even got into the drop off point for the hotel so that would provide additional. How much room have we got in there? Abeyta: We'd probably have room for six to seven cars stacking within the dropoff zone. I do want to reiterate the fact that I mentioned before there is going to be three lanes dedicated to the drop off. Two for staging and one for bypass. And I do want to let you all know that if there is a huge event where there are hundreds of people coming to this drop off all at once, valet operations can actually take the driver up the speed ramp to level B 1 which sits above grade, circulate the cars up into the parking garage, allow the valet attendants to take the car from that point. So, it really allows for an entire lane of queuing and staging all the way back down to drop off zone so you're not having to crowd the actual street with vehicles. So, there is a solution to that that operations can solve from a hotel standpoint. Clark: Ok, but when the event is out, they are all going to go out how many entrances? Abeyta: When the hotel is out, right now it is designed they would come back down that speed ramp, people would stage themselves in that drop off zone, pick up their car, and they would exit south along Block Avenue and back out to whatever direction they are going. Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 28 Clark: Ok, thank you. Hennelly: I think it's about a total of fourteen vehicles stacking when you look at the drop off zone as well as the distance from the northem most driveway into Dickson. There should be enough for five vehicles there or so. About fourteen total. Clark: Ok, I wanted to follow up on the turn lane onto St. Charles. So, to achieve a turn lane, which I think is needed regardless of this project, we're going to have to lose the parallel spaces that were just created? Are we going to lose frontage or any of the properties along the area? Hennelly: And I'm not sure that we are losing all parallel spaces. Some of that area along the frontage there was dedicated for the driveways on the alley that we have vacated as well as into the Pettus Law firm and Something Urban so we were converting those driveways into parallel spaces. And just on the south side of Dickson. And I believe three or those possibly four of those parallel spaces will be lost to accomplish that turn lane. Clark: Ok, but they're going to be on your side? Hennelly: Yes, ma'am. Clark: Ok. Anthes: A question on conditional of approval number five. Do we have a location on the bicycle racks? Hennelly: I need to apologize for that. When we did the total revamp between subdivision committee and Planning Commission we got an entirely new footprint. It was entirely the same shape but had different interior features and when we pulled everything out of the drawing and dropped that new footprint in apparently our bicycle racks got deleted. On the subdivision committee submittal we did have six bicycle racks and they will be put on this, obviously as a condition of approval, but they are not shown on the plan that you have. Anthes: Where are you proposing those racks be located? Hennelly: I believe both of them, we have them located on the entrances of Block Street and the condominium drop off on Church. We didn't have any on Dickson because we thought they'd interfere with pedestrian flow up and down through there. Because that would probably be the heaviest. Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 29 Pate: They are shown, actually, on your plans. One is south on Church Street. There is a note there install 3 bicycle racks. Anthes: Oh, it's under the binding. Pate: And then on the Block Avenue side, again, because of the tight restraints in the downtown area it's something that we'd have to work with our Sidewalk Coordinator who also inspects bicycle racks to make sure it's a proper location to not impede pedestrian traffic movement. They are located on the east side there. It is probably not the best location but it is near the street and sidewalk. Anthes: So, is it the intent of staff to basically split the requirement for those racks between the condo and the hotel use. Pate: Yes. Anthes: Thank you. Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Madame Chair. A question for staff. Is staff satisfied that the revised parking figures would be adequate? On condition 5D you've asked the applicant to revise the parking table. Pate: Yes, there was, I believe, a little confusion and to be honest the staff forgot that you could credit existing structures. It's not something we utilize very often in C-3, C-4 districts. But C-3 and C-4 allows for credit of existing structures as part of the parking ordinance. It is only in the downtown C-3, C-4 districts. So, that was added back into the parking calculations and it seems to easily meet with the requirements now. Even without the credits I believe that it would be potentially meeting it. Ostner: Which brings me to my next question and we went over this pretty thoroughly with the Renaissance Tower a.k.a Mountain Inn. What type of parking situation would it be for the public? I mean could it be, is there any parking available for the public? Let me just say that. Hourly or is it all reserved for hotel? Hennelly: It isn't all reserved but it is all valet and so make sure I'm speaking correctly. Seth says it is free parking but they charge $10 to bring the car up for the valet. Anthes: So, it's free parking but they - Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 30 Hennelly: Ostner: Hennelly: Abeyta: Ostner: Abeyta: Ostner: Abeyta: Ostner: Abeyta: Ostner: Abeyta: Charge you $10 to get your car back. So, yes it is open to the general public. Anyone can park there. There are some double stacked spaces that are reserved just for the valet and hotel guests, but it is open to the public. How much parking is kept in reserve for hotel or condo and how much is - All the condo parking is private, let me make that clear. That's off of Church Street and it is below grade parking that is exclusive for the condos. That is private. Public parking is off of Block Street and how many do we have? We have 104 spaces reserved for condo owners down below grade. The 268 stalls which are above grade are to serve the hotel and public functions for the project. So, the 268 above grade are sort of up for grabs. If there is an event going on and I'm staying in the hotel and I happen to show up and it is full, that's just .. . An event at the hotel or somewhere else? Just a busy weekend, I'm just saying if it's only $10 for Candy to drive up and have the valet park her car for free then I'm just trying to get an idea of how it will fill up. Well, I mean there is a requirement for just hotel parking. There are 77 keys that are just hotel. Those 77 keys would have dedicated parking within that garage to serve the hotel component. And those 77 are part of the 268 above grade? That's right. Ok. So, that leaves about 191 and those 191 are not kept in reserve for hotel guests or are they? There is going to be probably a portion of that that will be dedicated to the co -hotel condo portion of the project. There are 60 units of the hotel tower which are condo hotel units. So, that means you could either purchase a unit or it could be put back in the hotel pool for guest rental if you're not going to be in town and you don't need you're unit at that time. So, really there's 137 parking stalls that are both hotel and hotel condo. And if you have, I don't know if you have [inaudible] that we issued. In the back of the book we have a pretty thorough breakdown of the parking requirements and what we're providing. But like I said, a portion of those Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 31 hotel condos could be parked in the below grade parking structure which are totally reserved for condo owners. Ostner: So, I guess what I'm trying to get an answer for, is the parking structure going to be completely reserved at some point in time for what goes on in the building? And I mean that's not good or bad I'm just trying to find out. Abeyta: That's an operations question, I'm not really an operator I'm just an architect but if for instance there is going to be an event in the ballroom we are required to provide close to 700 spaces. Is that right? No, I'm sorry 174 spaces for that event. I'm sorry I was looking at occupant load. So, if there is an event that is scheduled they would probably reserve that number of spaces during that evening or event that night that's going to occur. I mean because it is a mix -used project there is some sort of shared opportunities for when condo owners are gone to park for the public. When there're no meetings or events taking place in the banquet space then we could take advantage of the garage to be able to serve the public on Dickson Street. Ostner: Ok. So, you said if it were full your operation would call for a reservation of about 170 spaces? Abeyta: For the meeting space, yes. Ostner: For the meeting to be served, ok. Abeyta: Because we are assuming that a lot of those guests at the banquet are a part of the hotel guest pool and potentially a portion of those are from the condo owners. You know ifs an influx of who's actually staying there as opposed to whose are coming from just a visitation aspect. Ostner: Ok, and when you say that reservation 170 that basically rolls in what you said before, the 77 reserve for the hotel because you would be assuming the double duty people are there for the event. In other words, you're not going to block off the parking structure when you have some sort of an event? Abeyta: Well, above the 77 there will potentially be an additional 100 because I am requiring 174 for meeting space. Ostner: Ok. I think I'm understanding. Hennelly: The answer to your question is yes. There will be a time when the hotel is full, the restaurants are being occupied, and there are people shopping at a retail where that parking deck will be full and there will be no more spaces Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 32 available. And all of that use would've been generated by this hotel and no parking available to the public at that time. Anthes: The way I'm reading the table, if I'm understanding staffs comments, is that the City of Fayetteville requires a certain amount of spaces for a particular use, then allows a reduction for the existing buildings, then provides a 30% adjustment allowance. Pate: That's correct. They would meet our parking and loading standards. Hennelly: We did utilize that 30% under allocation that's in the code to make the numbers. Anthes: So, the way I'm reading it is that it meets ordinance and yet this project will probably at certain times of the year generate cars in excess of the spaces it's able to provide. Ostner: And conversely I want to make sure that in off times when it is not packed to the gills that there will be times when I can drive up and pay $10 for free parking. Hennelly: Absolutely. Ostner: Ok, just wanted to make sure. Anthes: Ok. Let's see if there is anything else on condition of approval number 5 that any Commissioner would like to discuss. Yes, Commissioner Clark. Clark: On the cylindrical structure, what's the top made out of? Hennelly: Steel. Clark: Steel? Ok. Is that a safety issue? I mean that's got to be sticking up 100 and how many feet? Abeyta: No, it's not. Clark: I mean my mother taught me to consider every contingency here and that is a big chunk of steel sticking up in the air. Like a lightning rod. Abeyta: It will be engineered by a structural engineer and it will be stamped, it will be reviewed, it will stand up. Clark: Do we have ordinances in the books to deal with that kind of structural? Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 33 Pate: The Planning Commission does not. You nor I are qualified to make that determination, but any project that comes before you is then sent through the construction plan and review process through which the civil set, architectural set, and the engineering plans are submitted toBuilding Safety. They are required to be stamped by licensed professional engineers to meet those requirements for the International Building Code in the State of Arkansas. Clark: You'd be amazed the amount of people who have asked me that very question. Of all the other issues that's the question. Abeyta: Oh, trust me, safety comes first. That will be designed and engineered to support itself and stand up forever. I mean we are designing the building itself to stand up and you know support live load and dead load and all that sort of stuff and that small piece up at the top will be thought of the same. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Well, yes, on condition 5C I just wanted to ask if the revised information, I'm just gonna read it. "The plat shall be revised to be consistent with the information presented in the elevations regarding height, number of stories. In addition the plat currently has conflicting information stating different numbers of condo and hotel units." You all have touched on that a little bit. I want to double check with staff, have you all had time to review those numbers? Pate: I believe the majority of those revisions have been made. There are a couple of discrepancies. But what is in your staff report should reflect the latest numbers. Hennelly: If I'm speaking out of turn, Jeremy, jump in. But I believe what they made that recommendation off of was the architect's numbers and the error came in was when we transferred those numbers onto our plat. And that was where the error was, a graphic error in transferring Eddies information onto our plat. Ostner: Ok, thank you. Anthes: Let's move on to condition of approval three and four. These are the waivers. The waiver for the driveway width and the waiver for the driveway curb radii. And on the exits onto Church Avenue and Block Avenue. Personally, in subdivision committee, I was encouraging the development to get these radii to be at tight as possible. A lot of the city's regulations require more of a suburban curb configuration - that a lot of Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 34 Pate: times you'd like to see tighter to allow less asphalt and more concrete for more sidewalks rather then a big cut and a big wide turning area. We had some questions about the types of vehicles that would be pulling in here, and I just wanted to ask whether the engineering staff is comfortable with these reduced curb radii the way they've been requested by the applicant. After the subdivision committee, when this issue was discussed and those comments were made, the applicant did sit down with engineering staff and go through what staff could support. The ordinance requires 25 feet on every curve radius. Obviously, in context with downtown that's almost impossible. So, what they looked at was configurations, some are as low as 10, I believe is the smallest configuration that they had. Some are 15, some go up to 25, or at least one or two where the majority of the traffic movements occur specifically south from Block Avenue. If you are traveling south if Block Avenue is changed. South on Block Avenue would allow for turning movements and exiting movements again to the south which would help traffic. A similar situation occurs on Church Avenue where the majority of the traffic would enter the site and then exit the site in the same direction. Anthes: I have a question, Mr. Hennelly. On the driveway width. Is there a specific need for that additional 1.3 feet in driveway width onto Block? I guess that's for the condo parking, I'm sorry, Block, that's the hotel parking. Hennelly: That's right where the ramp comes down. It was an unusual configuration out of the parking deck. And then we have that 3 lanes, which we are normally not used to dealing with, in the drop-off area. It was really difficult to maintain any even numbers in those dimensions. Anthes: Any further discussion on the waivers? Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I would be interested, I would be in favor of these certain waivers. I think they are appropriate. Anthes: Let's move onto condition 2, street improvements. I guess my comment on this is that, I wish that we had some sort of analysis that said a boutique hotel in a downtown area with this many hotel rooms, you know, is there a guideline for a certain amount of cars that you need to accommodate at any given time in a stacking area? And I've been wondering about whether we have sufficient space and whether or not we are going to be stacking back out onto Block Street. Hennelly: Carter Burgess who we hired to do the traffic study doesn't necessarily get into the operations of the site and the traffic movement. There are entities Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 35 that do that type of analysis and that type of thing. We can certainly check what their recommendations are. Most of the hotels I guess defer to their recommendation. The turn lanes and those type of things, the one on St. Charles was recommended by Carter Burgess. And we were the ones that recommended switching Block Street to 2 -way on that improvement. Anthes: Thank you. Pate: I think staff would have a lot more concern as well had the applicant not attempted to rectify some of those concerns on their own property. In allowing for the 3 lanes of stacking, I think that was one solution that really helped us make our recommendation in favor of this particular application of Block Avenue. I think if it were simply a 1 -way drop-off for a very busy hotel -restaurant type valet I think we would have certainly have more issues with that as well. But in terms of the applicant working on their own property to help facilitate the stacking, as you mentioned I believe 14 cars, we felt comfortable recommending that particular application at this location. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Let me just address a few other comments about the site in general. We have a lighting ordinance that I believe exempts the downtown lights from the cutoff requirement. I was just wondering if we could actually fit that housing with a new lamp detail that meets our lighting ordinance. Pate: The actual lighting on the structure and anything that is associated with the structure and the development itself would have to meet the Outdoor Lighting ordinance. Specifically what is exempted is the decorative street lighting located within the Downtown Master Plan boundary: the decorative light poles that are found on Dickson Street and School Street near the library. So, it would be our goal to find something that would look similar on Dickson Street and Church and hopefully meet the lighting ordinance as well. Anthes: And so our intent is to match the appearance but actually meet the lighting ordinance as well. Pate: Yes. Anthes: Is it possible? Pate: It is entirely possible. Anthes: That's great. Can I ask the applicant how the building itself will be lit? Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 36 Abeyta: We haven't given much thought to this, but in terms of the experience along the retail at sidewalk level there is a series of expressed columns that march sort of in rhythm and the glass store front actually kind of juts out like a big window conditioner and it kind of notches behind the columns. We think it would be nice to be able to accentuate those columns so you could actually read that rhythm down the sidewalk. The prefunction, which is sort a glass element sort of framed out with copper that can take on a certain glow so that at night it can read as a feature above the lighting quality, that's taking place at the retail. And then we could just potentially up -light surfaces and so forth. The rest of the facade and the rest of the hotel beyond and give special emphasis to that corner element that glass, core cylindrical element. Obviously at street level but also at the top so it kind of becomes sort of a jewel that you would be attracted to. Anthes: I have a question about that. On the up -light on the building surfaces. Doesn't our ordinance specifically prohibit up -light on buildings? Pate: It is required if you are directing light on a structure that is should be located downward. It also has to be hooded, shielded and downward on the building or object not toward the sky or adjacent properties so it would have to be a down -lighting type of fixture. If there is landscape foliage of some nature, a spotlight on landscape or foliage is allowed, but it does have to utilize incandescent lamps or bulbs not more then 150 watts. We've worked with applicants in the past. We require cut sheets and full lighting plans in time of building permit to ensure that those requirements are met. Abeyta: We can meet those requirements. We just haven't had a fair chance to really study and apply those requirements. Anthes: Ok. You have I believe it's a 9 -story element directly adjacent to a home. Can you adequately light that facility and maintain a cutoff or no light trespass onto that adjacent property? Abeyta: Oh, yes. I believe so, yes. Anthes: Ok. Moving back to the traffic and curb cut area. I understand the need for getting an adequate number cars in and out of the hotel lobby, staffing space, and also the condo area, but I also have been concerned since the first time I saw this project in that the dimension of this lot moving north to south is quite narrow and in order to facilitate the movement of that many cars to stack for the hotel or for the condos, it's pretty much necessitated that those two facades facing onto Church and facing onto Block be very vehicular oriented and not the kind of pedestrian Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 37 environment that you're trying create on Dickson Street. And I don't know that I know the solution to that or have an answer to this question, but I noticed you've added showcases to the blank wall that we had seen before on Church. Can you speak to the pedestrian environment that would create? You've talked a lot about making this comer being key, that it transition onto Block Street from Dickson. And yet as a pedestrian walking up Dickson and then turning on Block, I think we're going to have this big curb cut and a lot of traffic moving in and out of there and I'm not sure it's safe at all for a pedestrian that wants to make that link to the Square. Abeyta: Well, from an architectural standpoint our goal would be to really enhance the sort of hardscape that really marks the designation for that drop-off area through pavers and so forth that really changes the pattern in what you would typically find across the sidewalk. Not only through paving but also through lighting and ceiling articulation. I think we can enhance that whole experience for the pedestrian that's actually circulating across that edge of the site. But I do want to state that because this is a drop off, there is going to be tons of people and tons of life. It's not just going to be cars going in and out. There is going to be bellmen and meeters and greeters and people moving in and out of that hotel lobby from the hotel out to Block Street. So, it's not just like it's kind of a back house dedicated to the hotel. We're going to design it in such a way that it feels like it's front of house space and really sort of enhance the space that really takes advantage of characteristics that enhance the experience for the guest and for the pedestrian along the streetscape. Anthes: Can you also talk about what the pedestrian can expect on Church? Abeyta: Church I would say a kind of similar but kind of a little more low key environment. Because there is only really 16 full condo units as part of this complex there is going to be less traffic. But enhancements will be made through the drop off zone. Again we've introduced a showcase window along the face of that surface zone. That will not only be expressed by glass and showcase opportunities but introducing potentially canopies that are 10 to 12 feet above street level. Similar in nature to the retail characteristics along Dickson Street. Anthes: What about the service center? Abeyta: The service zone. Our main circulation into the service is taking place along that 20 foot easement's zone. So, that 20 foot easement's zone is going to be there you know whether we are building the project or not. So, we are trying to take advantage of that zone. We're pulling trucks in and Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 38 out of that zone. It's really not an architectural element that we are actually engaging with. Our building starts at that edge and works to the north. Hennelly: If I could also throw in. Eddie did a great job at being able to, and I remember voicing my first concerns when we were giving this site to start working with was how are going to get service vehicle in and out of here and not create the problems like that lady was talking about on East Dickson about jack-knifing trucks across the street and Eddie's done a great job of getting those vehicles to be able to do all of the maneuvering that they need to do on site out of traffic flow. The could pull back into the dock and pull out straight without having to jack-knife and block traffic or charging in back in. Abeyta: And I do want to note that we try to be really creative with regards to the condo ramp and that goes down below grade. We have got a dedicated access ramp that actually comes in at the south at the corner of the site just adjacent to the ease man. And there is a dedicated ramp down there, but coming up, instead of having to circulate back into Church Street and bringing car back into the drop off zone. The ramping system from the boulevard condo parking actually comes direct up into the drop off zone. So, it really doesn't interfere with a pedestrian walking along the sidewalk until cars have to exit that zone at that time. Anthes: Ok, thank you. Another question, Mr. Abeyta before you sit down. I'm just looking at the footprint of the ground floor and what you've proposed for outdoor seating and shapes of things. It's pretty intricate the way the building moves in and out down on the ground floor and I just wondered, it looks to me like you've created a lot of spaces where you get leaves and trash collecting. And also there are a few opportunities for perhaps unwanted sleeping behind some staircases and along these round areas. Can you talk about how you would address maintenance of this ground floor which is contributing to pedestrian life of the city? Abeyta: Sure. You know obviously, the corner of Church and Dickson is probably the most articulated with the round cylinder as it comes down the ground. But really the niches and so forth are really trying to define points of entry along that restaurant frontage as it addresses Dixon Street with opportunities like you said outdoor dining experiences. But the majority of that facade which actually fronts Dickson Street is going to be glass. It will be visible from the inside out and outside in so opportunities for people to actually sleep in those niches and so forth, I think they'll be visible and they can easily be taken care of at that time. As you come south along Church Street there is an exit there that comes down to the ground at south end of that circular restaurant. You know that whole zone is going to be active with people and valet for the condo drop off. So, and Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 39 it is also a private entry into the restaurant and sky lobby. So, I think there going to be enough energy and flow around that whole corner that it's going to be able to take care of itself in terms of maintenance. Anthes: Are there any other questions on the site plan? Commissioner Myres. Myres: Thank you. I probably missed my opportunity earlier but I've been concerned for some time about placing more then an acre of impermeable surface on this site and haven't had the chance to ask about drainage and I know it's usually something that's addressed later in the process. Maybe Mr. Hennelly can address my concerns. Hennelly: Yes, well we have not actually sized or checked to ensure the size of storm drainage that this system will be draining into. The run off coefficient that's used to determine the flows from each storm didn't change from the use that is there now to what we're doing so it's assumed but if for some reason we find out that after those calculations are done then sections of storm drain may need to be upgraded. Myres: And so this building doesn't cover more of the property than what was originally there? Hennelly: Yes, ma'am. It does, but in the downtown area on a piece of property this size if I just took the permeable area and did my run off calculations, the difference would be so minute you'd have to carry it out to the nth degree to detect it. So, we just assume that it's all impermeable right now because of the urban nature of the location. Myres: Ok, thank you. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Thank you, yes. I wanted to basically express concern over the first floor or street level sort of to follow up a few of Commissioner Anthes' comments. You mentioned on Church Avenue there would be sort of a Dickon Street feel or flavor as the pedestrian came down from Dickon southward towards this drop off area but I see it very differently. The cylinder, the stairs, it steps way back, there is a nice plaza during a nice weather but there is not activity that's interacting with the pedestrians. I understand it's glass and you can see through it. I just wanted to express concerns there. Also, I've also been concerned about the Block Avenue street level that's more curb cut then not curb cut. If you imagine the little tree island basically surrounded by cars or valets and a building out above you. Two curb cuts, one with a double, one with a single, and I understand a lot of these are necessary for the function of the building. But I just have Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 40 trouble seeing why there had to be separate entries and a completely reserved level for the condos. I can see it being marketable. If I were to buy a condo there I would appreciate an entire floor, I wouldn't have to worry about someone parking in my place. That's very nice. That can also be achieved with simple key cards accessing a certain level and there wouldn't have to be two completely different accesses to the parking structure. Did you all consider stuff like that? Abeyta: Well, one of our main concerns for segregating the parking was one, to really address building height. So, we took the opportunity to actually take what could be a function that is totally dedicated to the condo owner and actually segregate that from the main parking of the hotel. Ostner: I'm talking about the getting to it instead of having a separate entrance. Sharing the entrance. That's all I'm talking about really. Hennelly: I can make one point before he goes on. The way the site is laid out right now there is actually Tess curb cut then what there is right now. Currently, almost the entire length of Block Avenue is a curb cut. There are several curb cuts on Church Street right now and I understand that they won't be receiving use. Ostner: You're talking about eight cars at any one time on the site right now. Hennelly: That's true and there is very little pedestrian traffic. I think I mentioned earlier at one of the other meetings that we did do counts Friday night, Saturday night, less then 100 people walking up and down Block Street and particular on Church Street was even less. And we intentionally tried to confine that vehicular traffic to the off streets, the less busy streets then what Dickson is perceived to be, that's where most of the traffic goes to. We had to get them in there so actually a reduction in that curb cut, we thought, would actually have been better then the two or three that are being eliminated on Dickson Street. Ostner: Well, the issue still remains this is a large scale development and a building with a lot of cars. I understand this is a reduction of what was originally down but there is currently very little development there. It still doesn't make sense to me why we need two different points to erode the sidewalks whereas they could share an entrance into the parking structure. Abeyta: My response to that was because the site is so tight, it's like 1.3 acre of site. If you look at the zones on your plan in purple versus what's blue, the amount of area that you actually have to be able to circulate across, it's extremely tight. And we did look at trying to, you know, utilize one point of drop off for a hotel and condo. Typically you need 100, 200 feet of Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 41 separation to do that in a well laid out fashion. So, we took the notion that it would be best to be able to segregate these two components. Not have a condo owner whose paying high dollar prices for a condominium have to engage the guest who is just coming and going on an hourly basis. But allow them to have that sort of privacy, allow that circulation to that private parking area to be able to work directly from that private drop off zone and not have to integrate itself with the hotel. But again it's really driven by the size of the site. We are just so limited on what we can build and where we can build it that we tried to configure all the pieces in such a way that made most sense for the project. Ostner: That answers my question. Pate: I was just going to ask a question, Commissioner Ostner, if you were referring to for instance the two curb cuts on Church Avenue and why they couldn't become one. Is that what you're getting at? Or are you looking at the two different points of entrance? Osmer: Well, no if you're looking at the section of the building you have your standard entrance in the parking deck and you get up. Well, they've just got another one tucked in to go to the basement. It's a private entry, private parking, and I just want that to be clear that it could be shared. You could get to the basement sharing the entrance. Abeyta: Sir, it requires 24 feet of clear dimension to make one of these ramps work for two-way traffic. Ostner: It would require reconfiguring. Abeyta: No, what I'm saying is in order to accommodate two ramps it adds on that would be 48 foot. If you look at the width of the ramp in the plan and you actually just double that then I'm into my elevator cores, I'm into my back house, everything that's serving in order to make this hotel operate has just been bisected by routes of traffic ramping in the garage. We tried to be very responsible and very efficient in terms of how this plan is actually laid out. Ostner: I understand. Anthes: Are there further comments about the site plan? Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 42 Lack: Being the one member of the subdivision committee, being the dissenting vote on the request for denial, were sending this forward. We did look at a lot of these issues at the subdivision committee and I pretty heavily went over the site plan. The showcases were a direct response to at least adding some articulation which I think goes to meeting the ordinance in the requirement to not have an unarticulated wall while it still does not really provide the articulation, which I would see more as a desire in urban design or something as a guideline or something we would strive to. It's something that we would certainly hope that we could have 1 00% of our urban streets interactive with shops or some other sort of doorways and activity to liven the streets. I think the one thing that I did find in reviewing the site plan was that we are, for traffic safety sake, I believe, seeing a splitting of the two sides. In that half of the vehicles are going to Church and half of the vehicles are going to Block, or one-third, two- thirds. If the entries to both the Condos and the Hotel were to one side we would be loading traffic all to one side either the east or the west. I think that the ability to reconfigure one side could be attractive in that while the ramping to one side would be twice as wide, the ramping to the other side would go away and you would have that much more shop area, hotel area, that much more program. But still I go back to the idea that it could be very more beneficial for traffic flows to split the drives to the two different sides. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Lack. I will remind Commissioners that of course we can come back and revisit any of these conditions as we go forward, but in an attempt to structure the conversation - are there any other comments about the site? If not, I've had a couple of requests for break before we go to commercial design standards, so if we would take about 10 minutes and we'll reconvene. [Recess] Anthes: We will now reconvene the meeting. I think we are going to get to the meat of it; the recommendation of staff is one of denial on the commercial design standards regarding compatibility with surrounding development. And I would like to hear Commissioners' comments. Who would like to start? Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I have a question for staff that has nothing to do with this. It is a, just to be clear, if an applicant is dissatisfied with certain conditions that are put on Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 43 Pate: his or her project what is that applicant's avenue of appeal for this, if an applicant is approved with conditions he or she disagrees with? If an applicant's project, large scale development or preliminary plat, is approved or denied the property owner of record has a right to appeal that approval or denial to the City Council within 10 business days of the final action taken by this body, which is the Planning Commission. Ostner: Ok. The reason I ask is that we recently reheard an issue, I believe it was a preliminary plat. Pate: Large scale development. Ostner: Was it? Pate: Yes. Ostner: Ok, and that's exactly what happened is there was a condition the applicant was dissatisfied with and wanted to rehear it. So, what you're telling me is that the applicant can appeal those conditions to the City Council or ask for a rehearing as in, I forget the name of that project, Mr. Hennelly was associated with. Pate: It is more typical procedurally, but you can ask the City Attorney about it. Williams: You have to grant a motion to reconsider. So, someone who voted in favor of what the applicant doesn't like would have to move to reconsider and then the body as a whole would have to vote to reconsider or else no there would not be another rehearing. The only appeal as of right is to the City Council. Ostner: Thank you, and the opposite is also true I'm assuming. If a large scale development is denied, an applicant can appeal to City Council as well? Williams: That is correct. Osmer: Ok, thank you. Anthes: I have a question of Mr. Williams. There was a statement made today implying that with the approval of other taller buildings within downtown Fayetteville that a precedent had been set. Can you speak of precedence in commercial design standards and what's been going on in our downtown? Williams: I think that probably what you must be guided by is simply your own general knowledge and the Code of Ordinances themselves when they talk Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 44 Pate: about development, compatibility, and transition between adjoining developments. I don't see anything here that says because there has been another building in another part of town, it's not nearby where that would be something that you would be considering for the commercial design standards themselves. I would also, in interpreting this ordinance would defer to Jeremy Pate who is charged by our ordinance with interpretation of it. I think you could consider, the Planning Commission, certainly you could consider many things when you're looking at compatibility. I don't think you have to just look at necessarily directly across the street, but how far you can look out I'm not sure and I'll defer to Mr. Pate for how far he thinks it appropriate to view other structures. With regard to commercial design standards, as you all know that "A" is a "shall" and 2 "B and C" are "shoulds". That's the most difficult part about commercial design standards. Washington Regional Medical Center had issues with certain elevations the staff was not recommending. We took issue with that and did not recommend approval of that project because of certain elevations. Certain elevations were fine. The Malco that was discussed earlier, there were certain elevations with that the staff was not recommending with that as well. And those were changed by the Planning Commission at the Planning Commission Meeting or the subdivision committee meeting before it got to Planning Commission. Or at least revised, and with the revisions the staff did recommend approval. So, it's not so atypical that a project will come before the Planning Commission either with recommendation for approval with some revisions or denial because those revisions have not been forthcoming from the applicant or indications thereof. With regards specifically to how far you can look, I think that is something that is ultimately the charge of the Planning Commission to determine. What you feel is adjoining, what you feel is compatible with the area. There have been discussions about it should only be on Dickson Street, or it should be in the downtown area in general, or should it be all of Fayetteville. I've discussed this at least at the last meeting, about compatibility for instance within an industrial park. The Planning Commission recommended approval and approved an all -metal building in an industrial park that was commercial in nature because of the context in which it was located. It was appropriate, it was in scale, materials were appropriate to that area. The same thing on Joyce Boulevard with a project in that area. There is a different type architectural style, context, and scale, and theory, and so I think, and I've seen them all as you see every two weeks, large scale developments that come before you. So, geographically, no, I can't put a boundary saying this is what you can consider and this is what you cannot. That is a judgment call by the Planning Commission in review of every large scale development. Anthes: And as to the issue of whether a precedent has been set by prior decision? Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 45 Pate: I don't believe a precedent is set by a prior decision. Each project should be reviewed on its own merit. I think an applicant would want you to review a project, regardless of that project, on its own merit. Regardless again of whether or not a project had been approved or disapproved. I think for consistency purposes staff will take a look at projects that have been approved and make recommendations accordingly. We typically look at what Planning Commission actions have occurred, what City Council policy decisions have occurred as well and what has been adopted as guiding policies from the City Council and make recommendations from those. So, I don't think it's necessarily precedent setting, as the City Attorney mentioned. Each project does need to stand on its own merit and meet the design standards on a case by case basis. Anthes: Ok. Speaking of applicable ordinances and policy documents. On our staff report, you stated that, "as discussed in the Downtown Master Plan a policy documented by the City Council in 2004" that staff worked with the applicant to find an appropriate transition level and compatibility and appearance. Utilizing building materials and colors, the stepping back of facades to transition from lower surrounding properties, and then discussed other projects such as the Three Sisters and started talking about where the highest portion of this building is set in relation to the street. I went back and reread my Downtown Master Plan vision document in preparation for this meeting, and did pull out a few things that relate to this project in terms of policy. One of them is that the future land use map designates this site as "historic -commercial." That there are plan fundamentals starting on page 2.3 of the document that talk about a perfectly walkable environment, which goes with our 2020 principles adopted by Council as well. And when they talk about strategies for designing great streets they list 3 very specific items. Design for pedestrians first, scale matters, and design the street as a unified whole and in that they expanded a bit. They're saying that an essential distinction of great streets is that the whole outdoor room is designed as an ensemble including utilitarian and auto elements, travel lanes, parking curbs, public components such as the trees, sidewalks, and lighting, and private elements, buildings landscapes, and garden walls. As tempting as it may be to separate these issues, like for example leaving building orientation and placement out of the discussion of planning thoroughfares, all the public and private elements must be coordinated to have good effect. And what this tells me, I mean it's talking about street design, but it's also talking about the public realm created between a building and a street. And what I've been concerned about, and what I've brought up in every meeting, is the delicate nature of the street grid that is in our community. And I think it was very salient that the staff pointed out that the tallest portions of this building are proposed on the narrowest streets - and the Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 46 step back and compatibility is happening on the wide street. And I think that that is an issue that goes against what our guiding policy says about how to place a building in the context of our community. The next thing, and I guess I'm a little wary of bring up this point, but I have a real specific reason to do so...on pages 2.3 and 2.4 the guiding plan says that housing for a mixture of incomes must be provided downtown. Downtown should not just be a place for the richest of the rich or poorest of the poor. It is a place for everyone. It should support a diverse population from every income level. In the near term, however, the top priority for achieving a healthy mix of incomes is to promote downtown living to middle income, owner -occupied residents. The market analysis said that we are missing that demographic in order to build the kind of economically viable downtown that we are all looking for. The reason I bring that up is that I'm a little concerned about the physical and social separation of the condo units where you drive your car into a garage and then take an elevator to a unit which creates a self-contained world. To me that creates a kind of vertical gated community, and our community has a specific prohibition against gated communities — at least on a subdivision on a suburban model scale and I'm wondering about how that would apply when we talk about essentially creating vertically gated communities within our city. I don't expect you to have an answer for that, but it is something that I am concerned about with regards to this project and our current ordinances which do expressly forbid gated communities. I'll continue on...it does talk about infill development; the plan document says, "where infill development is to occur, such architecture is to reflect the architectural character of the existing neighborhood." It talks about the Main Street Center designation and I'm not even going to read that because we don't know where that lands on our map yet. We do have a lot of cases in this community where buildings terminate vistas. We have one very close to this, and that is the Central United Methodist Church spire at the end of East Avenue. And I was wondering if the applicant had considered how this building will terminate the vista looking south from St. Charles Avenue and whether you considered any particular response to terminating that vista in your facade. Abeyta: This image right here is in direct relationship I believe to your question. The sort of vista that's created down St. Charles and how it terminates on our building. The goal was to create a terminus to that sight line as you're looking down St. Charles so that's why we've positioned the eastern most wing of the hotel tower and sort of integrated it with as sort of a vertical element mass as it comes down to the street level as sort of a focal point from that vista. Anthes: So, the center line of that element is actually aligned with the center line of St. Charles? Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 47 Abeyta: It was in our original submittal. When we had to come back and try to drop height we had to that mass out to the east so now it no longer directly aligns with the center line of that road. That was our objective but because of the requirements of the project we weren't able to meet that goal, but that was the objective. Anthes: Have you looked at how this building casts shadows, or have you done a wind impact study or a sound study? Abeyta: We have a shadow analysis. We don't have a wind analysis at this point. Anthes: If it would be possible for you to set those up so that one of the cameras could get a shot while you were talking it would be really beneficial. Barber: Commissioners Anthes, while they are doing that could I just ask a question in the sense of the middle income and I just want to make sure it's clear that we've gone down from 23 to 16 condos. But inside going back to the 77 rooms there are 60 opportunities for what we think is middle income in the sense of, again in Fayetteville it's all relative in the sense of what you really can get. But as far as downtown we're looking probably around 225,000 to 250,000. Still very expensive and I note that but I'm just saying if you look at what's available downtown right now and you compare it to even the Legacy Building right now we don't have one that's even at that price. So, I think we are bringing 60 new units that would be in the middle income range. Anthes: That's helpful, thank you. And obviously, no individual project can solve all of the issues of the project statement. Barber: We're trying. Abeyta: Ok, these images up here on this stand represent, this board represents the Summer solstice. The board on the right represents the Winter solstice and the board on the floor actually represents the Fall and Spring solstice which are identical in shadow. What we looked at was a series of times for June 21st 8 A.M, 10 A.M, 12 P.M, 2 P.M, 4 P.M, and 6 P.M. Sort of a range of how the sun is going to act on the building and on the surrounding context and as you can see in the summer months there is really no impact on Dickson Street at all. Ifs pretty much in full sun and the rooftop elements of the pool and so forth also take advantage of that sun aspect. As you move from summer to say September 21st, the Fall solstice there is from 8 A.M. all the way through 6 P.M. there is a little bit of shadow impact on Dixon Street, but it is primarily on our sidewalk from 8 A.M. to noon. As you get to 2 P.M. still it's pretty much shadow impact Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 48 on our sidewalk and as you move towards 4 P.M, you know the sun is starting to drop lower, you are starting to extend some the shadows from the higher points of the building across the street and then as it reaches on to 6 P.M. that shadow starts to wrap around to the east side. As we go up to the upper right hand board this is showing some studies of the project during the Winter solstice. December 21n from 8 A.M. through 6 P.M. And obviously, because the sun is lower there is going to be more of a shadow forecasting across surrounding context. So, that's what those images represent. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: Since you're showing some new boards do you have any boards that would show in proportion, considering your building is built, and we talked about this in subdivision, what the view of Dickson Street to the west will look like when you turn off College onto Dixon and you're looking up towards the university? Abeyta: We don't have that specific image but the closest image is looking from east on College Avenue towards the west, it's really this sub -aerial perspective. I don't know if you can imagine coming down and this lower perspective is trying to give you sort of a pedestrian feel from Church Street back to Block Street just so you can get a perspective of that. If you can just envision that sort of perspective. Starting from this eastern corner of Block and Dickson Street looking back to University. I don't think it's really going to block any major views of the University especially Old Main. Your vista is kind of straight on Dickson Street as it leads down through Dickson and then rises up into the University that sits upon a hill. But I don't have that particular image. Clark: Ok, thank you. Anthes: To follow up on the study diagrams, I'm wishing I could see how far the shadow actually is thrown to the south and southeast where it's cut off in your diagrams. Do you know how far that reaches and I'm questioning this because I'm wondering if we're approaching casting a shadow on the spire of the United Methodist Church. Abeyta: I don't know the exact dimensions, no I don't. But I'm assuming that based on like at 2 P.M. if you look at that scenario December 2 l that dimension from say the northwest corner of the building if you projected that down through the frame of that image you would probably be I guess a third into that site across Dickson Street. Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 49 Barber: Anthes: Hennelly: Anthes: Myres: Abeyta: Myres: Abeyta: Barber: Myres: I can just say that the one you're looking at, I mean I've seen that e-mail going all over town, that's going off that big box -like structure that she also showed you. And I just can't imagine that shadow going all the way, that's a long way. Yeah, I don't know how that was generated. My question is this, in creating a new landmark, I'm looking at landmarks that currently exist and I think that the Central United Methodist Church is a landmark on the skyline, it's a landmark as a terminus and I'm concerned about how this building might affect it. Could I look at those diagrams? Sure. Madame Chair, to follow up on Commissioner Clarks question, I would be just as interested to see a view as if I were standing say in front of the Walton Arts Center looking up the street and how this building looks on the skyline. This is the closest we have right now. And that's down the block? That's down the block across the street looking back at the corner of Dickson and Church Street so we're looking at that vertical cylinder as sort of an icon to the project becoming a focal point and engaging the pedestrian edge. And again we had a lot of these pictures but in the spirit of the redesign you know Eddie, if it was someone local, you know he's been out of town all week and so some of these pictures I also wanted to see we just haven't had time to get together. Well, I did take a walk out downtown over the weekend and looked at this site from a lot of different locations from both in and out of my car and tried to imagine especially what it would be like to be down in the little valley and looking up the street where we were used to seeing more scaled down buildings. And I think one of the problems with building a tall building on an elevated area where there are plenty of other places to view it from below not only from down Dickson Street but also back towards town at the bottom of Block Street, at the bottom of Church Street kind of emphasizes the height rather then de-emphasizing it. I appreciate that little diagram you've put together but none of those buildings are next to each other and that's one of the things that I am a little bit discouraged about in Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 50 all of your illustrations, and I agree that architectural renderings are, I'm sorry I didn't mean to go off like this but I'm going. Architectural renderings are first of all obviously to show off the design of the building, but this issue before us is so much about its context within the community you haven't taken any opportunity to show me what it looks like on its site either from the air or from the ground with the structures that surround it presently. Even the shadow diagrams don't have any streets on it so that I can't begin to gauge exactly how far those shadows are going and what intersects them when they get to where they go. I've tried really hard to be objective about this project because I had some serious concerns about it from the very beginning and you haven't made it any easier for me to change my mind. Hennelly: If I could just make one comment on one of the points that you brought about this site being on the highest point of Dickson Street. The Downtown Master Plan has selected the highest point in the downtown area for the highest buildings allowed. Currently the Renaissance Tower is coming back for an 18 story, an additional 2 stories on the highest point around. And it wasn't by matter of choice that this site, we didn't pick the elevation of it. The location is what became available, the location is what is prime for the connection of the square and the downtown to Dickson Street. It has been tried to reinvigorate it over the years, many times have failed. We just feel like this is a link, it's an anchor point from the Lofts to this corner to the Square which will have an 18 story building on it on the highest point. Anthes: Maybe. Hennelly: A 16 story for sure. Barber: And again, oh boy I got a team up here. No different then the maybe comment, I think we are talking about a lot of maybes in the spirit of the Downtown Master Plan. And we're talking about an entire maybe until it is passed. And so going back to, and Commissioner Myres we have tried to spend so much time on the redesign and the sense of what we heard from the community and have just now been the opportunity to hear like what you have to say about this project. We also have to remember that maybe the Downtown Master Plan will have six story buildings all the way up if that's the way it is passed and we always look at it, the Downtown Master Plan as this is the way we want it and it's going to be six stories. If that's the case we have got to look at this Smoke House and I wish I had my drawing again here even though they are not the way I want to see them. So, I agree with you on a few things. But if we look at the Smoke House, the liquor store all the way up say that's two story buildings up this 10 story and say the Hancock Building is six stories up to our four Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 51 stories on Dickson, we do have to kind of look into the future if we're going to talk about it. We either need to not talk about the Downtown Master Plan or talk about it because that's one critical thing. It's not going to look 11 years out of context in my opinion if we have six story buildings right next to it. Anthes: Let me just interject quickly, it's not an entire maybe with the Downtown Master Plan. We do have an adopted policy document, so we do have some direction. We do not have the ordinances and the map. That's what we don't have. But we do, just like our General Plan that we use to evaluate projects, we do have some direction. The other thing that we have is what we can evaluate for large scale developments, and our large scale development process says we have to evaluate a project against what is next to it that's on the ground today. And the other thing about the Downtown Master Plan is that, if it does pass, it sets a 6 story limit height, but it also has a minimum of two stories. There is nothing that says every development will develop to the 6 -story height maximum. We would have to evaluate it against anywhere between two and six stories. Barber: And I don't disagree with you on that. I'm just saying that what's at the City Council even before the Downtown Master Plan is six stories or 84 feet the way I understand it. So, we have got to think that if we're going to look at it worst case, I think we have got to look at it worst case and obviously, this building if we are going to build it, then the SmokeHouse property would be the next property to see as you're looking up Dickson. Six stories up to it. It just seems a lot more compatible to me that if we've got 16 stories, two stories, I just can't see how six stories and ten stories or two one or two story buildings downtown can't be compatible. I'm going to shut up. Anthes: Of course, I would say that the worst cast scenario is that everything else develops to two, not to six, when we're looking at compatibility with your project. Commissioner Myres, I'm sorry. Myres: Well, I could go ahead and say everything that I had to say but I don't feel like it so I'll yield the floor to Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify something. It sounds like the current issue before the City Council is getting a little bit confused with the Downtown Master Plan. City Council is currently considering a six story limit in C-3. The Downtown Master Plan will, could rezone the entire downtown wiping away all that current C-3 and that limit and imposing our new document which does talk about a six story limit if stepped back 15 feet. The definition of that six story has yet to be defined. We're not sure if it's five stories with certain (inaudible) etc. So, I just want to clarify Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 52 that there are two things going on that just because the City Council might approve that cap on C-3, they might also erase it in the next six weeks, six months and approve the Downtown Master Plan, which in a small crystal ball, a very rusty crystal ball, this policy document the City Council approved gives us an idea of what should go on, in that document. So, I just want to make sure, there are two different things going on. Barber: No, I understand that, I guess I'm just saying there are so many what ifs that I wish we weren't talking about it. I wish we were just talking about the C-3 zoning that stands there right now. Because if we are talking about some of them, we aren't talking about the six story one, it's kind of hard to- Ostner: I was actually responding to your "what if." What if across the street there were six story, six story, six story. Barber: Sure, Ijust think that there is a great chance that there will be. Ostner: There could be, but the current issue before the City Council is scheduled to change, so. Well, I'm going to go ahead and say something else. I'm also conflicted about this. If style is something that is something that is in the conversation I have no problem with this style. This is a beautiful building. It is interesting, it does different things. I'm not an architect if you want to call it modern, contemporary, different, I don't know. It looks nice. There are parts of it that I don't think take into account the rest of the downtown area. And I've been struggling with it since I saw my comrades at subdivision, which I think was 3 or 4 weeks ago. But staffs' report really sums up part of my reservations. Condition number 1, staff recommends building height at the street be set back finding that a height of 3 to 4 stories at the street level would be more compatible with the surrounding lower story development on Dickson, Block, and Church. I completely agree. This project does seem to pass muster for the four items of commercial design standards. No unpainted concrete block walls, square box -like structures, metal siding, and large out of scale signs. And the other item that I can't put aside though I want to is the overall height. It's just too tall. I think one of the citizens said it best when they said this is beautiful, we need this and we want it, it's just too much. So, that's really where I stand. I was sitting here trying to formulate added conditions that would be a middle to me, that would be sort of a middle ground, but there is a lot of work to be done. If I were to list off conditions it would infuriate this nice architect. It would be a mess. This is not the place for design by committee. I would love for you guys to go back to the drawing board and bring something else. This site that you all have obtained or are planning on developing is changing. All of Dickson is changing. This site could work for something like this. I do disagree that this is a hinge between Dickson and Downtown. This project interacts with Dickson. It doesn't Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 53 make the corner. It doesn't pull around the block. Cars will go down the block. Block Street has not been tried and failed with anything that had a chance. It has yet to be done. All of the activity that went on in Dickson Street was originally slated to go on Block but we just ran out of money. Block needs help but I don't think this will help turn the corner on the development aspect and that's where the compatibility starts to work against it. If it were more compatible, if it were shorter, if the facades did step it, if it weren't so imposing from the ground level up I think it could transition and allow Block Street to develop. Hennelly: If I could take issue with one of the comments that it doesn't make the transition around Block Street. I think on the contrary, the front of the hotel faces Block Street. 