Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-06-26 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 26, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN VAC 06-2068: (BIO -BASED, 638) Approved Page 5 VAC 06-2123: (LAUNDER, 447) Approved Page 5 ADM 06-2078: (DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN) Approved Page 6 CUP 06-2091: (JONES, 367) Approved Page 9 RZN 06-2088: (TRI -CITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, Denied 527) Page 21 ANX 06-2020: (HAYS, 474) Approved Page 40 RZN 06-2021: (HAYS, 474) Approved Page 42 LSD 06-1997: (DIVINITY HOTEL & CONDOS, 484) Denied Page 43 ANX 06-2127: (WILLIAMS, 474) Approved Page 80 ADM 06-2159: (LYNWOOD ESTATES, 294) Approved Page 82 CUP 06-2124: (BAKER, 558) Approved Page 88 ADM 06-2121: (MARRIOTT COURTYARD, 174) Denied Page 94 Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 2 LSD 06-2113: (TACO BELL, 401) Approved Page 97 ANX 06-2125: (DUNNERSTOCK/FOSTER, 397) Approved Page 102 RZN 06-2126: (DUNNERSTOCK/FOSTER, 397) Approved Page 106 CUP 06-2128: (SOUTH HILL CHURCH OF Tabled CHRIST, 561) Page 108 CUP 06-2118: (BROTHERS, 483) Denied Page 110 LSP 06-2117: (BROTHERS, 483) Not Considered Page 123 PPL 06-1773: (EMERALD POINT, 474) Approved Page 124 ANX 06-2129: (MCDONALD, 569) Approved Page 129 Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 3 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Lois Bryant Candy Clark James Graves Hilary Harris Audy Lack Christine Myres Alan Ostner Sean Trumbo STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher Tim Conklin Matt Casey Leif Olson CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 4 Anthes: I would like to remind all audience members to turn off all cell phones and pagers or anything else that beeps. And also we are going to have a lot of people here this evening we tend to have interference with the microphones when the back door is left open so if you guys could just keep a watch out and keep the back door closed that will help us all out. Jeremy will you call the roll. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call Anthes, Bryant, Clark, Graves, Harris, Lack, Myers, and Ostner are present. Anthes: I believe Commissioner Trumbo is approaching the podium. Roll Call: Trumbo is present. Anthes: The first item tonight is approval of minutes from the May 81h and May 22"a Planning Commission Meetings. I have already forwarded my comments to staff. Does anyone else have any changes or motions? Clark: I move for approval of the minutes. Anthes: Motion by Commissioner Clark. Graves: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Graves. Will you call the roll. Roll Call: The minutes are approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 5 VAC 06-2068: Vacation (BIO -BASED, 638): Submitted by Mike Morgan for property located at 1475 CATO SPRINGS RD. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUST and contains approximately 1.19 acres. The request is to vacate unconstructed rights-of-way within the subject property is association with the approved Large Scale Development. VAC 06-2123: Vacation (LAUNDER, 447): Submitted by JOHN LAUNDER for property located 1025 COMPANY. The property is a 20 -foot utility easement located at 1025 Company Street and is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE. The request is to vacate the utility easement (0.06 acres) on the subject property. Anthes: On consent tonight we have two items. The Vacation 06-2068 for Bio - Based and Vacation 06-2123 for Launder. Both items are Vacations and will go to City Council if they are forwarded from this body. Will any member of the public or Commissioner like to move one of these items to be heard? Seeing none I will entertain motions to approve the consent agenda. Clark: So made. Anthes: Motion by Commissioner Clark. Ostner: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Ostner. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve VAC 06-2068 and VAC 06-2123 carries with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 6 ADM 06-2078: Administrative Item (DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN): Submitted by Leif Olson for Planning Commission review and recommendations to the City Council on Downtown Master Plan/Entertainment District Ordinance Amendments. Anthes: First item of old business is Administrative Item 06-2078 for the Downtown Master Plan. Can we have the staff report please? Graves: Madame Chair I'm going to recuse from this item. Anthes: Thank you Commissioner Graves. Hey Tim. Conklin: Good evening. I am Tim Conklin from Planning Development. This evening on your agenda you have a Downtown Master Plan proposed amendments. We had the original text that the Planning Commission worked on, then we also have a memo dated May 30a' 2006 from our City Attorney's office. And what I'd like to do is go through the staff report real quick and then walk through the City Council memo. This evening we're looking at a new definition for artist studio, which already does exist in Use Unit 12, and so we're adding a definition for artist studio into the definition section. And that reads "any building or place of business where artists use the premises for creating art and/or craft work and/or display or sales of merchandise." Artists shall also be allowed to reside on the premise as long as the structure meets all applicable residential building codes. So, that's the first amendment to the Unified Development Code. Then we are also looking at an amendment with regard to Chapter 171, Streets and Sidewalks for transit system shelters, taxi stands, and public rights-of-way. And I'm not going to go into the details of the construction of those and placement. Then we are looking at an amendment Chapter 174, Signs for with regard to kiosks, light pole banners, and cross street banners. Chapter 178, Sidewalk Cafes to allow outdoor dining on public right-of-way or public sidewalks, the standards for that. The City Attorney has issued his opinion with regard to modifications to those ordinances and what I would like this evening, you have two options, 1 if you would like to see those modifications made and brought back to you we can have staff bring those back to the full Commission. If you would like to make recommendations with regard to those recommendations from our City Attorney we can move that forward to the City Council's review. With regard to the Sidewalk Cafes the City Attorney is recommending that we establish a Conditional Use Procedure for that. With regard to that issue, issues that may be looked at may be hours of operation, whether or not smoking would be allowed or permitted, and any other additional conditions that you may deem appropriate with regard to Conditional Use. With regard to Signs, our City Attorney recommends not modifying any parts of our sign ordinance, however if you do desire to modify those parts there is suggests language in that memo with regard to kiosk and banners Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 7 across the street, with regard to the type of material that would be utilized for those banners and locations. Once again the City Attorney is recommending not to modify our sign ordinance. With regard to bus shelters, once again approve those through the Conditional Use Process, with regard to location instead of the City Council. Currently if you look in your packet it states at City Council. Our City Attorney is recommending any formulation for program or public art based on first amendment issues and I'll allow our City Attorney to discuss that in greater detail if you have any questions. Some other issues that came up with the need for any cash bond or security bond for those facilities. With regard to taxi stands, very minor changes to that ordinance. What staff is proposing there is through the Conditional Use Process setup areas where taxis can stand and a procedure to approve those and locate those. So, those are the amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance. Some are fairly minor. Just to clarify one thing, it does state Entertainment District. As staff we have not defined an Entertainment District. We would prefer looking at the entire Downtown Master Plan area and having a discussion with regard to if, what areas these items would be appropriate, would be allowed to apply for Conditional Uses. So, if you recall the City Council is having a special Ordinance Review Committee Thursday the 291h of June in the Blair Library, Walker Room, at 5 P.M. to 8 P.M. to discuss the Code and these units. So far we have not adopted an Entertainment District or set a boundary; we have removed that. So, if you have any questions at this time I'd be more then happy to answer them. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Conklin. Mr. Williams, would you like to add anything to the staff report? Williams: No, the only thing I would comment on is that the Thursday meeting really doesn't have anything to do with the Entertainment District ordinance that is before you. It is what you already passed although I think the City Council would like to have you at this meeting also if you could attend. It is open to the public also, but I think as Commissioners you did a lot of work on the initial part of the Downtown Master Plan so I urge all of you to attend this meeting at the library if you can. Anthes: Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address Administrative Item 06-2078 for the Downtown Master Plan Code? Seeing none I'll close the floor to public comment. Commissioners? I guess I'd like to say something about the boundaries. I believe, on these particular items coming forward when we were discussing them, we discussed them within the framework of the Downtown Master Plan as a whole. They were spurred by the Entertainment District discussion, and what would be required to make that district viable and yet I believe many of the Commissioners thought that, not only could these codes be Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 8 applicable within the Downtown Master Plan boundary, but perhaps they could by applicable city-wide (such as the Sidewalk Cafes.) I guess I would not have any qualms about sending this forward to City Council saying that we were recommending these for within the Downtown Master Plan but we would be open to Council considering them, if they felt they were applicable, for a broader section of the city. Is there further discussion? No? Alright I'll do it. I will move that we forward the proposed ordinance amendments and the comments from the City Attorney to Ordinance Review and the City Council for consideration. Clark: I'll second. Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Anthes. A second by Commissioner Clark. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to approve ADM 06-2078 carries with a vote of 9-0-1. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 9 CUP 06-2091: Conditional Use Permit (JONES, 367): Submitted by CHARLES P JONES for property located at 227 W. MILLER. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.26 acres. The request is for a duplex in an RSF-4 zoning district. Anthes: Our second item of old business is Conditional use 06-2091 for Jones. May we have the staff report please. Fulcher: This is for property located at 227 West Miller Street which is just east of Gregg Avenue and about two blocks west of Woodland Junior High. There is an existing apartment complex which fronts on Gregg Avenue which is to the west of this subject property. There is also a duplex south to this property. All of the surrounding properties, if you've been by there, are the single family neighborhood which begins behind this apartment complex and moves to the east over towards College Avenue and Green Acres. Looking at the existing land usages adjacent to the site, the duplex to the south, the apartment complex to the west, staff felt this was an appropriate location for a duplex and that it would create an appropriate transition between the multi -family land uses and the single-family land uses to the east. I don't think that you should look at this as introducing a duplex or a two-family unit into the neighborhood but rather creating a transition there. There should be some elevations included in your packet. Staff has made a condition of approval that the enclosed elevations, if this building is approved, that the building would be constructed with compliance to those proposed elevations. And also, during the building permit process staff would review this for appropriate parking ratios which would be provided within the garage units and also within the driveways that would be proposed. With those findings staff is recommending approval with four conditions of approval. Condition number 1, the lot is or does not meet the bulk and area requirements for a duplex in the RSF-4 zoning district. That would require that the applicant be granted a variance by the Board of Adjustment. If the variance is not granted then the Conditional Use would be voided. Condition number 2, the Sidewalk Administrator is recommending that sidewalks be constructed at the right- of-way line at the time of building permit. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Fulcher. Would any member of the public like to address this Conditional Use for Jones? Seeing none I'll close the public comment section. Is there discussion? Clark: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 10 Clark: I have a question for staff. Jesse have we heard the neighborhood on this one? Anthes: I'm sorry. I didn't ask the applicant if they would like to make a presentation. Would the applicant like to speak? I'm sorry. Good evening. Jones: Good evening. My name is Philip Jones. My partner and I would like to build a duplex on this lot. It's approximately 75 by 150. We think that's the highest condensed use for this land at this time. It's as Jesse said a transitional area. There's apartments on the west side. There is another duplex on the south side and a single family house under construction to the east. We think there is a demand for it. It's going to be quality housing. It'll have an attached garage. There will be three bedrooms on each side. We intend to have a good finish up for it. There will be plenty of parking and we would be happy to comply with the request for a sidewalk. Anthes: Thank you very much. Jones: Thank you. Anthes: And we'll get back with you. Jones: Thank you. Anthes: I'm sorry, Commissioner Clark would you like to speak? Clark: Yes, I would. What about the neighborhood? Fulcher: Yes, we did receive, after this item was tabled, we received a letter addressed to the Commissioners pretty much pointing out some of the items that we should acknowledge in reviewing this request such as compatibility, transition, the make up of the neighborhood being predominantly single family, and then the hand out that we received this morning from a set of neighbors also opposed to the request, citing the same circumstances. Clark: And just review for me if you could how far out of the bulk and area requirements is this lot currently? Pate: If I may, the requirements for a duplex in a RSF-4 zoning district is 12,000 square feet. This lot has approximately 11,326. It's a little less then 700 square feet, small. The frontage required is 80 feet and I believe the drawing in your packet shows about 75. So, it will be very close to the bulk and area requirements for a duplex. It would meet it for a single Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page I1 family, well exceed it for a single family, but for a duplex it is just short. So, the Board of Adjustment is the appropriate board to hear that request. Clark: Ok. So, I guess that's my concern. I drove by this and it seemed an incredibly small lot. This is a neighborhood that is kind of in a very unique condition between two major thoroughfares and this school off College. Which would lead me to I would be more in favor of a single family residence on the property. I think it would be more in light with the neighborhood. I don't consider the apartments to the west necessarily a part of that neighborhood so I'm really struggling with it being a transitional approach, just one duplex stuck on that street. I would much more be in favor of it being a single family, but that's just me. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Madame Chair. I would tend to agree. In my mind the transitional methodology works great with commercial and I don't believe the apartment is really in that situation. I think a single family unit here would be appropriate. I think putting a duplex unit is sort of the where do we draw the line and I think the neighborhood is trying to sustain itself with lots of activity on many side and I think that the single family be best here instead of a duplex. Myers: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commisioner Myers. Myers: I have a question for either Jeremy or their friend over here, his name just went out of my head, Jesse. Is it correct that immediately to the south of this facing on Ash Street there is a duplex? Fulcher: What was that? Myers: Immediately to the south of this property facing on Ash Street I believe there is a duplex there. Is that correct? Fulcher: Yes, there is a duplex there on the next street. Myers: Which to me means that this is not a unique structure for the neighborhood. I realize that the neighbors are not happy with the idea of a multi -family structure but I have to agree with the applicant that I think this is a very good use for this property. It appears that the structure will be set a good distance back, a suburban distance back from the street, leaving a good bit of green space on either side of the driveway and I do in fact look on those apartments on Gregg Street as part of the neighborhood. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 12 And I think that if we're talking about transition, which we seem to do a great deal lately, that this is a good transition between those apartments and the single family houses further inside the neighborhood. So, I would support this petition. Anthes: Is there further discussion? I have a question. Mr. Fulcher are there other duplexes in this general neighborhood besides the one across the street? Myers: It's behind it. Fulcher: Driving around the neighborhood I don't, I did not notice any other duplexes immediately adjacent to this site. Further away there may have been but I didn't look further out then this general vicinity, this block here. Anthes: When the Commission toured this we noticed that there was quite a bit of work happening to the property just to the east. Do you know what they plan to do with that property? Fulcher: That was actually a, the Board of Adjustment heard that, or heard an item on that property for a variance and actually Suzanne worked on for a front setback encroachment to allow them to reconstruct that single family home, which was approved. Anthes: Ok. And I guess, when duplexes are inserted into stable single family neighborhoods, a lot of the complaint is you end up almost having a parking lot for a yard. The front yard ends up being paved to accommodate quite a number of cars that might not be there with a single family residence or twice the amount. Is there anything in our ordinance that addresses the amount of paving on a property? Pate: As far as conditions, no. The applicant may be able to let you know if there are going to be garages proposed or if those would be utilized for parking or not. I'm not sure. Jones: Yes, there will be a parking for two cars in the garage. We also anticipated three additional parking spaces to the south. We want to set it as far back from the street as we can for a couple of reasons. One is for parking, the other is there are two rather substantial trees that we want to save there. Anthes: So, if I understand it there will be two cars per garage? Jones: No, one car per garage. Anthes: One car per garage and then three additional - Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 13 Jones: For each side, yes. We, you can see the [inaudible] background we laid it out. Anthes: So, there can conceivably be six cars parked in the front yard of this structure? Jones: It's possible, but we would not anticipate that. If they had guests then there would be adequate parking for them. With the width of the street it would not be practical for them to park on the street. Anthes: Well, I guess that sways me a little bit. I don't have much problem with the density in that the lot very nearly meets our requirements for a duplex. But because of that narrow configuration it doesn't allow for alternate means of access for that lot so that cars can park along the side. Because that neighborhood is so established, the idea of two garage doors and then six, the possibility of six cars, sitting out in front of that structure, gives me a little concern. Graves: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: A question for the City Attorney, can we place a condition on this Conditional Use that would limit the driveway space or the paved portion of the driveway? I understand there is not a specific ordinance on it as Jeremy stated, but is there a way we can place a condition on what they can do as far as what is paved parking for a duplex? Williams: Certainly. You can place any condition on that you feel is appropriate and reasonable to insure compatibility with adjoining structures in the neighborhood. Pate: Madame Chair. I would also mention, just roughly, quick calculations, it looks like in the floor plans these are 3 bedroom units, and you're allowed 1 per space plus 30%. So, they are only allowed 7 total parking spaces or parking areas on this site for cars. That would reduce that somewhat from what the applicant just stated. Clark: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: To me that just compounds my concerns. You're talking about just a little over a quarter of an acre, seven parking places, close to an apartment complex, close to the university, I mean I'm kind of thinking this is not Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 14 going to be a duplex for a traditional family but possibly college students. So, to me that is even more intrusive to this neighborhood that is struggling to maintain its identity as a single-family neighborhood. I know they welcome renters in houses. Duplexes, however, I think, I still think I'm even more concerned at that point. A single house, a driveway, a yard, traditional, that seems to, that would really help the neighborhood I think much more then duplexes or a duplex, excuse me. Anthes: Are there further comments? Amendments to the conditions of approval? Harris: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: I have to say this item is difficult for me for all the reasons we're stating. On the one hand this seems to be an opportunity in a fairly sound fashion to have some density reconfigurations in a neighborhood in a way that won't suddenly put you know, an apartment complex with 24 units in it in this neighborhood. And in some ways what Commissioners Clark is saying actually for me argues the other way, which is it is close to the university, there is a need for this kind of housing that is not currently being met completely. And we do talk a lot here about introducing various forms of density within particular neighborhoods in a way that can nonetheless be compatible with it. And this I have to say is really straddling the line for me so I need to hear more conversation frankly. Anthes: Are there further comments? Ostner: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: The discussion on the driveway I think is important. Question for staff, if that were fashion as a condition of approval, how is that monitored? I mean areas are graveled and paved, there are no permits required. Muddy spots turn into paving long after the permits and we have left the picture. How does the neighborhood or the citizenry uphold or monitor this type of Conditional Use? Pate: In this specific case, because it is a Conditional Use and not a Use By Right, the Planning Commission can place specific conditions on the applicant. If the conditions, as with any Conditional Use approval, should it be approved, are violated then that Conditional Use could come back to this Commission for further review. That's part of what our ordinances state and the way it is permitted, we review a building permit, we would Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 15 ensure whatever conditions are placed upon this are constructed as such before final Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Your question I think tends to be more towards in the future. And neighbors can always contact planning staff if any of the conditions are violations. If the condition is clear enough the applicant and staff will understand exactly what those conditions are for future property owners as well. Ostner: And is the building safety in charge of monitoring this or does this just come under planning? Pate: It's not a monitoring situation. It's typically a complaint -based situation. So, if there was something that was awry on this property someone would contact our code compliance division who typically does the investigations on site and if it was a planning matter then they would come to the planning division to see if it is indeed a violation. Ostner: Ok, thank you. Graves: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I am in agreement with staff as far as the reasons the conditional use should be approved. I am certainly amenable to the idea or concept of a condition that, for example, limited how wide the driveway could be before you got to a certain point away from the curb and how many cars could park anywhere on the lot at any given time as well as a requirement that the cars that are parked there be in the garage or the paved portion of the lot. Those are all things that if somebody wanted to annunciate them in a condition I wouldn't vote against it. Anthes: Would you like to put words to that? Graves: I'll vote for it with the current conditions, but what I'm saying is if there is somebody else that that makes them feel better I won't vote against that condition being added. Lack: Madame Chair, this is a, like has been stated before, a kind of sticky situation where we talked about transition, we talk about density and existing neighborhoods. And I think that when I looked at the existing property I did see the apartment complex as a part of the neighborhood. I see the transition off of Gregg Street as being very close to this property. And Gregg Street is a very heavy traffic street. And with that I think that I am maybe tipped to the side to find favor with the idea of a little greater density in being able to market this property in a more reasonable way Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 16 then what I think you could market it as a single-family only restriction. If you look at page 9 of 14 of the staff report, there is a sketch drawing of the configuration of how the house sits or the duplex sits on the lot. Its dimensions, the parking area and the drive, there is one dimension missing from that drawing that I think would give me a feeling that the packet and the approval had a full restriction on the expectation on the amount of paving. And I don't if the applicant has that plan. Jones: Sorry, I do not have that plan with me at this time. Lack: Because I would feel awkward about establishing that. I would certainly entertain that and we can establish a dimension for that portion, but I think that that being a plan that the applicant has submitted and entered into the packet as part of the approval information could tend to be a binding part of the process. And so I would entertain that as well as I believe by ordinance we have a maximum number of parking so that is well established. The one per bedroom and the 30% maximum is a by ordinance parking ratio for the duplex. So, I'm not sure that an amendment would even need to be made for that if that were an acceptable parking ratio and an amount of cars of seven were a reasonable amount of cars then I think that could be voted for within an amendment. I would entertain comments from others if they think that that plan of Page 9 of 14 would suffice to alleviate concerns for the amount of parking and configuration of parking. Anthes: That is two cell phones that we've heard within the last couple of minutes. Would everybody please check their cell phones and pagers and make sure they are in the off position? Thank you. ?: Madame Chair, can I interrupt for a second. Did you call for public comment? Anthes: I did. ?: Just a question from behind. Ok, just wanted to verify that. Anthes: There was none at the time we called. Mr. Lack, the dimension that you are referring to is the dimension of the face of the building to the, I believe that is the northern most edge of the paving is that what you are looking for? Lack: That is correct. Anthes: And the applicant does not know that dimension at this time? Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 17 Jones: I do not recall, let's see. Anthes: Mr. Jones, can I get you to get to the podium, that's the only way that the people who record our minutes can hear you. Jones: Excuse me. The front of the building I believe will be approximately 90' from the street. Anthes: Right. I believe what we're worried about is the amount of impervious surface on the site. Jones: Ok. Anthes: So, we're looking for the dimension of pavement from the face of the building out to the - Jones: Well, we planned to put a 25' wide drive to go up and the parking within 10' would be 12'5" for each space on either side of that. So, we would have the garage, we would have a driveway going to the garage for one space, and then we'd intended two others for that for each side. If it would fit within all the ordinances we could cut it down to ] one extra space. So, we'd have a space inside the garage, we'd have a space, an open space on the side, and then we would consider a space behind the garage. With the parking in tandem it would give us six spaces total. Anthes: Maybe I can get at this another way. When you back out of the garage, there is a minimum distance that we would require in order to make this turn. Pate: For a typical parking lot it would be 24' to make that turn. Anthes: And if there are additional cars parked in that area that might actually increase by a 20' lane way. Pate: It depends on how the parking lot is laid out. As mentioned before, if there are two single car parking areas there is a maximum of five parking spaces that can be located on the site. Because it's five spaces or more would have to meet all of our landscaping requirements for screening of shrubs, trees planted to screen those parking areas as well, as well as dimension size, things of that nature. So, in this current layout I'm not sure how that could work, as noted. But it is something that we would review as part of the building permit process and that's fairly typical. Anthes: Well, I'm seeing that the garages are on either side and I'm looking for turning movements plus additional parking and to me this sketch is Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 18 inadequate in that it looks like there would actually be a considerable amount of additional paving that would be required to make it work. Without having any assurances of what that was going to look like and knowing that that would be much different in character then with the existing single family homes I guess I'm inclined to want more information. Again I want to state that I'm not so concerned about there being a duplex in a single family neighborhood, I think that there is a way to do that and do that well. What I'm concerned about is that this particular lot has a dimension that is making this difficult to achieve in a way that is compatible with the neighborhood pattern. Is there any further discussion? Harris: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: I would concur with what you've said. That's why these sessions are public and that's why we have a conversation because it helps to clarify what I'm thinking. I do find the sketch inadequate and as you've said, obviously I've already stated so I won't repeat it to much, but just the notion of density and transition and so forth are not overly challenging to me in this particular instance in this particular neighborhood. I do however hear what Commissioner Clark and Commissioner Ostner are saying and I would like simply more information about the parking issue and so forth and garage. So, based on what I have I don't feel that I can approve this at this point. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Myers: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Myers. Myers: Would it be appropriate to table this? To wait for more information? Anthes: Is that a motion? Myers: The applicant is smiling so I guess he won't shoot me if I do this. Is it likely that we could all make a more informed decision if we had more information about the actual site plan or not? I don't want to propose this if it's not necessary. Clark: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 19 Clark: I'm concerned about the size of the lot and getting a duplex on that size of a lot that is going to be three bedrooms each side. That means you have to the have the parking spaces which means you're going to have to concrete something. So, I mean if it were a larger lot I think there's a great way of transitioning duplexes into single-family neighborhoods as well, but not on .26 acres I don't think. Not a three bedroom anyway. So, that's my concern and tabling it is not gonna, unless you add dirt, it's not gonna really take away my uncertainty on this. Myers: Well, what's your pleasure folks? Anthes: Is there further discussion or are there any motions? Myers: Not going to make a motion. Anthes: The item dies for lack of a motion. [Multiple people talking at once] Anthes: Ok, the next item of business is - Williams: Well, I think that with the Conditional Use, there should be some motion one way or the other. You can't just leave them in Never -Never Land. If you want to deny it then there should be a motion to deny. It takes five affirmative votes in order to pass it. Or you can move to table but I don't think we can just take no action. Harris: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: In the interest in allowing the applicant to bring back more information that might help me personally make up my mind, I will make the motion that we table this item of old business, Conditional Use Permit 06-2091 until the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting. Anthes: A motion to table by Commissioner Harris, do I hear a second? Myers: I'll second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Myers is there further discussion? Lack: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 20 Lack: I think it would be appropriate to, or seem appropriate to give the applicant some information on what we're looking for if we're asking for more information at the next meeting. If I may interject from what I've heard in discussion it would be greater detail on the site plan, showing the cars and where the required vehicles would be parked for the site. That was, the other concerns were density and lot size. That's all. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll on the motion to table? Roll Call: The motion to table CUP 06-2091 fails with a vote of 4-5-0. Williams: That's a fail then. We'll need some motion one way or the other to approve or deny. Trumbo: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: I agree with Commissioner Graves and staffs recommendation so I am going to make a motion of approval for Conditional Use Permit 06-2091 in agreement with staffs four conditions of approval. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Trumbo, we have a motion do I hear a second? Graves: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Graves. Is there further discussion? Will you call roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-2091 carries with a vote of 5-4-0. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Jones. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 21 RZN 06-2088: Rezoning (TRI -CITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, 527): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES INC. - ROGERS for property located at NW of HWY 16 AND STONEBRIDGE ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 2.78 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Anthes: Our next item of business is a Rezoning Request 06-2088 for Tri -City Investments. Trumbo: Madame Chair. I must recuse. Anthes: Thank you. May we have the staff report please? Fulcher: This item was scheduled for the last Planning Commission but based on the amount of members we had and the amount of affirmative votes that would be required the applicant did request that this item be tabled to tonight's meeting. The property is located at the northwest corner of Stonebridge and Huntsville Road. It is part of a larger tract approximately 2.78 acres, mostly undeveloped pasture land. The zoning line for this actually runs diagonally through the property creating a split zone of C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial on the south portion of the property which fronts Huntsville and Stonebridge and the northwest portion or diagonal or triangle portion of the property is RSF-4 adjacent to the residential subdivision to the north. The applicants are requesting that the RSF-4 portion of the property be rezoned to CA Neighborhood Commercial. At the previous Planning Commission meeting, although we didn't take a vote other than to table, we did hear public comment. Some of those concerns that were mentioned by the neighborhood members were traffic from the commercial use utilizing the residential street. If you look on some of your maps you will notice that there is a constructed stub -out from the adjacent neighborhood into this property for future development. They are also concerned with associated with commercial activities, light trespass, and the additional traffic that would be generated in addition to what is already on Huntsville, Stonebridge, Wyman Roads. When staff looked at this as a rezoning to Neighborhood Commercial, realizing that the purpose of C-1 zoning is to provide services for surrounding neighborhoods, also to be adjacent to major road networks which this is. And adjacent to the residences which this is. If this were to be rezoned staff will obviously during development be looking at compatibility between these different land uses. We'd be looking at lighting, screening, buffer areas, vegetation, and the building location to create a minimal impact on the existing residential community to the north. Given its location, C-2, part of this property being C-2, and the odd configuration of the zoning, the ability to create a transition between these two different types of zonings by utilizing our lighting ordinance, the provision in the Unified Development Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 22 Code for different types of land usages, we are recommending approval of this item from RSF-4 to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo, I hate to do this to you but I need you to step out of the room if you recuse from an item. Sorry. You're supposed to be out of the room. Would any member of the public like to address Rezoning Request 06-2088 for Tri -City Investments? Please come forward. If you would state your name and give us your comments. McGathy: Thank you, my name is Rachel McGathy and this is Teresa Kolb. And I'm here and she is also on dual respects. I own property on Holmes Drive, she owns property on Sherlock. But we are also the representatives for the Wyman Stonebridge Neighborhood Association. Prior to the meeting staff handed out a list. After the last Commission meeting we had a neighborhood association meeting and of the people who signed that sheet who were present all of them were in agreement with our request that you not rezone except for I think four people. So, we would like to request that you please not approve the zoning request. And the main reason that we are against this rezoning is because of the loss of control of that section. Because clearly we don't own it, but we would like to explain the impact it would have on us. Right now, even though we met with the developers at our neighborhood meeting, there is really not a clear strategy on how they are going to develop the property. Basically, from what my understanding is, if it is rezoned it can be developed by the people who currently own it or it can be sold and developed by someone else. So, their plans really don't play into your consideration for zoning. But we would like to say, first of all Teresa wrote a letter that's probably in your packets discussing a lot of these points, but there is really not going to be a buffer between our residential neighborhood and the commercial development. So, I would like to try to describe our neighborhood the best I can. We live on a dead end street that has nothing but residential homes. The back of it where this property is a field and so there is absolutely nothing there. We all know each other. We know every car that drives by. Kids play in our street. It's very very quiet. It's perfect for why we bought it. Pretty much no matter what kind of development they put there it is going to change all of that. The noise and the lighting will increase dramatically and for those on the south side they will have basically an eye sore in their backyard and privacy issues. The houses on Sherlock do not have fences on that side so they will basically be looking into the back alleyway as the development is currently proposed with dumpsters and trucks. And so the currently proposed transition between those two is a berm that is approximately 15' wide with a shadowbox, I believe, fence. But that is from where, from our perspective, is not enough of a buffer. We feel that if the property is not rezoned then at least we have that much acreage between us and the C-2, I believe it is right now, development on Highway 16. When we met with Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 23 the developers we told them our concerns about the noise, lighting, and the view from our windows and they told us one of the things that they want to put on the property is a grocery store. Which if, in their words, if they don't do the grocery store they're not going to develop that property they are probably going to give it to someone else to develop. So, we don't want to go there. But one of our neighbors, Josh, has been working with the developer to try to get an alternative plan that we could look at it to see if they could address our concerns, but they did not respond, at least not by Friday afternoon. So, we just, we didn't really have an option, we felt, to support the rezoning. I know that the property is awkwardly shaped, it's probably not, if you don't rezone it, that section probably will not be developed. I don't know if you can slice it to make the Highway 16 property to be more of a shape that they could be happier with, but we still really feel that we need something between us and them. One of our major points that we want to state here is that regardless of who develops it or what the zoning is, we do not want Sherlock to be opened. It is in our opinion going to be extremely dangerous. There is a letter in your packet from Captain William Brown in the Fayetteville City Police who agrees with that. So, hopefully that can go on record. We know that you guys are interested in doing commercial development for neighborhoods, but I would like to point out that really the neighborhood you will be servicing if development is done there is the City of Elkins because they all drive by there every day. And, well, basically, our neighborhood has the option of driving up 265 to do our shopping or to go to 16 if there were to be something there. It's only about 3 minutes from our house to go to the 265 intersection. The 4`h thing is that the infrastructure for the roadways is really not in place at the time for development there. Highway 16 widening is contingent upon a bond issue being approved by the voters. I talked to the highway department and they are not planning to do that development unless significant funding is coming from elsewhere. Also, there is a light proposed at Stonebridge but I'm not sure if that is going to be done by developers or the city. And the Stonebridge section, that street is basically a country lane. It has no curbs, no sidewalks, and no anything. It's basically a tiny bit of pavement that is suppose to connect what will become a 150 home development on the top of the hill to Highway 16 and possibly this development. And lastly, we have a great deal of fear about what type of traffic issues this is going to cause for our neighborhood and that is something that Teresa will like to speak to. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, and Teresa before you start I know that we did have public comment last meeting and we do have a rather long agenda tonight so if you are going to repeat something if you could just make it really short. Thanks. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 24 Kolb: Ok. You guys have my letter on file and I would just like to bring up that the current density on Highway 16 has led to bottlenecks and cut-throughs to our neighboring undeveloped neighborhood roads. Our area is a major thoroughfare for commuters. It is documented that the average speed is at least 10 miles an hour over the posted speed limits. We are on the extra patrol list for the Fayetteville Police Department and on the waiting list for speed tables in this area. The cut -through traffic has gotten so aggressive that the residents can no longer walk, walk the dogs, or walk to the bus stop, our kids can't without fear for our lives. I and several neighbors have had several stories about us having to jump in the ditch because there is no sidewalks or no shoulders this is basically country roads out through here. We get tail -gated and flipped off on a daily basis and by putting a grocery store in there or another big box retailer, this will draw in traffic from other places that normally would not travel through our area and could make it even more unsafe for us. The stop light that is being proposed, it will control some of the congestion, however, it will not reduce the current traffic density and the commuters still will cut -through, there will still be speeders, and adding shopping to this location will serve to undue any benefit of adding the stop light which I believe is being put in because of the residential development that is going on there not any potential for commercial development. Again there is a lot of huge development going on at Stonebridge, that's going to be a traffic issue of its own, but if you put a grocery store at the end of Stonebridge, instead of that traffic dumping out on Highway 265 to go north shopping, then we are looking at it coming barreling down Stonebridge. There's [inaudible] adequate shopping two miles away. The rezoning would be obviously for people in Elkins or in other outlying areas. Our neighborhood, again, as Rachel said, is a very quiet, well-established, historical part of Fayetteville. Some of the residents have been there since the beginning of the development in this area. I've heard a lot of their stories. We're proud home owners and we want the quality of life and the safety that we've enjoyed sustained. Bringing in big box retail will bring in increased traffic congestion, noise, light pollution, late night deliveries, and garbage that basically will destroy overnight what has taken years to establish. The current zoning provides a buffer that we have no guarantee can be matched if the property is rezoned. All the conceptual drawings on the table do not provide adequate green space for us or any major buffers or transitions. Due to the limited space of the property and size of the conceptual use, commercial will be basically in the backyard of the adjoining properties. So, for us to agree with the rezoning at this point, basically says do whatever you want with our properties, it doesn't matter to us. But it does matter to us and for the record, our neighborhood has been burned by developers before. The development that went in on the west side of Sherlock and Travis which is multi -density houses and duplexes, when that was in the planning phases it was agreed that the development along the fence line was to remain Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 25 single-family residences. That didn't happen. We have duplexes there now. I called the city on this and Brenda Thiel, our alderperson and - Anthes: Teresa, I need for you to address just this development item. We are not looking at those other items, but if you do want to make a complaint about that or talk about it you can address those comments to staff after the meeting. Kolb: Ok, I was just trying to show we have a fear of things being promised and it not being followed through that's why I was relating to that. Anthes: Thanks. Kolb: And finally, Sherlock Avenue should not be the entrance because of the danger it can present to the existing residents. You have our signatures on file, you have people from our neighborhood here, which, our neighborhood if you're here please stand. We have lots of people from our neighborhood here and we have discussions from the neighborhood and now we found out this afternoon the media was out in our neighborhood. We don't want this property rezoned the way it is being proposed to us. We are willing to continue to work with the developers that come in this area but we have got to have some kind of guarantees that our quality of life and safety will not be altered for the purpose of convenience and profit and right now the only guarantee we have is to ask that it not be rezoned. Anthes: Thank you. Let the record show that we have about 15 people from the neighborhood present at the meeting. Would anyone else like to address this item? Please come forward. Clark: I just wanted to clarify because - Anthes: Would you state your name please. Clark: My name is Caleb Clark. I'm sorry, I'm not used to this kind of dialogue. Anthes: It's alright. Clark: I just wanted to clarify, because I'm not sure, does this topic that we are talking about right now also include the 104 apartments that are being proposed just up the street on Wyman Road? Anthes: No, this is just the zoning request for the one parcel of RSF-4 that sits behind the C-2 on which they are requesting a C -I Neighborhood Commercial zoning. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 26 Clark: Ok, when is that one? Because that is more why I am here because of that issue and the sign for today so. But I don't see it on the agenda. Anthes: Mr. Pate, do you know? Pate: I'm not sure when that is but I have a card if you would like to contact our office. Clark: Ok, thank you. Anthes: Thanks. Please come forward. Good evening. Bozarth: Ladies and gentleman, my name is Leon Bozarth and I missed our community meeting, I was working. But I would just like to state that I own three properties in this area, one of them being my personal residence. I just have a concern about the impact that this can have on our community. I understand growth and business and I'm all for that I just do not like it in my back door. And I assume each of you would not want that in your backyard either. I have a concern is the impact it might have on the value of our properties and certainly it has been mentioned before here all the increased traffic we might have. We had a business down the street for some time that increased our traffic tremendously that finally moved out. But anyway, it's just a concern of myself with my residents and my neighbors and like I said I own these properties there and I would just ask that you not rezone this please. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Would any other member of the public like to address this rezoning for Tri -City. Good evening. Mallock: My name is Stephanie Mallock and I live on Holmes Drive. And really all I would like to ask you is that you leave it zoned residential. I think it is a great place for residential homes. It would tie right into our neighborhood. We have a great established neighborhood which has already been mentioned. Our homes are well kept, they are clean, we have great people that live there, it is not trashed out at all, our kids can ride their bikes up and the down the street every day, they even go out in that field sometimes, that field I know they are safe out there. I know Teresa might look out her window and check out on them once in a while. They find all kinds of treasures out there they've brought back farming equipment and things like that so they're having a great time, but I also think that if it's going to be developed it should just stay residential. It would tie perfectly into our neighborhood and keep it nice. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Would any other member of the public like to address this item? Seeing none I will close the public comment section. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 27 [Unknown]: Madame Chair? Madame Chair? I apologize for interrupting. Anthes: I didn't know where that voice was coming from. [Unknown]: There were a few adjacent property owners that were notified that were actually to the south of Huntsville that were actually in support of this item. I just wanted to state that for the record. Anthes: Thank you. Will the applicant come forward? Beam: Good evening, my name is Steven Beam I'm with Crafton, Tull, and Associates here representing Tri -City Investments. Anthes: Steven, could I get you to put those drawings up over here so the audience can see. Beam: I'm sorry. Anthes: It's difficult with the camera. Sometimes you can you lean them against this pole... Beam: I think Jesse took my presentation but pretty much the things that staff has stated are the reasons that the developer felt that this would be a great project for the city of Fayetteville at this location. We're looking at approximately two acres on the backside of a C-2 zoning that is, the current zoning line kind of goes an odd shape through this property and doesn't follow the particular property lines, and looking at taking that to a C-1 as you all know. C-1 Neighborhood Commercial, we chose that because of the location. Neighborhood Commercial's intent is to provide services in a residential area or to a nearby residential area. The City of Fayetteville has gone to great lengths to try to encourage this type of development in other parts of the city so that we see the benefits from that in practice. That convenience that residents don't have to get in their car, travel a long distance to get their services to, you know in this case, it has been mentioned a potential grocery store. So, they don't have to drive clear across town so it doesn't tax our existing infrastructure that we all realize that we definitely have need and have shortages of. So, having this particular, this type of development in this location is going to help the traffic from a city wide standpoint. Sure it's going to draw a little bit more traffic to this site because currently it is undeveloped but the overall effect is it is going to help our infrastructure system. Also, from the standpoint of pedestrian services, another reason you want commercial or neighborhood commercial services is so that people can avoid having climbing into their car altogether. Residents from this development, from these surrounding Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 28 residential developments will be able to use the sidewalks to come to this place to shop, to take advantage of the services that will be offered there, and then, you know, turn around and walk back to their house and they never had to climb in their vehicle, which is another one of those things that you in the City of Fayetteville has greatly encouraged. Specifically along Highway 16, the residents have a concern of traffic there. With this development in this location again is going to help the traffic along Highway 16. It is going to remove the vehicles that are having to travel great distances to get to the services by providing the services here in this location. One of the concerns that the residents have mentioned is buffering and the picture that I have passed around show the [inaudible, stepped away from the microphone] and a wood shadowbox fence, a berm about 3' high. A wood shadowbox fence and then also some vegetation to kind of improve the appearance and I think this type of buffer is something that we've seen the City support in other instances where we have commercial property against residential. And this is an example that we would agree to tonight, but this is something that is usually more addressed in the large scale as I think much of the concerns of the citizens are usually addressed at that large scale stage. But there are obviously things that we can discuss tonight because we want to make this development fit into the area that's there right now and we think that it can serve the area and not be a hindrance and not be an eye sore through the large scale development review process. You all have drafted your ordinances and your requirements such that within the C-1 zoning certain things, certain measures can be taken to preserve the residential character of the properties around it. So, with that and for the sake of time I will close my presentation and just ask you guys if you have any questions I would be glad to answer them. The developer is also here and could answer any particular questions that may be addressed to him. So, I thank you for your time. Anthes: Thank you, I appreciate it. Is there discussion? Lack: Madame Chair? Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Lack. Lack: Just to start us off, I have one probably quick question about the pictures or the renderings that were circulated. Thinking about it I can't see the development plan from here. Where is the fence relative to the property line? Beam: It would be on the extreme north. I guess the fence itself would be set in on top of the berm so you would have some slope that would come up to the top of the berm and then you would have some slope. So, it wouldn't Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 29 be exactly on that property line just to get it to the highest point of the berm to kind of maximize the height of the buffering. Lack: So, the toe of the berm would be at the north end of the property line? Beam: Yep. Anthes: I would like to remind commissioners, I appreciate you offering additional information, but we are reviewing a rezoning request and not a large scale development. So, just want to keep that in mind. Clark: I have a question for the presenter. The property that you are talking about, the 2.78 acres does not front Highway 16 does it? Beam: That is correct. Clark: The front part that does front the highway is already zoned commercial correct? Beam: That is correct. Clark: Ok. None of this touches the highway. Beam: None of this property does touch the highway. The property itself obviously fronts; the zoning line cuts through this property at an odd angle so with this C-1 effectively what we are doing, in order to the develop the property and comply with C-1 is down -zoning that C-2 front portion because you're not going to get anything on that back portion. Clark: Well, actually you're up -zoning from RSF-5 to neighborhood commercial in that particular spot that does not front the highway, right? Beam: That is correct. Clark: Ok, thank you. That was my question. Anthes: Are you finished? Clark: No, you'll have to come back to me. Anthes: Ok. I did have a question for staff about that. We have a split zone on the property right now and what is proposed is yet another split zone. Can you talk about why staff recommended or why the C-1 was requested rather then C-2, which would bring the property into the same zoning? Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 30 Pate: Staff had discussed the potential for C-2 to make this entire parcel one zoning as opposed to a split zoning as it is now. We felt however though that the C-2 zoning adjacent to the frontage, the uses that are allowed within that zoning would be, have more of an impact directly adjacent to a single family residence. If you notice in your C-1 and C-2 permitted uses they vary dramatically; C-1, for instance, states that it is designed primarily to provide convenience goods, personal services for persons living in the surrounding residential areas, and C-2 goes so far as to say that it is a functional grouping of commercial enterprises catering to highway travelers. So, you can see the big difference in just the description there so we felt it was important to have a transition. The setbacks, height regulations, bulk and area requirements are virtually the same. It is just a matter of change of use between the two. Anthes: So, basically what staff was looking at is a Neighborhood Commercial development rather then a highway commercial development. Pate: Correct. Anthes: This is a rezoning request, but we have been provided with a sketch of what could go here. I'm looking at how much land is required to provide a neighborhood commercial center with walk -ability and a grocery and that sort of thing versus what is being shown which is a rather large store, looks like some smaller stores and two out -lots with their associated parking. And to me that looks much more like a regional or highway development pattern. So, we toured this site, and I came to this meeting tonight thinking that it wasn't necessarily incompatible and we have plenty of things in our ordinances to allow for buffering between residential and commercial areas. I thought about the IGA in our neighborhood at Lafayette Street in the historic district. While that was built prior to our current development ordinances, which would require much more screening and buffering, that is a successful adjacent use. And yet I'm thinking about the intent of what staff is asking or has recommended with this rezoning request to C-1 and I'm wondering if we actually need that amount of land to be rezoned to accomplish a neighborhood commercial center rather then a regional one that is shown or highway commercial type development that is shown. Is there further discussion? Clark: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I have, we talked about not in my back yard, well unfortunately this is literally in my backyard. I live up Stonebridge and I am a member of this association. Even if I weren't however, I think I would still have concerns Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 31 about this particular rezoning. You're talking about 3.92 acres that are already zoned commercial C-2 along Huntsville. That to me is sufficient too, I'm surprised that you didn't request rezoning for that to be C-1 quite honestly. But regardless, that could still happen. You have commercial space along the highway to accommodate whatever type of commercial growth that would be fitting. To call it C-1, with the purpose of C-1, is designated primarily, and I'm reading from the code, to provide convenience goods and personal services for persons living in the surrounding residential area, when those people are here telling us they do not want it, sounds incredibly counter -intuitive. There is a lot of traffic in that area coming from the Elkins corner and it's true there are no services afforded to those folks in that area. But my neighbors who live in the City of Fayetteville want a buffer between their established neighborhood and commercial development. I think they are more than realistic in believing that development will occur on that corner. I think they just want to maintain a buffer and the RSF-4 does that quite nicely. And when you say it is more for pedestrian services, I dare you to walk down Stonebridge some time in the day. It is not a healthy place to walk, none of it. And with Stone Mountain going in on top of a street that does not have curb, gutter, or sidewalk, far out of the realm where this development is going in, is still putting your life in the hands of people that I don't want to put my life in the hands of. It is dangerous. Wyman Road is a very narrow road as well and you are going to be forcing more traffic on it. I think that we need to talk about a buffer. With a C-1 there is a 20' rear setback. Now this is an established residential community that has been there for many many years. They have a lot of older folks, a lot of younger folks, and they stay in the prospect of a commercial development 20' from their backyard. That just boggles my mind. The developers have been very forthcoming about what kind of developments they want to put there, but that's not what we are talking about. No matter what promises they make right now about setbacks, berms, fences, et cetera, doesn't matter. We are talking about zoning. We're not talking about the large scale development. They could turn around and flip this property and sell it and who knows what could go in and all those promises to the neighborhood could be gone. Not that you guys would do that, but it is possible. I think that a buffer is still needed. I think there is plenty of space to develop something that is C-1 along Huntsville, certainly something that is commercial along Huntsville on that corner. So, I will have to oppose this rezoning and hope that you will come back requesting that the C-2 be rezoned C-1 so you could be something that is less intense but still commercial on that corner. Still maintaining the RSF-4 as a buffer between the commercial and this neighborhood. Anthes: Commissioner Clark, I guess I have a comment to that. I'm thinking, one, RSF-4 is not really a buffer for another RSF-4. I mean we have RSF-4 and Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 32 if they develop as C-2, there will be requirements associated with that development and there will still be a residential adjacent to that C-2 with a certain prescribed setback. So, I'm a little confused about the comment about this being - Clark: I guess I'm being a little more practical in thinking that even if it's higher density, a higher density residential in this little triangle might be more suitable then a commercial. Anthes: This is leading to a question about a Planned Zoning District. I noticed in the staff report that you had spoken to the applicant about using a PZD for development of this property. Can you enlighten us to the outcome of that conversation? Pate: The applicant has chosen at this time just to proceed forth with this particular request. Obviously to get some comments from the Planning Commissioners about their feelings and obviously the public comment, the benefit of the public comment as well to understand. Obviously, if the drawing before you came forward as a PZD would you support it in the same type of configuration? So, I think that is part of the applicant's desire before this Commission, is to understand that if a PZD were presented in a manner similar to what they have presented with the buffers and things they can commit to with the Planned Zoning District, what the potential outcome might be. Anthes: Can I make one other comment? I do want to assure the neighbors that, no matter what, any neighbor in any residential zoning that adjoins a commercial zoning in the City of Fayetteville there are particular regulations in terms of fences, lighting, buffering, and that sort of thing. So, it's not that the developer would be offering something that they might withdraw, but that there are specific ordinances and you can read them on the City's website at accessfayetteville.org. Also, sidewalks and street improvements, unfortunately in the City of Fayetteville we are not ahead of development on those things. They come with development and so that profile would probably change with development of the area as well. Go ahead. Beam: Yes, I would just like to respond to some of Commissioner Clark's comments and also - Anthes: I don't think she asked for a response. Beam: Ok, well I, may I add just a few things then? Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 33 Anthes: If we address a question your way, feel free to answer it. Is there further discussion? Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I guess, just as I look at this, on our zoning map we've got C-2 across Stonebridge directly across from this piece of property and as the chair has indicated if you leave this RSF-4 you still end up at some point, if it develops as RSF-4, with houses budded up against the C-2 that fronts Highway 16 to the south. So, you still have a residential neighborhood but up against heavier uses, heavier commercial uses. So, from the standpoint of just looking at it as a rezoning, and I understand you can't erase from your mind that you've seen pictures that the developer brought tonight, but really those are not things that the developer can commit to at this point. It has been stated the developer could sell this piece of property after getting it rezoned and it could come through as a large scale development with a completely different look to it. So, from the standpoint of just the zoning part of it, it would make sense to me to have a C-1 transition between RSF-4 and C-2, and take up the concerns that the neighbors expressed at the large scale development stage. And I understand with rezoning we do look at traffic which is one of the concerns that has been raised. But again a lot of the concerns seem to be about walking and walk -ability and there is certainly the opportunity to connect this neighborhood to this tract without having to walk down Stonebridge and there is also the ability to require at the large scale development stage the development of sidewalk and so forth along the frontage of the property along Stonebridge. And so, it can be made more walkable and safer than it is right now with nothing on that piece of property if it were to develop at C-1. And so, just looking at the rezoning part of it, I understand everybody, neighbors and some Commissioners are always more comfortable if you get the PZD but we can't require it of every developer who wants to put in a commercial project to do it through the PZD process. We take it as we get it and this is a proposal for C-1 and it's in what I believe is a good transition parcel between the RSF-4 and C-2 zoned property along Highway 16 and the rest comes up at large scale development. And you're either comfortable with that or you're not and so I would suggest, I am comfortable with it and support the rezoning and obviously there are others who are not, but I don't know that we need to address the configuration and the layout and so forth because it could all be for not anyway. Ostner: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 34 Ostner: I have a question for staff. If this were to be approved, forwarded tonight and approved by the City Council, with a split zone, I'm looking at that middle panel where they are showing the current zoning. Could a C-2 basically utilize its pink part, that's C-2, and simply use the C-1 for parking and still be in compliance. Pate: Yes, because the parking lot would be a use -by -right in both of those zoning districts. Ostner: Ok, so, it's foreseeable if this passes that there won't be any real obvious dramatic berms and lines and it could simply be a mixture. Pate: You mean between the C-2 and C-1 zoning lines? Ostner: Right, where the project simply utilizes that triangle in a different manner. Pate: Yes. Ostner: Ok, can it also be possible that the uses in the C-2 would be compliant and would simply build a building and a use and a C-1 that is also similarly compliant that would be on the list and there would be 1 parking lot. Pate: The uses that would be permitted in the C-1 zoning district, so let's say a strip center were built across the line - Ostner: Dry cleaner. Pate: Right, only those uses permitted in C-1 would be allowed in that zoning district and those in C-2 would be allowed in C-2 zoning district. So, it is very specific about what uses are permitted. Ostner: Ok. I just wanted to say that, I wanted to be clear about that. Ok, this is difficult. Both sides have good reasoning behind them. I don't think I can vote for it though only because, no, I don't want to require a PZD, but in awkward tricky tittle spots like this, instead of denying, that would be an option in the future. That's just one commissioner speaking. I would have to vote against it because I don't think that the C -I is appropriate. There is a lot of commercial zoned land around this area. It's not like the city is lacking and really needing this area to be expanded. So, that's pretty much where my comments fall. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Ostner. Is there further discussion? Lack: Madame Chair? Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 35 Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: I'd like to ask staff for a little bit of clarification and just to see that I'm reading this correctly. I'm trying to get a good grasp on the proportion of the land to be rezoned. Looking at sheets 18 and 20 specifically, which show a, basically a four sided, shaded area, and when I look at the board that the applicant has put forth, even on sheets 18 and 20 that the line which seems to represents C-2 cuts through that shaded area. Are we talking about the shaded area of sheet 18 and 20 or are we talking about a smaller triangle that has really no frontage on Stonebridge Road except where it meets at a point? Pate: I have to ask the applicant. There may a portion of the C-2 that's actually being rezoned C-1 as well, but I'd have to ask the applicant who surveyed this property to answer that. Anthes: Did you understand the question? Beam: Yeah, I did. The intent is just the portion of the RSF-4 and I think that is based on the zoning line on that sheet 18, Commissioner Lack, that you see, that C-2 line, this dark hatched area does extend a little bit farther south, I guess. Then that line and the only portion that we are considering rezoning actually. If you took the line on the C-2 that you see on the west side and extended it up and just connected a straight line up across to the northeast, that would be section that is actually being rezoned. Is that, did that answer you question? Lack: That did, it is actually a smaller piece of property - Beam: Yeah. It is slightly smaller then the dark hatched portion in the board. Anthes: Would staff concur with that? It looks like on our page 18 of 20 if we did a connect -the -dots between the C-2 line that appears on either side of the shaded box, we get a triangle with no frontage or almost no frontage on Stonebridge? Pate: Based on my limited knowledge of what legal description was submitted, these maps were created by a legal description, a shape file, it's a polygon in our GIS system so this is actually reflecting the legal description that was submitted and reviewed by our GIS division. So, there sounds like there may be a discrepancy in what the applicant is stating and what was actually submitted. Clark: Ok, I'm fairly confused again. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 36 Anthes: Just a second, let's follow up and see. Have you done a survey of the property and seen the geometry of that? Beam: Yes, we have and I had our surveyors prepare a legal description and it may be based on his judgment that that zoning line did cut across slightly differently then what is reflected here. The, as far as zoning lines and this case, there wasn't anything that established, we can't get a survey from the city that states the current zoning line. So, what we did, based on the zoning maps that were published, tried to establish where that zoning line lies and prepared a legal description based off of that. Our intent is to not change any portion of the C-2. If we do change a portion of the C-2 to match the legal description that was submitted, we could do that as well. Lack: I guess my concern with that is when I look at the board, which I take as it looks like that's off of the city's website, the official zoning map, and that cuts across from the corner of the property. I question whether the property is developable under the current zoning and I don't know that that has a requirement to allow a rezoning, but I would think that it is a factor. And so I just wanted to try to get clear on that because as we discuss this and consider where we are going with this and whether we would vote for that, I think it is a factor to me and I think that the C-1 portion of this would have some tendency to control what would happen on the site. While although the rest of the site is not to be rezoned C-1 at this time. And with that I think I'm tipping at this time to the side to favor this. I like the idea of having the retail close to the neighborhood. I do think that in the future it seems reasonable that Stonebridge will be upgraded and that it would create a good walkable condition. That's all. Anthes: Thank you Commissioner Lack. Question of staff, the percentage of C-2 to RSF-1 or C-1 if this were approved, seems to be weighing into the decision making of Commissioners. Do we have any real certainty if we're looking at just the wedge or the triangle and if so would we want clarification on that before we made a decision? Pate: If the Planning Commission forwarded the request as it is currently submitted, we would rely on the legal description that has been submitted and checked by the GIS division and exhibit preparer. However, it is the applicant requesting the rezoning, so if this legal description is not what they are requesting then it would need to be changed. Just again, rough measurements, the history behind this diagonal swath across properties is because many decades ago the City annexed Lake Sequoyah and annexed 300' on either side of Highway 16 so it's about a 600' swath. That zoning line as scaled out on this map is 300' off of the right-of-way of Highway 16 in this location. So, that kind of furthers my thoughts that the zoning Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 37 description or the legal description provided by the applicant does go further south, though I don't know that would change a lot as Commissioner Ostner mentioned. There is no great change other then the uses permitted within those zoning districts and that's really the biggest difference between the two. Anthes: So, the graphic as shown might very well be requested for an RSF-4 to C- 1 and then a portion of the lot from C-2 to C-1. Pate: Correct. Beam: May I clarify our position there? Anthes: Please. Beam: I think we would be fine with going with the legal description as it is submitted. So, if it be that a portion of that is C-2 that's been zoned down to C-1, I think that that would not be detrimental to our development purposes. Anthes: Ok. I think staff did ask that there be comments taken from the Commission on whether or not if we saw a PZD in the configuration that is in front of us, whether or not we would approve it. Is that correct Mr. Pate? Pate: If you so desire. Anthes: Ok. I guess we don't usually talk about that during rezoning, but that was brought up so. Personally, I think that the layout the way it's shown looks like a regional commercial center and not a neighborhood commercial center and it wouldn't be very interesting to me as a PZD in that configuration. Harris: Madame Chair I would agree with that. Although this is hypothetical, I would be looking for something that seemed more akin with neighborhood commercial and buffer, sorry. Anthes: Is there further discussion, comments, or motions? Ostner: Yes, excuse me, Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Weighing in on that, for the applicant's request that is a commercial center that is not trying to impact the neighborhood whereas a PZD in my mind Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 38 accepts the fact that it's going to be part of the neighborhood and tries to dialogue with it. Tries to interact in a gentle way instead of the berm concept, it might actually front a street with a mixture of housing and very low impact commercial to dialog with that residential area, that's my opinion on an extremely hypothetical situation. Graves: Madame Chair - Ostner: On just one other thing, we talked a little bit about buffers and screens and the sort of comparison to the intersection of College and Lafayette was mentioned. There is a big difference between this area and that. They can seem similar but that area is just basically choked with intercity traffic that it's not a highway thoroughfare, this is. People go by here and keep going, you know, hours on their journey and come back home. That little area not far from this building might get some highway travelers but they are all wishing they were taking another route and they might take another route, these guys probably don't have a choice, that's their only route. That's a big difference, so speed and volume dictates a lot of how people will behave and I think this should not be zoned C-1. Graves: I'm going to move for approval of Rezoning 06-2088. Anthes: A motion to approve or forward by Commissioner Graves, do I hear a second? Lack: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Lack, is there further discussion? I guess I'd like some clarification from staff on the vision of the area. We have a General Plan 2020 that talks about what we expect to see in certain areas of our city and we also have a City Plan that we've been looking at different areas that has not been adopted yet. I find myself really torn on this one and I think it because the zoning around this area is really chaotic, there is a little bit of everything. And I'm not quite sure what the vision is and that's why I latched on to your comments about Neighborhood Commercial and that being a vision. Pate: When this area, and again this vision is based on our General Plan 20/20 which has been adopted by the Council so that's what drives the Planning Commission to either approve or deny rezonings. And in this area it is indicated that this would be primarily for a commercial type of location. Obviously, the zonings don't always reflect that and you see with every rezoning request that you look at, in this particular case you have a C-2 which is a regional commercial type of use, but it is not necessarily consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial, although it is already Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 39 existing. You have CA across the street, you also have residential across the street that could be developed, but there is also some issues to deal with a little further south. In this area we are seeing a lot of growth to the south and the north as some of the applicant, and Commissioners, or something the citizens and Commissioners mentioned on Stone Mountain and also off Dead Horse Mountain Road. The Commissioner's and Council's idea of this area in 2001 on the General Plan 20/20 was to provide an area of services so that citizens would not have to travel all the way to Harps on 265 and Mission or Wal -mart neighborhood area or to Highway 16 on the west side of town. So, I'm not necessarily saying this is a prime location for a grocery store, but it is an area that the Council has indicated is a good place for neighborhood services. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Pate, is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve RZN 06-2088 fails with a vote of 4-4-1. Anthes: Thank you. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 40 ANX 06-2020: Annexation (HAYS, 474): Submitted by LANDTECH ENGINEERING on behalf of Joan Hays for property located on Double Springs Rd., N of Dot Tipton Rd.. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 7.5 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Anthes: Ok, our next two items tonight are tandem items, Annexation 06-2020 and 06-2021 for Hays. If everyone could please get outside the door before you start your discussions, thank you. Morgan: On April 24`h, 2006 the Planning Commission tabled both the Annexation and Rezoning request for - Anthes: I'm sorry, Suzanne. We're not going to be able to hear you. We're going to have to wait. There we go, sorry. Morgan: Ok, on April 24`h, 2006 the Planning Commission tabled both the Annexation and the Rezoning request for this 7.5 acre property which is located east of Double Springs Road which is adjacent to the city limits both to the east, west, and a portion to the north because it could've created a 1 acre island of incorporated property. At the time, staff was aware that the owner of this piece of property was anticipating and currently processing an application of rezoning through the County. At this time we have this application and it is on this agenda as Annexation 06-2127. Because this item was table, both these items were tabled so they could come back with this 1 acre tract, they are now on this agenda with this Williams Annexation. In review of the annexation proposal, staff finds that it will create a satisfactory city limit line. It basically fills in an area of the city that was, is surrounded by the city. We anticipate that this applicant will be coming forward with development plans, therefore they have requested a rezoning to RSF-4 of which we find is compatible with the RSF-4 zoning to the east and west, as well as the RMF -6 zoning to the north of this property. We are requesting, therefore, approval of the Annexation and Rezoning at this time. Anthes: Thank you, Suzanne. Would any member of the public like to address this Annexation or Rezoning for Hays? Seeing none I will close the public comment section. Would the applicant like to give a presentation? Gabbard: Thank you, Madame Chair. Leonard Gabbard with Landtech Engineering. I have no presentation; however, I will stand to answer any questions with regard to this matter. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you very much. Is there discussion? Clark: Madame Chair? Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 41 Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Motion: Clark: We've heard about this, we've read about this, we've talked about this. This has been before us before in full. So, I will now make the motion that we approve Annexation 06-2020. Myers: I'll second. Anthes: We have a motion to forward the Annexation by Commissioner Clark, second by Commissioner Myers. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to approve ANX 06-2020 carries with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 42 RZN 06-2021: Rezoning (HAYS, 474): Submitted by LANDTECH ENGINEERING on behalf of Joan Hays for property located on Double Springs Rd., N of Dot Tipton Rd. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, and contains approximately 7.5 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre. Anthes: Are there comments on the rezoning or motions? Motion: Clark: I make the motion that we approve Rezoning 06-2021. Myers: And I'll second. Anthes: A motion to approve Rezoning 06-2021 by Commissioner Clark, second by Commissioner Myers. Is there further discussion? Ostner: Yes, Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I have a question for staff. On this map on page 18 of 18, help me see the city limit line. Is it continuous, it's just hard to read. Pate: The city limit line follows the south boundary of this property, you can see the dark red line, it goes along the property boundary to the south almost in a straight line due east. Ostner: Ok, and then it heads south again on 54? Pate: Yes, that's correct. Ostner: And then it heads north on Double Springs just west of the property? Pate: Yes. Ostner: Ok, alright, that's all. Thank you. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve RZN 06-2021 carries with a vote of 9-0-0. Anthes: We have a rather long item coming up and I've had a couple of request for a short break so we'll take about 5 minutes. RECESS Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 43 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 1.96 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 88 residential dwelling units. Anthes: We will now reconvene the meeting. The next item of business is Large Scale Development 06-1997 for Divinity Hotel and Condos. May we have the staff report please and Andrew, if you would, tell us what has changed between the last version and this version. There is probably no need to repeat the report. Garner: Ok. As you know this is the 3"d time we've seen this development and there were some substantial changes between the previous Planning Commission meeting and this meeting and I will highlight some of the changes for you. I think one of the major changes is the applicant acquired approximately a half acre parcel adjacent to the southwest portion of the existing parcel and that allowed them to take out 2 levels of parking from the original proposed structure and put it on that half acre. That allowed them to reduce the bulk and height of the building. And on Dickson Street at the north to the side, one of the main changes is that the bottom podium goes up 2 stories before stepping back whereas before it was 4 stories or 65'. Now it is proposed at 45' in height at the Dixon Street frontage. It's probably one of the main changes on Dixon Street. Additionally, just the overall height is now, the majority of it is 112' in height. There is also the restaurant, as you can see, that sticks up in the podium at the pedestal at the very top that goes up another story. But the majority of the building has been reduced in height. And then on Church Street they have reduced or relocated 12 of their condominium units and this enabled them to have reduced the overall height from their Church Street facade and also allowed them to step back. Additionally, the revised plan provides more transition and you can see the details on the elevation just in the general picture of it. And we do find that these elevations now presented do provide an acceptable level of compatibility and transition with pedestrians on the street frontages and that these facades are more consistent with what we are looking for in interacting with the public realm. The current square footage of the hotel and condos is in table 1 in your staff report. I think those are the main things I wanted to cover right now. I'll be happy to answer questions as we get into this. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Garner. We'll now have the public comment section. Before we do that, as all of you know, we have heard many hours of public comment on this issue already. Also, we have received numerous e- mails in our inboxes that the commissioners have read. I just wanted to Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 44 informally poll the audience: would you raise your hand if you thought either the first or second scheme, not this scheme, were too high? Ok. I'm going to poll the audience to try to get a feeling for what's in the room. We've already heard so much public comment that this might give us kind of a picture of who is here tonight. If you thought the first or second scheme --the 10 story to 15 story building that was presented was too high and have given us comments to that effect will you raise your hand. If you have looked at the new scheme and you think it now fits would you raise your hand if you were one of the earlier dissenters? Ok. And if you are here in support of the project will you raise your hand? Ok. Alright, if you would like to make comments please come forward. Again, if you are going to repeat something somebody else has said you might just make it really brief or indicate that you agree with those statements. If you have something new to add please come forward and state your piece. Mr. Stout. Stout: I think I have something entirely new. May I put these up on the [inaudible]. Anthes: Just put them up and then I need you to step to the microphone and state your name so that we can hear you. Stout: Yes, the placard that is up on the easel - Anthes: Sorry, name first please. Stout: I'm sorry, my name is Ken Stout. I live in Winslow but I come to Fayetteville every day, 7 days a week, to work in my studio in the back of Walton Art Center. I'm an artist. What I've done is a put an easel, really a smaller reproduction of what the Barber Group has put up there in terms of latest elevation of the Dixon Street side and the Church Street Side I believe and I want to remind the commissioners that I did send you an e- mail yesterday. So, some of you have probably picked that up and read it. I know a couple have at least. The thing I think is different, although it has been mentioned somewhat, different about what I have to say, is that the city's own Unified Development Code, and that's what the city has in front of them for the development or the Planning Commissioners have in front of them, down below is a quote from that code and let me read it to everybody. Anthes: Mr. Stout. Stout: Yes. Anthes: We intimately know that code, you probably don't need to read it. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 45 Stout: Ok, what about, it just, this is for - Anthes: I think everybody that's been at these meetings has heard it too. Stout: Ok, ok. It says the development should provide compatibility and transition between adjacent development and it is important that I say that because the Planning Commissioners are bound to follow this, and I know you all know that but I want to use it as a preamble. Barber Group, in my estimation and many people that I know, has not provided adequate information on what constitutes the compatibility and transition of their proposed hotel with the area around them. They have only provided elevations, footprints, and two very distorted Autocad images of the Divinity Hotel Condos showing the projected building in quote the neighborhood. And it's referring to prospective view from B and prospective view from A, if you have those in your packets there. Anthes: We do. Stout: Ok. I'm an artist and I'm very aware of how things can be distorted by perspective because I deal with perspective in my painting. I try to distort perspective myself. I noticed that these are very clever. The one from perspective view B shows fully two blocks away from the proposed hotel and it is about 100`h of the size of the photographic page and is covered with trees and you cannot really see the effect that that will have on the immediate neighborhood. There is no way that you can see the effect that that will have on the immediate neighborhood. Ok, perspective view A shows it from down the street nearer to the campus across from the old Chipley Bakery and the bookstore. Again, a couple of blocks or a block and a half away and strategically placed it front of it as you go down Dickson Street you can see a tree overlapping the building and you could swear that tree near the Bangcock Cuisine is as tall as the Divinity Hotel proposed, which would make it 117' in its current reincarnation and there is no way that that tree is 117' tall. So, it is very hard for people to figure this one out. The Barber Group has not provided adequate elevation information. At 157' at its highest point, and I know technically you don't include, the City doesn't include the utility equipment boxed in, but lets face it, visually that is the building. You come out of Colliers, in what I put in front of you, you come out of Caoliers Drug Store at 13' tall and you look at a building, is it compatible? Is it showing a transition to other buildings around it? Well, you come out of a building that is 13' tall and you come out and face a building that is 157' tall. 13 times or 12 times the size of Colliers Drug. It, the post office is 18' tall to give you a relative thing, and that's about 8 times less then the Divinity. And then even the Law Office which is being torn down, which is about 20 to 24 feet I Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 46 estimate and you compare that to 157. Now you say the 157 is just a small part of the front, that's true, it is just a small part of the front but it is a visual part of the front. It's not like a sign and if you go around to the side street and look up you have a facade that is 157' tall. Ok, just a little bit more. Compatibility and transition refers to height, mass, density, and scale. Height 157', mass two acres, density solid, no green space, scale 12 times taller then the drug store across the street, 8 times taller then the post office. A massive thing that really doesn't take any consideration of the immediate neighborhood or the scale of Dickson Street. So, finally, a development should provide compatibility and transition between adjacent development. That is the City's Unified Development Code. The Planning Commissioners are bound to follow this. There is no choice. We must follow this until we are shown otherwise and we haven't yet. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Stout. Would any other member of the public like to address this item? Good evening. Sowder: Good evening, I'm Victoria Sowder. I live in Ward 1 at 1724 Rockwood Trail. I moved to Fayetteville in 1967. At that time it was a sleepy little college town unawakened at that point. The property proposed for development could at that time best be described as undistinguished. Almost four decades have passed, thing have really changed. We live in one of the most watched small metropolitan areas in the country. We all know this. We are proud of it and you know what, that property can now best be described as unsightly. It's been that way for a long time. I would like to appropriate the C word, compatibility, in asking for your support for this iteration, I believe that it, compatibility, fuses the energy, the traditionalism, that are hallmarks of Fayetteville, Arkansas. I believe it is compatible with our need to establish landmarks as we go along. I believe it is compatible with our need to look forward to economic development that would begin accruing with the groundbreaking and would continue for many decades into the future. I sincerely hope that you will support the Divinity Project, thank you. Anthes: Thank you Ms. Sowder. May I remind that audience that this Planning Commission does not look at economic benefit when making a decision and therefore we don't need those comments. Please come forward. Kabami: Hi, my name is Joane Kabami and I e-mailed everyone so you already know what I have to say. I just have a couple quick points to bring up. We haven't heard much of a presentation again so I don't know if the issue of the gated community has been addressed because that was very important not to have that go forward. One question I have is we see two sides of the building here, which is more then we've ever seen before it's always been Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 47 just the Dickson front, we're not seeing the back. There is two sides, was it Block Street where it goes to the alley there, we're not seeing - Anthes: We actually do have four elevations, there is one right in front of the podium. Kabami: Ok, well - Anthes: And the commissioners have received all four - Kabami: Ok. Well, I'm concerned that you're going to have these huge walls on a couple of the sides, actually, well, even the one that you can see here as you look up Dickson Street. I mean you have a huge wall that's almost like a prison guard tower sitting there and we're talking about compatibility, that's the main issue. I brought this and I didn't have exactly the area they have purchased and I will give this to you but it's an aerial. Anthes: If you would just hand it to Mr. Pate. Kabami: I could get it on one sheet, but it's an aerial of that area in town and if you look around there, the footprints around it, not just the height, but the footprints are very different and it's very incompatible with the smaller footprints the rest of the buildings in the area have. The other issue I have is we just, the City has spent a huge amount of money on the Dickson Street improvements to make the Dickson Street area walkable, less cars, and sort of like user friendly. If we put a large development at this end we are going to have lot of traffic and are basically undoing what we've just spent a lot of money to do. And I would hope that this project is denied. Thank you very much. Anthes: Thank you. Good evening. Gadison: Good evening. Madame Chair and commissioners my name is Helena Gadison. I'm a resident of Springdale, Arkansas. I stand before you today because I will be making an investment in Fayetteville for small business for next year and I have sent each of you as well as the councilmen and the mayor an e-mail and I wanted to be here as a matter of record that you can put a face with the note that you received, show my support for the Divinity Project. I am not going to be a lessor or any investment as a part of that group but my comments today is to say that this type of project for Fayetteville is good for the entire area. And I know that you said that the Commission does not make decisions based on economic development but you have to look at the betterment of the entire city and the area. I'm sure that that is your charge and when you look at an investment wanting to come and be a part of Fayetteville, it concerns me that it is this difficult to Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 48 get something passed. And I understand there are a lot of city codes and ordinances that have to be discussed and worked through. But I stand before you on record showing my support, my business support as we come in for next year in Fayetteville, of the Divinity Project. Thank you for having me. Anthes: Thank you. Sowder: I'm Glenn Sowder. My wife and I frequently disagree, but this is one that we definitely agree on. With the Renaissance, I believe, having recently received an approval for 18 stories, the Hillcrest Tower, 11 or 12 stories depending on which side you stand on, EJ Ball building, Radisson - Anthes: Mr. Sowder, we've been provided with a graphic that shows the height of all those buildings, so we are aware of how tall they are. Sowder: Ok. We have a lot of tradition. Dickson Street and the Square are one now, please, let's give everybody equal opportunity. It looks like for some reason one group has been singled out to be punished because they happen to be close to Colliers or the Post Office, neither of which I've ever thought was real beautiful. Thank you for listening to me, you all have a great day. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Sowder. Ms. Musgnug, good evening. Musgnug: Hi, my name is Kristin Musgnug. I live on Walnut Street in Fayetteville and first I'd like to thank you all for the countless and unpaid hours that you all put in, in service of our wonderful city. First, I would like to call your attention to a petition that was circulated in the city this weekend. I don't know if you received copies, I don't know if they came in. Anthes: We have one in our packet. Musgnug: You have one in your packet, ok. We've collected 179 signatures to date and I also would like to point out that they have been just since Saturday. I have the originals here if anyone would like to see them. Would anyone like me to read the petition? Anthes: We have one in our packet, so no. Musgnug: Ok, and then I also would like to add a couple comments of my own. I would like to say that I do support increased density downtown. I think that as our city grows it is important to concentrate density downtown and not elsewhere. I also think a hotel downtown is a great idea, I support mixed use. I just feel that this project is too large for the area. I have two Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 49 primary issues with it. One is the massive size of it which I feel is out of scale with the area and I am also am troubled with the design vocabulary which I don't feel is compatible with the surrounding qualities of Dickson Street and the surrounding neighborhood. To address the size, Dickson is a relatively narrow street. It's distinguished by a diverse collection of small structures many of which are historic and all of which would be dwarfed by the height and massive bulk of this project. I am particularly concerned about the tower portion. I realize this project is not bound by the recently enacted height limits for downtown, but I wish that the developer did share the City Council's vision for the city as being one with the height limit of 6 stories. I am also very concerned about the impact of this on the surrounding neighborhood. Someone already mentioned the south side of the building which is going to be 65' high wall, featureless wall of the parking garage which is going to be right up at the property line, right up at people's backyards in the neighborhood which is still substantially a residential neighborhood. I don't live there and if this project goes through I'd be really glad that I didn't. Also, the apartments and condominiums will be looking at quite high, be looking right down in those backyards. I am also concerned about the impact of 88 new residential units in that neighborhood. My other issue has to do with the architectural vocabulary of the project which I feel is incompatible with the historic and funky charm of Dickson Street. I'd be much happier with this project if it showed some sensitivity to the character of what is a beloved part of our city and which I noticed in fact one of the city goals calls our crown jewels. This building seems to me and many other people I talked to as more appropriate to Dallas then Dickson Street and I also would like to add that it is precisely because of the careful control that the city exercises over development in this city that contributes to making it such a livable place that. Anthes: Is there further comment? Ms. Alexander. Alexander: Fran Alexander, I own property on Spring Street which is the opposite side of the block that this building is proposed for and just down the alley, the alley that will now take a right angle instead of going straight, which will be interesting for the trash trucks. I want to make the comment that I'm not really sure that the compatibility and transition issue has been thought out for the next series of events that will be coming before you on Dickson Street. For example, how, if you build 111, 112, or actually 157' building, and that's allowed, will the compatibility and transition occur with the next building comes along if our 6 story height limitation is enforced at that point. The next developers that come to you are going to have an impossible conundrum to figure out. They are going to be required to be compatible and have transition up next to a building that they cannot be as high as nor can they transition to. So, you're going to Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page SO have a schizophrenic situation with the next people that are coming down the pipe that are going to be asking for guidance on how they are going to meet the compatibility and transition issues. And I would like to point out as I've done before, I don't know if in my article or here, that a precedent is set on the street now, the height of the buildings that are there now and the majority is the precedent not these new mistakes that you continue to allow to happen there, including what Mr. Stout brought out. The perspective of these Autocads that produce the angle that you're looking at a building, I pointed this out on the 9 -story condo building. This is not the true representation of what it is going to look like in relation to everything else so I urge you to please take that into strong consideration. And I've also would like to ask you to please not to fall victim to the, they've tried so hard syndrome. I've watched this happen in the last 20 years coming before this body and the city council that once the developer has done the work, and these guys have done the work I'll give them that, but they started out with the point that suddenly the residents of the town who liked things the way they were as far as the historical scale of the town, now the citizens are asked to compromise something that they liked the scale just fine to begin with. So, historically we are having to compromise something that we shouldn't have had to compromise just because somebody wants to come to town and build something out of scale. The argument thus still boils down to what people mean and want when they say compatibility and transition, which by the way I want to add that was a hard won cause, it didn't just appear. Citizens have come and come and come to this body and the city council to get compatibility and transition into this document. So, this is not just a casual decision that you are making and I know this is not a forum for economic discussion, but underlying all the public effort to oppose this project we have come into this volley that really involves the economics of scale. And the citizens are being asked to sacrifice the character of this area, of this particular area not the whole town but of this particular area, of the community for the private economics of scale that these folks need. So, scale is everywhere in this issue. Economically, physically, fiscally, so I urge you to know and act accordingly when this project is completely out of scale and who is truly responsible for that situation. It is not the citizens and we urge you please do not pass approval. Thank you. Anthes: Ms. Bryant. Bryant: Commissioners, my name is Rebecca Bryant and I was here at the last meeting. I came as a concerned neighbor and today I would like to submit myself as an expert. I have advanced degrees in urban planning, I have been, I was a previous planner for the cCity of Fayetteville. I have been a consultant planner to a number of communities and I write extensively about design and development issues for the Urban Land Institute. And in Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 51 this issue I just want to address a very specialized language, a planner's language, and those are the words that you've been hearing a lot tonight, compatibility and transition. And I would like to speak as an expert to what those words generally mean in the planning world. And I believe that they mean issues of height, of mass, of architecture, of density, of form and rhythm. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Bryant. Mr. Young. Young: I'm Cyrus Young. The house I own and live in is one block from this proposed development. This 9 story building with an extra 22' tacked onto the top is not compatible on Dixon Street. No amount of setting back, of stepping back of the floors on all of the sides will ever make it compatible with Dickson Street. I urge you to vote against this propose development. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Young. Would anyone else like to speak? If you want, you can line up so we can keep you coming. Lunsford: I'm Scott Lunsford. I was born and have lived here in Fayetteville all my life. I have not spoken at any of the other meetings concerning this matter but just looking at what I've read here tonight it sounds like that they did remove 2 stories of parking from this structure, but unfortunately they just spread it out and down Church Avenue. And even with that, according to the paper work, there is still a parking deficiency of 30% and I don't know how you all get around that if something is required but then a 30% deficiency is acceptable, I don't quite understand that. With the parking deck now wrapping around down Church Street it further reduces any capability of transition on the south side of this building. No one is talking about what the neighborhood is going to be looking at every day. There is also a mention of 7 waivers of curb radius requirements in alleyways and I'm not exactly sure what all that means but it sounds to me like you're really cutting back on the size of the streets and alleys that are suppose to be around this thing to the accommodate the over -sized structure on the lot that they've been given to build on. And the last thing I want to say is we saw this thing April 24`h and in 60 days you guys have before you the capability to let this thing happen and coming from someone that has lived here all their lives it just doesn't, I can't accept the urgency and I can't accept why it is that this has to happen so quickly. Now, I know that they've worked really hard with the staff and I know that they've done everything they can do to make this thing work but 60 days is really no time at all when you consider what we're about to place on the top of Dickson Street. So, I'm going to go down saying that I'm totally against this. I think that a project half this size at this location is not good either. I Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 52 think it is just too small for the size that they are trying to build. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Lunsford. Would any other member of the public like to speak to Large Scale Development 06-1997 for Divinity Hotels and Condos? Good evening. Barr: Hi, you haven't seen me before. My name is Jess Barr I live in Winslow and I've been watching this from the sidelines for quite a while. Just have a couple of observations. I've been involved with I guess four universities now through my college years and professional life and one of things about universities is areas like Dickson Street, the universities really seem to cultivate those and they fit with them and they are a very positive thing to have next to a university. And, you know, there is no justification for it one way or the other but they seem to fit and they seem to belong and I'd hate to see Dixon Street which seems to fit that mold be changed into sort of something with a giant mushroom popping out of it that looks more like commercial then anything else. The other observation is that, I work with quite a few hotels in this area and I've been watching over the years, I've been here 25 years now, that to me it appears that we are dramatically overbuilding in hotel space and for what that's worth I've seen it and continue to see it and a lot the people that I work with would agree with that. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Barr. Would any other member of the public like to address this item? Going once. I'll now close the public comment section would the developer like to give a presentation? Good evening, Mr. Barber. Barber: How are you? Anthes: Good. Barber: You're sick of seeing me. My name is Brandon Barber. I'm the developer, owner of the Barber Group, and the side note you know one thing you learn about me, I'm all about generating revenue and even for the city and this thing has got to be getting better reviews then American Idol. I mean I think there has got to be some way we can get some advertising on the bottom, (inaudible). The reason I'm saying that is a lot of people are watching this. I think it is a healthy debate for Fayetteville, I've said that from day one. I knew this was going to be a big debate and I think it is important, and someone mentioned this I think in the first meeting when we submitted in March, was that the eyes of Northwest Arkansas are watching you right now. And not to over dramatize that because I don't think that's fair to you, but the reality is we'd be naive to think that we as a Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 53 new company, we're young, aggressive, but we'd be naive to think if the city is not watching us as well. And so I think, I hope we've shown if anything responsibility during this process. You told me that we didn't have a large enough site, we tied up more land. You told me that we were compatible and we were too high, and we have the staff recommendation now and again we have not leveraged by any means or we would not be here tonight. We would have appealed to the City Council or asked to vote against us a while back. We have not asked for leveraging with obviously the zoning we have. We've mentioned it and we'll mention again, we feel it could be twice the size. We've been responsible because we have listened to the public and I hope that you will vote for the project, obviously tonight. I hope that if voted for that the City Council will not appeal it just like they did not the 9 story lofts at Underwood. And I hope that you will let me get started on bringing Divinity to Downtown Dickon. Thanks. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Barber. Mr. Abeyta, I don't think you need to go through the whole floor plan and everything because that's pretty much the same. Just tell us about the changes. Abeyta: I'm not, I'm just going to make a very brief brief - Anthes: Great. Abeyta: Comparison between what we presented six weeks ago versus what is today. Anthes: Super, thanks. Abeyta: On my flight to Fayetteville today American Airlines lost a bunch of my boards. So, a lot of the presentation boards I was going to use today, a lot of the information is just in your handouts. So, I'll try to reference that as well as a couple of boards that I do have with me. I would first like to say that the images on the floor right here represent the building six weeks ago. The image on the top of the easel represents the design that we are presenting today and I'm just going to go briefly over the changes that were made what is six weeks ago and what is today. First item, starting on Dixon Street, I do want to reiterate that six weeks ago we have a 4 -story podium condition - Anthes: Mr. Abeyta, if you would just describe the new building because we are really not considering the former proposal anymore. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 54 Abeyta: Well, I just want to describe the new building and show you how it has changed from what it was. Is that not fair? I mean we are talking about height and I want to describe how we've reduced that building height. Anthes: But the increment of change is not really the issue. The issue before us is the building you are presenting tonight. Abeyta: Ok. Anthes: Because the building, the other submissions have been pulled. Abeyta: Ok. With regards to the Dickson Street elevation, as was described earlier in the presentation, to reduce the scale of this building across the entire site, two levels of parking have been pulled out from within the podium. We now have a two story podium across the entire, pretty much the entire length of Dickson Street. Originally, the podium height used to be 65' today it is 45' in height. We have compressed all three levels of public space that being the retail, the public space, and the pool deck area, and, you know, stacked on top of each other so all three have a direct relationship to Dickson Street. We think that is an important aspect or design feature that we would like to describe. Along Block Avenue, which is in your book, we have reduced the scale of that facade from 9 stories to 8 stories. So, the scale of that facade along Block Avenue has been reduced. The mass of the entire elevation above the pool deck is 6 stories. We took two levels of condominium tower which were a part of the taller tower that ran along Church Avenue, we've pulled those out and we've actually stacked those on top of the 4 stories of hotel. So, we've expressed that difference through the architectural with the material change. We're proposing that same copper expression that we have on the Church Street elevation as part of the expression across the Dickson Street elevation. As we move to the west the glass cylinder, because we did pull 2 levels of condo out from that tower, that will, that scale did drop 2 stories. So, we are sitting at an overall building height of 9 stories. We were originally 11 stories. We are at a current height of 135', we read in the code and Jeremy can explain this that we are not required to count anything above and beyond the roof that is not occupied. Everything that is above and beyond the roof of the restaurant is elevated over on mechanical space to serve the complex. We today stand at 30 condo units. The last time we presented we were far less then that, but in order to make this project work and to help pay back the cost of this additional land, today we stand at 30 condos. We were able to pick up 7 levels of condominium units across the top of the hotel, 4 story condition of the hotel along Dickson Street. So, there is 2 levels of that that is 14, 14 units on that 2 levels of expressed condo above the hotel. And we still have maintained 137 hotel keys for the entire Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 55 project. Let me go ahead and pull out the west elevation so that you can compare this north elevation to the west side elevation. Anthes: And if you wouldn't mind, could you turn over the ones that are no longer the ones that we are looking at just so we don't have any confusion. Harris: Madame Chair? Anthes: Yes? Harris: There is just a, there is a slight discrepancy between the elevation we were given today, this evening on our chairs, and what you are showing us on the north elevation. What you're showing us there has a slight indentation on the northeast corner and what we have does not and I just bring that up to make sure we are looking at the - Abeyta: Yeah, this board was, the boards that I lost on my flight would represent what you have in your booklets. There was a slight change from that elevation and we were going to present tonight. Harris: Ok. Abeyta: So, that's the only change. There is a little notch in the upper left hand corner of that elevation. That mass just extends over to the east facade. Harris: Ok. Abeyta: But what the west elevation represents, it shows you a parking garage which has extended from what has, what used to be our southern property line down to the south and has captured the land that has been purchased by our owner in order to be able accommodate that parking sort of as a freestanding component. Still integral with the building but sort of a free standing component. The scale of that parking garage is within the same scale as a 4 story building. Even though it is 7 levels of parking, it is only 65' in height. It is still in that same scale as the 4 story building. So, these, I mean I can't really explain much of what I've described in terms of the changes, but that's sort of just a quick synopsis. Anthes: Would you repeat that again, you said that was 7 levels of parking? Abeyta: That's 7 levels of parking. It's within the volume of a 4 story building. Anthes: And what is that overall height again? Abeyta: It is - Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 56 Anthes: 65 feet? Abeyta: 65 feet. Anthes: Ok. I have one question on the elevations before you sit down. It's something that's been troubling me and I would like you to talk about. I looked at your site plan which has topography on it and then I went to the city website and I printed a topo map and counted contours. And I would like you to describe to me on the elevation, from east to west on the Dickson Street elevation I've counted 13 one -foot contour lines, which would mean a 13' slope, which is a whole story of slope on that sidewalk, and you show a horizontal line. And then on the Church Street side I count 8 one -foot contours which is, you know, 3 quarters of the story height in slope and again with the horizontal line. Can you tell us on these elevations how you plan to accommodate this topography? Abeyta: Sure, as the side drops, for instance along Church Avenue from Dickson back to the south, the entry points into say for instance the easements, that 20' easement at the midsection of the block, even though that would be at a lower elevation that actually works to an advantage for our building because the floor to ceiling clearance is to work to get trucks and fire access and so forth to that internal alleyway between all of the adjacent properties. I think that works to our advantage. This would be kind of the you know kind of worse case condition for having to make the building work in terms of just assuming the datum across the base of the building was just flat. As the building drops even more toward the south, that really doesn't hinder us anymore. The entry into that, we have a double helix parking garage, when entering into the southwest corner for condo parking only and the northeast corner of that parking for valet and public parking only so the ramping systems will still work in that change of grade from high to low. Anthes: So, are you saying that in the west elevation that the 8' of rise is accommodated within the first floor? Abeyta: Say that again, I'm sorry. Anthes: I'm trying to figure out where we add the 8'. Is that accommodated within the first floor in this building so it gets taller on the south end or where does the 8' go? Abeyta: No, hopefully as the building is dropped that mass on the south end will drop with that. We haven't done a full analysis of the, you know, elevation in relation to the topography. We have a lot of stuff to work out. We have Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 57 worked out the entry drives and so forth and how they would work in plan. We're just proposing that as you know the design direction and design intent for this project. Anthes: Well, I guess it's more critical to me on the Dickson Street side with that 13' of difference. Where is that accommodated in this building? Abeyta: From the - Anthes: If you look at the north elevation, the left side of that elevation, if that's at street level, the street actually drops 13' (or an entire story) as you approach the right hand side of that drawing and I'm not understanding where that - Abeyta: The retail pads will have to terrace down that slope condition of the sidewalk as you move from Block Avenue to Church Avenue. I mean, the finished floor elevations of all those components along that sidewalk will have to interface with that sidewalk. So, there is going to have to be transition from end to the next. Anthes: So, is the building actually 13' taller on the right hand side or is different, the different height of that building different in relationship to the other side? Hennelly: There is actually from the - Anthes: Mr. Hennelly, can you state your name, I'm sorry. Hennelly: Yes, Tom Hennelly with H2 Engineering. We're actually showing about, it is about 11 or 12 feet of difference and as Eddie stated those should be handled in stem wall transitions within that first floor to keep that roof -line continuous all the way across. And then you have, as you move around the Church Street elevation, the first floor level, the ceiling of that, stays the same elevation to provide the clearance for the solid waste and fire vehicles to get through the alley. Anthes: Ok, so, if I'm to understand you, the ceiling lines, the roof -lines, stay as they are in this drawing. But that means that some space needs to be added down below and, if that is true, that changes the overall building height as dimensioned, on this elevation by 11 or 12 feet. Hennelly: Certainly any place you would measure the top of the building, it would change as you went around. You would need to I guess measure at every interval around the building. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 58 Anthes: Ok. Thank helps, thank you. Do you have further comments? Ok. Commissioners? Hennelly: One more thing - Anthes: Sure. Hennelly: That is assuming the elevation, the mean sea level elevation of each one of those floors will remain constant. As you measure it's all relative to the ground below it obviously. But as you come up as it is compared to the other buildings around which we've tried to do, those will all remain constant so they are not going to be varying as you go around the building if that's clear. Anthes: Sort of. Abeyta: We still are dealing with a 9 story building whether the grade drops or rises it is a 9 story building. Anthes: On that corner. Abeyta: On that corner, yes. Anthes: So, on the other corner do you lose a story? Abeyta: No Ma'am. I mean, we are still going to have the same number of floors. The only transition that is going to occur is on the first floor where the retail has to drop to interact with the sidewalk. Anthes: So, the ground floor ceiling height gets very high - Abeyta: It could, yes. Anthes: Ok. Abeyta: But we could offset that by taking a few feet off the Block Avenue side and picking that back up because of the grade change on the Church Avenue Side. Anthes: Ok. Commission. Who wants to go first? Myers: I'll go first. Anthes: Commissioner Myers. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 59 Myers: And I'll be brief. I was really hoping that I could whole heartedly support this project when it came forward because I know, and I know that we cannot take it into consideration particularly. The applicant has done a great deal to try to bring this into compliance with the things that are required by code and ordinance, but I still think it's not, the building for the site, I think a lot of the comments made by the public both for and against, have a lot of value. I think it is too large, too massive, too out of scale with the surrounding area. If I lived close to this location I wouldn't want to necessarily see a cliff of masonry rising up into the sky and that makes me sound like a Luddite in a lot of ways I suppose, but I'm not against development I just want to see it done appropriately and well. And as several people have said I think this building is an attractive and worthwhile design, I don't have too much problem with that, but just not here. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Myers. Ostner: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I think you've brought up some good points about the grade change. The application, the packet says that there is maybe a 1200 or maybe a 1400 square foot, it's called a hotel bar, street level, and then there is a hotel restaurant at 5,212 square feet. Since it says street level, I'm assuming, since we've got some issues about where that is falling, I'm assuming that where you walk in at sidewalk is street level. That's fair to state. I'm bewildered that a 5,000 square foot restaurant is going to have steps inside it. This many steps to get you from 13' of grade up or down. I understand the rest of the building is going to stay dead level as these buildings do but that grade change has to be made somewhere. That does not give me confidence that this has been thought through at the pedestrian level. A month or so ago or whenever it was when we were here last that was one of my biggest concerns is that this building doesn't dialog with the pedestrian. It offers the pedestrian amenities, it offers uses of condo and hotel space and retail, but the dialog with the pedestrian experience of Dickson has largely been ignored. This building works terrific set in a field next to a major highway. It doesn't fit with this downtown Ozark urban experience. The attempts are not enough for me to be in favor of it. I understand the overall height is shorter by 20'. That's 9% of a 180. The mass has stayed identical. It has simply been pulled off and set somewhere else. The famous stepping back is hard to find. If you look really close, a balcony that is perfectly on the setback line, the building is 8' behind that balcony front, but a perfect line forms along that setback line vertically, I don't see it steps back. We talked a lot about that on how that would help Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 60 the mass fit in with this area. It needs to be proportional, it needs to be relative to itself. If it is going to be this big the step back has got to be big with it for it to work. There are a lot of small buildings around it. If the attempts were more severe, I believe this building could fit in this downtown area. The attempts have been short. So, I do not think this would be compatible and I do fear that there is a compatibility issue that there is something very important in that area development wise that this could erode. So, thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Ostner. Hennelly: Could I attempt to clarify something? Anthes: I'm sorry, if you're asked a question you can do that. Trumbo: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: Can I ask Mr. Hennelly to clarify? Anthes: Yes. What do you want him to answer? Trumbo: It's what he was going to answer in response to Commissioner Ostner. I'd like to hear him. Hennelly: There seems to be some confusion on how the grade transition wilt take place across the frontage of the building and whether or not that will happen within a 5,000 square foot restaurant which it will not. If you look at the first floor plan on the site plan that you have, in the retail area where you have minimal traffic coming through there with the interaction with the restaurant and the bar, all you're doing is transitioning that grade through the hallway in-between these retail and the office spaces. It's done in buildings all over the place. It's not something unusual. The percentage of this height, everyone is talking about mass and how massive this building is, the percentage of this building at the maximum height is minuscule. There is a significant or was a significant attempt and effort made to vary the elevations throughout this building and the maximum elevations of it. If you look at this, compare this for instance to the Radisson, the percentage of its maximum height that it has it almost 100%. It comes straight up and is one mass of a building and this could not be more different then that. The percentage of this building that is at that elevation is basically the elevator overrun which can be disputed as to whether that height should be even counted. I think tremendous efforts have been made in acquiring additional property, revising drawings, and Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 61 going back and forth at a frantic race, or pace, in trying to make this project appealing to both you, the public, and staff. I think talking in general terns about how it doesn't interact with pedestrians is kind of a blanket statement to be quite honest with you. It has a tremendous amount of outdoor dining on both ends of the building. It's got the deck that's 2 stories up, it's actually 2 stories lower to the pedestrians then when we started. There's a tremendous attempt to make this an interactive building like Dickson Street is. Ostner: Mr. Hennelly, I'm not here to argue. Hennelly: I understand. Ostner: We need to share our comments with one another. Now you and I can fight all night long, but I've shared my comments with everyone and my commissioners. No offense, but we know you all believe in your building so I would appreciate if we could get past this and keep moving. Hennelly: Ok. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo, do you have any more comments? Trumbo: No, I'm fine. Appreciate it. Anthes: Ok. Harris: Madame Chair, I do have a question. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: And I'm sorry of you folks again. In the current elevations that we have I've lost a sense of the streetscape, the sort of street scene that we've had in some of the others. So, just to clarify and I could assume this but I don't want to assume anything on these, but the outdoor dining will still be under the cylindrical tower on the northeast side and it will also be on the northwest side is that correct? And is the overhang, does it stay? Abeyta: Yes, it does. Myers: So, basically these rendered perspective views remain pretty much the same regardless of the changes that have taken place? Abeyta: Yes. We didn't resubmit every drawing, we just tried to submit the things that are really crucial to the changes. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 62 Anthes: Commissioner Harris does that wind it up? Harris: For now, thank you. Anthes: Mr. Abeyta, before you sit down I have some questions. I want you to know how much I appreciate that the 3`a and 4a' floors that face Dickson Street are no longer parking. I think that is a big improvement to the facade and the life of Dickson Street and I understand that there has been some expense to get to that point and I appreciate it. I had some other questions that I've asked before, and I would like to know how these new plans address these questions. First, is there a terminus of the view from St. Charles? Can you show me on the north elevation where the center line of St. Charles intersects your building? Abeyta: It's that line right there. Anthes: Ok, so that mass is not actually centered on it, but it captures the center line. Abeyta: Right. Anthes: You've shown a lot of outdoor areas, one the Razor Deck I believe you called it and some other green roofs shown on the plan. Can you talk to me about what is happening in those outdoor use areas and what kind of noise can be expected, that kind of thing. And when you do that one of your floor plans I believe showed a green roof on the northern most part of the parking deck that intersects with the building and then the next elevation showed just parking so I wasn't sure of the intent there. Abeyta: Yeah, the intent of the Razor Deck is to be an outdoor, energetic environment, for people to hang out, swim in the pool, have parties, you know, celebrate things, events that are going on within Fayetteville. To celebrate the spirit of what all that activity and energy of what Fayetteville really is. The ideas of the roofscapes at the top of the building facing Dickson, the intent of that roofscape is to really interface with the restaurant component which is up on the 9`h floor. We have an outdoor dining environment that is at the top of the glass cylinder and it's got that kind of crown that marks the top. But adjacent to that on the left on that roofscape there is other opportunities for outdoor dining. Other activities, events, that could occur. They are a little bit more private then more of the public functions that might occur on the Razor Deck. So, we envision that area as a little bit more quiet, you know, people hanging out, eating, dining, whereas the Razor Deck environment will be a little bit more energized. I can't give you exactly what the sound is going to be off of that. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 63 Anthes: Sure. Abeyta: But on the backside of the project, you can see in that plan, that floor plan, interfacing with those first level hotel rooms, that was really to just sort of create a transition between that parking garage zone and the actual building. And I don't have the blow-ups of those, of that east elevation there, they are in your packet though, shows that elevation looking east, I'm sorry looking west from the east side. And that idea was really just to transition the garage to the building and allow people to sort of interface with the outdoors from those guest rooms, and an amenity for the condos which are above the hotel units to interface, have something nice to look at below. Anthes: Do you anticipate that there are just planted trees or is there ground cover? I appreciate the attempts to mitigate the urban heat island effect with the planted roofs, but I was just trying to get an idea of how much soft surface we can anticipate. Abeyta: I mean it all comes down to cost. We would like to provide as much as possible. The intent is for there to be potted plants with, you know, trees to give some shade and ground cover to that area. But probably most of that deck area would be you know hardscaped pavers, there could be elements of gravel and so forth to change the textures and so forth of that ground- scape. But for the most part, I mean it hasn't been designed this is just the big idea. Anthes: Ok, and I guess you might not have this answer either, but have you decided how the building will be illuminated? Abeyta: In my mind, the idea of the crown of that the top of the glass cylinder could somehow be up -lit, you know, as a sort of glowing element as a sort of focal point looking up Dickson Street. I think I described this last time, the columns that are described at the base of the building along Dickson Street, those could be either up -lit or down -lit to illuminate those design element features, repetitious features throughout the facade along the streetscape. Potential up -lighting or down -lighting, the surfaces of the brick facades that are setback along the southern edge of the pool deck just to provide some, you know, general lighting to emphasize some of the distinct elements about the project. Anthes: Ok, thank you. I think my next questions are for staff. Matt, I've been curious about this condition of approval that talks about them providing the turn lane that would be required, I'm assuming that's a turn lane on Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 64 Dickson as you approach St. Charles. Have you looked at that, and can you tell me what you anticipate seeing as the change to Dickson there? Casey: The turn lane will be a turn lane that's added on the east bound traffic on Dickson which will allow a tum lane north onto St. Charles. The addition will actually be on the south side. That lane will be through traffic, it will not be the turn lane. So, the existing lane that is in Dickson that is east bound will be the turn lane to the north. The new lane will go around that and will be the through traffic. So - Anthes: And do you... Casey: In doing that the planters and the existing signal will have to be adjusted to accommodate that. Anthes: And that is at the developer's expense? Casey: Yes. Anthes: And do you anticipate a signal? Any additional signals in the area other then what is - Casey: No, ma'am. There is just to be the reconfiguration of the existing signal in that area at the intersection. Anthes: Another question of staff is about the street lighting. In the lighting ordinance, I believe there is an exception with the Dickson Street lighting with the cut off. Are we asking for the same fixture with the full cut-off housing in there or what? Pate: The conditions state that they will match the Fayetteville Downtown Dickson Street type lighting. I will have to look at the lighting ordinance to see if there are exceptions for that specific district, I don't remember if there are or not. But if there are they will obviously follow as much as possible, closely as possible to the same lighting. I believe those fixtures we've actually looked at them for trail lighting, the city has, and I believe we can find those in a full cut-off type fixture as well that won't really alter the appearance very much. Anthes: Great, thanks. Is there further discussion? Ostner: Yes, Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 65 Ostner: I have a question for the engineer even though I can't see you, you can hear me. This new turn lane on west bound Dickson Street will require a, basically a new lane, a taper on the south side of Dickson. As I look at the site plan H2 has provided, I'm wanting to make sure that that is not on the drawing right now or is it? Hennelly: I believe if you look at the note on the top, remove existing island and relocate traffic and electric control for through traffic lane, at the very top in the middle an arrow comes down just to the east of the brick cross- walk. That island will have to be eliminated as well as depending on the amount of stacking distance, this refers to the conditions of approval that we are required to provide that engineering approves, we may have to remove that next island to the west. And I understand all that was, all that was put in with the Dickson Street improvements, but all that landscaping, any trees removed will obviously be replaced. But all that will be driven by the amount of stacking distance required by engineer. Ostner: Ok, so the note does call it out but the curb right now is without the turn lane as it's drawn? Hennelly: Exactly, that is the existing condition. Ostner: Ok, so when you say island I think of the actual island with the rock. You're talking about what I would call a bump out. Hennelly: Right. Ostner: All the bump -outs up and down Dickson. Hennelly: The island that you're referring to will remain unaffected. Ostner: Ok, so you're talking about removing the bump -out at the St. Charles intersection and possibly the one to the west and possibly the other depending on the stacking required by city engineering. Hennelly: Yeah, I wouldn't anticipate both of the smaller bump -outs to be removed, only the first one to the west of the brick cross -walk there going across to St. Charles. Ostner: Ok, thank you. Clark: Can I ask a follow question, before you leave Mr. Hennelly. I'm not an architect and I wish we could've talked about this in subdivision so you could've leaned over and just pointed for me, but we're talking about putting a 13' turning lane onto St. Charles correct? Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 66 Hennelly: May not be 13', it may be 11'. Clark: Something. I don't care if it's 10.35, we're going to put it there right? Hennelly: Right. Clark: Where is that lane going to come from? Hennelly: That lane will come from the islands we just talked about - Clark: In front of, in front of the Divinity building. Hennelly: And actually the existing through lane will become the turn lane. Clark: Ok, so the parking outside of Colliers that we've work so hard to achieve - Hennelly: That will remain. Clark: All that stays the same. The exact same? Hennelly: Exactly, all these improvements will be made on the south side of the road. Clark: Ok, on the turning lane on Block Street, approximately how much stacking distance are you going to have, I've asked you this before but these are new, from the corner of Dickson into the hotel. Hennelly: Well, I did not calculate the distance from the turn radius back to Dickson because I assumed that to be a dangerous situation. What I did figure was there were 13 vehicles that can stack within the drop off zone itself. And then I would like to point out that where you see the radius of 19.5' there as you come back out onto Block Street, that proposed curb is actually in error. That section of Block Street is wider there to accommodate on -street parking, existing on -street parking, which would provide another area for those vehicles to get out of the flow of traffic. Clark: Ok, now when you turn in, let's walks through this because I'm looking at the new plan, the site, and I'm trying to make it fit with my elevation, so I understand. You turn in off of Block Street, you go up a ramp to get to the parking? Hennelly: No, ma'am. What you do is you pull in off of Block Street, you pull in an at grade driveway, drop off point, that you see there right outside the hotel lobby. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 67 Clark: Ok. Hennelly: That will be at grade. You just pull in there and then the guests will check in the hotel, the valet will take their vehicle and turn west where you can see the word valet and then they'll come around the alley and then up into the parking ramps that are maintained within the structure. Eddie may be able to show that better on that. Clark: That is at alley level or it's in the building? Abeyta: That is at alley level. Hennelly: That's all at grade and you don't actually pull into the deck until you get to the deck. Unlike the original submittal where we had a ramp going up immediately. Clark: Ok, and you still have differentiated parking for the hotel and the condos. Abeyta: Yeah. Clark: Ok, thank you. Hennelly: To give you a little perspective, so you have something to relate that number of vehicles to, I believe there is 6 vehicles that you can get into the drop off point at the Radisson right now. So, you can kind of compare the size of what this drop off area will be to that just for comparison. Clark: Thank you Mr. Hennelly. Anthes: Since we are talking about cars, I will move onto my next question. Maybe staff can help clarify this and I think there was some public comment to this effect as well. Proponents of this project have often cited the need for parking downtown and they've been really happy that this project was going to provide some. From what I understand from page 3 of our staff report, however, this project is actually running at a deficit to itself and would you help me understand the, and for the public here, the 30% credit or allowance, plus what I've never quite understood is the parking credit for existing structures on site that no longer exist and how that effects the final outcome of the parking numbers. Pate: Sure, the 30% reduction is allowed by ordinance with any project that we see. With a lot of restaurants, for instance, you see the maximum 30% and sometimes over and other uses. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 68 Anthes: Mostly over. Pate: Mostly over. In other situations however, you see the minimum; that's only come before you to a less then that a couple of times. So, that's the 30% that is allowed by ordinance. The parking credit for existing structures in the C-3 and C-4 zoning districts, City Council passed an ordinance several years ago which allows an existing, basically whatever square footage you have on a site, you are essentially credited for that structure. That parking that would be provided for that structure. So, if you have a 1,000 square foot restaurant, at 1 space per 100 square feet, you're given 10 spaces. If you rebuild a building that is simply a credit to your project. That's utilized in any project downtown and actually every single project that has occurred in the downtown has utilized that and it's been discussed in some form or fashion including Three Sisters, which that was a part of discussion on that project in reviewing the minutes for that as well as the Mountain Inn. They utilized the existing hotel, the existing parking structure, those are all credited parking spaces back toward that particular development. Anthes: Ok, so what we would normally require on this site, just straight across, just looking at the new development is 557 spaces if I'm reading this chart correctly. Is that right? Pate: Yes. That's the base - Anthes: The base level, and then we are allowing a 30% credit? Pate: An applicant can go 30% above or below that by ordinance. Anthes: So, 390 is 66% of the 557, is that what you're saying in this chart? Pate: The 390 is exactly 30% less then 557. Anthes: And then they've actually provided 370. Pate: Correct. Anthes: Which would be a 20 space deficit off of the 30% but then they get the 26 parking spaces credit from the existing buildings. Pate: Correct, that where you see, actually you shouldn't say deficiency, it's plus 6. Anthes: Ok, so they are actually in the good for 6 spaces according to the acceptable formula. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 69 Pate: Yes, that is correct. Garner: Madame Chair, to clarify. Mr. Pate and I were discussing, they added two additional condo units so on - Pate: That would be plus 4. Garner: So, it's plus 4 actually. Anthes: Ok. Alright. Clear as mud. Also, Mr. Pate, because it has been asked, trying to cover questions that have been asked by the public that may not have been answered, there was an issue about the timing of our development review and if you could just summarize that real quickly about how many days we have to see things and whether or not this procedure has followed the number of days allowed. Pate: Sure, this project would not be before you had it not followed those ordinance criteria. The applicant is required to notify the city. We were notified in the paper every time this has come before you. Obviously, the applicant has requested it be tabled on 3 separate occasions. It has been notified according to our ordinance requirements. The applicant has notified adjacent property owners when this project began, I believe it was March 3`a when it was originally submitted. Anthes: So, would you say, as compared with other developments that are moving through the city of Fayetteville, is this moving through in a timely fashion or is it a little slower then we are used to? Pate: I believe it is quite a bit slower then most large scale developments that we see. For some reasons that obviously staff has not supported it until this time. That's one of the reasons. I would mention, if I may, the conditions of approval that take Planning Commission determination should you wish to make a motion to approve, there are 5 conditions specifically noted. Obviously number 1 is determination of Commercial Design Standards, number 2 is determination of street improvements, A through D is what staff is recommending for this project. Item number 3 is determination of waiver for driveway width that has been discussed at subdivision and Planning Commission level and some of those have been modified to come to recommendations by staff and I believe Subdivision Committee also made recommendations. Same thing with item number 4, A through F, waiver for driveway curb radii. Most of that are components of the urban nature of this design and the standard 25' curb radius does not necessarily fit in an urban context as required by our ordinances. And then conditions number 5 is a new condition, a new consideration for the Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 70 Planning Commission and recommendation. That is the determination of a waiver for a structure to be constructed over public right-of-way. What that is stating is that should the Planning Commission and then subsequently the City Council approve a structure to be constructed over the public right -of way, that is referring to the alley situation. Previously, we don't have the elevation board up, but if you look at the west elevation, this project takes about the middle of the project there where you can see the alley entrance, obviously that structure and that property was not this, was not on this property. The wall face there just went straight down. This utilization as described by the applicant earlier, would span the alley much as a town center spans an alley and the right-of-way that we have adjacent to this, adjacent, or close to this building. It would be the same situation. And staff is recommending approval of that waiver subject to fire and solid waste approvals. We do have minimum clearance requirements and those have to be met to my understanding as well as a minimum curb radii as expressed by some of the citizens tonight. Ms. Alexander I believe and also Mr. Overby has discussed that and I believe submitted a letter to you in your packets about ensuring that that solid waste can especially access that area and that was all part of that condition. And those are the 5 conditions that do take Planning Commission recommendation and consideration. Anthes: May I ask you a question that you might not know about, but this might be the first time I've ever seen a structure over the public right-of-way or one of the few times I've seen it since I've been on the Commission. Do we have precedent in the area for that because I'm seeming to remember there was an application before I was on commission for the alley between the John Cole building and Arvest and that was denied and I didn't know why and wondered if anybody here had that memory. Pate: I don't, the last one I remember coming in was actually the Mountain Inn project. They spanned that alley with the pedestrian walk -way. Obviously the Town Center was a few years back, that was approved and constructed there. All of the balconies, or not all of the new balconies, that are constructed over public right-of-way over sidewalks over Dickson Street and downtown and the Square, those also, because they are part of that structure take City Council approval. So, it's a request that we do see from time to time. Anthes: Ok, thank you. Commissioners, if we want to work our way through the conditions of approval, I suggest we start with 5 and then work our way up in reverse order. Does any commissioner have any additional comments about the waiver for the structure to be constructed over a public right-of- way? Ok, what about the waiver for the driveway curb radii? Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 71 Garner: Madame Chair, if I may just interrupt on that particular condition. We need to add another waiver request for G which would reference a waiver for the entrance into the garage, the radius into those. That is 14' so it would say the driveway into the garage, that's going to have a radius of 14'. Anthes: Which street? Church. Thank you, Mr. Garner. Pate: May I just clarify, Andrew could you read condition D and see if that takes care of that? I believe that was added. Garner: I think that is referring to the alley. I believe there is also another entrance into the garage which would need that. Pate: Ok, thank you. Graves: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I just have a question on letter A. I heard Mr. Hennelly mention the 19.5' curb radius and I just want to make sure that that number is correct. You were talking about, I believe you were talking about the parking that was available on the street but you made mention of the 19.5' radius and said there was something that was incorrect as shown on the drawing. I just wanted to make sure - Hennelly: That 19.5' radius that is referred to on 4A is actually on the Church Street drop off. In actuality, the one coming out onto Block Street should be one of the 10' radius requests. Anthes: So, the plat is correct with the two 19.5's that have shown up. Hennelly: Yes, ma'am the 19' radius on Church Street is correct but an additional request for the radius that I indicated as 19.5 on Block Street should actually be for a 10' radius request. Graves: I think it says 10' already. So, it was correct in our condition just wrong in the drawing, ok. Anthes: Ok, condition 3 is the waiver for the driveway width. I believe that's a wider driveway then what is required. Ok, no comments there. Street improvements, number 2. Commissioner Ostner? Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 72 Ostner: Madame Chair. I'm just, the list of street improvements is a little bit light in my book. We've asked more from developments that build streets and sewers and walk away, in my opinion. This application is being [required] to basically build a 10' sidewalk all the way to Spring and other than the turn lane, everything is basically adjacent to their project. Well, I don't know. If this is approved I think the impact will be significant and I think more off-street, off-site improvements would be proportional. I think that the pedestrian experience all the way to the Square could be improved more then the 100, 200 or whatever feet to Spring Street. But I haven't sat around and dreamt up how to do those things. That's just my opinion on condition 2, so. Anthes: Maybe we can hear from staff engineering and planning about if you considered off site improvements and whether you consider the assessments with this project meeting the same kind of rational nexus that other subdivisions have made. Pate: We did consider and obviously considered street improvements and made those recommendations there that you see before you. As was discussed, and that same question was asked with the Lofts at Underwood Plaza, in an urban context where there is a grid system, the street improvements will likely drop because we are not likely to recommend widening a whole lot of downtown streets in this area. Additionally, the more street connection and grid network allows for the distribution of traffic in a more efficient manner. So, for instance, on this particular case you have a Block Street, a Dickson Street, and the Church Street facade which allows traffic to go a number of ways. We did require a traffic study with this project and they indicated the St. Charles and Dickson Street, that particular intersection was something that could be improved, and so we did recommend improvements with that, especially with the turn lane to allow for through traffic to continue on Dickson Street while also allowing left turners to make that left onto St. Charles now that it has become a 2 -way street. The improvements to the sidewalk we felt, as we've discussed through our Downtown Master Plan process, that the Block Street connection to the Square from Dickson Street is probably seen as the crucial link between those two areas to fully connect that so we thought it was important to provide some improvements in that area and therefore we recommended that this project, this developer, construct those sidewalks down Block Avenue. If you walk that area, most of the sidewalks are broken up. They've been poured several times. They could certainly use an improvement to enhance pedestrian activity and safety. With this type of project, as a hotel restaurant kind of thing, while there is certainly a traffic demand generated by this, it tends to be less because hotel, for instance, residents have a limousine or taxi that brings you from the airport. So, not every one of those hotel drivers drive. Additionally, we Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 73 hope, and through our Downtown Master Plan, certainly encourage more pedestrian traffic to utilize this area. And even walking past this area last night, Block Street is ready for some improvement to make that critical link. So, that's the impetus for those street improvements and we feel they should be born by the developer. Anthes: And I'm assuming you have revisited that recommendation with the addition of the condos. Pate: Yes, that is correct. The improvements obviously will extend the length of the property, which is quite significant, half an acre to the south. It will extend the entire length of that project's frontage as well. Ostner: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Did the traffic study entail pedestrian involvement? Pate: It did discuss pedestrian involvement, I think in a manner similar to the very brief letter that we got from the Lofts at Underwood project which is a couple of blocks away. That pedestrian safety is certainly encouraged, with the wide sidewalks that will help, the movement and traffic signals I think that is important. The crossing at the post office and the drug store is obviously a very important crossing there because those are utilized so frequently. So, that is something we will have to evaluate during the relocation of those traffic lights and signals. Ostner: It appears to me that there is, by my memory there is parallel parking on both side of Block Street. I understand that street is slated to be changed to 2 -lane soon. The idea of the same bump -outs on Dickson come up as a way to promote pedestrian safety which is what has happened on Dickson? Pate: Not particularly because if you look at your maps there are two developed properties on the side of Block Street as you head toward the Square. They are undeveloped properties that will likely put their share of development in as well. So, those are types of things that we would anticipate as well with development as it heads up to the Square on Block Street. They are obviously two empty parcels that have not developed for a number of years. Ostner: I just think it's difficult that when a traffic study sees a traffic problem, they recommend widening and that is generally the solution and it is not always the solution. They've actually narrowed Dickson in the past Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 74 whatever 5 years and I believed that has helped, been part of the solution. I've yet to see a traffic study recommend narrowing of the street and I'm not sure if this traffic study looked into narrowing Block Street to promote a fair pedestrian experience with the cars while allowing pedestrian flow. Do you think this traffic study did that, Mr. Pate? Pate: It did look at - Ostner: I know they somewhat addressed pedestrians. Pate: I don't think that, at least in this traffic study and that is included in your staff report, speed on that particular intersection wasn't identified as a concern which obviously narrowing the street would help to calm the traffic there. Because it is such a strange intersection - Ostner: Well, I'm talking about Block Street. Block Street. Not just the part in front of this building I'm talking about away from the building as well. Pate: We did not look at that. Ostner: Ok, ok. Anthes: Ok, does any commissioner have additional comments on condition of approval number 1? Myers: Madame Chair it's the only one I really have a problem with but I think I already stated my reasoning so I won't go make another, make another statement, but I don't agree with staffs findings for this particular item. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Myers. Is there further comment on condition of approval number 1? Lack: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: I'll be brief because I've stated my opinion about this for the previous iterations and the slope across the site is certainly something that I appreciate you bring up. Something that does make some difference to the elevations. I think that what I understand from the explanations is we probably will have a little bit taller corner on the corner of Dickson and Church from natural grade which is where we measure height of a building in Fayetteville. But even with that I think that I was in support of the project with the two additional floors originally. I think that that does not dampen my support. The issue of compatibility is something that we Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 75 can look at and say how tall is ok. How tall is too tall? And we could each look at a different height or pick a different height. I think it is taller than surrounding buildings will likely be with the ordinance that is put forth and will likely be passed through City Council. I think that it is something that we recognize by ordinance in a C-3 zone as having an unlimited height and as I have stated before, I take the ordinance as a "shall" in a recommendation of unlimited height and the compatibility issue as a should. So, with that I would support the project on the issue of compatibility for Commercial Design Standards. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Lack. Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I'm going to make a motion, my thoughts on the Commercial Design Standards are in the record multiple times and I won't repeat them, I move for approval of Large Scale Development 06-1997 with the stated conditions of approval finding in favor with staffs recommendations for the reasons stated there on number 1. The same on number 2. The same on number 3 for the waiver. The same on number 4 for the waiver, and the same on number 5 for the waiver. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Graves. We have a motion to approve. Tr umbo: Second. Anthes: A second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there further discussion? Harris: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: I stated in our last, I guess the special session about this, that in terms of height, to go back to Design Standards, I can't help then look over a larger spatial field then the buildings immediately north, south, east, and west. I do look across more something like the 300 and some odd acres of downtown. The mass does concern me. It did before and it continues to and I will actually go on record, I like the original design more than I do the current facade. I think we've dumbed down the facade. I think it was more interesting and had more energy and vibrancy before. But its problem, it is now meeting with staff approval. Here is where I am on this. The staff is now saying that they approve of this. I voted against the staff earlier this evening so I could do it again. Not that I enjoy doing that, Mr. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 76 Pate. I am going however to support this project this evening for several reason, but primary among them is that it does seem, with the set backs and so forth, to meet some standard of this city's compatibility and transition and I think it is in my book or my mind, right now, simply time for the City Council to address its political and law making ability whether or not that is true. I don't really have the authority in this city to continue to have this conversation. I think we have done a remarkable job. I know that every single member of this Commission has been more then robust in its defense of the city. We may have differences of opinion about how that is best accomplished. I hope that if this does meet with any sort of final approval that it is an extremely successful undertaking. I actually hope that if it meets with final approval that that restaurant does happen and you all make a really kick butt martini, charge a dollar draft for it, and call it the Planning Commissioner because we have, we would certainly do that. More important is that we've now worked through the 5 major conditions of approval. Our difference of opinion seems to center around 1 and I simply am to the point that I think that difference to my mind now simply has to be decided at the city council level. So, I will send it on to the City Council. Anthes: I need to remind Commissioner Harris, that, if the conversation has to continue some place then that's where it will continue. Just for the audience's knowledge on this issue, however, this development is a Large Scale Development. The Planning Commission has final decision-making power over Large Scale Developments, unlike a planned zoning district, unless that decision is appealed to City Council. If there were a negative vote on this item, the applicant could appeal that to City Council. If there is a positive vote on this item, the public can petition their council members to appeal the item. Everyone clear on that? Clark: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I feel like I've spent an inordinate amount of this year dealing with this building and I still think it is an absolutely gorgeous building. I just think it doesn't fit on the corner you want to put it on and I'm going to be consistent about that until, I guess, the thing that strikes me is how big it is in comparison to what is around it. There are a lot of places, as a matter of fact I had a conversation with somebody today that said this would've been the perfect thing to put by the baseball stadium in that big field out there, and I thought wow that would've been, that would've really set that whole area of Fayetteville apart. But that's not our choice, those are your choices and I understand some of your motivation to put it on this corner. As I drove around this weekend to see some of the items that we are Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 77 hearing tonight, I drove by a lot that I have been involved in this commission for 2 years approving and I was proud of a lot of them. There were a couple however that I thought what in the world were we thinking and you know which ones you are. I don't want to have that feeling about this building so Hilary I'm going to follow up on your heels and take a different approach. I'm going to vote to deny this so hopefully it does get kicked to the City Council. You probably have all the forms out to do it. And let them debate this issue because I've never heard from more citizens on an item for Planning Commission that I've been on it as many as this one. This has galvanized this community, and it's not polarized to the point that people are throwing things at each other yet, but it is becoming polarized and I think it needs that political discussion. I can still find issues, prescriptive issues that we are charged with looking at that justify denying. It's not compatible, it doesn't transition, there are safety issues that I problem with, building over a right-of-way I have problems with, traffic I have had issues with and have had from the beginning. And I will reiterate that I do wish this had gone back to subdivision so we really could've sat down and pointed and looked and understood how all of this was going to work. Including the grade, including the parking lot now, which is admirable that you all bought the additional property to put on. I have no idea how this vote will go tonight, but I am very comfortable with voting no on it because it doesn't necessarily have to be the last step and maybe we can involve more people in the dialog. And I did not vote for the Plaza at Underwood either so I'm at least being sort of consistent in my views of Dickson Street. I think Fayetteville is growing. I don't think you can stop it. It's a fabulous place and it's going to keep growing. I do not have Rogers Springdale envy at all and I don't think this building will retreat some place else. I hope it will be built in Fayetteville just not in that particular corner. So, I'll continue to deny it. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Harris: Madame Chair? Anthes: Yes. Harris: I don't have Rogers and Bentonville envy either, and what I do have, and I say that with incredible respect, is I really don't want to be Springdale's downtown and for that reason I too hope that we have great developments on Dickson Street. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Harris. I would like to take this opportunity to commend staff for your diligence during this project, my fellow commissioners who have put in a lot of time in meetings and I'm sure, as I have, really fretting about this at home on the weekends, at night, all sorts Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 78 of times when you could've been doing something else. And the applicants who have been a pleasure to work with--, we've had other instances that were different so I appreciate that, and the citizens of Fayetteville who true to form and fashion have been conducting themselves in this debate with intelligence and voracity and also with a sense of humor and I truly appreciate that. I can say that because after Commissioner Ostner handed me the gavel, my very first meeting as Chair was with this item and it scared the pants off of me, but everybody has done an extremely good job and I wanted to go on the record to say that. I also want to acknowledge as I have before, that I fully understand the importance of economic development and investment in our downtown, I support fully the mixed use of the retail, the hotel, the restaurant, the spa, the housing, the parking in this area. I understand that those things are an asset to this community. I come back every time to what we are charged with looking at as a Planning Commission, like use and form and other items that are listed in our LSD criteria and our Unified Development Code. I still have a question about the fact that our community does not allow gated communities, and I believe this condo tower is a vertical gated community and I don't know what to do about that. I don't have any kind of direction from Council about how to think about that when we go up instead of out. I have, since the original subdivision meeting when I first looked at this project, had issues about the traffic and the site plan and the distances between the hotel drop off and Dickson Street and the condo drop off and Dickson Street and whether or not we're actually providing enough stacking distance and area for movement and whether this site is just too constrained to make those functions happen. I appreciate the land being acquired for parking and getting that off the street, but I don't believe that the condo parking or any of that even shifted with that additional land. So, I'm still concerned about that. While I understand and appreciate the reasons why the parking was moved to the additional, the new property, what it has done is exacerbate the blank and unfriendly pedestrian facade along Church. That's only gotten longer and I know that the applicant has added those showcases in an attempt to rectify that condition and has rather deep ones that are probably pretty workable on the front part of the site but they have become very narrow and not much more then a poster case from what I can tell along the rest of the new facade and I'm not sure we are contributing to the pedestrian environment that we've talked, as a community, about wanting in Fayetteville with that facade. I also always want to balance what we do in the future—balance the vision and the great investment in our community with our history, and I keep looking at the Good Folk House there, and I wonder what we're doing by wrapping it with this building and I wonder how that's going to play out over time. Then ultimately, there is the big compatibility and transition issue. I don't only look at what's there now, but also what I can anticipate in the future. I know that I am finding it very hard to accept that the 1 and 2 story Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 79 buildings that exist right now can juxtapose themselves against this very tall building. But I am also concerned that City Council has now set an 8476 story high limit for the rest of the surrounding areas. So, I can anticipate future development at 84' and while the difference between 6 and 8 stories doesn't sound like a lot, the difference between 135' or arguable 112' and 84' is too great for me to be able to find that this provides compatibility and transition either now or in the future. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to approve LSD 06-1997 fails with a vote of 4-5-0. Anthes: Thank you. Do you people need a break or can we move on? You can take 5 or 10 minutes. Roll Call: Clark leaves. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 80 ANX 06-2127: Annexation (WILLIAMS, 474): Submitted by RANDY L. RITCHEY for property located at 340 S DOUBLE SPRINGS ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 1.00 acre. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Anthes: Ok, our next item. We are on to new business at 9:30 PM. Our first item is Annexation 06-2127 for Williams. Can we have the staff report please? Morgan: Yes, this is the item which kind of is associated with the annexation and rezoning for Hays. This is a 1 acre tract of property adjacent to Dot Tipton Road, or excuse me, Double Springs Road north of Dot Tipton Road. It is adjacent to the city limits on the north, east, and west, and just north of Hays. The applicant is requesting annexation of this parcel. Staff is finding... staff finds in support of this. The applicant is not requesting a rezoning at this time. Therefore, it would be zoned RA, Residential Agricultural if annexed into the city. And I just would like to note that as annexed or as zoned as RA it would be a non -conforming tract or area unless rezoned different zoning to bring it into conformity. However, all of the uses may continue on this property as is and we are in support of this annexation. Anthes: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Would any member of the public like to speak to Annexation Request 06-2127 for Williams? Seeing none we'll close the public comment section. Will the applicant come forward? Good evening. Ritchey: Madame Chair, my name is Randy Ritchey and I represent the applicant in this situation where this annexation is essentially an attempt to eliminate an island. We annexed the property immediately north previously and later on in this particular agenda that northern property is before you as a preliminary plat. The southern property that you approved earlier this evening would create this particular tract as an island. So, we are going ahead and annexing it to eliminate that problem so that we have in essence a mass annexation, if you will, with no islands. Other than that, there is really no issue. The owner doesn't really care to do anything with the property. That's why we are leaving it RA, and I personally don't see him doing anything with it for a while. He lives next door to his father, it's a father -son situation and neither of them are going anywhere. So, essentially we are here just to keep from causing an island. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you very much, Mr. Ritchey. Is there a discussion? Before that, can I ask staff what zoning would make it ... Oh, it's the dwelling that is not compliant? So, an RSF-1 would make them compliant? Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 81 Pate: Actually, they are compliant as a use right now. It's just the expansion of the property because of the size of the lot would take a variance because it's not a full 2 acres. Anthes: Got it. Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Motion: Graves: I move, for the reasons stated by staff and also for the fact that we just recommended annexation on the property immediately to the south, move for forwarding to the city council with recommendations of approval Annexation 06-2127. Ostner: Second. Anthes: We have a motion to forward by Commissioner Graves, second by Commissioner Ostner. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to approve ANX 06-2127 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 82 ADM 06-2159: Administrative Item (LYNWOOD ESTATES, 294): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING for property located at 2468 N. CROSSOVER ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 2 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 4.77 acres, with six single family lots. The request is an appeal of the City Engineer and Planning Commission determination of the money -in -lieu amount required for sidewalks adjacent to Hwy. 265. Anthes: Our next item is item 10. Administrative Item 06-2159 for Lynwood Estates. May we have the staff report? Garner: Yes, ma'am. This property contains just under 5 acres. It's located on Crossover Road approximately 250' north of Township Street. The subdivision committee approved final plat for Lynwood Estates, 06-2055 on May 10`h of this year and as part of that approval the recommendation was made not to construct sidewalks at this time because reconstruction of Highway 265 is planned in the near future and a 6' wide sidewalk was the requirement and required to pay fees in lieu. And the applicant is submitting an appeal to the planning commission for the cost of that sidewalk and also for the width of that sidewalk. They are proposing, they would request a 4' wide sidewalks, they find that the 6 lots with the pedestrian traffic from those lots would not require the 6' sidewalk. And staff does understand the rational behind that however are consistent in recommendation for the development of this site has been a full 6' sidewalk. And they are also appealing the dollar amount for the sidewalk. Our ordinance requires 3 dollars per square foot and they have gotten a bid from a contractor 2 dollars per square foot and we find that this is also a reasonable request. However, it is not consistent with what has been required for other developments in the city and what our ordinance requires. And we recommend denial of the applicant's request and will be happy to answer any questions. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Garner. Would any member of the public like to speak to this Administrative Item for Lynwood Estates? Seeing none we'll close the public comment section. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Hennelly: Yes, ma'am. I am Tom Hennelly with H2 Engineering. First of all, I want to apologize for even having to bring this back to you all. This was approved at subdivision committee and we received the conditions of approval at subdivision committee and I obviously didn't have enough time to read through them, but probably should have paid closer attention to them afterwards. Additionally, I didn't realize until I looked into this further how these fees for sidewalks assessment are made and didn't realize that it was in fact a 3 dollar per square foot requirement by ordinance. But as I read this, certainly it's clear in the way the ordinance is written, without any regard for what the intent of the ordinance was, the Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 83 way it reads specifically it looks like we should be charged $630 per lot. Specifically spelled out, single family houses, $630 a lot that $3 a square foot applies to commercial, industrial, and multi -family residential developments only. That created a significant amount of confusion in how the fee was assessed. In discussions with staff, I do understand what the intent of this ordinance is, I also understand that this amount was come to by city council based on the rational nexus of rough proportionality. And I just, I can't help that think that $12,600 is not roughly proportionate to the amount of pedestrian traffic generated by 5 residential lots. In discussing this with the city engineer I did come to what I thought to be a good compromise of assessing for a 4' sidewalk at the rate that the developer was able to get it built for. While to the letter of the law we think that is still excessive, we feel it is more reasonable. It just appears to me that this amount of money for the, had this development not gone through there would have been 2 lots, 2 additional lots that would have assessed $630 for the same amount of sidewalk. It just doesn't seem like the math works out and this developer is being assessed an inordinate amount just because he has frontage on 265. I have not been able to find anyone who can tell me how to project pedestrian traffic numbers generated by residential development. There is a wide variety of theories and complicated mathematical formulas that I haven't even been able to begin figuring out. But from a common sense standpoint you can see that 5 residential lots being assessed $12,600 may be somewhat excessive. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Hennelly. Commissioners? Ostner: Well, if I could ask a question of the city attorney. Mr. Hennelly is basically talking about 2 different parts of our development code. Is there something that jumps out at you as an obvious solution to his request? Williams: Well, I do think that one thing you need to consider is the appeal section which is why he is here before you. Which is, tries to incorporate the rough proportionality test which we are required by the Constitution and the United States' Supreme Court decisions about exactions that cities can require to provide a fact based decision by the Planning Commission concerning what is the rough proportional of him building 5 houses up on the sidewalk needs in that area. Normally, of course, if someone builds a house along a street they have to build the sidewalk in front of it and normally it is a 4' sidewalk or 5', not a 6' as it would be in front of a major arterial. If this was a commercial development then I think a 6' sidewalk certainly would meet the rough proportionality test. Here I think there is somewhat of a problem that we have because there is 1 existing house so you can't count that, no impact there. They have 5 houses that have been spread out along 265 where we need to have a 6' sidewalk. I mean, that is something that the city certainly wants to have along that arterial even Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 84 though, evidently, we don't want to have it now because I think that arterial is going to be enlarged. So, what you all have to do is decide what is the rough proportionality of the impact of 5 single family homes. And so, what is he normally required to do to pay for that. Because that was so difficult to try to decide, and as he said there is not much scientific evidence out there about pedestrian impact or bicycle impact on what you would get from 5 houses, we did come up with the formula as you remember, that kind of took the fact that what would be the minimum amount of frontage that someone would be required to have for a single family home, 70', times the normal size sidewalk for residential development along a residential street and multiplied that by $3 per square foot. And that's where we came up with those figures of I think it was $630 for a single family home. And we said, and the code and the city council agreed that that would be kind of like the basic amount because sometimes people build on corners and it is kind of unfair for them to have to build double sidewalks just because they have a corner lot, and that was one of the situations we were faced with when the city council decided to change this. I guess my recommendation to you is to look at the sidewalk section itself, because right now we are not requiring it to be built. If it was requiring to be built then I guess we could talk to him and I guess what you would want to see if maybe the city would do a cost share to enlarge it in the size we need as opposed to what his house is justified. But right now we're not requiring anything to be built. We're just trying to take money in lieu thereof and I think if you look at 171.12 A3 B 1 or I you can get to what is assessed of the facilitated administration of this ordinance which is the property owner constructs sidewalk or contributes to the cost of the sidewalk, it says to facilitate administration of this ordinance for certain recurrent types of development. The city council has determined that the city will accept as a roughly proportionate impact the amount shown below, single family house, $630. This is a little bit unusual in that because instead of building 1 house in 1 lot he's building 5 houses at the same time so he was treated as a developer. And in many cases I would agree with that especially if you're talking about interior sidewalks where they have to build them if they are interior sidewalks. But I think in this case it is much more analogous to the fact that he's building 5 lots along an already established street that doesn't have any sidewalks and we don't want any sidewalks now. And so, I think that he does make a pretty good point about that the full amount to build a 6' wide sidewalks, to dedicate all the land that we are requiring to dedicate for this arterial, which is much larger then most streets, so we've required more of a dedication from him already in land and then to say and you have to build or pay us to build a 6' sidewalk in the future, I think might be going beyond what the actual impact that he has. And you can look at his letter I think that in his letter he says we are proposing the assessed amount be reduced to $6,628 and I think that was written in July 15`h to you. As you see that is more Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 85 then $630 per house and is probably a pretty fair offer from him to kind of split the different I guess with the city on this one. Still you all get to make the actual decision and decide what is the proper amount to charge. That is what the Supreme Court has said that the city must provide him is an unbiased council or decision making group that will look at the facts and come up with an amount. Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I remember that we struggled with this item whenever it was on the agenda previously, as our city attorney has referenced, and tried to do what we felt was fair at the time but with the comments that we've heard from our city attorney tonight, I'm inclined to agree with those comments. And the proposed amount by the developer is actually double what we would, what the single family home formula, and I know it's arguable whether this is a subdivision or a single family home, whether it is recurrent, or that type of thing and you can pick that up in the letters between the developer and the staff. And I would just compare it I guess to the situation that Dixey Development had when they removed the big tree out there and what can be intended with an ordinance and the effect of that ordinance in a specific situation. Sometimes it might call to treat a unique situation differently, and it would seem fair to me to accept the developer's proposal and the amend the conditions on the final plat accordingly. Which would be the amount of $6,628 and that's actually more then double the 3150 I guess that the $630 per lot calculation came to. Myers: Madame Chair, if that's a motion I'll second it. Graves: Is there a specific condition that I need to move to amend? Pate: Not a condition but if you would state in your motion what the, what you're doing is amending the condition of approval. Graves: Looks like it is condition number 3 on the final plat. Pate: That's correct. Graves: So, I would move that the conditions associated with the final plat that was approved on this item, condition of approval number 3, that it be amended such that the dollar amount shown there would actually be amended so that $12,660 is stricken and replaced with $6,628 for the reasons we've stated. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 86 Myers: I'll second. Anthes: Motion by Commissioner Graves and a second by Commissioner Myers to amend the conditions of approval. Is there further discussion? Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I would also think that there is good logic here to go ahead and back off this amount. However, if I'm being asked to come up with my logic, my rationale, and I know I'm not going to be held to this next time, but 630 linear feet times 4' wide means we have 2,520 square foot of sidewalk. I think it's fair to stick with the $3 a square foot. I understand you all have a lower bid. Simply because $3 a square foot is mentioned in our code, not that we have to stick to it, but if I'm going with my logic that only comes up to $7,560 and I think it's fair. It takes in your case and it also meshes with a dollar amount that the code has come up with and I think that is a fair amount. I would request a friendly amendment of the motioner to change the dollar amount by barely $900 to $7,560 on the point of consistency with the $3 per square foot. Hennelly: If I could also just clarify something. For five lots as Mr. Williams mentioned, that 6th lot is already occupied by a home and still is so we're talking about 5 lots which is basically 500, on the dimension is 557 linear feet. If we use that 3' and multiply that by 4' sidewalk I believe that comes to $6,628 exactly. And that is - Ostner: Going by your letter here 630 linear feet at our $2.63 a square foot - Hennelly: I think I may have mistakenly included that additional lot on there, but realizing that that was an existing lot, the remaining is 557 linear feet at $3 a square foot which is what is required by ordinance. But being only assessed for 4' sidewalk I believe comes to $6,628 is that right? Pate: $6,684. Hennelly: $6,684. Graves: $6,684. I will be willing to amend my motion to $6,684 to reflect the actual 5 lots that are new, a little bit more then the motion I originally made. A little bit less then what Commissioner Ostner has suggested. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 87 Ostner: Well, I would throw out my suggestion because there was some confusion on Mr. Hennelly's letter because I simply going off of that. I would concur completely. So, thank you. Myers: I'm fine with that. Anthes: For the record, we are stating that there are 5 lots, 557 linear feet of sidewalk at 4' wide, $3 a square foot is $6,684. Has staff run the math on that to make sure we got that number correct. Pate: Yes. Graves: And just for the record I'll state that in the motion that it's, that we're making a finding that that is roughly proportionate based on the evidence that we have on the appeal. Anthes: Thank you Commissioner Graves. Is there discussion? Will you call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to approve ADM 06-2159 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 88 CUP 06-2124: Conditional Use Permit (BAKER, 558): Submitted by JENNIFER STONE for property located at S of HWY 62, ON THE W SIDE OF FARMERS DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.29 acres. The request is for a duplex in the RSF-4 Zoning District. Anthes: Our next item this evening is item 11. Conditional Use Permit 06-2124 for Baker. Mr. Garner. Garner: Yes, ma'am. This property is located on East Farmers Drive in west Fayetteville. The majority of the parcel is zoned RSF-4 with a very small sliver of remaining property that is zoned Residential Agricultural. This Farmers Drive is located south of 6"' Street, State Highway 62. It's a quiet north, south established residential street with established single family residences and duplexes mixed along this street. A park is located at the northern end of the neighborhood. The applicant proposes a duplex on this property and staff does find that a duplex in this location is compatible and consistent with this neighborhood. There is a duplex directly across the street and there are other duplexes scattered across this street mixed with single family residences as well. And staff was able to make a positive finding of fact with this request and we are recommending approval with 4 conditions. Conditions number 3 I wanted to call your attention to is that the duplex should be constructed in compliance or general compliance with the elevations submitted. And that's page 9, the renderings that were provided. Conditions number 4 is that the sidewalk along this property would be repaired as part of the building permit. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Garner. Would any member of the public like to address this Conditional Use Permit for Baker? Seeing none I'll close the public comment section. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Scott: My name is Jennifer Scott. There is actually a typo in the agenda. I'm representing Greg Baker, the owner. And basically just what has been stated, we want to build a duplex there on Farmers Drive. There are several up and down the street. We wouldn't be doing anything that has not been done and of course we would comply with all Conditional Use requirements. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Scott. Commissioners? Myers: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Myers. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 89 Myers: I would like to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 06-2124 with the intended 4 conditions of approval. Anthes: We have a motion by Commissioner Myers, do we hear a second. Trumbo: Second. Anthes: Second, by Commissioner Trumbo is there further discussion? Harris: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: On page 9 of 9, I'm sorry let me gather my thoughts. Condition 3 that duplex shall be constructed in general compliance with drawings and elevations submitted, and page 9 the, this is sort of a picky question, but the difference in where the driveways are on page 9 of page 10 just means that you are going to have a sort of page in front of the house more so then just going up to the garage doors in order to accommodate those 4 parking places and I'm just wondering - Myers: I think she is counting garages too. Harris: 1, 2, ok. Is that pad going to be in front? Scott: Yes. Harris: Ok, I'm just asking this in terms of the kind of at least PZD's and so forth we are always trying to get the front of the house more on the street then a bunch of concrete so I'm just wondering about that. Scott: I'm sorry what was the, can you restate the question? Harris: Well, really I'm just having conversation with fellow commissioners if that's a problem for anyone or? Anthes: I can ask a question of the applicant to follow up on that. Harris: Ok. Anthes: There seems to be a fairly regularized setback along Farmers Drive from the existing properties. Is the face of your building in alignment with those properties or is it actually quite a bit different? Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 90 Scott: At first thought, we thought we would align them up with existing structures but the lots are so deep that if we needed to set the house back some we could to accommodate better parking because it really, even for the other duplexes to accommodate parking it really eats up the green space, and so that was a possibility to set the building back some due to the depth of the lot. Anthes: Would you say that the front of this building is behind the back of the other buildings, or is it that far back? Scott: It should line up with the others. Anthes: I thought you already stated that it doesn't line up. Scott: No, I was just saying that there is a possibility to move it back if needed to to accommodate parking, but at present it does line up with the other buildings. Anthes: Ok, so you expect the front facade, the forward facade to line up with the others. Harris: Well, it doesn't look like that in the scale of the drawings does it? Anthes: What I appreciate in this design as opposed to other duplexes that we've seen is that the garages aren't so far forward of the front door and that they are more incorporated into the building and you can actually see the front door instead of just the garage snout, and I appreciate that. Is there further discussion? Ostner: I - Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Yes, thank you. I would share your concern because when they stay in line with the other houses the front yard will just basically go to concrete when you do it, 16' hammer head. And I don't know, I don't know what to do about it. It's a, words escape me too. I don't know how else she is suppose to do it is what I'm trying to say. Anthes: If you refer to the rendering on page 9 it looks like whoever drew this has made some attempt to break up the surface of concrete and I don't know if that would be acceptable to you and what you're saying. But they've inserted some planting wells on either side of each garage door, they've separated the driveways with a planting strip, and - Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 91 Ostner: Is that in the conditions of approval? Anthes: I don't know. Ostner: I think that green strip between the 2 would be important to me. Sorry to interrupt you. Question for staff, number 3 says the duplex shall be constructed in general compliance with the drawings and elevations. This shows a green strip between the 2. Pate: It would not typically include that. Our ordinances allow a 24' wide maximum driveway curb cut for residential structure so that's what we typically would expect for this application for single family, 2 family, or even multi family. Ostner: Well, I think it makes a big difference to break up the parking lot that tends to form. Anthes: Mr. Pate is this configuration consistent with other duplexes or 2 family dwellings in the area? Pate: Yes. Anthes: I'm sorry, Mr. Garner. Garner: It looks, I mean there is just a wide variety of them. Some of them look like they were built in the 70s. It is different architecturally slight, but the height of the building and gables look similar. Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: A question for staff, is there a setback requirement on a Conditional Use? I don't know, when I look at this map, I don't know whether the ones that are already there are non -conforming to our setback requirements or not and it may be that this thing is going to be further back anyway just by virtue of what's in place now. Garner: The setback would be a standard residential setback of 25' from the edge of the right-of-way and I'm not sure if some of these others are non- conforming or not. They all do line up. Pate: Most of them seem to be approximately 30, 30 feet back and this structure actually measures roughly, if this scale is correct, roughly 32' back so it is pretty similar in this from the right-of-way. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 92 Anthes: Question of staff or attorney Williams. On the Conditional Use I believe we have some leeway as to conditions of approval. Is a building alignment and pavement something that we can add legally? Williams: Well, a Conditional Use is to make this compatible. So, if you are gonna propose another condition, as long as that condition is reasonable and makes it compatible with the adjoining neighborhood then it probably would be alright. Harris: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: My original question, first of all I'm pleased at what is this 834 square foot aside, 2 bedrooms, I bath, you know I think that is a necessary component to the city's housing and so I don't want to leave this, I mean I want to say yes to this. My question came up originally noting that I think we are just going to have more driveway in the front and I would like even at the 834 square feet, in terms of the interior, I would just simply like to see more green in the front. If there is a way that we can ask for that or somehow recommend that I would like to do that to stay away from the kind of, in the smaller square footage homes, you know, suddenly people don't get to have quite the same amenities that other folks get. So, is that a possibility, the answer to you, Mr. Williams' answer to your question about parking? Anthes: I can try to formulate an additional condition of approval to offer. Can I offer that after the motion to approve has been made? Williams: You can offer it as a friendly amendment. Anthes: Ok, I would like to offer a friendly amendment to add condition of approval number 5 that would be that we would ask the applicant to provide a similar setback, front building setback, to adjacent properties in the area that seem to be relatively aligned to provide compatibility and, also look at the possibility of adding additional green space within the paved areas in the front of the building. Does that make sense? Is that too lengthy? Pate: I have the applicant shall provide a similar front building setback to adjacent properties in the area and shall provide, didn't get the last - Anthes: Green space in accordance with the elevation provided on page 9 of the staff report. To ameliorate the expanse of concrete for the driveway, if that would be acceptable to the motioner and second. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 93 Myers: Your friendly amendment is acceptable. Trumbo: Yes. Anthes: We have a motion and a second, is there further discussion? Will you call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-2124 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 94 ADM 06-2121: Administrative Item (MARRIOTT COURTYARD, 174): Submitted by CEI ENGINEERS for property located at 600 E. VAN ASHE DRIVE. The request is an appeal of the conditions of approval for Commercial Design Standards, as approved by the Subdivision Committee. Anthes: Our 12a' item this evening is Administrative Item 06-2121 for Marriot Courtyard. Can we have the staff report, Mr. Fulcher? Fulcher: This is somewhat of a familiar project. It is at the northeast corner of Van Ashe and Mall Avenue in CMN Business Park. There was a large scale which was approved in 2003 for a 70,000 square foot hotel with 113 rooms and 123 parking spaces. All the permits were pulled for that project although, if you've been by site, it has not begun construction. On June the I" of this year the Subdivision Committee reviewed a request for a major modification to the original building design. We have those elevations available, it should be in your packet. That was approved pretty much changing the different colors of the EFIS and the roof line of the structure. Overall the structure was the same. With that a condition of approval was placed that the brick pilasters that had been discussed with the original approval in 2003 and the modification in June of this year to be added to that west elevation which faces the intersection of Van Ashe and Mall Avenue. And those will be, are to be provided up from the brick base up to the roof line. It wasn't until after that was approved with that condition stated that the applicant figured that that wasn't part of the design as they had changed it so with this request they are requesting an appeal to modify the conditions of approval from the approved major modifications from the Subdivision Committee of this year. Staff is recommending denial of this request. In 2003, June 2006, and again this meeting this evening we've consistently recommended the addition of those brick pilasters on the west elevation finding that it would provide additional articulation that is needed on that highly visible facade. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address this Administrative Item for Marriot Courtyard? Seeing none I'll close the public comment section. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Smith: Scott Smith with CEI Engineering and as Jesse stated back in'03 Planning Commission discussion of Commercial Design Standards it was brought up in regards to the brick pilasters. Discussion was made by the commissioners but the condition that was applied then was not that the pilasters be of brick and we feel like that the condition which is basically going back, you know, requesting something additional that was approved previously back in '04 as requiring us to have brick pilasters now. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 95 Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Smith. We'd like a comment from the city attorney about when we hear major modifications and our ability to require, or to change conditions of approval. Williams: Well, I would think if they had come back with the identical request then you would, could not change what you would say would meet Commercial Design Standards because you've already determined what could meet Commercial Design Standards. However, if they've brought back a different request or they are changing things that would effect Commercial Design Standards then I think you are warranted to look at what would now meet Commercial Design Standards. So, if, the way I understand it they have request some changes to the exterior of the building and if those changes are such that without these brick pilasters now, that they would no longer meet Commercial Design Standards, well then I think that is a judgment call on your behalf. But since they have changed it then I guess what is good for the goose is good for the gander, you all can say well yes, but put a different condition on yourself. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Commissioner Trumbo can you give us a subdivision committee report on this item? Trumbo: Yeah, I do remember discussion about the pilasters. We all felt at the time of the subdivision committee that they were due to the highly trafficked area that this west side faces. I don't remember, recall, it's the first time I've heard any suggestion of requiring something else before previous. I don't remember another material being discussed at subdivision committee other then the brick. But it is my recollection that we, and we did discuss it, that we were all in support of brick pilasters, 4 of them running up the west face because it is in the Design Overlay District and it is a highly trafficked area. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Trumbo. Is there discussion? Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I would agree with the, based on the assessment of our city attorney and the comments made with regard to the Planning Commission's ability to make changes to Commercial Design Standards in the event of a major modification including the exterior of the build and brought to the commission. And the discussion by subdivision and report here that it is appropriate to make the change and I haven't heard anything here tonight that would change my mind on that and so I'm going to move to deny Administrative Item 06-2121 for the reasons stated. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 96 Anthes: We have a motion to deny by Commissioner Graves, do I hear a second? Ostner: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Ostner, is there further discussion? Pate: Madame Chair, I just want to state for the record, I believe I told the applicant before, but on August 28`h 2006 this large scale development construction period, 3 year period for construction does expire. I don't believe that project will be finished so it is crucial that the applicant submit a request to this Planning Commission for an extension of that period which is a 1 time extension and it is only granted or denied by the Planning Commission. Anthes: Ok, so the applicant understands the need to make the application? Ok, thank you Mr. Smith. Smith: Yeah, we are aware of that. Anthes: Ok, is there further discussion? Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: So, the major modification request did not extend their approval? Simply changed the current approval that they have? Pate: Right, it has to be a specific request by our ordinances they have to give justification for their extension to the Planning Commission much like any extension you hear. Ostner: Could they not be requesting that along with this proposal? Pate: They could if they could provide justification potentially. Ostner: Ok. Thank you. Anthes: Will you call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to deny ADM 06-2121 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 97 LSD 06-2113: Large Scale Development (TACO BELL, 401): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES INC. - ROGERS for property located at NW OF STEAMBOAT AND WEDINGTON DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.73 acres. The request is for a 2200 s.f. Restaurant with 27 parking spaces. Anthes: Our 13`h item is Large Scale Development 06-2113 for Taco Bell. Mr. Fulcher? Fulcher: This is for a Taco Bell restaurant request for a 2200 square foot restaurant with 27 parking spaces located just north of Wedington Drive and Steamboat. This item was discussed at Subdivision Committee, I think for the most part the members that day were comfortable with the proposal, were in agreement with the Commercial Design Standards as presented other then the southern elevation which you can see in the material board, the bottom right photo there of the upper left does not have any articulation there on the southern side. The revised elevations now on the top left have shown that entry feature but obviously without the entrance. Really the major issue that we were needing to discuss and one of the reasons this got forwarded to the full Planning Commission for your discussion tonight is if you remember back to the Vacation of the access easement on this property for Wedington Place lot 3RA or rather 3A, that was approved and modified with the condition that at the time of development of this lot that cross -access would be provided to the Harp's development to west to an existing stub out from that development. As shown on the proposed site plan, the cross -access is not necessarily, not to be provided but it is off on this lot 3RB. So, these developers would have to construct the cross -access onto the adjacent site and join it into that Harp's stub out. The problem I believe from their point of view is that when the next lot develops they will be removing that drive and then replacing it again and I think they are trying to, and obviously avoiding having to do that 2 times. And I think staff can, understands the time frame here in hoping for a large scale development for that lot will be coming soon. I've indicated that that should be coming forth in the next few months. I think we've stated our conditions such that it provides a little bit of leeway with the development or with the developers for this development in the adjacent development and that is at the time of the certificate of occupancy, after everything is constructed on the site that the cross -access should be provided. That should allow time for if there is to be an adjacent development to go through the large scale development process, hopefully be approved, catch up with this development, and provide that cross -access only for this development here to maybe have to get some temporary certificates of occupancy to wait for that development to catch up. I think staff is comfortable with that, it still meets the intent of the conditions of approval and the Vacation will allow this development to Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 98 proceed. Ultimately, if they wanted to get their final certificate of occupancy, they could go to city council and request those conditions of approval from that Vacation be modified at that time. With that, and with Planning Commission's determination on that which is condition number 1, and again number 2 with the alteration to the southern elevation, staff is in support of these Commercial Design Standards and is recommending approval of this commercial development. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. Would any member of public like to address this Large Scale Development for Taco Bell? Seeing none we'll close the public comment section. Mr. Graves can you give us a subdivision report please. Graves: Yes, Madame Chair, it was Commissioner Lack and Commissioner Myers I believe we're on that Subdivision Committee with me and we spent most of our time discussing this cross -access item. Especially since it wasn't that long ago that we just heard the item that established that condition that the cross -access be established there. We had a number of residents in the area who use that access and wanted to continue to after development of this property. We saw 2 Taco Bells that day both with this design. One of which we found the elevations were fine on the other one we found the south elevation given where this one is located and the way it is oriented on the site the south elevation facing the main thoroughfare that it needed a little bit more articulation then what we were seeing at that point in time in order to meet Commercial Design Standards at that location. So, we asked them on this Taco Bell to change that elevation and what you're seeing there is the orange that was stretched all the way across, is my recollection, and so they have made some modifications to try to fit with what we asked them to do. On the cross -access the certificate of occupancy was not something that we discussed at that point in time. I think it sounds like this is something that staff has thought of as a possibility since the subdivision committee as a way to put a time frame on it. We discussed favorably the idea of giving them some time beyond right now or during construction to provide that cross -access so that they could possibly develop that other tract and if that didn't happen then they would have to provide that cross -access and now staff has made a recommendation in accordance with what subdivision discussed on that particular part in order to give them a little more time. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Graves. Is there further discussion? Would anyone like to discuss condition of approval number 1, the cross -access? Myers: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Myers. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 99 Myers: As Commissioner Graves said I think that's a very important element in approving this particular development and I guess, should we establish a time limit, Jeremy? Pate: Staff is recommending the condition that the time frame be established with the certificate of occupancy. Essentially if it's not constructed in accordance, with coordination with the future development at the time of the certificate of occupancy they can either construct it at that time before that certificate is issued or they can petition to the city council for a change in the conditions for the Vacation. Myers: And I think that meets the spirit of our concern. So, and I also find in favor of the revised building elevations. Anthes: I'm sorry. Myers: I know, you forgot the applicant. Anthes: Would the applicant like to make a presentation? I didn't mean to cut you out of the whole thing. Heally: It's alright. Jonathon Heally, Crafton, Tull and Associates representing Jerald Ownee and Associates. Yeah, we weren't exactly sure on what a deadline would be if it were to be decided on by the commissioners and actually had not been worked out yet. This seems to be a better alternative for us as well. I think that will work out well for client so I don't really have any further comment on it, I'm happy with it. Anthes: Thank you very much. Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commission Lack. Lack: I think that, I applaud staff for recommending the time frame the way they did that was much more clearer even then what we discussed at subdivision committe and what my intent was. I would move for approval of Large Scale Development 06-2113 with the special conditions of approval especially giving consideration for number 1, cross -access, as stated, and item number 2 approval of Commercial Design Standards. Anthes: We have a motion by Commissioner Lack for approval is there a second? Myers: Second. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 100 Anthes: Second by Commissioner Myers. I have one question, we're looking at Commercial Design Standards and yet I understand from our sign ordinance that these elevations will not actually be constructed in this manner. Can staff tell us what change we could expect to see. Pate: The elevations would be constructed as you see them with the exception of the Taco Bell bell which is considered a sign. So, that would have to be below the roof level of that particular elevation. Anthes: Ok, and the signs on the canopies, isn't there an issue about those? Lack: Yeah, the signs on the canopies will actually have to the flush with the wall to actually be an awning sign or wall sign would have to be constructed differently. So, I believe on the drawing that we have, black and white drawings that we have, those have been revised from what I understand the architects did not have time to update these color renderings before the meeting. Anthes: Do we have black and white drawings? We don't have any black and white drawings. No, we did address condition number 4 though. Anthes: Ok, and I guess I find that unfortunate because I guess I find the bell popping up probably adds to the facade but I understand that - Graves: Maybe we can put a waiver as a condition. Anthes: Yeah, I recall that long conversation about Lowes and the pediment. I don't know if I want to go there. But will this number of signs be allowed? Pate: I have not counted them all. Just for the commissioners' sake though obviously staff can't sign off on a sign permit that would violate city ordinances so we would have to evaluate those fully. Anthes: I understand that. I just want to make sure since we are approving this for Commercial Design Standards based on this appearance but that appearance is actually going to change. Pate: Somewhat, yes. [multiple people talking] Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 101 Anthes: We have a motion to approve by Commisioner Lack, second by Commissioner Myers is there any further discussion? Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: On the last page of this drawing on 11 by 17 they show their landscape plan. Out of all of their trees exactly 0 of them cast a shadow you can park under and if you drive around town the shaded parking spots are the first ones everyone takes, everybody wants them. Is there anyway to shift trees to the west side so people can park under them? And it might be the Taco Bell people as long as someone can use the trees. Are all the trees having to be in front of the building by code? Pate: Yes. Anthes: That takes care of that, there you go. Ostner: Just wanted to make it clear, there are rules at work. Well, I think that should be looked at that's not, not productive. But they are meeting the rule, if they chose to plant trees on the west side it would be appreciated. Pate: If there is an opportunity to do that we will review that with the applicant during the permit process. Ostner: And I believe our landscape manual is being considered for being updated? Pate: Yes. Ostner: And I think the aspect methodology where the angle of trees, the angle of the sun, is taken into consideration would be a good part to upgrade that manual so. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to approve LSD 06-2113 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 102 ANX 06-2125: Annexation (DUNNERSTOCK/FOSTER, 397): Submitted by JAMES MCCORD for property located at N END OF 59TH AVENUE, OFF WEDINGTON DRIVE. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 60.2 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Anthes: Our next 2 items are tandem items, An Annexation and Rezoning request 06-2125 and 06-2126 for Dunnerstock/Foster. May we have the staff report please. Fulcher: Associated items, the annexation of approximately 60.2 acres and the rezoning of approximately 60.2 acres. This acreage is located approximately just north of Wedington Drive and adjacent to the Heritage Village Subdivision. 59"' Street which is partly built to county standards intersect Wedington Drive and traverses north and if constructed would also traverse through the property. There is also an existing stub out from the Heritage Village Subdivision which would intersect this proposed annexed property. The property is covered by fire station number 7 at Rupple Road. It is approximately 1.8 miles away with response time of approximately 4 minutes. The boundary which would be created by this annexation would be a logical extension of the city limits. It's exactly even with the Heritage Village Subdivision, incorporates a larger area adjacent to that. Additionally, I think you may be able to see some of this on page 17 of 20 the annexation report. As you move to the north and east of this property you approach the HHOD Hillside Hilltop Overlay District area and some heavily forested areas that under city regulations would fall under those regulations and the Unified Development Code. Based on the boundary that would be created staff is recommending approval of the requested annexation. Also, given the general plan designation for residential zoning in this area, being adjacent to RT -12, Residential Agricultural, and RSF-4, it is an appropriate and compatible zoning designation for this property. As you can see there is a development layout. Of course, this annexation and rezoning would not hold them to that. The applicants have provided that just to give you and idea of where they are going with this approximately 60 acres. I think that will do it, if you have any questions just ask. Anthes: Thank you very much. Would any member of the public like to address this Annexation or Rezoning for Dunnerstock/Foster? Seeing none I'll close the public comment section. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? McCord: Jim McCord representing the applicant, in view of the staff recommendations I have no presentation. I just request the Planning Commission forward the Annexation and Rezoning to the city council with recommendations of approval. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 103 Anthes: Thank you very much. Commissioners? Trumbo: Did you ask for public comment? Anthes: I did. I remembered this time. Well, I have a question. It seems like this 60.2 acres is again sort of at the end of the line, so to speak, as you're moving west out of town, so I'm questioning if there is truly development pressure or whether we have a lot of development opportunity in the west side of town between the existing development just east of this and back to 540. And considering especially that Wedington needs to be addressed, the traffic situation needs to be addressed, and that we've had a lot of public investment in the area both in time and in money for public access and infrastructure but also in planning and thinking about where development needs to occur in our city. I'm questioning whether the 60.2 acres is a large annexation and it's on our far western edge and whether there is truly development pressure at this time and whether it is necessary. McCord: Madame Chair, for Mark Foster, the precedent of the applicant is that the subdivision to the south sold out very quickly. There is a huge demand for lots at this space and range or he wouldn't be undertaking the project. Regarding wait to understand the Highway Department has a contract land to widen the way to 4 lanes or middle lanes as well. Anthes: Commissioners? Myers: It seems to me that - Anthes: Commissioner Myers. Harris: Sorry, it's late. Madame Chair, it seems like something that we may have discussed at agenda but it seems like there is a significant amount of this property that falls into the Hillside Overlay District which means that there are going to be constraints on how much building can go on. Am I correct in that or am I reading this wrong? Anthes: Staff would you clarify on our drawings what is the floodplain part of the drawing and what part is the Hilltop Hillside Overlay District? Pate: On page 19 of 20 the area that is shaded that cover I'd say approximately third of the property is the Hillside Overlay District. The flood -plane boundary does not extend into this property. Actually, the back of this property is sort of up on a hill and it goes down to, most of the slope goes down into that flood -plane area. But it's not actually adjacent to this property. You can see the floodplain line is off the property and up to the north. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 104 Anthes: Thank you. Pate: With regard to your question about the traffic improvements, you may or may not know that the Highway Department is widening Highway 16 out onto Wedington Drive and Doubles Spring Road in the area to a 5 lane section I believe. That's part of an improvement that's ongoing currently to improve transportation and its use in this area. Also, the city council has forwarded on to the voters Annexation election in question of whether to annex approximately 2,000 acres west of this, west and south of this. Obviously, if you follow all the city council's discussions lately there has been a lot of discussion about Farmington, Fayetteville and where those boundaries lie. This is a little bit further to the north but we will see in a few months if the voters feel like annexation to the west and increasing our boundary to the west will actually increase the size obviously significantly in this area. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Is there further discussion? Commissioner Ostner? Ostner: Madame Chair. I appreciate those parcels of information, morsels, but 2,000 acres annexed is a big difference from 60 acres annexed to me. You know dozens if not scores or hundreds of people are effected when 2,000 acres is annexed and they don't all come here on the same night. So, in other words annexing 2,000 acres can be a planning tool whereas this is basically a step towards a development request. It is one applicant. It is his property. So, even though they are both annexations to me those are worlds apart. I would tend to agree with Commissioner Anthes that this is a pretty far out stretch. There is a lot of land that we've annexed very close to here. I would just question whether this is good for the city. That's my concern. Myers: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Myers. Myers: I think the point I was trying to make by asking about the Hillside area on this property is that it seems to me that the density to which this could be developed would be much less then an RSF-4 given the topography so in terms of adding a lot of housing stock to a pretty full coffer already I don't think that physically they are going to be able to develop this to an RSF-4. So, I don't have as much concern in terms of density because I think it is going to be a lot less impact because of the number of houses that are going to be able to be constructed. So, I think that was the reason that I really didn't give it much thought as far as approval or disapproval. But I am in favor of it. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 105 Anthes: Is there further discussion? Motions? Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: This is on the Annexation request. Graves: I'll move for approval of Annexation 06-2125 for the reasons stated in staffs report. Myers: Second. Anthes: We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Graves, or sorry a motion to forward by Commissioner Graves and a second by Commissioner Myers. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to approve ANX 06-2125 carries with a vote of 6-2-0. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 106 RZN 06-2126: Rezoning (DUNNERSTOCK/FOSTER, 397): Submitted by JAMES MCCORD for property located at N OF WEDINGTON DRIVE, AT THE END OF 59TH. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 60.2 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single -Family, 4 units per acre. Anthes: Our next item is the rezoning that accompanies this annexation request. Is there further discussion or a motion? I think what is interesting about development on this property is how this property will incorporate 59`h Avenue which is designated as a Collector on our Master Street Plan. I note that 240 units would be possible by right on this property at an RSF-4 designation. Is that correct Mr. Pate? Pate: I believe so, yes. Roughly. Anthes: I guess what I would say is I would be looking for how sensitively the Hillside Hilltop Overlay District requirements were incorporated and for adequate connectivity and outlets as alternatives to the congestion on Wedington. McCord: Well, the development issues will be address with the Preliminary Plat approval process this is just authorization for zoning approval to submit a Preliminary Plat for consideration of approval and to comply with all applicable ordinances. And your point is well taken, Commissioner Myers, that the maximum permitted will not be physically possible. Also, it would require some streets and utilities. Only possibly for 3 houses per acre would be possible so it won't be the maximum density. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. McCord. Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I have a question for engineering. Is the sewer capacity in this area adequate for 4 units per acre even though that's probably not going to build. Casey: This property is in the Hamstring Lift Station Basin which we are currently taking payments for potential upgrades. So, at this time we are taking the money instead of the upgrades in preparation for those if they are needed. If they are not needed in the next few years when the plant comes online that money will be reimbursed to the developers. So, at this time the answer is yes overall. We'll have to evaluate the individual lines Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 107 that this development will be falling into at the time we see the development. Ostner: Ok, thank you. And those payments are earmarked to upgrade the Lift Station - Casey: That is correct. Ostner: Or lines or both? Casey: The Lift Station itself as a temporary improvement if deemed necessary to tide us over until the plant is online. Ostner: Ok, thank you. Casey: Yes, sir. Ostner: So, ok. Casey: And that's evaluated with each development that comes through and if it gets to the point where the infrastructure will not take it then that money will be used to implement that plan that's in place. Ostner: Alright, thank you. Myers: Do we have a motion? Ostner: We don't have a motion yet. Myers: I'll make one. This is forwarding to council with the recommendation for approval Rezoning 06-2126. Anthes: We have a motion by Commissioner Myers do we have a second? Graves: I'll second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Graves to forward. I have one question or comment. Normally this far out adjacent to undeveloped land I would be questioning an RSF-4 designation. Considering however that 59`h is a Collector on our Master Street Plan and we have seen fit apparently to allow RT -12 on the adjacent property, and with the Overlay of the Hillside ordinance I guess I'm less concerned about that than I normally would be. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to approve RZN 06-2126 carries with a vote of 7-1-0. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 108 CUP 06-2128: Conditional Use Permit (SOUTH HILL CHURCH OF CHRIST, 561): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at 1146 S ELLIS AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY — 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0. 17 acres. The request is for a church (Use Unit 4) in the RMF - 24 Zoning District. Anthes: Our next item is Conditional use 06-2128 for the South Hill Church of Christ. Mr. Fulcher. Fulcher: I'd be happy to go through the full staff report. Ultimately, we were working towards a recommendation for approval for this request. It's an existing church. They are wanting to expand their building into additional offices, play areas, things like that on the adjacent lot to the south. What we wanted to see from the applicant is some elevations considering this is completely surrounded by homes, residential subdivision with just an existing subdivision and we wanted to insure more so than the use be compatible as its existed but the buildings are compatible with the residential structures located in this neighborhood. And that's where we came up with requesting this item being tabled so we can get some elevations. I actually spoke with one of the applicants this morning, he agreed with that and wanted us to table this item to the next Planning Commission so that we can get together and look at some elevations and hopefully present something to the commission that would be satisfactory for this residential area. So, with that we are recommending this item be tabled to the July 10`h Planning Commission meeting. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. It is late and I want to make sure that anybody that has come to speak to this item has a chance so if any member of the public would like to speak to Conditional Use item 06-2128 for the Church of Christ will you please come forward? Seeing none I will close the public comment section and will entertain a motion to table. Would the applicant like to speak or do you concur with the? The applicant is not here. Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: For the items stated by staff I will move that we table Conditional use Permit 06-2128 to whichever meeting our July 10`h meeting. Myers: I'll second. Anthes: We have a motion and a second by the team of Graves and Myers. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 109 Roll Call: The motion to table CUP 06-2128 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 110 CUP 06-2118: Conditional Use Permit (BROTHERS, 483): Submitted by ALAN REID for property located at 665 GRAY AVENUE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.12 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. Anthes: Moving on to item 17 and 18, this is Conditional Use Permit 06-2118 and Lot Split 06-2117 for Brothers. Suzanne. Morgan: This property contains 1.12 acres. It's located on Gray Avenue; it's an older part of Fayetteville. The subject property is developed for 1 single family home. As you look at the site plan or the site maps you can see that the distance between this street and the street to the west is considerable; therefore, most of the lots on the west side of Gray Avenue are very deep, this lot included. The home was built on the front of the lot. This property is in the Hillside Hilltop Overlay District and it was built with consideration of the slope. The applicant who currently owns this property desires to subdivide this property into 2 lots. As it is with the size of the lot and the frontage being 150', theoretically if this lot were not constructed and built upon they could subdivide this into 2 legal conforming lots. Also, we found that the lots east of Gray Avenue ranged approximately .3 to .4 acres, which this lot is larger than. Also, in reviewing just the types of properties in this block we found there are 2 tandem lots, one north of Maple Avenue and one south of Cleveland Road. Therefore, we do recommend approval of this Conditional Use Permit. We have stated in the staff report 10 conditions of approval, most of which address development of this property and payment of sidewalks fees in lieu of construction. Also, because of the terrain and the hillside, the Fire Department has more stringent regulations then we typically see with these requests with regard to the access, turn around, no parking signage, and the type of access provided. In tandem with this Conditional Use request is the Lot Split request which was heard at Subdivision Committee and forwarded to the Planning Commission. And there are several conditions of approval with regard to this lot split but the lot split is a just a formality with Conditional Use to create this lot and we are recommending approval of that lot split as well. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Morgan. Would any member of the public like to address this item for Conditional Use or Lot Split as well? Mr. Paul. Paul: First of all, thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of the neighbors on Gray Avenue. Bear with me and most of Gray Avenue and neighbors around the house. If you all would like to introduce yourself ... if that's worth the effort. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 111 Anthes: Would you raise your hands? Seven. (The number of people to be represented by Mr. Paul.) Paul: And we all surround the house and I believe you have a copy of my letter to the Planning Commission and the Subdivision Committee and I would like to expand on a few things as well as add some other information. In my previous letter I stated that all adjoining owners are opposed to this split. However, I did not realize at the time that the property also bordered the Sanderfers and the Coxes, the Coxes have just kind of a point. Betty Cox is just right on the corner of the lot. I have not found or walked the north boundary and after the split request was passed to the Planning Commission I decided to walk it one more time to be absolutely clear on the bordering properties. Furthermore, because of the unique island -type of effect this split would cause and no (access?) on Cleveland Street, one would not have known the split would affect the Saderfers, the Coxes, and the Millets. They all enter and exit their properties from Cleveland Street. I knew that the Millets would be affected because Chris brothers and Louis mentioned it to me. Chris had approached Millets about an easement through their property to access the land and have been turned down. After talking with Sanderfers and Coxes I can say with certainty that all adjoining property owners are opposed to this split and if I may, this is a signed paper from all of the property owners touching the property as well as other members of Gray Street. Next, I'd like to comment on the driveway to be built on the south side of the property off of Gray. Since I knew Chris had approached the Millets about an easement I didn't know until just a couple of weeks ago that his parents had bought enough property from the neighbors to the south to put an access drive to the land behind the house. It didn't make sense to me why Chris had wanted an easement from the Millets until I walked the lines and found the pins on the south side of the property. Obviously this access drive would be remarkably steep and construction would be difficult. Access by EMT and Fire Trucks would be questionable. Winter would be very difficult. Snow and ice rarely clear from Gray Street, it's only 2 blocks long. Snow and ice do not melt quickly because of the angle of the winter sun and now the request to access the property from the Millets became clearer. The next issue we have on Gray Street is drainage. There are no ditches on the west side of the street. The north end of Gray Street has a ditch only on the west side. It collects water from Carwell to the south and Cleveland from the north. It crosses underneath the street and goes right next to the Brothers' house, goes down a ravine between the Brothers' house and Beth Barms rental property, it passes on to the lot behind the house, meanders and cuts in deep ravines, spreads out, and eventually goes to Bois d' Arc Subdivision. During heavier steady rains and snow melts this ditch can really gather volume and momentum. My neighbor Harthorn and I have repeatedly cleared this ditch and the pipe crossing into Gray to keep the Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 112 water flowing. Otherwise it pools and overflows into the Brothers' and Beth Banns driveway. After walking the proposed splits one finds that there are several drainage ravines running downhill across the lot. Quite simply, how will this run off be handled if the property is developed? What will happen to the water that is now naturally diverted and partially dispersed over the property is directed into an organized drainage? How will the Millets handle it? How will residents in Bois d' Arc handle it? If the problem becomes legal whose responsibility is it? Drainage at this site is a huge issue. As is, it is livable and tolerable for all. Development of the property has an enormous potential to change all of that. I must take one brief moment to mention the trees and the wild life that inhabit the property. Since the property has been left undisturbed for many years the trees are incredible in size and variety. The number of birds and animals that make their nests and feedings areas are immense. Foxes are often seen in the neighborhood and while walking the property lines adult wood peckers are showing their youngsters how to feed. The property's closeness and connection to Martin Hill provides a great wildlife habitat. If I may I'd like to change gears. Chris has inherited a great piece of land and a very well known house from parents who were very well accomplished and well known in this community. The house needs a lot of work to bring it up to date and arrest some structural degeneration. The question all of us in this neighborhood ask is who would buy this house knowing how much money it would take not just to buy it but to renovate it and make it the showplace that it once was. It is a Fay Jones House. Who would buy and put that much money in it without having such an incredible lot to enhance that investment? Regardless who owns this new lot, a new house would sit almost directly under the decks of the Fay Jones house diminishing the character of the estate. If the house were restored wouldn't the university, or excuse me, if the house were restored wouldn't it be a very desirable place to live, own, or sell with 1.12 acres within walking distance of the university and downtown Fayetteville? In Chris' defense I believe but do not know that Chris just wants out from under the house with as much money as the market will bring yet maintain a foothold on the street for either building a home or capitalizing on the ever rising land values in Northwest Arkansas. No matter how you look at it this is a very valuable piece of property. As I've made clear I defend his right to attempt a split regardless of his intent. However, as a neighbor of the property, and I live directly across the street, I feel that we have a better chance of getting someone who wants to truly restore the house and conserve the property by keeping 1.12 acres intact. If the property is split, it is fairly easy, based on a history of living in Fayetteville, to imagine what could happen. The other neighbors agree with this. We have a neighborhood organization, University Heights, which so far has not been accessed to sell the property. This organization stays in contact with each other and is very proactive in assisting with finding appropriate neighbors Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 113 to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. I believe Chris' realtor would find the University Heights organization of which his parents were members available to help find an appropriate buyer. In conclusion, if the split is allowed, it will create an island property surrounded on all sides by the properties and homes of others with only an access drive from Gray Street. All neighbors oppose it. It doesn't fit the neighborhood. It destroys the character of existing properties therefore diminishing property values. It will destroy the best privacy available, natural privacy. Drainage will be a nightmare, emergency services are questionable, the architectural design and placement of the house is diminished if not destroyed. It benefits no one except Chris, creates far more problems then it solves, and should not be allowed. On behalf of all the neighbors I appreciate your time. We hope you will oppose this split. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Paul. Good evening. Millett: Thank you, I also appreciate the opportunity - Anthes: Would you state your name please? Millett: Yes, I am Frank Millett and I also appreciate the opportunity to speak before this commission. My wife and I own a home which is immediately to the west of the property. It adjoins the property to the west which is the downhill side and I concur with everything that Joe said about the problems of this split but I would like to amplify on the drainage problem. The creek that Joe talked about that currently goes under Gray Street and down along the north side of the Brothers' current home and through the proposed lot, that creek comes down through our property and goes to the immediate south of our house and it becomes quite large at the point to where it gets near our house. It's up to about 5' deep and during a good rain it tends to get very near to overflowing. In fact, there has been a number of occasions where it has overflowed and so one of my concerns is that when you bring in this new access road and provide enough pavement for the turnaround and all of that you're going to severely damage the drainage problem, increase the drainage problem, because it is currently a heavily wooded area, by paving this area for the driveway and the house itself. There going to be a great deal more of drainage that is going to come down, so I'm very concerned about the drainage problem which is going to come directly down into our home. We're on a very steep lot and we're immediately downhill from this proposed development. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Millett. Would any other member of the public like to address either the Conditional Use or the Lot Split? Seeing none I will Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 114 close the public comment section. Mr. Reid would you like to make your presentation? Reid: My name is Alan Reid, I am the surveyor of record on this project and I want to appreciate all the help staff has given us with this. What we are creating here is a .63 acre tract of land; it is not a small lot. We appreciate the neighbor's concern with the drainage yet the drainage that Mr. Millett speaks of is primarily on the north side of this property and our road will be on the south side. I know they are really concerned about drainage, I'm sure Chris was concerned about it when he was a young boy and none of these people lived here. Yet they all built houses and it didn't seem to effect anybody. I know they are concerned about island lots which we call tandem lots and I believe Mr. Millett lives on a tandem lot which adjoins this property yet he doesn't seem to have too many concerns about that. We feel that these are large tracts of land historically speaking. While Chris' parents had a very nice home, and it is still a very nice home, there is quite a bit of land behind it that was never being used and Mr. Brothers' would like to maintain that tract back there so that at some point he can build a house back there. He currently does not live on this property but he doesn't want to give up that option of building a house where he grew up. And I think this is an ideal spot for infill, I feel like with the Hillside Hilltop Ordinance that we have now there will be plenty things in place to protect the drainage and the trees, the natural vegetation, the natural wild life. Everything should remain pretty much the same, maybe not as good before everybody else lived there but similar to what it is right now. So, with that being said Mr. Brothers' would ask that you please consider this request, this application, and make a ruling in his favor. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Reid. Reid: And I'll answer any questions if you - Anthes: Commissioners. Trumbo: Madame Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: Question for staff regarding the Hillside Overlay District. Can you enlighten us to what will be provided as far as drainage. Pate: What is not typically provided with a single family permit unless it is in the Hillside Hilltop Overlay District is a grading permit. Each single family lot is required to submit a grading permit to indicate how that lot will be graded. That also indicates that a minimum of 30% of the lot has to Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 115 remain completely undisturbed as well as 30% of the existing tree canopy also has to be left undisturbed, and those are requirements that were placed on the RSF-4 zoning district specifically in which this is located. Those requirements are of course all reduced and if this were a block over on the west side of O' Sage Bend there would not be a grading permit, tree preservation canopy would be at 25%, and there would not be any minimum land disturbance requirements. So, that's the primary things. Trumbo: Thank you, with the grading permit how does that effect drainage as far as? Pate: You'll have to refer to Mr. Casey on that. Trumbo: Mr. Casey, please? Casey: With the grading permit that will be reviewed for the construction of a home on here we will evaluate that for, you know there won't be, there can't be a negative impact to the natural drainage ways. We won't review it for increase in run off. We'll just look at preservation of the drainage -ways and the potential for erosion in that area. Trumbo: Thank you. Anthes: Questions or discussion? Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Madame Chair. Well, I'm not sure how I'll vote but I have to say it makes me uneasy to think of every single neighbor surrounding this piece of property agreeing that they don't want it and sending one well-spoken man to the podium to speak for them. So, I'm conflicted. I'm not sure how I will vote. Anthes: To follow up on Commissioner Ostner's question, has the applicant made any attempt to speak with the University Neighborhood Heights Association? Reid: I don't have that information, would you like me to ask the applicant? Anthes: Are you Mr. Brothers? Brothers: Yes, I am. Anthes: Would you approach the podium please? This is something that we often ask of applicants when we have a lot of neighbors concerned and that is whether or not you've made an attempt to go to the neighborhood association meetings and present your project. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 116 Brothers: I went to speak with the Milletts at one point, as indicated, to discuss with them the possibility of an easement. I had discussed things with Joe and made him aware of what was going on and talked to Louis as well. I recently as of this morning put a notice on the University Heights list serve indicating that, first of all, my intention is to do absolutely nothing with that property for a minimum of 5 years I don't plan to do anything I just want to sit on it. Secondly, at some point, I do plan to retire if I live that long to 60, 65 years old and I did grow up in that neighborhood and my family has owned that property for 50 years. I can remember looking down that hill and not seeing any lights. I would like the option of perhaps building a house on that property perhaps someday, not any time soon. Perhaps to retire in, I would also like the option of at some point 5, 10 years down the road to maybe sell that property to anyone of the neighbors who would like to buy it. Give them first right of refusal. Whatever I build there having grown up in the Fay Jones house and having a great appreciation for the aesthetics of it, the neighborhood, and the forest which I played in everyday as a small child. I do intend to be a good steward of the land. Yes, I have communicated with the University Heights Association. I understand their concerns, I am very sensitive to them, after all, though they may not like it, at some point I may end up being their neighbor if I am granted this Conditional Use and Lot Split which is what I'm truly hoping for here. And I do appreciate, by the way, your attention and I do commend the city staff next door for being great and keeping me apprised of all the developments on this, thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Brothers. Follow up with staff, there was a comment made about notification and where the sign was placed. Can staff describe where that was and...? Pate: I'm not sure if I know where the sign was placed. Usually it's placed out on the frontage which would be Gray Avenue along this property. Morgan: As I recall, and I've visited the site several times, it is located on the 25' tandem lot or just north of it, but on the property off of Gray Avenue. Anthes: And the surrounding property owners were notified by our standard procedure? Morgan: Yes, I believe so. Anthes: Ok. The issue about access to this site. When we evaluate a Conditional Use for a tandem lot, how do we weigh the safe access for emergency vehicles and the access to the site itself? Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 117 Pate: We actually discussed those applications with the fire department and a fire department representative captain goes out to the site and evaluates that on a case by case basis. On this case, as I mentioned in agenda session, there are pretty strict requirements for that tandem lot. Partially because of the slope and being able to back out of that driveway so you'll see in your conditions, number 3 and 4, what those are required it would be a 20' access drive that is required to be paved, to provide also has to be capable of supporting 75,000 pounds and provide a proper turnaround for fire apparatus as well as no parking sign and then condition number 4 basically indicates where that driveway can be located on the property. It still has to be a minimum of 5' off the of the property line. Anthes: And will that be constructed with development or is that required to be constructed with the creation of the lot? Pate: That's create with the construction of the property, otherwise the driveway is not needed. Anthes: What about... Has staff evaluated the visibility and safety of the lot as you pull out onto Gray Avenue? Pate: I think Suzanne has been out there many times, she might be able to discuss that. Morgan: I don't -. I'm not aware of any specific site distance problems, if that is what you are referring to. I know that the existing house has a driveway that you kind of curve out of back onto the street. I would say that you know there is considerable slope on the 25' access just as there is on existing homes. So, I would say that for any access the site distance would be just the same as existing homes and probably better because there is required a turnaround on the tandem lot so people will be exiting in a forward motion rather then backing out onto the street. Anthes: And I assume that the lot size and setbacks to the existing residences would meet current city ordinances with the creation of the lot. Morgan: With regard to setbacks, the setbacks would have to meet the tandem lot requirement which is 20' on all property lines and 25' adjacent to the right- of-way which are more stringent then the setback requirements on the Hillside Hilltop Overlay District. Anthes: And have you looked at the existing houses to make sure that it would be conforming? Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 118 Morgan: Based on the survey, the existing home is conforming. Those setback requirements are 15' in the front and rear and 5' on the sides, for that lot. Anthes: Ok, and there has been a statement made that there are other tandem lots in the neighborhood. I'm looking at the aerial photograph with the lot lines in our packet on page 19, it's pretty hard to tell what's what. Can you describe if there are any tandem lots and where they are? Morgan: Yes, if you look at Cleveland Street, if you look at O' Sage Bend, the intersection on Cleveland and O' Sage Bend there is 1 lot removed from that intersection; it is a tandem lot. And then along Maple Street just before it dead ends there is a small tandem lot and I can show it. Anthes: I'm looking at those lots and it looks like they are accessed in a north south direction which probably follows the contours of the property. Is that the case? Morgan: That is the case. I know that Chief Williams and I or Captain Williams and I did drive through the private drive that accesses Maple and we did drive by the one on Cleveland and it does follow the terrain of the property whereas the one that is request tonight will probably have a lot more slope and change in grade. Anthes: Ok, and does the city have plans to install sidewalks on Gray Avenue? Does anyone know? Pate: Not that I'm aware of at this point. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Madame Chair, speaking of Gray I'm wondering about how much fall there is over this lot or these 2 lots. Either question of the applicant, Mr. Reid, or possibly the engineering department if anyone, I don't think Commissioner Anthes clicked onto the website for this project like the last one to get the contours. Even just a guess, I didn't drive out there, I mean 10, 10 feet, 15 feet of fall, 20. Morgan: At what point? Ostner: I mean if you're standing in the driveway where you go into the existing home and you look west towards the, up the hill, if you had to guess would it be? Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 119 Morgan: I would guess at least 10 to 15, I mean, you can stand on the back, on the first level of the home and just look down on the tree canopy almost. I mean there is at least 1 floor there. Ostner: The next question is: Are there no slope maximums on a (private drive for a) tandem lot? I mean, in a way the city kind of treats that as sort of a street. Not really, but.... Casey: We don't have driveway requirements or lot requirements as far as steepness. We don't have any measurements to tell you exactly how steep this is. We do know it is over 15%. Without any additional topographic information it would be hard to make any assessment or recommendations as far as driveways. Pate: If I may add to that also. In the findings one sixty three thirteen, B2 they actually discuss the terrain of the area in which the tandem lot is proposed as such that the subdivision in that area into a standard block is not feasible then that's a finding in favor of a tandem lot because you cannot divide the property because of either steepness or slope which is what I would think I would infer from that. You cannot divide a standard lot block situation, for instance, you got 1.12 acres on this property, can you divide it, build a street, and divide it into 4 lots in RSF-4 probably not so is it such that the terrain in this area would permit subdivision but not the typical manner in which we are all accustomed to, 70' of lot frontage. Ostner: It's almost counter -intuitive, but I agree. Pate: The applicant would have been able to because they are in the Hillside Overlay District, however, they would have to take out the Fay Jones house to do that. Because in this zoning district with the Hillside Overlay District you are only required 60' of frontage and they have 120' total, I believe, 125'. So, they would obviously have to remove that house to subdivide it into 2 lots. Ostner: And the code you just read speaks to splitting a lot that is currently a lot or accessing land that doesn't have frontage? Pate: That is specifically for a tandem lot development. Ostner: Ok. It just seems to me there could be a difference if you are looking at an area that is too steep for a subdivision that is undeveloped that developing tandem lots or a few tandem lots could be a good planning tool. However, in an infill, post development situation, splitting a lot and creating a tandem might be a different reasoning. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 120 Pate: And I believe that is why, I'm sorry. Ostner: It doesn't sound clear to me whether it was one or the other. Pate: I believe that is why the findings go and that is just simply 1 and it also talks about compatibility and whether the, because it is only permitted for single family uses, it will not significantly reduce property values, and determining whether that is the case the Planning Commission shall consider nearby lots and comparison and that is exactly what we did because we feel that actually there are many lots in this area that are actually smaller then what's proposed. Specifically to the east on what's on Oliver, Gray, Cleveland, and that area which is divided into standard lot and lot type of situation. Ostner: Ok, thank you. Anthes: To follow up on the findings of fact on page 5 of 22 at the very top, I'm confused a little bit. Jeremy will you discuss why the findings within this report are based on the analysis of use and compatibility of an additional single family dwelling on a new lot and not the probability of whether homes will be rented or owned or occupied which is consideration when evaluating a Conditional Use Permit for attached dwelling units. Will you describe the situation when we would evaluate rental versus owned or occupied? `Cause it seems to be that you're saying that can be an option here. Pate: I think that is going back to actually what I just discussed about not necessarily where it is evaluating rental or owned or occupied. I don't think we can discriminate between those 2. Anthes: That's what my question was. I was confused to see it in the report. Pate: I think it's probably referring back to some public comment that we received that this might turn into a rental property and therefore decrease property values. I think it is probably trying to refer to that. We do look at this is on the application where you are specifically required by the ordinance to state, if you find in favor, Planning Commission shall consider whether this will reduce property values, but it is not necessarily whether it would be an owned or a rental, occupied structure. Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Is there any further discussion? Commissioner Graves. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 121 Graves: Even in light of the comments of the neighbors it's not my feeling or opinion that creating one residential lot on a lot that would exceed half an acre in size is going to be particularly impactful to the neighborhood as it stands right now. And also in light of the staffs findings, which I don't take any issue with, the proposed Conditional Use Permit is appropriate and for that reason I'm going to move to approve Conditional Use Permit 06-2118 with the stated conditions of approval. Anthes: We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Graves do I hear a second? Trumbo: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there further discussion? I have one comment and that is normally I would completely agree with you Commissioner Graves, in this instance, I looked at the map and wondered at why there was such a variety of sizes of lots and configuration of lots and what was the rationale behind that subdivision of property and what I looked at where those lots are accessed, how they are accessed, what the drainage is in the area and then compared that with the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District and its discussion on putting the narrow sizes of lots to the street and creating deep narrow lots in order to develop a property under best development practices on hillsides and I've been really struggling with this in that I think staff is right in that the size of the lot is really not as issue here. We have a variety of sizes of lots in the neighborhood and certainly a .63 acre lot and a .49 acre lot are in keeping with what's available but this is a Conditional Use and therefore I feel like we can be a little more selective then just size when we are looking at it and I have a problem with the steep access point. I think that Mr. Brothers did exactly the right thing when he approached an adjacent property owner to try to get an easier way to drive into this property, but since that was not possible I do have a problem with the steepness of the driveway. I'm not sure that there wouldn't be a visibility problem pulling in and out of that site and I'm not sure that this particular configuration of land is in keeping with the directives of our Hilltop ordinance or best management practices for development on hillsides. Is there further discussion? Would you call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-2118 fails with a vote of 4-5-0. Anthes: What do we do about the lot split? Pate: Without the tandem, without the Conditional Use approval for the tandem lot the lot split cannot even be considered. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 122 Anthes: Thank you. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 123 LSP 06-2117: (BROTHERS, 483): Submitted by ALAN REID for property located at 665 GRAY AVENUE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1. 12 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 0.63 and 0.49 acres, the larger lot being a tandem lot. Roll Call: Item is not considered, due to Conditional Use being denied. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 124 PPL 06-1773: Preliminary Plat (EMERALD POINT, 474): Submitted by STEADFAST, INC. for property located at DOUBLE SPRINGS RD., E OF SILVERTHORNE S/D. The property is zoned RMF -6, LOW DENSITY MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL and contains approximately 9.7 acres. The request is to approve a preliminary plat of a residential subdivision containing 8 single family lots and 40 two-family lots. Anthes: Our next item this evening is item 19, Preliminary Plat 06-1773 for Emerald Point. Morgan: This is a subdivision on a property approximately 10 acres. It is north of the Williams property and the Hays property that were earlier considered tonight for annexation. The applicant requests approval of a Preliminary Plat of 48 lots, 8 of which are single family and those single family lots lie on both the east and west property lines which adjoin other single family residential neighborhoods. And there are 40 townhome lots between those 2 rows of single family lots. In the review of this application staff and the applicant and Subdivision Committee worked considerably hard on connectivity. The applicant is providing one connection to the north which potentially in the future will connect with Legacy Point Phase 1. There is an intervening property which is currently developed for storage units which would currently prevent that connection at this time. The applicant also proposed three connections to the south, one of which, the western most, stubs out to the Williams property and it is questionable whether or not by the time of final plat as presented before you we will have right-of- way and the street will be constructed through that property, therefore the applicant is proposing a turnaround temporary cul-de-sac at this location. There is an additional access for this property to the Hays property which could be connected when that property develops as well as the one furthest to the east. There are several waiver requests associated with this application. Those include both the waiver of distance between Olika Street at the main lane through this property as well as Mesa Street which is existing in the Silverthome subdivision. The requirement is 150' and the applicant proposes 117' between those center lines. With the locations of the existing homes that are proposed to be saved and just the distance between there, that was the only viable option in order to get some additional lots along the northern property line. Additionally, they request a waiver of the 150' curb radius. The applicant requests for a 100' radius. Staff is recommending support of this waiver as well as the previous. We do have two other Planning Commission determinations which we have requested. First of all being street connectivity. Again, we have worked with the applicant and Subdivision Committee and at the last Subdivision Committee meeting they did recommend approval of this third connection of the three connections. And Planning Commission determination of street improvements is requested. Staff recommends that the applicant Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 125 improve Double Springs Road from the northern property line to the southern property line also including the 70' portion adjacent to Mr. Mike Williams' property which is the property that was heard earlier today for annexation. The existing home on lot 49 will encroach in the building setback and the applicant may go to the Board of Adjustment to relieve that non -conformity. However, should a variance not be approved the structure will remain as non -conforming; it's just a point of interest and we've including a condition regarding that. There are several revisions that need to be made to the plat but we have confidence that that will be done and we are recommending approval of this project. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Morgan. Would any member of the public like to address this Preliminary Plat 06-1773, please come forward. Seeing none I'll close the public comment section. Will the applicant make a presentation? Good evening. Ritchey: Good evening, my name is Randy Ritchey and I represent the applicant. Our main obstacle here as Suzanne has noted is the connectivity and we went through a couple iterations there trying to achieve connectivity to the south through Mr. Williams' property which was annexed tonight and we thought that was going to be a viable option, but he expressed some concerns and didn't really, he decided not to follow through that. So, we've adjusted our street stub outs accordingly and that's sort of generated a few more required changes. So, I think we've accomplished our goal with the connectivity both with the south and the north and possibly even three points of connection if there is a possibility to connect through Mr. Hays' property. The waivers as Suzanne presented to you are fairly straight forward. The curb radii and the distance between the street T intersections. There is really not much we can do about the T intersection distance. The street existing is where it is and we've moved the proposed street as far away from that as we can. And other than that I would just be happy to answer any question you may have. Thanks. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Ritchey. Can we have a Subdivision report on this item? Myers: If I can remember at this hour of the night. It was Commissioner Graves and wasn't it me and Lack? [multiple people talking] Myers: I went to the Subdivision Committee twice. Ok, so we are the most recent one I think. Graves: I've never seen this. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 126 Trumbo: I substituted for Commissioner Graves, I believe. Anthes: Well, it looks like on conditions of approval 2, 3, and 4 that Subdivision Committee really recommended the same thing as staff did. But I might like to hear a little bit about the connectivity issue if anyone can recall. Lack: If I may, Madame Chair. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Lack. Lack: The connectivity was the greatest issue with this subdivision and the western most connection that you see was I believe actually farther to the west shown originally. But with that inability to connect at that location we did ask that it be moved just to where it could connect but still maintaining it at that location. The middle connection which is labeled Integrity Way on the plat for us was requested to be added at the Subdivision Committee and that was pretty much the extent of the discussion that I remember. We did talk about maximum length of hammerheads or maximum length of streets or stub outs without requiring a turnaround and they were compliant in that except for the one at what is labeled Georgia Trail, the western most stub out. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Lack. Is there further discussion? I have a question about lots 48 and 49. It looks like on 49 there is an existing house to remain and I'm assuming because the garage is on the east side of that house that access will be from Georgia Trail to that property, is that correct? Anyone? Pate: No, the lot access to lot 48 will be specifically - Anthes: Lot 49 is my question. Pate: Lot 49 will be retained where it is now because that is the location of the house. There is a condition of approval that states with redevelopment of that lot the house shall be situated so that at least access is from the interior street as opposed to Double Springs Road. But as it is that existing lot would remain. Access to lot 48 will also be Double Springs Road. That's the only frontage for that lot and the structures on 46 and 47 would be removed and that would be a different development that would access the interior street which is name Georgia Trail in your plat. Anthes: And what street does lot 1 access? Pate: Lot 1 will access the interior street as well. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 127 Anthes: Ok, in the conditions of approval, can you direct me to the condition of approval that refers to lot 49. There are quite a number here. Oh, I think it is 13. Or no? Morgan: I believe 15. Pate: Yes. It also addresses the size of multi -family lots; because these are smaller lots we've reduced the driveway width to 12' maximum unless they were shared. Anthes: I would like to move to amend condition number 15 to state that homes developed on lots 1 and 48 and with any redevelopment of lot 49 that those houses should face Double Springs Road and access be provided for the side streets. Pate: Mr. Williams, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe that we can by our current ordinances dictate where a house can face or not. Anthes: We've seen it on other - Pate: On Planned Zoning Districts, yes, but not with a Preliminary Plat. Anthes: Well, there you have it, never mind. Myers: And it was so nicely crafted. Ostner: Our current condition of approval is dictating it. Pate: Only the access to the driveway. The actual vehicular access because they are discouraged on our Master Street Plan from directly accessing minor arterials. Anthes: Can't blame a girl for trying. Is there further discussion? Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: After seeing this in Subdivision and seeing the changes that we request and finding in favor of the staffs recommendations I will vote to approve Preliminary Plat 06-1773 with the stated conditions of approval giving special consideration to condition 1, connectivity, condition 2, street improvements, condition 3, the waiver of the distance between Olika and Mesa, condition 4, the Planning Commission waiver of the 100' curb radius, all of the conditions of approval as stated. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 128 Anthes: We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Lack, do we have a second? Myers: I'll second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Myers. I have one quick question and only because it is late. Will staff describe again why we are not asking for an additional stub out to the north. I know that we added, that we have 3 going south and not 1 going north, is there a reason that is not balanced? Pate: The property directly to the north is a newly developed property. The applicant has agreed to stub out Rocky Crossing even though there is a brand new structure in the way of those 2 ever being connected. However, we do feel that hopefully in the future there will be some point in time that Rocky Crossing can be seen as a more valuable property then a storage unit. Anthes: It is the mini -storage property. Pate: Correct, and being constructed so that's why we are looking at that this time. Anthes: It's just we look at other places where properties are developed in the county or even a golf course for instance and we go ahead and connect to it whether or not that may develop that way in the future. Pate: That's exactly why we made the recommendation on Rocky Crossing for this particular piece of property we didn't feel it should be the [inaudible] of the developer for the number of lots being proposed to provide all connections just in anticipation of this potentially redeveloping. Anthes: Ok, thank you, Mr. Pate. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to approve PPL 06-1773 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 129 ANX 06-2129: Annexation (MCDONALD, 569): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located S OF HUNTSVILLE RD., BETWEEN RIVER MEADOWS AND ROBERTS ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 14.21 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Anthes: Ok, our final item this evening is Annexation request 06-2129 for McDonald. Suzanne. Morgan: This Annexation request is for 14, a little over 14 acres. If you look on pages 30 and 31 of your report you can see the location. On page 30 of the planning area in gray and then on page 31 the portion that is hatched is the area which the applicant request to annex. Sometime ago we reviewed an application for annexation that would've created 2 islands within the hatched area and the applicant has coordinated with those property owners and is now bringing in an area which staff feels would be a good area to fill in where a piece of property is almost an island. And we believe that it will be an appropriate addition to the city. At this time the applicant is not requesting a rezoning of this property. Therefore, if annexed it will be rezoned Residential Agricultural. In the future there will probably be a development proposal as there are several subdivisions both to the west and to the south of this property. We are recommending approval. If you have any questions let me know. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Morgan. Would any member of the public like to address this annexation for McDonald? Seeing none I'll close the public comments section. Can we have the applicant's presentation? Tom didn't stay late with you? Hearne: Kipp Hearne with H2 Engineering. I have a short 20 minute presentation I'd like to give [laughter]. Myers: With a power point? Hearne: So, this is a simple annexation and obviously no rezoning this evening. The developer wants to spend some time to think about what opportunities he has, and I'd be happy to answer any of your questions. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Hearne. Commissioners? Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 130 Graves: I'll move that we forward with recommendation of approval Annexation 06-2129 for the reasons stated by staff. Harris: I'll second. Anthes: Split up the team. We have a motion to forward by Commissioner Graves, a second by Commissioner Harris. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve ANX 06-2129 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Anthes: Mr. Pate will you announce Thursday's meeting please? Pate: What's Thursday's meeting? Williams: A joint meeting with the Ordinance Review Committee looking at the Downtown Master Plan. Anthes: And that is a public input meeting correct? Williams: The meeting is at 5 'o clock in the library. Anthes: If anyone out there is watching, there will be a public input meeting at 5 P.M on Thursday for the Downtown Master Plan. Is there, are there any other announcements? Pate: No, ma'am. Anthes: We're adjourned. Thanks.