Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-10-09 MinutesPlanning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 1 of 107 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on October 9, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN LSD: 06-2237: (BANK OF THE OZARKS, 558) Approved Page 4 ADM 06-2292: (STONEBRIDGE MEADOWS V) Approved Page 4 CUP 06-2241: (QDOBA, 483) Tabled Page 5 ADM 06-2282: (EMERALD POINT S/D, 474) Denied Page 6 R-PZD 06-2191: (UNIVERSITY CLUB TOWER, Forwarded 135) Page 16 LSD 06-2265: (MAYNARD, 717) Tabled Page 30 CUP 06-2268: (DENEKE, 245) Approved Page 31 CUP 06-2269: (THE ARBORS@SPRINGWOODS LOT 2, Approved 286) Page 33 R-PZD 06-2213: (SUNBRIDGE VILLAS, 290) Denied Page 38 R-PZD 06-2256: (932 GARLAND, 444) Forwarded Page 65 ADM 06-2276: (ZOTTI APPEAL) Denied Page 80 Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 2 of 107 ADM 06-2294: (USE UNITS) Approved Page 95 ADM 06-2283: (PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAW Approved AMENDMENT) Page 97 Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 3 of 107 Jill Anthes Lois Bryant James Graves Hilary Harris Andy Lack Candy Clark Alan Ostner Sean Trumbo STAFFPRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Gamer Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher Glenn Newman/Engineering CITY ATTORNEY Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT Christine Myres STAFF ABSENT Matt Casey/Engineer Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 4 of 107 Anthes: Welcome to the October 9th, 2006 meeting of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission. I would like to remind the Commissioners and audience members to turn off their cell phones and pagers. Also, there are listening devices available if you require them and you can ask a staff member and they will provide with you that. Will you call the role. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call Bryant, Graves, Lack, Harris, Clark, Trumbo, Ostner, and Anthes are present, Myres is absent. LSD 06-2237: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (BANK OF THE OZARKS 6TH ST., 558): SUBMITTED BY CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES/RUSSELLVILLE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT NE CORNER HWY 62W AND FINGER RD. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL AND CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 1.96 ACRES. THE REQUEST IS TO APPROVE A 4,352 S.F. BRANCH BANK WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING. ADM 06-2292: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (STONEBRIDGE MEADOWS PHASE V): SUBMITTED BY H2 ENGINEERING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED S. OF HWY 16E AT GOFF FARM ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS APPEALING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR LOT 71 OF STONEBRIDGE MEADOWS PHASE V REGARDING STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND ASSESSMENTS. Anthes: We have two items on the consent agenda tonight. LSD 06-2237, Bank of the Ozarks on Sixth Street and ADM 06-2292 for Stone Bridge Meadows Phase 5. Would any member of the audience or Commissioner like to remove either of these items from consent? Seeing none, I will entertain motions to approve the consent agenda. Motion: Clark: I motion to approve. Anthes: Motion to approve by Commissioner Clark. Ostner: Second Anthes: Second by Commissioner Ostner. Will you call the role. Roll Call: The consent agenda was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 5 of 107 CUP 06-2241: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (QDOBA, 483): SUBMITTED BY QDOBA MEXICAN GRILL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 603 W. DICKSON STREET. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL AND CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 0. 12 ACRES. THE REQUEST IS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PORTABLE, TEMPORARY DANCE FLOOR FOR SPECIFIED EVENINGS ONLY. Anthes: The applicant has requested that this item be tabled indefinitely. Mr. Pate, do we have to hear a report or can we go right to the motion to table? Pate: You can go right to the motion to table. Motion: Anthes: Do I hear a motion? Clark: So moved. Anthes: Motion to table indefinitely by Commissioner Clark. Do I hear a second? Graves: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Graves. Will you call the role? Roll Call: The CUP 06-2241 for QDOBA was tabled indefinitely by a vote of 8-0- 0. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 6 of 107 ADM 06-2282: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (EMERALD POINT S/D, 474): SUBMITTED BY STEADFAST, INC. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED S OF WEDINGTON, E OF DOUBLE SPRINGS ROAD. THE REQUEST IS FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION OF THE APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT, PPL 05-1773. Anthes: Our fourth item is ADM 06-2282 for Emerald Point. Suzanne? Morgan: This application is for a request to revisit an approved preliminary plat for Emerald Point which is located North of Dot Tipton Rd. The applicant was approved for a subdivision with two access points stubbing out to property to the South which is zoned RSF-4 and additional western stub out to property zoned R -A which contains 1 acre The reason for this configuration was in review of the development there was originally 2 stub outs; one to the RSF-4 property and one to property zoned R -A. It was deemed very unlikely that without the approval of the owner for the R -A property, that street would not go through, connect to the RSF-4 property and allow for street connections from this development to future development to the South. Therefore a third street, an interior street, was put into the subdivision and stubbed out to the RSF-4 property. In review of construction drawings and some of the drainage requirements for this property, the owner has requested the removal of the interior, of the center street labeled Integrity Way, in order to provide additional area for the detention storm water. Therefore, they are asking for a modification of the approved preliminary plat. Staff recommends denial of requested modification for the removal of Integrity Way without the construction of Georgia Trail through Mr. Williams' property or the property zoned R -A. Although the block length requirements have been met from Double Springs Rd to Rocky Crossing, staff does not recommend the construction of long straight streets that may increase traffic speeds, when there is a possibility of providing additional street connections. Planning Commission approved Integrity Way because Georgia Way would not be able to extend through Mr. William's property and the applicant's current proposal does not provide an alternative street connection. Mr. Williams has not indicated at this time that street connection can be provided through his property. Anthes: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Would any member of the public like to address this administrative item for Emerald Point? Seeing none, I will close the public comment section and ask for the applicant's presentation. Ritchey: Good Evening, my name is Randy Ritchey and I represent the applicant in this petition. I would like to elaborate a little bit on the drainage issue. We have, bordering us on the North side, a County island within the City and they have developed that as you -all are aware as mini -storage; the Double Springs Mini -Storage Units. They opted to remain in the County for Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 7 of 107 obvious reasons and though the City has asked them several times, "would you please annex?". And they have subsequently regraded their site so that 100% of their drainage comes onto our subdivision. Whereas, naturally, none of their property drained onto our subdivision. We now have to detain for 7.2 acres more property than we would have had they not redirected their drainage onto us. And that is the reason why we are now scrambling around trying to figure out how we are going to detain; originally we were going to detain about 7 acres total and now we have to detain about 15 acres total because of what they have done with their grading plan. Had that property been within the City limits and they had to play by the rules, they would not have been able to do that, at all. The County has much more lax requirements for the detention and the grading plans. So we are, our neighbor has not been very nice to us, and we are having to grapple with and how we are going to handle this water. That's the main reason. I've not really been excited about the stub -out, to be honest with you, from the beginning. I'd like to mention that we have Double Springs, a major street, fronting our property. That's where all the traffic's gonna go. It's gonna go straight west onto Double Springs and people are going to enter the subdivision off of Double Springs and go East into it. There's just not really going to be a whole lot of traffic flowing North and South. I don't really see how it's going to help us in the first place. And it's going to give us a little bitty block length in there that's just over 300 ft long. I don't know if you have a sketch in front of you, but I'm all for connectivity, I'm not opposed to connectivity when it's worth while. I just don't see the benefit to the overall infrastructure to the City. If you're going to have a street built there with a water line and sewer line, and curb, gutter, and side walk, all of this has to be maintained by the City, I don't see overall in the end that it's going to benefit; what it's going to cost the City to maintain long term. I am in no way trying to blame Planning and the Engineering at all. But, Engineering's aware of what we're doing and they actually support the removal of the stub -out and obviously Glen can speak for that. As I say, our main problem is, we're trying to juggle this increase of water and we really don't have a way to do it. And any help we can get there we would really appreciate and honestly I don't see there's gong to be very much traffic going that way. Like I said, the major traffic corridor there is going to be Double Springs and people are gong to be going straight to it as quickly as they can. And we do have an alternate way for them to get there only 300 more feet to the East. Anyway, we appreciate your consideration on the item. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Ritchie. Could we start with questions of staff. The distance, as I understand it, from Double Springs to Rock Crossing is 1173 feet. Is that correct? Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 8 of 107 Morgan: Let me just check that, I'm sorry, I just want to be accurate here. Yes, I believe that is correct. Anthes: And our maximum block length allowed is 1400 ft? Morgan: Yes, that is correct. Anthes: And Glen, would you fill us in on what's happened on the grading and drainage? Newman: Yes ma'am. Mr. Ritchie, I believe explained that the property to the North is in the County, and what they have sequentially done is change the drainage pattern from an existing pasture that was draining toward the north, developed a mini -storage where towards the north, there is a subdivision, I believe Legacy, that if you continue to drain that way that it would impede or create some problems. So, the developer of the mini - storage redirected the water to the south and in that has caused our problems. So he has basically made that an impervious entire site that is now going toward the applicant's property, and because of City criteria we can not allow him to pass additional water downstream to his southern discharge point. We have requested that he also detain that water, even though it is a large increase from the original concept. We became aware of this situation during the construction review and the pond size does need to be increased, regardless of that issue. But to take in consideration of that entire development north of him, the pond size would basically need to double from what it is on the sketch. That was originally presented during the construction review. Anthes: Commissioners? Lack: Madam Chair, if I could ask a question of staff. My understanding of the drainage requirements were, that you not pass more water off of your site than what preceded off of your site prior to development. And I'm having a little bit of trouble understanding, I guess, why water that's flowing from another site or water that's currently flowing from this site, needs to be detained by this applicant? Newman: If I may? Basically what's happening is kind of the "chicken and the egg". The property to the north is in the County and the requirements are different. They are not required to detain and what's happened is the applicant proceeded, based on the current conditions or prior to development conditions to the north. Because they're still in construction right now so what he has done is created basically a pond on our applicant's property. And the applicant is trying to developed his property so he is trying to relieve that pond from his property line and have Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 9 of 107 discharge away from his property so he can develop. Does that answer your question? Lack: If I understand correctly, then the original development which increased the flow of water onto this site used a pond on this site to detain that water? Newman: Not intentionally. He is creating or changing the flow and if water has no place to go and because there was not provision to discharge or take care of the water from the county property is now impacting the applicant. Lack: Okay, I guess I'm still not quite understanding how the additional run off from this subdivision is not the criteria for developing the pond. Newman: If the development from the North was in place when this applicant came through and the water pattern is what the property ownership has done to the north, we would require him to detain that water and prevent any increase going to the next property owner. But because this was construction in motion and plans not coordinated, one in the City and one in the County, I believe this is part of the problem. The County did not have any detention requirements and also, it's changed the flow path of the over -land flow that was never going to the applicant's property so he is trying to develop a property with additional flow put on him from the adjacent property owner. Lack: I remember seeing this, I think at Subdivision Committee, and when it came through Planning Commission before. And I like having the connectivity. I think we talked a lot about where the roads would be during Subdivision Committee. And I'm having a little bit of trouble though with that ,in conjunction with, what seems to me, to be punishing this applicant for something that someone else has done, or a problem someone else has created. While I don't' know yet how I'm going to feel at the end of this discussion, I'm probably leaning toward trying to find some other arrangement. Graves: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves? Graves: I guess I want to follow up Commissioner Lack's question with Jeremy and the City Attorney. Is that right? If somebody develops in the middle of his processing, his application that creates a release of water on his property, he's now got to detain, not only additional discharge created from developing his own property, but now he's got to detain new water that's coming off the other property? Pate: I would say that this case sounds pretty unusual in that most properties that are developing either simultaneously or next to each other already have detention requirements. So it's a work in tandem to manage that drainage. It is typical that when a drainage pattern passes through a site that drainage can continue to pass through that site. It may be that the difference in this is that the drainage never came onto the site and was actually flowing north. So now there is water on the property that had to go somewhere for someone to build on the property, because, evidently ponded, that water has to be directed in some form