137 hotel residents will be coming out on Block Street with the option of turning left and going to Dickson or turning right and going to the Square. That and not just the hotel residents. You're also talking about anybody that's going into the spas that's in there, anybody that's going into restaurant, the bar, the lounge, anybody going in and out of here with exception of some of the retail customers will be coming through that are and able to make any turn that they want to and go down a redeveloped Block Street or turn and go down to Dickson Street. So, I would take issue with that in that the major pedestrian flow that is generated by this building is all on Block Street. Ostner: But once you're in your car, you're probably not going to drive to another establishment a block away. Once you're in your car on Dickson you're probably going to leave or go a good distance. If you get in your car at the new Underwood development when that's built, you're not going to drive you know 200, 300 yards. You're going to walk that because driving is a mistake; the closest place is right where you left. So, you learn that in the first week. Leave your car and walk the two blocks just out of necessity. So, if you go ahead and get in your car and make that turn, you're probably leaving. Hennelly: You make my point for me in that walking out of the front of the hotel, once they've gone in, and valets have parked their vehicle, and they've checked in, and they're coming out for the evening they have the option turning right and walking to the Square or turning right and walking down Dickson Street. And that's the funnel, that's the gateway from the whole development. Ostner: And it's packed with parking and there is room for I forget how many stacked cars. It's a covered valet. Nice, very nice place to get in and out of your vehicle. The really interesting part to me is the Dickson Street frontage that is pedestrian oriented. The car is left behind and that's exciting. Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 54 Hennelly: There are very brief periods that the traffic will be stacked full in that drop off point. You're talking about with conventions, games, and barbecues. And the amount of time, just like these shade diagrams, in the amount of time that that's happening, the amount of time that that's interfering with the function of that is so brief that it's almost dismissal. Barber: And I'm going to argue with you as much as, I think we ought to appreciate what is there right now. If you look behind, specifically where the Church Street side is and you see just an old vacant revenue building, and when you look at Block Street the reason it hasn't redeveloped is because nothing has developed. And no different then Theo's right now, one of the few places in town that's got valet. I've seen people want to go into Theo's for second and then they want to go walk. And that's what there is an opportunity now for. I just wish we wouldn't look at it from there is just a bunch of cars and it's very stale. There is action happening. I mean there are things happening on this corner that will make people walk down the hill to go to the Square. Because wanted to valet doesn't mean they are going to check in. They might check in, put their bags up, and then they are getting out of there. That's the reason they are staying here is they can go to the Square now and you've got to appreciate how many people aren't walking on either one of those streets right because nothings happening. Ostner: It's actually up to the Square, which I think is sort of the issue. Anthes: Let's try not to have a debate with the applicant. We can direct specific questions to them, and if they can't answer specific questions, the staff they can answer, and then obviously we can state our rationale for our vote. I think that will help us all out. Commissioner Myres. Myres: Well, that was just my comment. If this is going to be a dialogue between the commissioner and the applicant every time we say something that they want to comment on, I think we will be here until midnight again. And I don't think that was the purpose of this meeting frankly. I would like to hear more about what my fellow commissioners have to say. I think I will go ahead and conclude my comments while I've got the floor again and just say that I'm not in favor of this building as it is designed presently. I concur with staffs' evaluation that at least two of the facades don't meet the design guidelines. Regardless of how the motion is couched, what language it's couched I don't intend to vote in favor of it as it is presently designed. And I have lots of reasons, but I think we are all interested in going home at a reasonable hour tonight and I'll be happy to give those reasons if necessary but I just object to it. Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 55 Anthes: Commissioner Myres, if you are going to vote to deny a project it is good for you to list the reasons why you would do so. Myres: Ok. Well, I do agree with staffs evaluation that both the east and the west elevations don't meet design guidelines as far as compatibility with their surroundings. Specifically in mass and size and also I noted in the report that the Church Street elevation is 159 feet high. If you look at the structures that are located close to it they are nowhere near that height. And I also think that as a focal point at the top of Dickson Street it is totally out of scale including out of scale with the church that is catte- comer across the street from it. And I just don't find that it meets what I would expect from a building that is supposed to be compatible with that particular location. Anthes: Clark: Thank you, Commissioner Myres. Commissioner Clark. There is so much. First of all Tom, I'm so impressed you counted the words. 3,500. 1,300 that's much worse. I'm focusing on two. Compatibility and transition. Yeah they are only two words but boy, they are significant. And it's a false dichotomy to look at quantitative rather then qualitative and I'm look at qualitative. It's not compatible and I don't think it provides an adequate transition zone. I will not support this project as it stands. But let me elaborate a little bit further, it's the last I'm going to say. We have been told that we approve this or we don't grow. I think that is also false dichotomy. There are plenty of places in this town that this building would be welcome even in the 15 story version that I saw first in subdivision. Certainly this beautiful 10 story version would be welcome in a number of places around Fayetteville. Our growth can continue. Those are the financial and economic arguments that Jill has stopped us from making so I won't make anything further, but I think that that could be a very healthy debate. My problems lie first of all with compatibility. It is far too out of scale. 159 feet on the Church Street elevation alone is enough to make me have serious thoughts. Traffic safety is another serious concern I've had since subdivision and I'm still concerned that this narrow area that we have worked so hard to make pedestrian friendly and meet the historical significance of this area will be totally undone to accommodate cars going into a condo and a hotel. I don't think that is what is appropriate for the area. I don't think it provides the transition. I also do not believe the Lofts at Underwood provide a precedent but if it does I voted against that as well so at least I am consistent. At the time we were told that you couldn't look at height as a form of compatibility. On March 3161 we get a memo that says yes, you can. So, I don't know how that really would've affected the debate if we would've focused on height of the lots. But I know they setback and do some things that this project does not do. And this project does a lot. I think it is beautiful, I think you can sell it, I think you can Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 56 Anthes: Lack: build it just not on that comer. You say that we have to look at what could be. Yes, I do I want to look at what could be I think there could be a lot of things on that site right now, you could develop in a variety of ways. Unfortunately, I don't think this meets our design standards and for that reason I will not support it as it stands. I hope that you can develop something on that corner but more importantly I think that you take this design some place else and build it because it is beautiful and I think it could be very very viable. I just don't think in a historically significant area, like Dickson Street, it is appropriate and that is my only concern. I don't want to turn that corner and see whatever that propeller thing is. I think I still want to see the Methodist spire I think I still want to see the profile that is Dickson Street. Anyplace else, and that free parking thing you're on to for $10 is really a good thing too. So I will not support it. Commissioner Lack. We have, I think we have fully discussed the issues of the site plan and we've looked at urban design guidelines, standards. And I think that some concessions have been made on those portions of the project. Concessions were made on the appearance and the height from subdivision committee. I did want to ask one thing of staff. In reviewing the notes from subdivision committee it is listed that I did concur on the motion - Pate: It's a typo, I'm sorry. Lack: Ok. So, from that standpoint we have tended to boil this project down to the compatibility issues. I think that while there are possibly opportunities on portions of the project, these are the items that staff has recommended for their recommendation for denial and I have some concerns first with from an urban design standpoint with the height of the building and what the building should do with it's context. But more, I guess overriding that I have concerns with how we administer the ordinance and when I look at commercial design standards and I see the shoulds I look at those as guidelines. I look at those as guiding principles. And we've never really looked at those with height of a building prior. I think that to let that to override a definite shall with the C-3 zoning which offers an unlimited height on a parcel I would say that as compared to 50 stories certainly compatible as opposed to 20 stories, it's more compatible. And so I'm not sure where the subjective portion of the commercial design standards in being a guideline overrides that definite edict of the C-3 zoning that allows them unlimited height. And so with that I am I guess torn with the issue of compatibility and transition. I guess I could say the building is definitely compatible with its materials and articulation. I think that while it is a modern structure it does respect a lot of new materials that we do see. And I think that one of the overwhelming beauties of Dickson Street and the Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 57 downtown area is this beautiful collage that we have grown over time. There is a mix of different very eclectic style and materials and I think that with that the idea of compatibility and the issues that we've heard a lot of discussion about with modem buildings and in the idea of a modern building in downtown or a historically referenced downtown is something that we need to address a compatibility of street-scape and articulation. The ideas that we've addressed with pedestrian abilities and the activity at the street. But as far as a modern versus historic dialogue I think that in a 100 years from now we are going to be looked back upon and judged for what we did. And I would hate to think that we would be looked back upon as a society that had only the intellect to kind of regurgitate a lot of really good ideas. So, I think that with that I applaud the idea of the modern building, of the building that is a piece of the collage that represents at least somewhere around the era around which it was built. So, I think that with that I would have to find that I would not find the height overriding a C-3 district unlimited height compatibility and transition. Anthes: Let me just state that we do not have an architectural code and so the style of the building is really not anything that we review at this level. We do talk about materials and I do believe the applicant has reduced the amount of reflective materials and added brick and masonry from when we first saw the project. As far as your statement about C-3 being by ordinance and large scale developments being the guiding principle, large scale developments and what we regulate with those are a part of the ordinance as well and that ordinance can be interpreted by our development administrator who has given us an extensive memo that says that height actually can be looked at for compatibility and transition so I would state that we have two ordinances that are directing us. Both the C-3 and the compatibility and transition and that interpretation for height. Lack: I'm assuming you're referring to the commercial design standards? Anthes: Yes, and the large scale development process which has been handed to us tonight, which is part of that. Lack: And I have a great respect for staff and for their interpretation of that and 1 accept that interpretation. Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I have the same concerns that Commissioner Lack has about the interpretation of the commercial design standards. I would like to in staffs' Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 58 defense reflect that when we considered the Lofts, the same interpretation was provided to us verbally. The memo came out to us afterward but we did have that interpretation when we considered the Lofts and I stated my same concerns with that interpretation at that time and the administration of it in that fashion. There is no question that staff has the authority and that Jeremy in particular has the authority by ordinance to interpret the commercial design standards and specifically the terms appearance, and compatibility, and transition to include height. And in turn there is no question that a Commissioner who is inclined to rely upon that interpretation is entitled to do so. So, my concern is neither with Jeremy's authority to interpret it that way nor with any commissioner who follows that interpretation. My concern is with the effect of that interpretation and what I believe it does which is create a sort of, after the fact, what I believe occurred here is, and it's just my belief, but an after the fact sort of way to restrict height when the Lofts came down the pipeline and they realized there wasn't a cap on C-3 and suddenly someone wanted to put something taller on Dickson then what folks were comfortable with and so there was a review done on how, what do we have in the books that we could use in order to administer height. Again I will state what I state, say it in respect to the Lofts. That is that the City Council has seen fit to set a number of restrictions on certain zoning districts indicating that they thought about it, that they considered it and elected not to do so on C-3 property. I understand that they are now considering a restriction on C-3, again a reaction to what occurred with these two project coming down the pipeline. But the fact of the matter is that the Lofts came down the pipeline and this project came down the pipeline at a point and time where there was no such restriction on C-3. My concern is that what happens is that an owner of a piece of property doesn't really know what he's allowed to build with that property because until he gets in front of the Planning Commission and they do their review of what's around it, he doesn't know or she doesn't know until that point and time how tall it can be or how big it can be massed. That's my problem with the interpretation and I understand that the same sort of, I do not believe that the commercial design standards are a subjective ordinance. It's got some specific objective things that we are supposed to look at and that's what we do. But when you talk about brick color and awnings and scaling and things like that you're not affecting the use of the building and I believe that height can and does affect the use of the building because restricting height can restrict what you can do on a piece of property. Which is fine if it is in the ordinance specifically. If I buy a piece of C-3 property and it says I can build something to a certain height then I went into that with full knowledge. With this interpretation my concern is that if I buy a piece of C-3 property I don't know what I can build until I get it in front of the Planning Commission and they tell me what their feeling is on this particular place, this particular geographic location. I am in support of Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 59 building caps for the whole city and I've said it during our Downtown Master Plan meetings. I don't think it is something that should be restricted to the Downtown Master Plan. I think it's something that needed to be reviewed city wide and I'll encourage the City Council to pass restrictions so that we don't have these types of debates. So that everybody knows and understands exactly what they can do with a piece of property when they go out and purchase it. But my concern here is that that's not the case right now. The case right now is that you buy a piece of property and then you have to wait to come before the subdivision and the Planning Commission in order to get a feel for what you can do with that piece of property. And that just doesn't seem to be particularly fair to me. I would also point out that commercial design standards as I understand it wouldn't apply to a residential structure. So, for example, this same project, if it was all residential, could be much taller and we wouldn't have the commercial design standard ordinance to review in order to limit height in that way. There might be, I don't know, there might be another ordinance that Jill is about to whip out on me or something and tell me that there is no way to do it. But right now the commercial design standards applies to a commercial project so if you've got a residential project you can go taller then 10 stories, 12 stories, whatever and you we wouldn't have that ordinance to use to interpret compatibility and transition and so I don't know maybe there might be another interpretation at that point that came down to find a way to do it on those too, but that's my concern. That's the concern I expressed with the Lofts. I don't have a quibble or an argument with anybody who follows Jeremy's interpretation because Jeremy certainly has the authority to interpret it that way and I've told Jeremy and I've told Kit about it that I think the interpretation is wrong because of the effect of it. Because of the dichotomy you can have on a piece of C-3 property for example between a residential project versus a commercial project or within a commercial project what you might have on the edges of town versus what you might have on Dickson. I think that there should be a height restriction and that's why we've been working on the Downtown Master Plan. I think that folks would still have the opportunity to request variances or whatever from the height restriction if that went in at whatever time the city determined that the height restriction what too restrictive and they wanted to allow taller things they could change the ordinance. My concern right now is just the lack of a specific ordinance on what guides someone on what they can build on that piece of property. And so, left with what we have on the books right now, given that the City Council has waived the waiting period on the Downtown Master Plan applicability and I understand we have the policy document and I understand the effect of that policy document. I just am not comfortable personally with restricting the height on this building with the ordinances that we have right now on the books. Again I wish there was a specific ordinance so that everybody - the developer, the public, and the Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 60 Anthes: Graves: commission - knew exactly here's what you can do. And that's what we have in other zoning districts. I'm just not comfortable using the commercial design ordinance, which I agree with commissioner Lack, my three years on here until the Lofts, we never used the commercial design standards on height. I know we didn't have tall buildings trying to come in on Dickson, but we've had multiple story buildings coming in, we just considered a multi -story hotel out on Shiloh Drive at the last subdivision committee and nobody asked about the height. And that's not Dickson Street. And that's my concern is just the fact that I don't believe that there is ... pardon me? Continue, Commissioner Graves. Ok. I didn't interrupt anyone so I would like to be able to speak without being interrupted myself. Whatever number of stories it was nobody asked how many stories it was and what was around it and that's not a criticism of anybody, it's an example to me of the fact that we haven't used the commercial design ordinance in that fashion. People aren't used to using it in that fashion they don't even think about height most of the time. I just think that it's something that were sort of trying to bootstrap in and I don't think it's appropriate. And that's just my opinion again. It's not that I have an argument with anybody who wants to follow the interpretation because they are entitled to do that, but I will support the project. Not because I like the height of it or think it's in scale with anything else out there. I don't. I don't. I think that the City Council without putting a cap in that zone left us with a situation. There are policy considerations beyond this Commission that the City Council can certainly consider if there is an appeal to the City Council that we don't have the opportunity to consider at this level. And what I'm comfortable with and what I understand when I read the ordinances, I don't feel that I have the appropriate authority to restrict height based on what's on the books right now and I believe that the other conditions that we've discussed here tonight I believe that the developer has met those conditions and other things that we've asked of him and I do believe sort of boiled it down to the materials and the commercial design standards and Jeremy's interpretation of those standards. And I must support the project. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Graves. I think that we're all feeling the frustration of having a possibly unclear ordinance and that there are conflicts in ordinances and that's why we look to our City Attorney and towards our development administrator. Obviously, change happens in a reactionary mode. Height restrictions and the discussion that has come in response to proposed tall buildings, I think you're exactly right. We haven't had the request before because there was never a need for it before. Once there is a need, that's when we start seeing where the holes are. So, I Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 61 agree. There is a question though I have and that's pertaining to materiality. I have stated this a couple of times and that is about the four story facade along Dickson Street and the fact that the top two floors of that facade are a parking deck and don't contribute to the type of street life that we've been asking for with that four-story plan. You've stepped it back, but the top two floors of that facade are blank and aren't contributing to the street life and the appearance of the street. Can you tell me is this the corrugated, reflective metal, the screen on that parking deck or is there another material for that? Abeyta: We were thinking that the screening for that portion of the facade that we think it does contribute to Dickson Street even though there is parking behind that facade. Because it is articulated, there is a series of angled panels that create depth and shadow and character to that facade. You have to have livable space behind the facade to actually activate it and animate it. So, we were thinking it was a series of integral corrugated elements with sort of flat steel panels that really make up that really interesting deep, dark, and it's really not on here, I don't have a specific sample for that, but in character the idea of the copper is kind of a modeled material. It's not just a flat pane but something that's interesting and really addresses that idea of kind of an eclectic quality. Anthes: And where do you propose that corrugated metal with the perforation? Abeyta: I mean this was the initial design concept where these specific materials were being suggested for and that perforated metal was being suggested for the south facade as screening elements on the garage itself. Now we are proposing an open cell masonry unit, has a screening on the under - crosses so that there are faces on the garage. So, we would replace that perforated metal with the sort of masonry unit as a screening device on the south. On the north facade it addresses Dickson Street it will be a series of like steel plate panels at a series of angles that make up that texture. Anthes: So, this submittal is not accurate? Abeyta: With the exception of that. If I pull that perforated metal off that's what we're suggesting is the copper, the two tones of brick, the idea that the concrete band that splits into mallony glass, the different colors of metal, the dark metal and the light metal. Anthes: Ok. Can you talk about, because obviously height is an issue here, when we looked at comparable buildings of the same number of stories, we noticed that this building is quite a bit higher then those and that it is coming down to a floor -to -floor height issue. Can you talk about how you selected - Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 62 Abeyta: Let me grab this section. Anthes: Because you know, you're right if we end up with six story buildings adjacent to this property but those six story buildings have a lower floor to floor height, then that 6 story building would come down much lower then the top of your 6th story. Abeyta: Ok, with regards to the floor to floor dimension for the public space we have a floor to floor level from strict level to set level 20 feet. The reason we have 20 feet is typically you've got four to five foot of preliminary space for structure and cooling within that ceiling space above the public spaces. So, you take about five feet of that out of the 20 you've got about a 15 foot floor to ceiling dimension within the public components of the project. For restaurants, you know lobbies, that sort of thing, which is a pretty comfortable dimension. So, that is what we've got for the first to second floor dimension. From second to third we also have 20 feet and what's driving that is the floor to ceiling dimension in the banquet halls. You typically need a minimum of 16 feet of floor to ceiling space within a banquet space that is within the same scale that we are proposing for this project. So, we have 40 feet that makes up the public aspect of the podium. Now as you move from the second level into the parking garage we have a typical 10 foot floor to floor dimension for the parking garage, which allows you approximately seven foot of head clearance within those floor dimensions. So, that's all very standard and typical. Directly above the P2 level we have a five foot planning zone and that five foot planning zone is to be able to take care of the depth of the pool that sits on top of that parking garage. So, we have to maintain head clearance for cars through that P2 zone so in order to be able to do that the floor to floor dimensions from P2 to the actual pool depth will be 15 feet. That allows you the minimum dimension clearance within the parking zone. That makes up the podium of 65 foot in dimension. And as we move into the hotel and condo portion of the project, typically hotel floor to floor dimension is 10 foot. 9' 6" to 10, somewhere in that range. The objective of this boutique hotel is to try and maintain a nine foot floor ceiling dimension so in order to achieve that we need approximately a ten foot floor to floor dimension. Well, that's what makes up these first floor riddles of hotel and condo. We are really trying to maintain that nine foot floor to ceiling dimension. Now, as you can see by this section the hotel and hotel condo make up these four levels. The first level of hotel extends across the top of the podium which is hotel. Because of vertical stacking of like toilet exhaust and so forth that moves from the hotel through the tower you have to have a transition zone. We have a five foot transition zone about each of these hotel components and each floor goes into the full condo component. So, that's what's really driving that dimensionally. Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 63 Now, if you look at it we've got two full condo floors that course out at the top of the hotel. Typically a floor to floor dimension on a hotel is approximately twelve foot floor to floor so that you're in a high end condo situation you're trying to achieve a ten foot floor to ceiling dimension. In order to do that you have to be twelve foot floor to floor, but in order to course out these first two condo floors I have 30 feet to course out these first two condo floors at the top of the hotel. It really dictated a higher floor to floor dimension then those first two condo floors. And because of that we decided to make it the upper two floor of condos similar to the larger floor because these are really your higher end units and you're going to be selling them for more money and you really want them to have the same floor to ceiling dimension as you build their condo floors. So, that's really what gives rise of massing up to that point. And once you reach that point this is the restaurant floor and we've set a dimension of 20 feet, 23 feet from restaurant floor up to the roof deck. And then what's going to govern to the top of the can crawl is typically 35 feet of dimension from the last floor floor to the top of the machinery. So, that's the whole composition of massing of the structure. And I do want to say that because we took, it used to be total condo on top of the hotel, we actually had to integrate it with the hotel. It did compromise some of those floor to floor dimensions to really make this thing work. So, that's when people say we only cut 20% of height out or 30% whatever they are saying. It's being we've been compromised to have to reconfigure the organization on how the building stacks. Anthes: Thank you for indulging me with that. I guess it leads to a future discussion that we'll have after this project is done which is overall building heights as determined by number of stories or determined by feet. This Commission identified that in our Downtown Master Plan discussions and rightfully so and this is a great illustration of that. There are some Commissioners who have spoken yet would they like to do so? Yes, Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Well, I hope my comments will be accepted in the spirit of debate instead of argument. I do not think the enacting or interpreting of this height rule is a bootstrap usage control. 166-14.D.2 design standards for commercial structures is italicized, letter C "a development should provide compatibility and transition between adjoining developments." So, it basically comes down to how you define some of these words. I do think that height is part of appearance. Yes, historically back to the 30s and 40s height had to be regulated and written into zoning laws. Current zonings are widely antiquated. They are proving to be counter-productive throughout America. Cities just like ours are attempting to dismantle them just like we are. To attempt to create a documents where the people on this side can actually dialogue with the people over there. With the idea of the Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 64 Master Plan, it gives different parameters. It doesn't say you can only do you know your hog farm here and you can't do your hog farm there. It's very different. It talks about how things work, it talks about how people use spaces and that's what cities have been wanting for a long time. That's what this city wants. That's what this city is trying to get. Two or three years ago I disagreed with Jeremy's predecessor, Ms. Warrick, she was making her interpretation. The PZD was new, we were reviewing a commercial PZD and I insisted she needed to enact the landscape buffer. The landscape buffer only applies to residential units. This piece of property had residential. She made the interpretation that that did not apply because the commercial was 51% and the landscape buffer did not apply in that zone. The rules have to get caught up, they have to get refreshed by good developments that push the edges. I don't think this is tricky. The zoning does not have a height limit however our book of design codes, the Unified Development Code, does say at some point you have got to go before a board and they have got to talk about compatibility. And no, we did not talk about height with Shiloh. Everything around it was similar. There were large expanses of parking lots. There were two or three four story buildings nearby. There was a suburban style restaurant with an acre of parking lot. It was completely different. And this is one of the tools that cities are trying to get to dialogue more. I totally disagree that this is being used as a wedge. I think this is an attempt to dialogue more to let you all know what citizens want which is sort of where we sit and all or enable you all to do. We're stuck in the middle and old zoning don't allow us to talk about much. This little piece that was written in I believe '96, the commercial design standards do allow a little bit of dialogue. So, I just wanted to debate some of those points. I hope they are not too argumentative. I would like this to be a good neighbor and I think it's possible. I hope you don't leave tonight if this fails feeling that you are not welcome here. So, thank you. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: Madame Chair. I would agree with Commissioner Graves that the rights attached to this property do not have height restrictions. I understand the city's administrator, Mr. Pate's interpretation coming in with the higher restrictions however to put it simply this project makes sense to me. We can debate interpretations all we want. I remember Dickson Street for the past 37 years and until 15 years ago compatibility would mean to me possibly breaking out some old windows. There wasn't anything going on. Fifteen years ago this city would be begging for this project. I understand the change that's going on and I also understand that we are growing rapidly. If we hit projections of population which would be maybe a million to a million and a half people over the next 15 years, which would be doubling currently what Northwest Arkansas is, I think yeah this Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 65 project is compatible with what's going to happen, what's going on. Is it compatible with the buildings that are sitting next to it today? No, it's obviously not two stories. It's something forward looking. It's a project that like the Arts Center, like other things that have gone on, the Brewery. Changes have come in, they are not as tall but they're good. This project is forward looking. It has, it's going to meet a need that I see today sitting in the chair. I think Commissioner Lack said it best, when I look back 20 years from now I'll probably still be very happy of approving this or voting for this because it's necessary. I'm trying to think of when we talk historically what's around this building as far as compatibility I see the Smokehouse we have Carl's across the street. I can't come up with a reason that this wouldn't fit in with what's going on with the downtown, with Dickson Street. It's necessary. I am in favor of it and will vote for it if a motion is made to approve. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Trumbo. Commissioner Harris. Harris: I suppose that I will simply have to bracket of the issue of whether or not the rights I hear concerning C-3 zoning concerning height because I do not know and because Mr. Pate and Mr. Williams and ruled in another direction this evening saying that we can discuss this in certain types of ways. So, I can't enter the conversation on that level. What I would then have to say is that whether for instance the Underwood lofts are precedent setting or not that too I honestly can't answer, but I can say that they are going to exist. And so, in account of real time that I think this new urban movement that is the animating movement in so much of the City of Fayetteville's current design. One of the things that Planning Commissioners are resorted to do is to deal with real time. And the real time as I look over the spatial field of this city currently is that there are several tall buildings. Not just on Dickson Street, although not excluding Dickson Street. I recognize that this is a historically significant area and that therefore we need transitions. I am not sure how the Post Office transitions to the Walton Arts Center and we've already mentioned Roger's Rec today, which means that I think there is a great deal of gray area. We've all recognized that we are in a threshold time in this city. So, what I'm saying is that when I look out over this city the verticality of this building I think, is ultimately, we need a vertical element on that corner. I think it is appropriate. There are various designers who give particular ratios, particular formulas for this sort of thing. I am not an urban theorist, an urban design theorist so I won't even begin to produce those. But I think it is worthwhile to think about the entire spatial field of this and note just parts of it. I think the materials, I agree with Commissioner Clark and every other Commissioner who I think, generally speaking, said this was and interesting and exciting project. Commissioner Clark, I'm not setting you up as a strong band for my argument it's just useful. I think you said Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 66 you'd like to see it built elsewhere. I ultimately hope this building is built exactly where you've purchased the land to build it although perhaps in a slightly different form then it currently takes. I don't want to see this building, as I've heard some citizens suggested at our last meeting, I don't particularly want to see this building moved to Joyce Boulevard. I spent a great deal of my adult life in Orange County, California and I don't really want to reproduce that suburban setting here. That is to say I don't want are most exciting and interesting and animating buildings put over by John Wayne Airport in Orange County. If you'll recall we don't have that kind of airport in Fayetteville today and so those kind of possibilities are going to have to move downtown. We don't have those sorts of suburban outposts to place them. So, ultimately, I would like to see a building with some verticality in this area. I do however, concur with the planning staff findings that the Church Street elevation does seem to be out of scale in real time and I do have to deal with the real time of this property. And so, for that reason I would say I would that the ongoing negotiation process between the developer and the architects and the planning staff continue on this project because I do very much that it gets built on this site and that it gets built in an expeditious time frame. But if we do take this to vote tonight I will not be able to approve it tonight although I would love to continue this conversation. Anthes: Thank you Commissioner Harris. Would you like to say anything? Bryant: Madame Chair. I guess I'm the last but not least. Having also been one of the new people on the Commission and I do spend a lot of time sitting and listening and trying to formulate an opinion of what's going on and what we're doing with the City of Fayetteville. We have to look at the point that yes, Fayetteville is growing. For some people Fayetteville is growing too fast. For others Fayetteville is not growing fast enough. But my opinion is that we're dealing with Fayetteville. We're not dealing with other communities. We're not trying to keep up with Rogers. We're not trying to keep up with Springdale. We're not trying to keep up with Bentonville. We're not trying to keep up with Eureka Springs. We're trying to keep up with Fayetteville. I've lived here all my life. I've heard people come and go and I've heard people say you know this is a nice place to live. I want to see us keep it that way. But when we start trying to nail down and pinpoint every little thing that's going to set a precedent we're going to tie ourselves down. But with that I've sat, I've listened, I looked at all the drawings, and I have basically two problems. The first being the tower with the wings or whatever span that is. I have a problem with that and turning down Dickson Street and that being the first thing I see. I feel like it's just a bit much and yes it is a bit tall. Until I saw the drawing of the view from St. Charles, to me coming up St. Charles that's a bit much as well. As far as compatibility and transition, yes, that is hard to do because Dickson Street Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 67 is about as eclectic as you're going to get. Everything is different but everything is the same. The buildings are there, some of those were existing for the buyers and builders and business people that came into that area that didn't have much to do, didn't have much to work with because it was already there. We're now seeing a change in different facades and trying to upscale and upgrade Dickson Street some. But even with that being said, looking at the height of the building on that end and having to turn down Dickson Street or come up Dickson Street, that's the first thing I see, to me it kind of sticks our like a sore thumb. I think overall it's a good idea. We need something else in the downtown Dickson Street area. We are trying to bring a lot more into the area as far as entertainment as far as people moving in. I do like the way the building looked. I just have a problem with turning the corner and seeing that large cylinder on the end. Anthes: Thank you very much. I guess with that I'll make my comments. To me it's not about the style of the building. I didn't enter into a discussion about economic development, but I want the Barber Group to know that I appreciate their investment in our downtown, in Fayetteville in general, but especially in our downtown. I agree that the use is entirely appropriate, that the hotel is entirely appropriate for our area. That it will help all sorts of business aspects of downtown. And I think density is a very good thing as well. And in fact I'm a Commissioner that often tries to offer density to developers in different parts of the area where the development community has continued to want a much lower density then I think is appropriate. That said though, I don't necessarily subscribe to the argument that density equals height. There is an equivalent argument that lower -rise, not necessarily low, but lower -rise buildings can achieve almost as much density with less impact on the ground as very tall buildings can. That I also think that we are talking about the essence of our downtown. Some people just assume that downtown is where the big buildings are or that that's where big buildings should be. To me it's not that this is where big buildings are or should be but that downtown is where mixed -uses are. So again I applaud the kind of mixed -uses that are being proposed for the site. So, to me it comes down to comparison of human scale and scale in the area. I have been writing notes for hours on this project - from the discussion from the public and from the applicant. And what it seems to me is (and I think Mr. Abeyta said it right) is the height of this building is driven by the size of the site. I entirely agree that you had to get it in there somehow. And you have to get it in there somehow because we are putting this amount of project on 1.27 acres which is very slender from north to south. By your own admission it is an extremely tight site. That what you had to do to get it on the site was extraordinary and I think that HKS did a good job of figuring out how to do just that by working with the conditions. That you had figure out how Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 68 to get cars in and out, Mr. Hennelly, and how to divide things and how to manipulate what you had given the site. But ultimately it keeps coming back to saying "get it in the site." And to me what we have is the right use and not enough room to do it. And for that reason I think that the scale of the project does not provide the kind of transition and quality that I'd like to see to meet the commercial design standards. I am concerned about the traffic condition because you cannot get enough separation because of the dimension of the site. And so I'm looking at whether or not we are compounding a traffic condition on that corner and again it's caused by introducing that many cars on that 1.27 acres or causing that many cars to come to that size of site. And, from a policy perspective, I have a question about vertically segregating the housing community with the condos. So, for those reasons and for the reasons staff stated, while I wholeheartedly appreciate the economic investment and hope you stay downtown with this use, I can't support the project in its current form. Is there any other discussion Commissioners? Myres: Would you like a motion? Anthes: If you would like to make one. Myres: I'd be happy to. I would like to move that we deny large scale development 06-1997 for the reasons stated by staff and the reasons stated by the commissioners. Anthes: We have a motion to deny by Commissioner Myres, do I hear a second? Clark: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Clark. Is there further discussion? Mr. Ostner. Ostner: I would like to make a motion to table this item instead of deny. Anthes: And that motion supersedes, correct? Ostner: If there is a second. Anthes: Motion by Commissioner Ostner to table. Is there a second? Harris: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Harris. And is this to table to a specific date or to table indefinitely? Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 69 Osmer: About three weeks from tonight at the following regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting. Anthes: Which is a week from tonight? Ostner: The following. Anthes: Ok, 3 weeks from tonight. The motion to table at the date of three weeks from tonight at our regularly scheduled meeting. Is there discussion? Williams: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes? Williams: You might ask the applicant's position on the tabling. Anthes: Mr. Hennelly. Hennelly: Yes, ma'am. That was what I was kind of trying to jump up here and ask for anyway. We would like to entertain some discussion. There seems to be a lot of discussion on the vertical nature and sheer face on Block and Church Streets. We could in fact lose 8 hotel rooms and step at that 4 story podium height. Bring the Block Street elevation back 14 feet. On the Church Street side a portion of that facade could be stepped back 8 feet. That doesn't help with the height issue, but it does help with being able to step it back, helping the pedestrian scale, that type of thing and I'm kind of out of my league. Eddie probably ought to be the one doing it. But if you were agreeable to want to, and again we didn't mean to shove this on you all as a Commission. We understand the rotating nature of subdivision committee. We understand that we would be talking to three different Planning Commissioners at every subdivision committee and eventually would have ended up in front of all of you. We apologize for making this a forum for design changes. It should be all worked out by the time it gets here. This project is unusual all the way around. So, we apologize for that. We would like to continue the dialogue of being able to step those facades back, entertain some discussion from you all about that, be able to make some of those changes, be able to submit them for the three week from tonight period. I don't think that there is any room for height issues, but if those step backs would help with the scale of it, those could certainly be integrated into the project. Clark: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 70 Clark: Pate: Anthes: Graves: When is the next Planning Commission meeting scheduled? It is the 8`h, which is this coming Monday and I don't believe that is the one it was tabled to. The next one is May 22"d Is there discussion? Commissioner Graves. I guess, I mean, we haven't seen the drawings but I guess I'm curious if we were to table it, if there is any chance that it is going to change anybody's vote from what it is now because I don't see the point in tabling it and delaying it either for the applicant for having it on our agenda again if it is not really going to change the outcome. And I understand we haven't voted yet and no one is on record as to what their position would've been necessarily. Although I do believe everyone has made comments as to the effect of what their position would've been. But if the changes in elevations that have been suggested by the applicant were made is that going to change anything on the way everybody was about to vote? That would be my main question. Hennelly: Importantly, I'd like to know that if those changes were made if that could possibly effect staffs' recommendation to you all. Which, in our eyes, would mean a significant amount. Anthes: What I'd say is without there being a substantial change, I don't know if it would change my position that much. And if it's just a 15 foot setback here but the same height, the same amount of density of traffic, and the same sort of intensity on the site, I don't know that it would change, it might be a nice gesture and it might improve certain aspects of the street facade but whether or not it would gain my support, I think it would have to be a pretty major change. I don't know if any other Commissioners would agree. Myres: I agree. Ostner: Yes, I'd like to say something. I appreciate your understanding of how cumbersome this is. This is committee work and this is not the best place to do it. But that's part of why I and my friend here are talking about tabling is that a week ago we sat through three hours and really no committee work got done. People got to speak a lot and we got to look at the same drawings. I was hoping that you all might think about or talk about some changes a little more then what you just mentioned. It would take a little bit more then that for me to change the vote that I was talking about, not being in support of it. That's part of why I didn't want to make the motion for a week from tonight. That doesn't seem like it's enough time for you to all go back and really make some tough decisions. I would Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 71 say in response to the question, the proof is in the pudding, I want staff to have a positive approval too and I mean if I were staff I would say just show it to me I'll see what I can do. I don't think it's quite fair for us to try to push staff in a corner and say I do this and this. Just draw it up. If the height were reduced, set backs are important, it's got to step back at a decent height for me. It can't step back at 60 feet or 70. It's got to step back at 50. So, that's just my opinion on the issue of tabling. I would like for this to happen here except for you to appeal to City Council I think this is a good place for these discussions to go on. Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I personally would like to hear if Jeremy has any thoughts on part of the staffs' report especially related to height. And I understand that you haven't seen what they are suggesting. I completely understand that. But if they do what they are suggesting it's still the same height is there and opportunity that the staffs' recommendation is going to change if it's still the same height? Pate: Thank you. Actually in condition number one our recommendation is that we do look at some set backs at 3 to 4 stories as they've done on Dickson Street. And specifically we mentioned that we could support that elevation in staffs' opinion. We were, on an elevation by elevation basis, and I think that north and south we could recommend. East and west is what we find that are incompatible as far as stepping down, transitioning, and the overall building height and how it reflects adjacent properties and developments. I think a step back design, actually I'll just read it. "A step back design would provide a transition so that street front is on a bit more of a pedestrian scale. Utilize some materials that are also more on a pedestrian scale." And the next sentence reads the staff finds the attempts to reduce overall height are all warranted. I'm not sure if there are things that could be done with the floor to floor heights that could help reduce some height in comparison especially with other structures and looking in context with downtown. But I think that's something more that we'll be looking for as well in order to make a recommendation in favor. Hennelly: It is the mixed-use aspects of this that create some of that height. The fact that in the lower spaces in the halls you need 20 feet in the ballroom you need 20 feet. So, if it were simply just a hotel and that was it then you could probably come down to some more traditional floor levels. Graves: Right, and my question was more aimed at if you're going to change the drawing and staff still has a problem with 180 feet or the 10 story portion Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 72 of the building then is there really a point in doing it. But it sounds like Jeremy says that staff recommendation could potentially change depending on what happens. My follow up question is for the City Attorney. We've already had two full meetings on this with public comment and applicant presentation. Are we, if we have another meeting on this with different drawings, do we need again need full public comment and all that again? Because we've again spent 7 and a half hours on this one item and ifs not that I don't want to hear from the public. I mean I do and I guess we have my position on that. But on the other hand I understand there will be new drawings and I'd want to know what our obligations are in that regard. Williams: I would think you would probably have to have public comment again. Because number one, I don't think you're all going to look at this again unless it is a fairly significant change and if it is a fairly significant change then the public need to be able to come and speak to it. So, yes, I think there would need to be public comment again. Graves: So, my concern then again with the motion is that it sends it to another regular meeting and we run into the same problem that we had last week. Which is we've got a full agenda and this item ends up hogging up so much time that we end up tabling again. Hennelly: Could just put it at the very end of the agenda. Graves: I don't think you want us to put it at the end of the agenda. I hate to keep having special meetings on it too but you know I just I don't know if this item obviously has a lot of public attention and public interest involved with it compared to regular items. If this were on a regular agenda I fear that we would sit here for three hours and then end up tabling again. Especially since it would be new drawing we would be seeing for the first time. Ostner: Since I made the motion I would be interested in a straw pole in who would be completely against another special meeting. Other than you. [points to Williams] Kit, of course. Well, I would be amenable to changing the motion tabling date to two weeks from tonight and have a second Special Planning Commission Meeting. And you are of course, allowed to vote against that if you don't like that concept. May 14`h. Graves: 15`h. The 15th would be two weeks from today. Ostner: Ok. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 73 Lack: Can we ask the applicant if two weeks is adequate time? Hennelly: Better defer that to Eddie. He's going to be the one up tonight. Abeyta: Sure. Hennelly: Yes, that will be enough time. Anthes: Looks like at least two of us will not be available on the 15th. Hennelly: Which two? Anthes: Very good Mr. Hennelly. It's one of each. We have a motion to table is there any further discussion? Commissioner Harris. Harris: Madam Chair I think it is important obviously, I seconded it, I would like to see this motion tabled. Because I would like to continue to have this project in front of the Planning Commission. Given the stage it is in perhaps it should be at subdivision committee but it isn't given the nature of this entire project so here we are. I am more then willing to set aside another Monday evening in terms of a special meeting because I think that the significance of this project is actually being driven by the public response as much as anything. There is an overwhelming amount of public support for this project both for and against it. However, I think that given that overwhelming significance of this project it really deserves to be heard in front of a full Planning Commission, which has built into it people both more for and more against a project like this one might say. So, I think it is very important to have all nine members of us here. And I suppose unfortunately, if that means waiting for the regular. Hennelly: Does it have to be on Monday night? Anthes: Technically, I believe this body can set the meetings whenever it decides to set one. Is that true? I guess the issue to me comes back to whether or not they are really going to be making substantive changes. Could you speak to that? Barber: Again, I think we are showing again, that we don't just want to appeal this to City Council. I mean I think we are trying to be respectful in the sense that I want Jeremy's support on this project. And we've been having these discussions we haven't just been making these drawings and then coming up here. We've been tirelessly working to get a project that could be approved. And so, I mean I think Eddie could talk to you about what we're talking about right now. If you want to hear that, I mean you could only Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 74 lose so many rooms. I don't know if we can find those rooms to be honest. But for the sense of transition I'm hoping to get, since we are looking in these commercial redesign standards at what Jeremy is going to interpret I obviously would like to get his support before I come here. But I also don't really want to wait a month in the spirit of how much it's costing poor Eddie. Do you want him to walk you through what we're talking about or is that? No? Graves: I don't know how helpful it would be without seeing it. Anthes: So, the motion is to table until May 15`h? Hennelly: Could I get clarification on one further point? If you guys vote on it and deny it then were faced with the option of appealing this to City Council and those changes were made between this meeting and City Council, could the staff recommendation change to city council? Pate: I think our recommendation would likely reflect what we recommended to the Planning Commission recommending approval or denial. Obviously though if you had new drawings and someone came before the City Council and asked me in question there and if I had time to fully evaluate it, it might be a different recommendation. But again my recommendation is going to be reflected in the staff report and what we submitted to the City Council as it was reflected before this Commission. Hennelly: Thank you. Clark: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I don't know if this is going to fly for everybody or not. We do more sessions in our Thursday agenda setting sessions. We have one coming up this week and we had one in two weeks. Could we not hear this item at the last agenda setting session in the month which is only like two weeks away after we do a very quick 30 minute run through the agenda? If this is going to be significantly different. Anthes: That's Thursday evening [multiple people talking] Clark: I am very much in favor of us tabling thing simply because I would rather come up with something that everyone can work with and be enthusiastic about, if significant changes can be made. I'm not comfortable with hearing it without all of our voices be it for or against because I think we all contribute and we all set a criteria we want to be met or have a criteria Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 75 we want to be met. It's very frustrating that this comes in May when everybody travels and have things to do. My other feeling about this is that if this does come into regular Planning Commission that it is last on the agenda. Which is just unfortunate but we've already made citizens sit through three and a half hours of discussion one night and think we almost killed some of them at one point and its not fair to do it again to them. Anthes: I would just say that every member of this commission and the attorney and the staff have already sat here for quite a number of hours on the item and I think that every Commissioner has earned the right to vote on this issue. And we need to make sure we can accommodate people at the meeting. Ostner: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: As motioner of the May I think 14`h, I would like to change it to the original motion three weeks from tonight regularly scheduled May 22nd Planning Commission meeting. Where on the agenda I'm not going to say but as the motioner I would like to say that we only need a presentation talking about changes and I would encourage the comments from the public to succinct and to address those changes. Anthes: We have a motion and I think two seconds and I'm not sure which one for what day. Harris: I will second for the May 22nd meeting. Anthes: Ok we have a motion to table until the may 22nd regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Determination on the agenda to be decided by staff. And that motion was by Commissioner Ostner, second by Commissioner Harris. Is there further discussion? Trumbo: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: I will be out of town on business that Monday so I prefer to keep it on the 15`h Graves: Madam Chair. I'm just going to oppose the motion for the table to the 22nd just because of the reason I stated. I just think it has too much public interest and it's too much for a regular agenda, for a night when we have a Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 76 regular agenda. That's what we tried to do last week and it wasn't workable. [Determining date for table] Anthes: We have a motion to table to the May 22nd regularly scheduled meeting. Will you call the roll? It seems like we're going to have someone gone almost every meeting. If that's the case, as we've already committed as commissioners to being here for regular Monday night meetings and if we stick to that schedule it will probably be more fair then setting a special schedule that will exclude people. I'm just trying to figure out a way to rationalize it. Williams: One possible thing you might do, and this is something I don't know what the applicant would think, but it's possible to simply go ahead and vote tonight and then the applicants could still get with Jeremy with any proposed changes if the proposed changes came back to such an extent that he would want to change his recommendation or that any member of the Planning Commission would want to reconsider their vote then anybody that voted in the majority to evidently deny, which I believe is what the majority would be tonight, would be able to move during the next meeting for a motion to reconsider. Not to hear it that night but to reconsider the vote that would take a majority of the Planning Commission to reconsider. And if whatever changes they proposed were not enough to either interest the Planning Commission or the Planning Department to change a recommendation or possibly change their vote then you would haven't to bother with a motion to reconsider. They could go ahead with their appeal to the city council and that way you might be able to get a second look at it within a week without having to go through a full discussion. The only thing that would be on the agenda that night would be a motion to reconsider. That might be something, I don't know if the applicant would be interested in that or not. Anthes: Question for the applicant. Would you be able to make those changes and discuss them with staff withinl0 days? Barber: That's what I was going to ask. Is how much, Jeremy, are you going to have to see within those 10 days that we have our appeal time? Pate: Well, actually less then 10 days because the next scheduled meeting is May 8th which is a week from tonight. Williams: It would be 7 days before they would be able to do a motion to reconsider. Pate: It would have to be this week between now and Friday. Planning Commission May 1, 2006 Page 77 Barber: Anthes: Lack: Williams: How much would you have to see though in the spirit of, I mean how much? Commissioner Lack. I would also be concerned about the 10 day period for appeal to the city council with that. I guess I assume that it would only be one week, there could still be the 10 day if we were in a regularly scheduled meeting and had to wait two weeks. It's 10 business days actually. So, that still works within the two week period. But they would know at that meeting if you did reconsider then they wouldn't have anything to appeal from so their appeal time would not be running if you actually did a motion to reconsider and did reconsider at that time because you would not have made a final decision. [Multiple People Talking] Harris: Anthes: Pates: Madam Chair. Given that we have alternatives to the vote, do we want to entertain alternatives before? I think I would rather continue with the vote; we are in the middle of a vote, let's continue with the vote. We have the motion to table to the regularly scheduled May 22nd meeting I don't know how many votes have been cast. Graves had said no. Roll Call: The motion to table LSD 06-1997 carries with a vote of 6-3-0.