or fashion. I really do have to rely on the Engineering Division for their drainage criteria. That's what they utilize in reviewing development but I do think it is a unique situation to require a developer to retain water from another property and instead of just letting it pass through or discharge in another manner. Williams: Well, I think that the law on storm water is that, you can not redirect your flow. This is private property law between private individuals, not City law. You can handle water as a common enemy but you may not redirect its flow onto your neighbor's property with immunity. So that in fact, the applicant here could take legal action against his neighbor if that water never flowed in his direction and that person has changed the flow and is now flooding his property and is now causing him damage. So that can be a private action between them. I would be concerned if we tried to require an applicant to handle more than his problem. You know, he is not responsible for what the mini -storage owner is doing and so it does concern me if we are trying to get him to handle more than his problem. My understanding, and maybe I am wrong on this, is that the developer realized he has to handle this problem or else he has to file suit, one of the two, and so that is why he has increased his drainage capacity, his detention, in order to try to handle problem. But I would think that probably from the legal point of view, he would have rights to handle only his own problem and let the other water flow through as we have seen in another development down south of Huntsville Road where there was obviously a tremendous amount of water coming down and they weren't required to do a detention for all of this water, only the portion that would be on their property and to handle the water going through, but not to create a big lake in order to ease people downstream. I don't think that has been in our ordinances ever to require someone to do more than handle the water that is falling upon their property. Graves: I guess my inclination, then, would be to deny the appeal and to require the connectivity as we would in any other case. And if the applicant wants to give up a lot to increase the size of the detention. or wants to other wise pursue legal rights against their neighbor who has caused this situation for them, that is between the applicant and his neighbor. But as far as then enforcing what the City would normally do, then we would normally have connectivity and that's what we approved originally and the applicant can Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 11 of 107 choose to try to keep their detention pond the same size as it was originally planed and pursue legal rights against their neighbor or they can elect to increase the size of the detention and give up a lot somewhere else. That would be my inclination. Anthes: I believe Engineering has some comments? Newman: I just wanted to see if I could make it a little more clear at this current stage with the mini -storage developed and its ponding on the north property line of the applicant's property. The City's criteria, to my understanding, is that we can not allow the development to increase the flow downstream. Right now, there is no out -fall for the water coming from the mini -storage coming onto the applicant's property. So if that water passes through which it is not now, then we would be possibly allowing an increase, because he is about to develop more water is going to the southerly property owner than it is today. So that is one of the issues I would like to point out. Graves: My point being that he could, either before developing property, pursue whatever legal rights he might have against his neighbor to get his neighbor to control that water. To keep it from ever getting onto his property and then move forward with the original plan. Or they can develop that property now but their going to need a bigger detention area and either way, I would be for the original plan for connectivity and then it's the applicant option as to which way to go from there. Clak: Madam Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I have a question for staff or for whomever wants to answer it. Is there a reason that the detention pond has to be on the south side of this development and not the north? Ritchey: I can address that if you'd like. Clark: Sure. Ritchey: Again, Randy Ritchey. The way the site lays as you see it is long and skinny, if you will, facing east & west. And right in the center of that property, just north of our proposed pond location is a high point. So we used to have a watershed that was split right on our property. Half of our property went north, half of our property went south and that is why our pond is on the south. The majority of our watershed goes to the south and we put the pond there on our natural low point so that we would gather all the water and detain it and meet all the City's requirements for storm Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 12 of 107 drainage. Is our whole issue now is, where we use to have a high spot and out water use to flow onto the mini -storage property. Now they have made it higher and it comes toward us, which it never did. We can not pass that water through, because it never went that way. We really don't have that option. We can take the water and make a really large detention pond that will release our pre -development flows. We can do that but the pond is going to be very large and that 50 foot right of way would help tremendously for everyone. Clark: Then I have another question for you because I am a big fan of connectivity as well. Especially as I look through the other pages and I see that if we lose connectivity here apparently we stand the chance of losing connectivity in the southern parcels as they develop. And that's just not real pleasing to me. And it seems that you're being unfairly punished by having to handle runoff from the adjacent property under a different jurisdiction as well. But it also seems to me that if we allow you to build a bigger pond and lose connectivity, we are enabling bad development to your north and they're not getting any, or being accountable for what they are creating. What would be the possibility of instead of handling this runoff if you use two detention ponds? One in the south and one in the north exclusive to catch the runoff from the sub -storage units. Would that would still enable you have the connectivity that we're looking for? Ritchey: There are options along those lines. I did look at on the north side of the property. We are not able to make a pond very deep at all. Maybe 2 feet. And that lack of depth is not really going to accomplish much. If we made it encompass 4 lots it wouldn't do any good because there's not any volume there. And again that is why we put the pond on the south side so we could get some depth in the pond. Obviously we can do that, we can try. But it's a small development, if we keep taking a lot here and there, we're not going to ends up with any lots. Clark: Well, that was my suggestion, instead of losing some on the south lose a couple on the north, or take the north to court, and don't lose any. Ritchey: I obviously can't speak very much in depth about taking the north to court. I'm sure something will happen along those lines. At this point we have an opportunity to minimize all of that ripple effect if we can make use of this street right of way. It will reduce the amount of the property that goes into litigation. Where here, you mean guy to the north is going to have to buy lots number blah, blah, blah, cause we have to make it be a pond now. I'm sure something along those lines is going to happen. Obviously the smaller scale that is, the easier it is to handle in the end. And that is our hope, that we can salvage any area that we can and again the southern property line is ideal for the drainage pond because it allows for more depth of the pond which is more volume with less surface area if that makes sense. Did that answer your question at all? Clark: Sort of. It still comes down to connectivity versus taking drainage from another property you're not responsible for. And as I look at 1100 foot block length with any interruption, I am very troubled by that. And I am also troubled that we won't get connectivity as the southern parcels develop as well. And I'm hopeful that there is other recourse available and I'm very inclined to vote against the waiver because of connectivity. Especially, in this area, I think it is critical. Ritchey: Like I said in the beginning, I'm not opposed to connectivity at all. In a perfect world we would love to have as much as possible. However I would like to also say, I think the end goal for the stub -out is to connect to Dot Tipton. But again, there is another County parcel there that may never become City incorporated and that stub -out may never complete its design. Of course I'm speculating here, but we don't have any promise that it's going to go anywhere anyway and I know that is the case with any stub - out. Anthes: Mr. Ritchey, can I ask you, can you tell us the difference between the number of lots you have in your approved plat, the number of lots in the requested revision with the larger detention plot, and the number of lots you would having remaining with the larger detention and the street right of way? Ritchey: If we keep the connection, essentially it boils down to a pair of town homes that will be eliminated. Otherwise essentially we keep two units on the property if we can make use of that street stub -out area. Anthes: And that is equivalent to, that pair of town homes is also what you lost in expanding the detention area? So, then the net changes two pairs? Ritchey: That's correct. And actually the overall final drainage pond is undetermined. We don't know if we can use the street, we can't. It's at least going to be two times as big as it is. We're going to have to deal with 100% more water than we ever were. But as far as the final calculations have been done, we're hoping to see if we can make use of this area first instead of putting a pond on one side of the road and more ponds on the other side of the road. It would nice if we could have one pond instead of a pond with a street and another pond. Anthes: Yes, but you could realign the street on one side of the pond? Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 14 of 107 Ritchey: Yes Anthes: Question to staff. Do we have a disagreement between Engineering and Planning about the outcome of this vote? Do I hear that Engineering supports the request? Is that what I heard? Pate: I don't think that from a staff perspective, there's disagreement. I think that there is a realization that if detention is required and the stub -out is required as well, there will be reduction of lots unless other measures are approved as Commissioner Graves mentioned. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Pate. Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Madam Chair. Mr. Pate, ahas this not already come through the process once? Pate: Yes, early this year or late last year. Ostner: So, if we forget about the request tonight, talking about this small issue, could the applicant not go ahead and build this with the detention as it's delineated? He basically has approval, He's just looking for a different approval. Pate: His approval is for the preliminary plat. There are many differences in preliminary plat and actual construction drawings and that's what is being reviewed right now in the construction drawings to ensure that he meets all the applicable final grading, drainage report and things of that nature. So, I think that is the hiccup in the process; during the construction review process this came up. And we will certainly work with him through the construction review process if there are ways to either divide that detention and drainage from the north and south perspective. Perhaps that's feasible, but that is something we will continue to work with as we always do with applicants. Motion: Ostner: Okay, because it seems to me that the applicant's right to go ahead and develop what he has been given preliminary plat approval for, it doesn't seem fair that we often step in the middle, something's changed upstream, didn't use to be upstream, now it is, forget it. It seems he has some sort of approval right now and what he is asking for tonight is a modification so he can have a little more detention. So I just want to make that clear that there is a set of approvals in place and how that preliminary plat is going to be implemented is the only question. That's a big difference between he has Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 15 of 107 no approvals and tonight he might or might not depending on if he sues. So, I think the issue is a little more clear. I'm gonna vote against the motion, I think there are other options and the layout that was approved was approved as a package. If it had been submitted with out that stub -out, I would guess, that we might not even be here and it wouldn't have gone this far in the process. So I' m gonna vote against the motion tonight. I'm gonna make a motion to deny ADM 06-2282. Clark: Second. Ritchey: Can I come up and say something else? Anthes: Go ahead. Ritchey: Commission Ostner, we did originally submit the plat without the stub -out and Suzanne gave a brief history on that. We had the Georgia Trail and I approached that neighbor asking to build a street across your land and he thought about that for a few days and decided against it. I respect that and am not going to ask him again if we can. And Planning told us that if we could get that neighbor to let us build a road across his parcel, then we can lose this stub -out. But he has already told us "no" once and I'm not going to go back again. And originally it wasn't there; it was an add-in. Ostner: I'm not trying to talk about submissions. I'm talking about approvals. The approval was granted with the stub -out, when it came here and we all sat over there about subdivision that was the result. I doubt, without that stub - out, it would have gone forward. But you can't go back in time, that's just my opinion. So that led to my point that the stub -out was probably critical to us being here tonight and I think it should stay. Ritchey: Thank you. Anthes: We have a motion to deny this Administrative item. The motion is by Commission Ostner with a second by Commissioner Clark. Is there further discussion? Will you call the role. Roll Call: The ADM 06-2282 for Emerald Point S/D was denied by a vote of 6-2- 0. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 16 of 107 R-PZD 06-2191: PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT (UNIVERSITY CLUB TOWER, 135): SUBMITTED BY CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES INC. - ROGERS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT N OF LOWE'S, E OF THE NWA MALL. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE, AND C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL, AND CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 10.39 ACRES. THE REQUEST IS FOR A 13 STORY/APPROXIMATELY 200' TALL BUILDING WITH A MAXIMUM 80 DWELLING UNITS AND BOTH SURFACE AND UNDERGROUND PARKING. Morgan: I'll just give the brief overview of the overall project. The applicant is requesting approval for a residential building that is approximately 13 stories or 200 feet with 80 dwelling units on a tract that is 10.4 acres located north of the Lowe's property on College Avenue. This project was tabled on September 11th by the Planning Commission. The issues which were addressed, focused on the access to the property, the number of units, signage, and such. I would just like to go over the changes they have submitted and plans that you have. They have removed the emergency access to Lowe's in lieu of providing an access to College Ave. through the northern portion of the property. As you can see on the plans, the applicant has adjusted the street to the north such that it encroaches into the adjacent property to the north, in a proposed 15 ft. access easement. The applicant has not yet received written approval for that street layout, that private street layout, and they have brought an alternative to you tonight, which shows that street completely on their property. This is supposed to be a private street at 24 feet in width. The applicant will require a waiver of street requirements. In condition number 3, you can see Planning Commission determination of a waiver of the Unified Development Code Chapter 166.06 (B), which states "that any street connecting one ore more public street shall be constructed to existing City standards and shall be dedicated as a public street." The applicant proposes a private street connection, at 24 feet in width, from College Avenue to Timberlake Court for a maximum of 80 units. Staff is recommending an approval of this proposed waiver, finding that the street will not be constructed to meet all City specifications due to the terrain of the property. In addition, the applicant has removed the overflow parking that was located southwest of the building to decrease the disturbance on the site. Though it increases the number of trees preserved, the location of the street connection to College decreases the canopy from 79% to 55%. However, this still far exceeds the minimum tree canopy required for a PZD. Signage was modified to meet multi -family residential requirements and the overall units were decreased from 83 to 80 which is what is required for a private loop street with a PZD. There are several conditions of approval, many of which,require Planning Commission determination. I've already reviewed condition # 3. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 17 of 107 Condition 1 addresses a waiver of landscaping requirements for one tree per 30 feet along College Avenue right of way. The location of those street trees would be approximately 40 ft above street grade and would not provide the intended shade and pedestrian streetscape. Additionally, significant slope and drainage improvements by the highway department would likely not allow the additional street tree plantings in the area of the actual right of way. And staff is recommending approval of that waiver request. Condition 2 addresses a determination of street improvements, as stated in previous meetings. Staff is not recommending any street improvements for this development as we find that the development of the Timberlake Office Park, the requirements placed on that development will suffice for this project as well. Condition 4 is Planning Commission determination of construction street standards for a 24 foot private drive connecting College Avenue and Timberlake Court. Staff recommends construction of the 24 foot wide street to meet all City standards regarding curb, gutters, and materials. Additionally, the applicant shall provide a network of sidewalks and trails to connect Timberlake Court and College Ave. To do so, a sidewalk connection shall be provided from the trail interior to the project to College Avenue. Therefore, what we expect to see with revisions is the trail that curves along College Avenue for a sidewalk to come off of that trail and slope down to meet the actual street. Additionally, if you look at condition 5, I've addressed that we had put a condition in here stating that the applicant would need to provide written verification and the adjacent owner would be acceptable with the access easement. The Planning Commission consideration, because they do not have that, they are going to propose the alternate route for that street. I did speak with the Solid Waste Representative today and they did address the dumpster location. They were okay with the location but they did want to inform me that if two dumpsters would be required that the width of that dumpster enclosure would need to widen 6 feet. And if they would need to use a trash compacter, which is recommended, it would need to be lengthened 16 ft. Overall, in looking at the tree preservation plans this may affect some area underneath one of the trees. In speaking with the Urban Forester, the suggestion was to add to condition number 19, that the applicant will coordinate between Solid Waste and the Urban Forester, regarding additional tree removal or pruning in order to accommodate the dumpster location. If you have any other questions, I will be happy to mention that. I believe Mr. Pate may have one additional condition of approval. Anthes: Ms. Morgan will you restate the changes you wanted made. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 18 of 107 Morgan: Certainly. In addition to condition 19 that "the applicant shall coordinate with the Solid Waste division and the Urban Forester, regarding additional tree removal or tree pruning to accommodate the dumpster." Anthes: Mr. Pate did you have an additional comment? Pate: Yes. In speaking with the Urban Forester today there was also a question; obviously the subdivision to the east is under construction, there is a portion of this site that has been disturbed. The applicant is actually purchasing a lot that is within that Timberlake subdivision to the east, and that is the access point. Their detention pond is located on a portion of this site and they have cut into a section. In the field, it looks like this street doesn't follow that already disturbed area and so we would like to add a condition that "the private street will align as closely as possible to utilize the already cleared and disturbed area for Timberlake Office Park detention pond to minimize tree disturbance subject to approval by the Urban Forester." Again, that is to reduce and minimize the effects of canopy removal in this area. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this planned zoning district for University Club Tower? Seeing none, we will close the floor to public comment. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Ellis: My name is Daniel Ellis with Crafton, Tull, & Associates, Inc. Staff did a good job in explaining the situation on this property. We do not have any objections on the comments that were given by staff. Basically what you see here is shifting of the road onto the property. It really won't impact the site negatively; it will cause us to remove two of the trees versus what was originally submitted. And two of them are Hickory Trees; number 146 & 154; a 19 inch Hickory and a 24 inch Hickory. We will work with the Forester on that. We still want to try to pursue the easement with our neighbor to the north and minimize the impact on the tree canopy. But, I want to bring this alternative to the Planning Commission to show that we can get this connection with or without cooperation of our neighbors to the north. And it won't be a significant impact to that hillside or the trees on that hillside. And I will answer any questions the Commissioners may have. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Ellis. Commissioners? Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: Question for Ms. Morgan. The sidewalk requirement to College Avenue, are we asking for them to connect from the beginning to the private road all the way to 71 with the sidewalk? Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 19 of 107 Morgan: We are looking for a combination use of the trails on this property as well as the sidewalk to make a pedestrian connection from Timberlake Court to College Avenue. And the applicant is providing sidewalk on the right of way of Timberlake Court and a 4' sidewalk adjacent to the private drive, where it forks. Then they could pick up internal trails in order to get down to College Avenue, as you can see the trail loops as is comes to the right of way. So we are requesting that a sidewalk fork off rom there and continue down to the right of way. Does that answer your question? Trumbo: Yes, just needed to clarify that. Thank you. Pate: If I may also answer that, Madam Chair. The reason for that recommendation, obviously there are not any sidewalks on College Avenue at this point and time. And because of the significant drainage structures adjacent to this property it could be some time before that does occur. But we're recommending that at least the potential for that, if it ever occurs, then we would have a connection back and around this area. There's a family fun park to the north and quite a bit of recreational activities. There is a planned trail along Clear Creek as well so that potentially could provide for access between Veterans Park and a circular route in this area of Veterans Park and Lake Fayetteville Park as well. Trumbo: Madam Chair. The improvements that are being done on Zion, do they include sidewalks? Pate: Yes. Trumbo: They do. North side or south side? Pate: On the north side I believe. Trumbo: Well, the reason I was asking, I feel that obviously this is going to put a lot of traffic onto Zion Road coming in and out. And I wanted to make sure there were sidewalks at least heading down to the street just east of the Pontiac dealerships so we can have some connectivity to the bookstores and those places there. And it sounds like it's taken care of. Anthes: I have a question regarding the street. On page 13 of our staff report, in the findings area, you cite our code that says "private street shall be permitted only for a loop street, or a street ending in a cul-de-sac. Any street connecting one or more public streets shall be constructed to existing City standards and shall be dedicated as a public street." As far as I understand from Ms. Morgan's report this evening, the curb, gutter, materials, sidewalk, trails, and those things will be constructed to City standards. It's Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 20 of 107 just the matter of whether there is a sidewalk adjacent to the road that meets our street section. Am I understanding that correctly? Morgan: That is one of the issues; certainly the applicant is not to dedicate the right of way. To make that public also, I believe that the terrain may also be an issue. I have not looked at the grades for this. Perhaps the applicant can enlighten us a little more on that. Anthes: Let me clarify with Engineering first. Glen, have you had a look at this and the reason why is we have specific ordinance that says if it is connecting public streets it should be a public street and I think that is what we pretty much have here. And if were asking them to have it remain private. Can you just elaborate on that? Newman: I have looked at this very briefly with the new alignment. I believe they have mentioned a few issues with the terrain in some exceptions of what they were going to be asking for, for the geometry of the road way or the elevation. But, it appears to me that they are planning to build to City standards for the City criteria material section. The only item I think they're looking for a waiver would not to have to meet the geometric requirements for the profile. Anthes: As I understand it, we have accepted waivers on the geometric profile on the some hillsides before, I'm thinking of some waiver requests on Falling Waters, I believe? Newman: I believe on Scottswood Place recently. Anthes: Is there any specific reason we wouldn't be asking for this to be dedicated as a public street? Newman: I see no reason why we would not. Anthes: Mr. Ellis. Ellis: I don't think that my client would have a problem dedicating this portion as a public street if we can get the geometric waiver to keep that at a 24' width instead of a 30' width. Because of the topography, if we go 30' wide, we would have to remove more trees, which we're trying not to do and we do have an area with a 12% slope on the road which exceeds the maximum slope for a public street. So we would need waivers on that. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 21 of 107 Newman: And we can accept, after review, up to 300' of 15% slope or any ordinance area. But I have not specifically seen the lengths that they have or reviewed that. Ellis: I don't remember the length, but it's something close to about 300'. So we might even work with it, it just may be the width of the road that we ask for the waiver on from 30 to 24. Anthes: I guess I'm particularly interested in that we have 80 dwelling units proposed on this property, or up to 80 units and that's a lot of units on a private street without an assurance that it will be maintained the same way the City would maintain it. As far as the walking trail goes, is the surface and the construction detail similar to a sidewalk? Or is it similar to our trail section? Morgan: I'm not aware of the particulars of that. Ellis: I don't think we've gone far enough to propose if it would be concrete or if it would be more towards a trail section. I think it would be more to a trail section at least where is meanders more away from the road and it twists and turns through the property. We haven't gotten that far in nailing down the design of that, to be honest with you. Pate: Madam Chair. We did include a condition number 4, at least stating that minimum 4" in width concrete sidewalks and asphalt pedestrian walkway and trails, a hard surface, with an understanding that we need to work with Urban Forester through this process, but wanting to ensure that there was an adequately maintainable trail. Especially given the slopes. Anthes: Thank you, one last question Mr. Pate. The plan booklet references General Plan 2020 instead of CityPlan 2025. Is that a function of one that was submitted and does that need to be revised based on accepting this as a policy document? Pate: Most likely, we actually went to the City Council 2 or 4 weeks ago to adopt an ordinance basically stating that anywhere in the UDC the General Plan 20-0 changes just to General Plan or CityPlan and we are in the process to continue to that. Anthes: Did you understand that request? Ellis: Yes Ma'am, I do. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Commissioner Ostner. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 22 of 107 Ostner: I'm just trying to understand where the utility easements are. I understand that there is a big easement along College. Ellis: Yes Sir. Ostner: Is that the only? Ellis: There's an existing easement along the north property line and there's the large utility easement along College for the Sewer/Water and there's a small easement on the south side for a sewer line, and we're proposing some additional easements to bring water into the property. We're working, pretty much, within the foot print of the parking lot and the structure itself trying to minimize our impact on the site. Ostner: Is that 20' easement, is probably 30' inside the property line Ellis: That is exactly correct. Ostner: It's independent. Ellis: There's an existing 8 inch water within that easement. Ostner: Okay, and the southern easement, how big is that? Ellis: I don't have the plan in front of me. On the southern side, we have an existing manhole that comes right across the property line and we are proposing an actual 20' utility easement coming off that manhole up to our building to serve our site for sewer. And that's all that we have. And then on the north side, there is an existing, it looks like to be about 40' access easement or something like that, access and utility easement. Ostner: So, I'm just noticing how many trees are on this site and how much effort you all are going to, to save them and that's great. I have a question for staff. When all these trees fall inside utility easements and utilities want to come through and dig, so they can either build this building or increase their lines or whatever. Do they have to save the trees? Pate: Utility companies do not. That is the very reason our ordinance states that an applicant can't allow those to be shown as preserved. They actually have to remove them from their calculations, whether those trees get removed or not. Because utility companies obviously have the right to come in and remove those. What we have seen in the past on projects, in certain situations, underground utilities certainly help to not have tree removal. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 23 of 107 They don't have to come through and prune heavily due to overhead lines unless you have extremely deep lines or larger diameter water & sewer lines that have to be deeper. The actual clearance is not nearly as great. Ostner: Thank you. So if there is 98% canopy as the report says on page 5.That 98% is measured, excluding the utility easements? There's a big box and that's the land they own, this is an easement, they didn't count that. They just said we're gonna look at what's existing outside of the utility easements. Pate: So if this was a 100% canopy site and 2% of the site were easement, you would be showing a 98% canopy site, because they do not count that as preserved or removed. But if the applicant is proposing new easements onto the property, they are penalized for that. Ostner: Thank you. Next question is for the applicant and possibly for staff. The walking trail loops the project and the site but it doesn't go anywhere. It doesn't give you a way to go to the property to south, which is commercial. If that were a road, we probably would ask for it to stub -out for a cross access. What's the possibility of that? Ellis: The stub -out, I would imagine, could possibly be made but the walking trail is a private walking trail. It's not meant to be the public amenity and currently there's nothing, well there's a go-cart track that would be the only access point to the property to the north. You got a large creek there and there's not a foot bridge or anything that goes across to the property of the north. You actually have to- Ostner: I believe I was talking about the property to the south. Ellis: To the south, I'm sorry, excuse me. I think my client would prefer for that not to happen. He is trying to maintain some private amenities for his residents. And the walking trail being one of those, at least what circles around his building. Ostner: I just see so many of our goals that have even been eluded to in this packet, the people in this building using the services and the businesses nearby and if you have to get in your car to go a quarter of a mile around the block to get to Lowe's to pick up some hardware, it seems counter productive. Ellis: We can definitely look at that. Ostner: I think it would be important. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 24 of 107 Anthes: Thank you Commissioner Ostner. Harris: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: I have a couple of questions. Mr. Pate, on the condition of approval number 1, in which the staff recommends approval of the requested waiver of landscape requirements for 1 tree per 30 feet due to the slope - in the final sentence "additionally, significant slope and drainage improvements by the highway department will likely not allow additional street tree planting in the area of the right of way." Does that likely have a fair degree of certainty attached to it or would it be useful at all to ask the applicant to place money into an account in case, within a year that does not take place? Pate: Well the challenging part about this waiver request is that our ordinances require you to plant a 15" buffer exclusive of the right of way. A 15" buffer exclusive of the right of way, as you can see, is 146.95 feet, not from the center line, but from the edge of the street. So actually that's 15" into the property which is well into the slope and is heavily wooded. So there is already a wooded slope area that really does meet the requirement with the exception of some areas that have been cleared for easements. Planting within the right of way isn't really part our ordinances. The challenge of that is the bluff as you can see there, I'm sure you're aware when you travel down College Avenue, likely the street tree planting that would benefit the City most I believe, would be along College Avenue. Actually quite close to the street, probably between the drainage area and the actual street itself. I think that's something more that the City would likely participate in, a City beautiful movement or a project that we have in improvements in North College in the future. We recommend that waiver simply because it does not function for what it was intended on this particular project. Harris: Thank you. Madam Chair, may I ask another question. I would like to revisit Commissioners Anthes' concerns about that private drive. Just for my education: Mr. Pate, if a street is built to City standards but it's a private drive, it's maintained by? Pate: The Property Owners Association typically. Much like if you have an apartment complex all the drive aisles and driveways, everything is maintained by one Developer/Owner or the Property Owners Association. Harris: And the City, I assume, has no jurisdiction over that. That's a private agreement is that correct? Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 25 of 107 Pate: It's a private agreement. However, ordinances, like in your findings under private streets, state that if a Property Owners Association or whomever is responsible for maintenance of that private street does not maintain it to a certain standard, the City does have the right, but is not required, to come in and maintain that or improve that street. And following the property owner or property owners association that's pursuant to our existing City codes and applicable to any private street. Harris: Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair. Anthes: Mr. Pate can you clarify something about, for the audience members and anyone who would be watching on TV, as you see we have in front of us a 200" tall building and we are not talking about architectural review because we do not have design standards for residential projects in our Unified Development Code. However, on page 4 of our staff report, it does indicate that staff has made specific findings on this project for our consideration on architectural review. Will you point those out for us and for the audience? Pate: Some of the concerns that we had, I think were reflectivity of glass and the applicant offered to have that as a condition. That is why it states that they voluntarily offered that there not be any reflective glass in this particular instance, disabling motorists going north and south on College Avenue. You're exactly right, commercial design standards do not apply in this situation because it's entirely a 100% residential project. We do not have set criteria for residential design standards by which to review the project. As you will remember the many projects we have had in the past that we have gone over and over about commercial design standards and transition and compatibility, we simply do not have that test in this instance. And so what we do is review this project in light of all other findings that we do have and terms of the site and how site patterns work. We certainly did make recommendations at the last Planning Commission meeting to decrease parking so that the impact of the site was decreased and to also increase the tree canopy preserved because that is one of our findings that we do make, that this is a site suitable for this type of development. So we were supportive of that particular case in the development standards. Anthes: Can you also address the view protection? Pate: The view protection is one condition or one finding that the Planning Commission establishes. We did not find a view in this particular instance that anyone has discussed and we could not establish one that we would try to protect in place of this property. There are obvious areas of discussions that the City has had very publicly of viewsheds the City would like to see Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 26 of 107 protected. I think potentially a PZD could look at that in terms of the project in the future. This one, I did not feel, was an appropriate case for that and we felt that the development pattern in terms of this project were much more desirable than if you look at the aerial photograph on the floor. Than the development patterns that you see to the north of that, especially the mall and the yellow areas. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is there further discussion? Clark: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I'm still back at conditions of approval 3 & 4. The private drive issue. Is there a rationale, I mean we tabled this because you didn't have a second area of connectivity. I am amazed that you can get that to College. I'm very, very impressed. So you've done what we've asked you to do. Is there a reason you made it a private street and not a dedicated right of way for the City to have? Ellis: The only reason we went with the private street route was to keep it down to a 24' wide drive instead of a 30' wide drive. We're right there on that hillside. We just wanted to minimize the impact into that hillside and I did not realize I can request a waiver, to be honest with you. To run a street section down to 24' in the geometry and since that's an option I don't see us making that connectivity a public street an issue. Clark: Would it be appropriate at our level to amend a waiver for a 24" street sections so it ca be a public street? Pate: I don't think you would be waiving the 24' street section. The only thing you would be waiving simply is the geometric design criteria that are required by our designs standards for a public street. It's simply our recommendation. It's your determination whether you feel it should be a private or public street. It was our recommendation because there were waivers associated with those geometric design criteria. That is be maintained as a private street however, in light of discussion tonight, the applicant seems amenable to having that be a public street and we can certainly take a look at that. It may require a reduced right of way as well. We can certainly make those amendments prior to City Council consideration, if you want to make that recommendation. Clark: I don't know how everybody else feels, but I certainly don't want to disturb too much more of the slope itself. But I think if it's a City street it gives me Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 27 of 107 much more confidence in terms of maintenance and takes it back off the Property Owners Association and somebody is actually accountable. So I guess I want to know how everybody else feels before we go make an amendment. Lack: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: I also see that what is called a private drive right now lies significantly in the 100 -year floodplain. And I would like to ask a question of Engineering, whether that is acceptable for a public street or if we would be looking at raising the street up as well. Newman: Yes sir, we would ask the applicant to have access, we would have to reevaluate the criteria and I have not looked at that area, but yes, we typically look at the 100 -year floodplain and determine the structure should be above that for the roadway if it's a major access point, which is apparent for this development, one of the key criteria that we've been looking for. Clark: But you have to do that anyway right? Because he's gonna build it to City standards and that has to be done regardless. Newman: That's what the major difference is, from what I can see, it looks like the geometry horizontally appears to meet the City criteria. The applicant may have some additional information. I'm not able to see on the drawings but it's the vertical profile that would be the significant exception that they would be asking for a waiver. Everything else without putting in a scale and checking their geometry. But it looks like the standards we ask for are apparent on the drawings. Lack: If I may then, ask the applicant, not seeing that the grading for this private drive at this location, would it bring it up? Ellis: The grading is just rough at this point. This drive has been moving round a lot and we're real close to the 100 -year flood plain. I've not actually looked at the elevation but we're raising the road up a couple of feet right through there anyway just to make it work. I think that with that it will get us up out of the 100 -year flood plain anyway. So we should be okay, I don't see the grades being a significant issue. Lack: Okay, I was only concerned that the greater angle on the slope, to make that happen may- Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 28 of 107 Ellis: If actually if I point out there real fast, there's 2 dasedh lines on our property. The one that is closet to the building is actually the 500 -year flood plain and the one closer to the go-cart track is the 100 -year flood plain. So actually half of the road is in the 100 -yr flood plain and half of it isn't. And I think with the way we're raising it up to minimize the impact on the hillside, it will naturally bring it up out of the 100 -yr flood plain. I don't see that being an issue. Lack: Okay. Ostner: Madam Chair. Commissioner Clark asked for other people's input. I would be very interested or prefer for this to be a public street. I think that P.O.A's are a great idea and in full force for a little while and then they go away. And then there's a private street and there's an empty mailbox accepting these letters from the City to fix the street. In a worst possible scenario, I do want to know where your thinking would be on the public street; the entire thing or stop at a certain spot? Ellis: I think where the "Y" happens at and it goes off up to the building. That will all be private and the connection between Timberlake down to College Avenue as it comes around the curve and heads to the north that would be the public part of the street, So where the "Y" happens, that will be the separation would be from public to private as far as going up to the building. Ostner: That would almost be a driveway so to speak. Ellis: Yes, basically you have a driveway that goes up to the building. I think that makes it a natural distinction between the public and private portions of that building. Ostner: Okay. Thank you. Anthes: I guess I agree. I think, if it's acceptable to City Engineering after their full review that I would like to recommend that City Council evaluate that for acceptability as a public street. Obviously it's their decision. We can make a recommendation here. Motion: Anthes: Commissioner Clark? Clark: I would move that we forward R-PZD 06-2191 to the City Council. Finding of fact that the conditions of approval 1 & 2, striking 3, and requesting that Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 29 of 107 the staff work out number 4 so that the connecting street to College will be a City street. And you can put all the verbiage and wordage you need for the Council to understand what we're talking about, Jeremy. And finding the facts that all the other conditions of approval including, the new one that Suzanne wanted added, never mind, strike the new one because it won't be a private street. But with the intent that the public street will still not disturb the area. And including the verbiage on 19 to coordinate with the Urban Forester and Solid Waste division regarding tree removal and pruning to accommodate the dumpsters. Ostner: Madam Chair, question of the motioner. On your issue of condition 4, does that include the support of the 24' wide street? Clark: Yes. And any waivers needed to meet the geometrical configuration. Anthes: As long as they're within our - Clark: Yes. Anthes: We have a motion to forward by Commissioner Clark; do I hear a second? Graves: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Graves. Commissioner Ostner? Ostner: Madam Chair. Request the motioner to add a condition of approval to require a walking trail stub -out to the south Clark: Since you -all are open to that and I'll say that's a friendly amendment. I'll happily accept that. Graves: And I'll second the amendment. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Will you call the role. Roll Call: Pate: Just for clarification, is this for the amendment? Anthes: It was a friendly amendment and was accepted by the motioner and the second. The R-PZD 06-2191 for University Club Tower was forwarded by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 30 of 107 LSD 06-2265: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (MAYNARD, 717): SUBMITTED BY MILHOLLAND COMPANY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT SE WILLOUGHBY AND MCCOLLUM. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/ LIGHT INDUST AND CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 2.95 ACRES. THE REQUEST IS FOR EXTENDED DEVELOPMENT, GRADING AND ENTRANCE PAVING FOR AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL USE STRUCTURE. Anthes: Our first item of new business this evening is Large Scale Development 06- 2265 for Maynard. Ms. Morgan, this is yours. Morgan: Yes the applicant has actually requested that this item be tabled tonight. Anthes: Do we have a date for that? Pate: To the next Planning Commission. Motion: Clark: Motion to table. Ostner: Second. Anthes: Motion to table by Commissioner Clark. Second by Commissioner Ostner and that's clarification to table to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Pate: October 23rd. Anthes: Will you call the role. Roll Call: The LSD 06-2265 for Maynard was tabled until October 23`d Planning Commission meeting by a vote of 7-1-0. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 31 of 107 CUP 06-2268: (DENEKE, 245): SUBMITTED BY WESLEY DENEKE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3531 SWEETGRASS, SALEM MEADOWS S/D. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE AND CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 0.21 ACRES. THE REQUEST IS FOR A HOME OCCUPATION FOR A COMPUTER-BASED BUSINESS. Garner: Yes, this property is located at 3531 Sweet Grass Rd. It is zoned RSF-4 and contains a single family home. The applicant proposes a home occupation to operate a computer-based business out of their home. The business would involve helping clients sell items off of E -bay and would require clients to bring items to his house or he would pick items to his house and scan the items into his computer and sell them on e -bay. It would involve a very minor amount of traffic. Potentially he thinks he might have 1 or 2 clients come into his house per week. A Conditional Use Permit to allow this home occupation is required in the RSF-4 zoning district. We do recommend approval of this proposal, finding that the proposed business would not have any discernable impact on the surrounding neighbors. We do have some standard conditions of approval that we're recommending on page 1. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Garner. Would any member of the public like to address this CUP? Seeing none, I'll close the public comment section. Will the applicant come forward? Deneke: Good evening. I'm Wesley Deneke, the applicant for Conditional use of my residence for computer-based business. I believe the primary concerns for operating this business out of my house, being a residence, is the traffic flow or the increased traffic flow it could cause within the neighborhood. And as a result of this traffic flo , there could also be parking concerns. If people were to park in the street, people might be concerned if there are any signs advertising, and another concern would be increased solid waste. And finally the hours of operation could disturb my neighbors. To address the issue of increased traffic, it would be very minimal, there will only be 1 or 2 people at the most visiting per week or delivery of items. It would not really require the Fed -X or UPS to come by more often. Because it can be delivered to the U.S. Postal service , who visits our house everyday anyways. Parking shall also not be an issue, my driveway has room for 4 cars in it and there should be no more than 1 person at my house at a time based on the low number of people I plan on coming by. So people can park in my driveway, which should make it easier for people to drive through the neighborhood. We don't plan on having signs or advertisement in the yard. We plan on people being able to locate us by a map we provide or if we visit their house to pick up the items. And also, they can locate us Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 32 of 107 by our address which is on the front of our house. We don't plan on their being any more solid waste. We're not producing anything or receiving packages where we would have to throw boxes a way. We're just bringing in items, boxing them up, and shipping them out. So keeping the residential cart would be fine so we won't need to have a large amount of waste. And finally, the hours of operation, we stated between 7:30 to 5:30 Monday thm Saturday. And that's tentative since I am a full time student at the University of Arkansas. I am pursuing my PhD so I do research and teach classes. My time at home is limited as well, so 7:30 to 5:30 will be greatly reduced. Maybe a few hours a day people can come by, which is mostly by appointment which also can help out on the parking issue of there being only one person around at a time, since people will notify me by email before they drop by. So I talked to most of my neighbors and they have all given me their consent and that they would be happy for me to conduct this sort of business and they don't think that it will disturb them. And if there is any way that is does disturb them, I would be more than happy to resolve any issues to smooth things over. Anthes: Thank you very much. Commissioners? Motion: Graves: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves Graves: Based on the findings of staff and the comments of the applicant, I will move to approve CUP 06-2268 with stated of conditions of approval Clark: Second Anthes: Motion to approve by Commissioner Graves with a second by Commissioner Clark. Is there further discussion? Will you call the role Roll Call: The CUP 06-2269 for Deneke was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 33 of 107 CUP 06-2269: (THE ARBORS @ SPRINGWOODS LOT 2,286): SUBMITTED BY H2 ENGINEERING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOT 2 OF SPRINGWOODS PZD. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED C-PZD 03-08.00 AND CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 25.23 ACRES. THE REQUEST IS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CLUB HOUSE AND POOL (USE UNIT 4, CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES.) Garner: As background before we get started. On April 24th, the Planning Commission approved a large scale development for the Arbors at Springwood LSD 06-1974. This development contained 122 multi -family dwelling units and the development is located in West Fayetteville, north of Moore Lane and east of Deanne Solomon Rd. The side is identified as Lot 2 of the Springwoods Planned Zoning District Subdivision C-PZD 03- 08.00. The surrounding zoning &and land uses are presented in table 1, which mainly consists of the Springwood subdivision and some residential, agricultural property to the south. That plan requests approval for use of a club house, pool, & putting green on common area, identified as lot 34 in the original approved large scale development. We do recommend approval of this Conditional Use Permit. This proposed club house and pool was incorporated into the original large scale development plan as mentioned. It would be compatible and is a major feature of the overall development. You have elevations there that show the type of structure and it would blend in within the surrounding residential development. And we do find this would not have any potential adverse impact to the public or to the surrounding community. And we are recommending approval with several conditions as noted in your staff report. I would be happy to go over any of those or any other questions you might have. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Garner. Would any member of the public like to address this CUP for the Arbors at Springwoods? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment. Will the applicant come forward? Hearne: Good Evening, my name is Kipp Hearne with H2 Engineering. It's my understanding you guys are looking for a little more information on the architectural elements of the Club house and we have some pictures of a club house from an Epcott community up north. It's located in Rogers and I think it was completed last year. What you'll see here is almost exactly the same as what will be proposed and constructed here at our proposed site at the Arbors. Each elevation will consist of stone with some brick accents as well as some hardie board siding that will be painted. All in natural colors, it's very similar to the elevations that were shown for residential development. So if you have any questions. I'll be happy to answer those. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 34 of 107 Anthes: Thank you Mr. Hearn. Commissioners? Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: No comments. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I have a question and I don't mean to be picky. Mr. Hearne, you said this will be similar; the renditions we have will be similar to what will actually be built. Hearne: Right. Clark: I hate that word. So similar but dissimilar. Make me feel good abut this. Hearne: Well, a picture is worth a thousand words so we've got four elevations there. The only thing that might be different is the size. I'm not sure what the exact square footage is up in Rogers. But, that would be the only difference. I think the architectural elements; it's a standard Epcott Community. It's kind of a cookie cutter deal. What they have done in the past is very successful. So there is no reason to believe that this would be any different. Clark: Okay. Ostner: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: When you say the only thing different size, how much are talking about bigger or smaller or how much bigger? Hearne: It would be quite comparable I would say. Staff & City Officials had an opportunity to visit the site in Rogers. This again is the same concept; I didn't see the drawings for the one in Rogers. So, I can't say it's going to be exactly the same. But I would say that it is very very similar. Ostner: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner: Ostner: Is it within 20% of the size we're looking at? Hearn: Sure. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 35 of 107 Clark: Since we didn't get invited to this tour. We're curious. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: I believe that our standard procedure on commercial design standards is that we see the elevations. And if the elevations that are presented to the Planning department at time the building permit are different, then there is either a minor modification or a major modification brought back forth to the Planning Commission. So, if I could hear from the applicant that this is what we're looking for and then Staff would have the opportunity to process the modification. If indeed that was required, I would be comfortable. Ostner: Sure. Well again, this is 99% of what we're looking at. The one in Rogers, within 20% of the size, will be not difference in the types of material we use. There will be the stone with the brick accents and the hardie board siding. Motion: Lack: With the understanding that this is what we're looking at and staff will have the opportunity to look at it at building permit, and unless we we're informed wrong and a major modification if that be required. I move to approve conditional use 06-2269 with the stated conditions of approval. Especially considering item 1, the determination of design commercial standards. Trumbo: Second Anthes: We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Lack and a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there further discussion? Clark: I have a question. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Clark. Clark: In this picture, where's the putting green? Hearne: I'm not sure what you're looking at there. Clark: I'm looking at your pictures. You call them elevations, I call them pictures. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 36 of 107 Hearne: Okay. The putting green will be on the back side. Which will be the east elevation. It shows it's on the north side of the pool which is not in this picture. Clark: Okay. Then this is just not the night to do this. And I'm not gonna support it until I actually see the elevations of what you want to build. If it is a cookie cutter community and if you have a cookie cutter pattern, you ought to be able to come in here and tell us the elevations, the real elevations, the square footage, and where everything is going. These are pictures; they are nice pictures and I'll probably vote for them if you could tell me this is exactly what your actually gonna build. But, you can't so I'm gonna hold true and strong to our rules. I'm not gonna vote for design standards when I don't see. And I trust the Staff completely to bring back modifications and stuff. But, you shouldn't have to waste your time doing that either. So I'm gonna oppose it. It will probably still pass but I'm gonna oppose it. Hearne: Commissioner Clark, I apologize, the materials you see here will definitely be the ones will be used. Clark: You have hardly left out anything Kipp; you've got the kitchen sink in here about. The only you don't have are little bitty pebbles and you could probably use those little bitty pebbles. It's a principle thing. Hearne: Okay, hang on. I just don't have the exact square footage of the one in Rogers and one here. I'm just saying there might be slight modifications. But I assure you that the materials itself and the architectural elements that are shown on these pictures here will be what you exactly see in this particular development. Clark: Then it shouldn't be hard pressed for you to bring me that absolute guarantee. And say that this is our elevations for Springwoods, with a small "s". So, I have no problem believing everything you say. But the rules say I've got to see them and I don't think I've seen them. But that's just me and you guys do what ever you want to do. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Madam Chair, I don't think that Commissioner Clark is out of line at all. Just because this is small and not a big large scale development. I would like to see elevations. Because elevations are to scale and they say the building is this long and this tall. And then you get approval and you want to modify within 10% and yeah, Jeremy says that minor and that's how it goes.I don't think its principle at all, I think it's important. I agree, I think Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 37 of 107 you would probably get it approved. I'm going to vote against because I don't I have enough information. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Will you call the role. Roll Call: The CUP 06-2269 for The Arbors @ Springwoods Lot 2 was approved by a vote of 5-3-0. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 38 of 107 R-PZD 06-2213: PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT (SUNBRIDGE VILLAS, 290): SUBMITTED BY PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT NW OF SUNBRIDGE DRIVE AND VILLA BLVD., VILLA M/H PARK. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE AND CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 20.92 ACRES. THE REQUEST IS FOR 129 DETACHED AND 40 ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS. Garner: Yes, this property consists of an existing trailer park on approximately 21 acres located northwest of Sunbridge Drive and Villa Boulevard. It is currently zoned RMF -24. Multi -family 24 units per acre. It is developed with 141 mobile home lots for use, with a total density of 6.7 units per acre. Surrounding zoning and land use is shown there on table 1 in your staff report, which consists of a duplex development to the north and a multi- family development to the west and mixed office and commercial to the south and east. This particular request is for rezoning and preliminary plat approval for a residential development over this property. They propose to relocate or remove the existing mobile homes and utilize existing streets and infrastructure to develop 169 dwelling and green space area. And the breakdown of the lots and the units and buildings is shown on Table 2 on page 2 in your staff report. Which results in as mentioned 169 dwellings with overall density of the property in 8.08 acres. Access into this site is provided by Villa Boulevard and the internal streets and the existing streets within the trailer park will remain in there existing configuration. A kind of grid configuration. Four foot sidewalks would be provided on at least one side of the street with this re -development project. The improvements that staff is recommending include overlaying the existing street system throughout the property with new asphalt layer with the details and specifications to be determined by Engineering staff at the time of construction. Depending on what is revealed, when we look at the detailed drawings. As mentioned, the density would be proposed at 8.08 units per acre. And one of the issues that came up at subdivision committee and also at our agenda session was the location of dumpsters at the quad-plexes and the subdivision committee expressed concern of them being in the front yard and the Planning Committee also mentioned that in our agenda session. We have not heard anything form the developer or the applicant really regarding this issue. We have tried to place phone calls after our agenda session but really haven't heard anything back. We would be happy to answer questions about that. And we have talked to our Solid Waste division several times about this. We are recommending that this be forwarded to full City Council. We do find that this development is compatible with surrounding land uses with the multi -family and duplex and commercial and office. And it does meet the goal of our City Plan 2025 and it uses existing infrastructure and would not create adverse impacts to Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 39 of 107 traffic or City services and Police, Fire, or water or sewer. We do have several conditions there. Condition number 1 is determination of street improvements. Condition #2 is determination of a waiver to allow for more than 80 dwelling units on a private loop street. Staff does find in favor of this request, given that the surrounding properties are fully developed and that the existing neighborhood and street grid layout is being maintained for private two points of egress. Condition number 3 is that all streets and sidewalks shall be an access easement and this is, it will be private streets. But however, this access will allow the City to maintain and make sure that these streets and sidewalks are in an appropriate manner. If we choose to help out. There are several plat and booklet revisions to be completed prior to City Council. Condition 8-A, can be stricken from this staff report. In looking at the revised plans they did address that issue. Those are under chapter 50 and I believe I mentioned this at the agenda session that's not under the Planning Commission authority. I believe, and the applicant can correct me if I'm wrong, they are willing to pursue a variance request from that sub -section to utilize the standard residential cart. It's their opinion this is a residential subdivision and the standard cart service and standard recycling service would be practical since trucks would already be in the area. That's up to them to make that case to the City Council if they wish to. If that does not occur, we have discussed with the applicants that the location of the dumpsters are certainly objectionable to the subdivision committee. As was reviewed at the last subdivision committee where this was last reviewed and I believe they agreed to relocate those to an area more appropriately off the street and shielded, screened on three sides, & gated if adjacent to the private street. I'll let them speak to that issue but, I believe that's something that they're going to pursue to the City Council. Anthes: What I would like to say as part of the subdivision committee that agreed to forward this to Planning Commission was that it was our understanding that the applicant was going to make that application and was going to pursue this prior to this meeting tonight. And we got to agenda session and realized that no phone calls had been made and we still have the plat that showed the dumpsters in front. I was very unhappy to see that. Would any member of the public like to address this Planned Zoning District 06-2213 for Sunbridge Villas? Seeing none I will close the floor to public comment. Will the applicant come forward and give a presentation? Earnest: My name is Hugh Earnest and I'm representing Home Town Development. The staff report from Mr. Gamer was excellent. It states comments on Solid Waste that were appropriate and relevant. With my not so dusty Solid Waste Management hat on, the issue is commercial and residential in a residential subdivision. We certainly understand the requirements that Ms. Hill & Mr. Pugh are operating under. That this needs to be viewed as Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 40 of 107 commercial. But, we would like to make the agreement with them that our excellent cart system would service the area more satisfactorily then bringing in a large and somewhat bulky commercial truck. We agree also that the location of the dumpsters that we show on the plat are unacceptable and should not be approved. We will also make, if we can not win the argument with Solid Waste if you will and the City Council. We will certainly make sure that those dumpsters are located appropriately and meet the intent of your condition. Anthes: Would you like to add anything else to your presentation Mr. Earnest? Do you have anything to say? Commissioners Ostner: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Is there a subdivision report that would or has this been? Anthes: Sure, we can try to reconstruct one. As far as the street layout is in place and the City would prefer that those remain private streets. As I understand it because we do not know how those streets were constructed so we do not know if the construction meets street and City criteria. And therefore the only street, which I believe is Villa, will be accepted as a City street. The big issue was that there are these big dumpsters that are facing the main street and are located in front of the multi-plex units. And then there was an issue, and we were in support, by the way, of the applicant's request to Solid Waste in using a standard cart. Because there are garages in which those carts could be stored and wouldn't have to be put in a pen or something out front. The other thing, there is some statement in the project booklet about in home occupation. And I don't know if we ever went back and revisited that. Do you know Mr. Pate? Garner: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Garner: If I recall correctly, home occupation is allowed as a conditional use in the proposed zoning. I think that was the question and it is allowed in the zoning criteria. Anthes: And we thought the subdivision committee was supported of that as well. Is that about cover it? Clark: I have a question Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 41 of 107 Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I have a question for the applicant actually. First of all; what's gonna happen to all those folks living in the mobile homes? Housely: My name is Gene Housely and I am the property owner there and that is a good question. I was involved last year in selling some properly called Springbook mobile home park. And it sold to Washington Regional Hospital and I'm very compassionate about this issue. I know a lot of those people. I know a lot of these people. I have been here a very long time, 16 years probably longer. And we sold Springbrook, we went through the same process. I learned a lot and I am really proud the worked hard and I'm really compassionate about that I know a lot of these people. We developed several programs and things we did. I have a friend who owns five mobile home parks in Springdale in Rogers area. He got involved and there is a really long list of thing we did. I don't want to take up too much of your time so I will make this brief. Two months ahead of our schedule, not our back against the wall with any of any these people. I don't think any those people would say anything bad about me in that relocation. I worked night and day for that entire period time, to help people find things a whole series of things involved. I don't want to take up too much of your valuable time. There were about 15 different points of relocating people. I looked in the Fayetteville / Springdale directory the other day. Probably more mobile parks listed than people realize, there are twenty listed. I did not get to the Rogers / Bentonville directory. So there are a lot of options and I took a lot of time working with those people and worked really, really hard in helping relocate every single one of them. I got really personally involved in that. And we have a lot of available places to go, lot more mobile home parks then people realize out there and a lot of spaces available. I've already done some preliminary work on some of that. I worked really hard on that Springbrook location and it's exactly like this. I've learned a little bit that there's a few more things I can do this time. There were some funds made available to those people to relocate, there was some hardship situations. Every deal was quite a bit different. But I worked really hard at and took a lot of time looked at every situation individually and got really involved in every single one. And I plan to do that if we plan to move forward with this project. I did learn a little bit about it but, there was a lot, a lot of programs we came up with to help people relocate. We paid for people to relocate. We bought some of those homes ourselves; there were a couple of brokers that we were working with that bought a lot of those homes. I don't want to take a lot of your valuable time but there's been a lot of thought and work gone into that. Hundreds of hours actually and I did one last July so I'm real familiar with that and real Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 42 of 107 compassionate about that. And have a lot of options that we will, almost the same program as what we used last time. Clark: So your gonna try to relocate these folks just like you did the last time. Housely: Just exactly the same way. I worked on it non-stop practically for weeks and weeks and weeks. We came in about 2 months ahead of our deadline. No one had their back against the wall; nobody was pushed or hurried to move. We really, really nailed that. This is gonna be exactly the same just a few more homes. But there is a lot of space available. Clark: I know it is not our right, necessarily to do anything about what you're doing with the current residents. But it is to me a different issue, a humanitarian issue. These folks have lived there a very long time. It's been in Fayetteville as long as I've been in Fayetteville just about. And I know a lot of folks that lived there and I know that you did relocate those folks from that other mobile home park. If that's any consolation to the people in Villa, you did in fact relocate them. Because I knew some folks there were living there. And I'm hopeful this will go the same way. And terms of what it will replace. Is this going to be what you would call affordable housing or what kind of price range are we talking about? Housely: The developer has handled a lot of that and I have to tell you, I'm not as familiar with all that engineering. I'm generally familiar with it. It's my understanding that what we are doing does come under what is considered affordable housing. Clark: I bet Mr. Ernest can help me out with this. Earnest: In general terms, we anticipate 1400 to 1600 sq feet, $150 to $250 thousand. So it will not be the same target market that we're addressing at West Fork. Clark: Okay. Thank you gentleman. I now have a question for staff if I could. On page 5 of our staff report. In terms of the booklet. It says side and rear elevations for the duplexes and single family residents shall be submitted for review prior to City Council. How come not prior to Planning Commission? Pate: I'm sorry, where are you referring to that? Clark: Page 5. Item B under 8. Because I did notice in the packet that we had not side or rear elevations. Why does the Council get them and we don't? Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 43 of 107 Pate: I believe that was one of the standard comments. Andrew might be able to reflect over that. But, I believe that was one of the standard comments we carried over as a revision we did not receive. Much like, for instance, Walnut Crossing, the City Council never actually saw any of the side or rear elevations. We saw only those front elevations. Front and public streets and so it's not required in every situation. Most often times single family residential developments don't submit elevations. There are some incidents where the corner lots are fronting a private street and have recommended that those be articulated, much like a front would be. Clark: Okay. Thank you. That's all that I have. Trumbo: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: At subdivision the dumpsters were, and we talked about it quite a bit, and I asked Mr. Earnest "If we don't get approval or we don't come to an agreement with the Solid Waste Division, where are we gonna put these dumpsters, other than in front of the building?" I don't see room put them anywhere else. Earnest: I would suspect that if we don't get approval, you're not gonna get approval of signing the preliminary plats. So we understand the necessity of dealing with the issue. Trumbo: Do we have any idea on where we can put them? Other than out front? Earnest: One of the conversations we had was to put them in the alley. The problem with that is that goes over utilities. So there are some tough issues but I think we can deal with it. Now again, from my bias if you will, I think it would be best to address it and ask for a variance in pick up all of that up with our excellent residential service. Trumbo: Madam Chair, I would like to add that it seems we are doing quite a bit of condos and other, like the 80 units development we just approved, and they're not allowed to recycle. We don't have anything in place for that. We have dumpsters and trash and I think it's something we need to look at if we're gonna keep approving denser, taller developments. Those are my comments to pass on and I would hope that the Solid Waste would go along with what you're proposing. Anthes: I think we made it very clear that we're very interested in allowing the recycling to be issued to those units as well. It's a single family Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 44 of 107 neighborhood and very easy for that truck to come by and pick these up at the curb right along with everybody else's. Trumbo: Absolutely. Anthes: I have a quick question for staff and that is again in this planned zoning district booklet. They are referring to General Plan 2020. I would hope that they would update that to City Plan 2025. And the text, according to those goals prior to City Council meeting, in our staff report this area has been designated as a infill growth sector. And it looks to me like we have a density of probably 8.08, I think is the overall density for this site. proposed in an infill growth sector. Would staff just comment on this density as being compatible with that designation? Pate: The infill growth sector; we really don't have a target density I think in any situation where we're looking at infill growth. We're going to be looking at as contextually what is appropriate. In this case we have some commercial, some standard multi -family large type unit project to the west which is actually pretty low density for what it is although it is zoned RMF -24. Then of course we have single family and two family to the north which makes the transition a little bit difficult in this case. You have to respect obviously those property owners to the north, who have existing single family lots. And I think in Planning Commissions projects that have come through recently, as you've seen even in the last meeting. With planned zoning districts trying to transition from single family large lot residential to something that's anywhere to approachable to attainable is difficult. So utilizing a smaller lot at single family residential project or product is something that Staff and Planning Commission has seen more and more of. So in terms of, is this target density appropriate we feel it is. Because it is transitioning in an architectural sort of way. Anthes: And to follow up on that condition of approval number two, about the waiver to allow for more than 80 dwelling units on a private loop street. But you're also saying that this is really 2 points of ingress and egress. Is that why you are not concerned? Pate: Primarily because, in this case, we are not going to step up to the plate and say sure, this is a public street. We simply don't know what, how this was constructed. And we're recommending some street improvements as noted in condition #1. But we're not comfortable in accepting it as a public street. Were this a brand new design, we would likely recommend that they would be public streets in all cases. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 45 of 107 Anthes: And did Engineering work through with the drainage improvements? Are you satisfied with the drainage improvements proposed? Newman: I believe they are to give us additional drainage improvements. They have not provided all that information at this time. Anthes: Okay. Pate: Condition #7 addresses what those requirements will be. Anthes: Thank you. Is there further discussion? Yes, Commissioner Harris. Harris: I would like to refer back to the elevations and conditions of approval # 11. In which building shall be constructed to be consistent with the photos and concepts depicted in the booklet as specified. I'm a post modern woman as much as anybody, but this particular pastiche of style. I don't understand the club house and its relationship to the other items. And I guess I would like direction, and again we have had this conversation a bit recently. Because of the University Club Tower, and whether or not we have any ability to apply commercial design standards. And I know with PZDs it's a bit different and Mr. Pate, would you mind outlining what our rights or responsibilities are concerning design standards visa vie elevations and PZDs. Pate: It would be the same as we discussed in the very last item. In those residential components, there aren't really any design standards to apply. So in terms of transition and compatibility, what you see is what you get under current ordinances. The applicant maybe able to explain some more of the community uses within the project. Harris: I really also, just wanted to have that said out loud again. Because people do, I have been on the Commission just long enough for people to stop me on the street and ask me why we do things. And I would ask this question of this particular PZD as well. In terms of, I just don't understand what that elevation is supposed to be showing me. In relation to the other depictions here and I guess I might ask the applicant to fill that out for me a bit. Because that looks like a sort of Lego box as opposed to the... Anthes: Are you talking about the clubhouse? Harris: Yes. Thank you I'm sorry. Earnest: Mrs. Harris, I'm not sure that I can answer your question adequately. Suffice it to say though, that when you look to the left it will obviously be Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 46 of 107 brick. Very similar to the buildings on the side. One of the options for the clubhouse; and no decision is being made yet; is one of the amenities that we are talking about is to put a pool in this subdivision and that decision has not yet been made. That's a marketing, cost accountable stand point but that's one of the amenities that will be talked about seriously in the very near future. I can give you some better information on that clubhouse, I just can't do it tonight. Harris: Okay and Mr. Pate again, if a pool were brought forward that would come back as a minor modification. Is that correct? Pate: It depends on that use unit. In most residential properties those are considered conditional uses, for instance, for a multi -family project. This planned zoning district however, they have indicated that it is a use by right in that particular zoning district. I'll have to look to that planning area. Garner: Actually it's planning area 4, community green space in common area. Pate: So it is a conditional use. You would see it as a conditional use. Anthes: Okay. So to clarify, we will actually see the building elevations if this comes through as a conditional use for the Clubhouse angle. Pate: Correct. That area, that pool and recreational purposes includes the Clubhouse, Pools, Tennis courts, and things like that, that may have potentially factors that need to be mitigated for lighting, noise, and things like that. Anthes: Okay and thank you. Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Thank you and I guess where I'm not quite understanding is how a case could be made that if it was approved tonight. That a sort of "soft" approval were to be given to that Clubhouse. Pate: In terms of how the building looks? Ostner: In terms of not having to come back like Springwoods just did. Pate: They would have to come back simply by the way they have proposed the property. In planning area 4, they are proposed to include all cultural and recreational facilities as a conditional use. So, by requesting the zoning, they are saying we're going to come back to you, as the Planning Commission, before we get a building permit for a full Tennis Court Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 47 of 107 building or anything and present applicable information to you. Much as the item did earlier tonight. Ostner: Okay, thank you. My other questions are for the applicant. On the different planning areas, the planning area 1 is called out a single family. Now that is single family detached? Earnest: Yes. Ostner: Okay and planning area 2 is basically one duplex building or each lot appears to be one duplex building. Is that accurate? Earnest: Yes. Ostner: Okay and the multi -family is basically a small apartment building. Earnest: Yes. Ostner: And those are drawn out? Earnest: I believe fairly well. Ostner: They look to be about quad units. What are some of the rents today that people pay to live there? Earnest: I don't know. Ostner: Well, I'm wondering if the other gentleman might know. On the trailers that are there today. Housely: The lot rentals? Ostner: No, I'm talking about the people living there today. What do they pay? Housely: On just the lot. Ostner; To live there. If I was living there. I'm just wondering how much I would be paying somebody. Housely: Sure. We own several homes that are rent to own homes and we have primarily lot rentals. And the lot rentals run about $205 per month. And when we have a home on that lot and we combine the two where we are renting the lot and the home. They run, it's a pretty big range, lets say total between the lot and home is $400 and $675. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 48 of 107 Ostner: Okay thank you. I don't think these drawings are enough for me to evaluate a PZD. It's just not enough for me, they give me a hint. But they're tiny, about as big as golf ball. and they don't really show me a whole lot. And if I have to vote against it then I'm probably voting against it because I don't know what I'm voting for. The concept, I understand. The affordable housing is one of the casualties of a successful town. It's leaving us because land is more valuable used when it's developed. I don't like it but its happening all around and this seems to be a good use of land. I'm not comfortable voting for this with a packet in front of me. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: Thank you. I would just have to agree with Commissioner Ostner on this don't mean to be unduly obstructionist about this particular project in a way shape or form. I agree too, that it is probably a high and good use of this land. I just don't feel though, at this level, that I have enough information in front of me to make a very comprehensive decision about this. Pate: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes. Pate: If I may ask, especially since two Commissioners have requested, through the process we obviously have a check list in our ordinances that we evaluate to get it to this point. There are only items that get to this point typically that have condition of approval attached to it or it's an issue the applicant can't get resolved with Staff and wants the Planning Commission and City Council to discuss and make the decision. I guess our concern is, we are advising applicants every day. This submittal probably has more information than other planned zoning districts that I know the Planning Commission and Council have approved, including elevations. And I guess my concern is if there is more information, what would that information be? This is a preliminary plat, not a large scale development, so we're not approving actual buildings here. We're approving a subdivision of land with easements that back zoning criteria which are listed in detail in your book and on your plats. The booklets that you have in front of you that were passed out at the subdivision committee and the agenda session for review list all those criteria, this check list is exactly from the ordinance. So every criteria that is in the ordinance is in the check list that we as staff have put together for application and for an applicant to review and comment on. And I guess my concern is, if there is something we as staff are not telling the applicants to present, please let us know that. We would Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 49 of 107 not bring forward an application before you as a Commission if we did not feel it was appropriate to report on nor make a recommendation to do so to forward onto City Council. Ostner: Madam Chair, if I could. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: This is a same story I'm gonna bring up later; the proposed PZD that Mr. Hennelly is gonna work with. This is a building that I am expected to look at on an even basis. I just can't see what I am looking at. Maybe it's just too small, but also down here, this is like a rendering. An artist decorative rendering, with all the trees covering all the stuff, I can see some of the building. I know we're not looking at these same as design standards. But, if we forward this little piece of paper and it goes through the process. This is the paper they're holding in six months when they come to get a building permit and it's the one you all look at. For Walnut Crossing, there were problems and these little pictures were referred to. These pictures are part of the approval and I don't have enough to look at. I don't know how to phrase it, except if we have to sit down and say scale minimums and size minimums, then maybe we have to. Anthes: I guess I'm confused because we're looking at mainly single family homes and I don't think we have any jurisdiction over those elevations. Pate: None whatsoever and actually, we've discussed at staff level to require applicants not to submit those elevations. Simply because this discussion comes up at every meeting that we have this type of application. The images before you are for general concept and general description. You have in your packet again a description of the materials and also... Ostner: I'm also pointing to a quad-plex and that's not a single family detached and I'm pointing to a duplex which is not a single family detached. Pate: And we don't have residential design regulations for any of those. Ostner: Right. But we're holding developers to elevations when we give PZD approvals. Pate: In general concept, yes. Ostner: In general concept, there is a picture of single family home they submitted with the PZD and it generally needs to look like it. So we are in process of doing that. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 50 of 107 Harris: Madam Chair, if I may. In this particular project and I can compare to others that have come before, I don't mind being corrected on this and please correct me if I am wrong. Typically in PZDs I have a greater sense of the context of any given elevation or the inter -relationship among the parts of the PZD. Because my understanding is that the PZD is actually an attempt to build micro -communities. This is very much a sort of standard grid looking street layout and I'm trying to understand what makes this special in terms of granting a PZD status and I guess the combination of the street layout and the just the elevations I have in front of me. It's not so much even that an individual elevation, I'm actually not approaching at the level of design standards. I did ask about the Clubhouse because I was unclear about that. You made it abundantly clear we'd see it again anyway. But for me it's really that I'm not sure what the inter -relationship among these parts is. Pate: I think probably one the primary reasons this came before you instead as a planned zoning district and not a large scale development is because it is zoned already for a multi -family use, I believe it's RMF -24 currently. So this could be just an extension of the apartment complex to the west under a traditional large scale development. The applicant desired to utilize existing infrastructure to reduce the costs of overall construction and to subdivide the property. And in subdividing the property into smaller lots, we're looking at a smaller set back. Pushing the building closer to the street, I think in some instances there are 11 to 13 feet in building setbacks adjacent to the street. And providing a single family product in the RMF -24 allows all those things except for the setbacks, which are much more. The yards are much larger, 25 -foot fronts and rears I believe and so instead of a larger apartment type style complex or a large scale development, we recommended that the applicant pursue the planned zoning district process for the product they were looking for. The grid pattern is, we would certainly love to see more connections between developments. Unfortunately they are developed on all sides in this particular instance. And the streets are there and they are paved and the existing infrastructures are already on the property. So it's really taking advantage of that to reduce the cost of materials for both the project and efficiency of use of materials. To go back to your first part of the question, about the interrelated part of it. I think most of your findings in the planned zoning district ordinance that the City Council has adopted is related to compatibility of land use and is this compatible or the use of this property compatible with the surrounding land use. And I think it even refers to transitioning in land uses. But not really in design standards of transitioning or compatibility, as we discuss it in terms of design standards like commercial applications that we've seen in the past. And so, in terms of compatibility and transition, Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 51 of 107 does this create or add to the neighborhood? We felt in an infill sector of the City a mixture of home types, mixture of housing and lot types adjacent to commercial in the south; which is Sunbridge Center area; to the west, general multi -family standard suburban type development; and another mixture of development, single family to the north, it was appropriate in these instances. Harris: Thanks. I want to be really clear that my comments were not directed at looking at this in terms of design standards. So much as Commissioner Ostner comments simply give what we're looking at, I thought what you said was that you didn't feel as though you had enough critical evidence to make some determination. And if what you're saying back to me Mr. Pate is that the PZD was offered to the applicant because of the cost of land and so forth and I understand that. I mean I accept that, but I still would argue that I don't feel as though as I have enough evidence to make determination. Unless what you're countering back with is, it doesn't matter what the visual evidence is because we don't really make a determination based on that anyway. Pate: We don't have a criteria by which to measure a residential product, and in a commercial design standard we have those standard five or six criteria. And we can say at least check the box "articulation," is it large, square unarticulated wall surfaces, does it have large out of scale flashy signs, and etc. And we really don't have that criteria here and so it would be nine different judgment calls about what anyone would feel was appropriate. One might like one style; one might like a very eclectic style that has many more elevations than this and no one the same. And I think until we have that discussion, as a policy discussion, with the Planning Commission and the City Council and the criteria is set, it is very difficult to make a judgment call. It's certainly not in any of the findings in the planned zoning district ordinance. If you look at the criteria that says these are the factors to consider when evaluating a planned zoning district, it doesn't include any of those design standards for residential components Harris: Right. If I may just say, and I know it's been said before, and I know we're repeating ourselves to some extent. And I say that only marks the fact that I am paying attention. But in this particular packet it is number 11; just for people listening; we are saying that we agree or disagree with, "the building shall be constructed be consistent with the photos and concepts depicted in the booklet that is provided." And so, that does make those of us who read our conditions of approval have to at least notice what the pictures are. Again for the public watching or listening that is just one of the problems with a policy as it currently exists. I find myself in the difficult position of, believing what I originally said in terms of the visual Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 52 of 107 evidence here. And yet also hearing what the Planning Staff has saying about this being the best use of this land to be configured as a PZD and so forth. I will think for a minute and let other staff discuss. Pate: If I may add to that, if you reference for instance to page four of your booklet, under site planning, architectural design standards. It talks about seeing the building elevations, including Appendix B and then as with most planned zoning districts it lists material shall be brick, drivit, stucco, hardi panel, hardi boards, cedar shake siding, asphalt, shingle all roofs. The elevations in our opinion only serve to help better visualize those materials. They can certainly just put those materials out there and that's their design standard. We feel that in terms of presenting to you as a concept of how those materials are put together that is beneficial. If it's not, we can certainly advise applicants and residential projects not to submit anything in terms of the visual components of that project for the architectural design standards. That we can simply go back to looking at materials in terms of the written description. Anthes: To follow up on that, I think Commissioner Ostner indicated that perhaps other subdivisions are being held to the photographs. What happens if, lets say on the bottom of this sheet D where there is sort of this bungalows looking elevation. If they come through with something that looks entirely different than that but still uses those materials. Is staff going to hold them to this type of elevation or how binding is these drawings really? Pate: To a certain degree they are simply because we've listed, they refer to them in the elevations and refer to materials. However, Walnut Crossing is a good example, because the applicants actually offered to place a front on both the park and the street side. They offered that as a condition of approval so that was a condition of approval through the zoning requirements. We held them to that. I believe that was the case for that particular project if we all remember discussing that. This case, I'm not going to look at every single house and make sure that every house looks like the one or two; I certainly would not propose that to be the case that they only have 2 elevations in this subdivision. In terms of general concept, that is the concept they are going after. I'm not going to look for every single window, every single door, every single arched porch. There are certain elements I think that are evident and I think even one of the elevations, balconies, and decks are not proposed to be installed in the rear of these 4-plexes as shown. That's just indicating that something they don't propose to be installed on some of those elevations. So we'll certainly be aware of that, I think it's a fine line between trying to find the concept of what is being proposed without any design standards. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 53 of 107 Anthes: Well, part of the problem might be like plan book elevations and they look like they came from 5 different plan books and they seem to be just assembled on here and I'm not seeing a visual consistency. If I look at this compared with other planned zoning districts where we're looking at a think our ordinance calls it "theme", I don't see any over riding consistency between these drawings. Although the materials in the booklet are exactly the same in all the planning areas, so I guess I am confused by seeing the pictures and understanding what it is we're approving. And certainly if the developer changes their mind and comes through with something that looks different, are they held to this plan book sketch? And Mr. Earnest, I saw your hand up, maybe you can help us clarify. Earnest: As someone who suggested the City to go to the PZD process when I was with the City, I certainly understand the policy issue that you're dealing with about the level of detail that you have. And looking at this kind of information, my only suggestion is, and believe you me, we've been through this on Skate place. We're not interested in varying very much at all from what we're showing you. Otherwise we'd lose creditability and we're not interested in that. So you're gonna see in this subdivision essentially what we're showing you in these drawings. We can, for the next time we'll have hard boards if that's where you want to go and we can show you at a larger scale, clearer what we're proposing in these types PZDs. But, going back to the philosophy of a PZD, it was to show to the Planning Commission and the City Council what's on the site other than a blanket or a RSF-4, go build it. And so, Mrs. Harris reminded all of us that is what we're trying to get to when we adopted the PZD about 3 years ago. Anthes: Mr. Earnest how many lots are in planning area 1? Guess? Earnest: Let me check with the Engineer. Anthes: Let's just guess. It's a blanket right? Pate: There's a maximum of 129. Anthes: What did you say? Pate: A maximum 129. Anthes: One hundred and Twenty nine units? Earnest: Single Family. Anthes: Single Family. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 54 of 107 Earnest: Right. Anthes: We have two single family elevations. So are you proposing that there will be 129 units and 64 of these identical things or are we looking at something that has more variation than that? Because, that is the kind of level of discussion I would like to know about with a PZD. Earnest: Sure, well that is what we're showing you and that is what we intend to build. Anthes: Sixty-four of the identical unit. Earnest: Mixed. Not a cookie cutter but mixed. Anthes: Well it seems it's like a cookie cutter. It's just that you have two instead of one. Clark: I have another question. Mr. Earnest, when will we see the — you're gonna have a POA correct? Earnest: Yes. Clark: Okay, when will we see their operating materials? What is it called, the POA? Lack: Restrictive covenants? Clark: Thank you, restrictive - I love Attorneys - restrictive covenants. Earnest: It's called for in here and I can't tell you when you'll see it. But it will obviously have to be in the next month or two. We need to develop that because, if the POA fails to maintain the streets then as you notice in here the City has the ability to come in and file liens against the property. None of us wants that to happen. Pate: The City typically requires that to be filed with the final plat, so after - there's actually not a whole lot of infrastructure where streets are installed. So there will be a little of overlays and water line and sewer line connections. But that is usually done at the time of final plat with those two recorded documents. Clark: And we'll see it at final plat? Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 55 of 107 Pate: This will come before you as a final plat- yes. Clark: Okay, I was on page 16 and 40, looking at the legal annuities and it refers to the Planning Commission actually. Looking at this after the City Attorney has approved it and I'm very, and with private streets, to me that is a very big issue. How are going to hold the Home Owner Association or the POA accountable for even more streets when we just talked about one little street in the previous development. Now we're talking about all the streets. Earnest: All the streets. Clark: And I'm very concerned about that for the same reason I was concerned before. Earnest: Right. Clark: The other thing that concerns me is on page 10 of 40 number 7 one of our findings, "planned development promotes redefined development control under a unified plan". To me it means exactly what you said. I need to know what its going to look like and I have said this since the first PZD came through. Earnest: You have. Clark: And I'm not sure I know and without that certainly, I realize you feel like you have jumped through every hoop that Planning has given you. Jeremy, you're probably as frustrated with us as well, but I don't know what it's going to be. And without knowing what it's going to be, I don't know if I'm doing what I'm supposed to be doing by passing it. And it also distresses me that we're losing affordable housing. But that's nothing I can consider in this vote but, if we're gonna lose it, I need to know what we're losing it for and I need to know pretty specifically what we're losing it for and I'm just struggling with this. I don't think I have enough. Maybe, you could bring back more or it will probably pass tonight anyways. But I would like to see more with an assurance what this is going to fill this void with. Earnest: Well, I can certainly say we would be glad to sit down in the future. It just doesn't help you for this one but, in the future for Planning Staff so we provide more information to you on what individual units look like in whatever PZD we bring forward. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 56 of 107 Clark: Because if you commit to that, than I know it's going to built by the spirit of the ordinance. You say here it is, that's what it's got to be because that's what the ordinance says. Earnest: Right and in the spirit of this requires us to build essentially what we're looking at. Clark: And I'm not looking at all of it because it's not all here. Anthes: Well apparently it is. That's all you get. Clark: I know, submit at a later date - I'll vote at a later date. Harris: No I think their intent is that is all you get. And to follow up on that Mr. Pate, I don't have my UDC with me tonight and I'm looking through the findings on the planned zoning district and I understand that we have some leeway or findings that we need to find in respect to variation. But it's variation in lot size and types of units or is it also in appearance? Pate: Under... it's close to the end of your findings. Under the R-PZD section, it talks about bulk and area regulations. Is that what you're referring tot lot area setback requirements, building heights, building area, and zoning criteria? Basically what we do, we take a look at what is existing under the RMF -24 zoning. Which does allow for smaller residential lots but the setbacks are not reduced. We look at the lot area that is requested and our finding there is of course different than a standard residential zoning. Which a standard residential zoning would be a 70 -foot wide lot with 8,000 square feet. This does allow for the structure to be closer to the street and decided in rear lot lines in all cases. It also talks about building height. They are not really varied in what we would typically see in a standard residential development. The building site coverage would be higher than typical and that's logical in given the smaller lot size. It's 50 to 65% and so those are typically in standard single family residential development more like 40%. The RMF -24 by comparison does not limit it at all so that comparison there is really not as valuable. Is that what you're referring to? Harris: Well, I believe I was remembering something about a variety in a spectrum of different kind of uses and unit types. And in that unit type would that also extend itself into the fact that we're looking at hundred twenty plus lots with only two identical unit types. And is that giving us the variety that indicated by our goals of the planned zoning district? Pate: We do have a section and it states that "a re -zoning of a property to the PZD maybe deemed appropriate if the development proposed for the Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 57 of 107 district can accomplish one or more of the following goals." And then it goes through providing for flexibility and distribution of land uses, density of development, and other matters typically regulated in zoning districts. This is all on page 17 of 40, "compatibility with surrounding land uses, providing a variety of housing types, and employment opportunities or commercial industrial areas or a combination thereof to achieve a variety of economic redevelop opportunities." Harris: And that variety of housing types, how does staff feel like two identical units spread across hundred twenty some odd properties afford the variety of housing types that would meet our planned zoning district requirements? Pate: I think the overall project does provide a deviation from a standard single family residential development or a standard RMF -24 development. There's certainly more variety than we see in most large scale developments or we see in keeping with 4-plexes and duplexes included in the overall property. So there is more variety in terms of that and I agree out of the 129- these two units would probably not be something that we would like to see. Mr. Earnest says they are showing what they are indicating, I still think we're going to see some variation in this plan in terms of construction. But, I could be wrong about. Anthes: It does not seem to be what was offered by the applicant this evening. Pate: That is correct. Graves: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Graves? Graves: My concern is just that this body is sending applicants a mixed message that we want people to use PZD and then it seems like we make it harder to use the PZD process. If this applicant comes in wanting to rezone this stuff, RMF -6 and build multi -family or mixed residential uses accordingly, we wouldn't be judging what the particular elevations were for that. So it seems like we're setting an additional hurdle here. The idea of the PZD, as I understood it, was to know what you're getting. Now I understand the some of the Commissioners feel like they don't know what they're getting here. But when I read the section about variety under the PZD ordinance, providing for a variety of housing types, I don't read it to mean providing for a variety of housing designs or exteriors. Obviously you don't want everything to look the same. But by the same token, I don't want to see a hundred twenty nine variations of a drawing either. So I think we're making it awfully tough for applicants to want do what we ask them to do Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 58 of 107 and use the PZD ordinance. To actually use it because we seem to want something different on each project. I'm satisfied that I have an idea, conceptually of what they're wanting to do. I'm not satisfied that the PZD ordinance gives me the right to make them do it a hundred and twenty nine different ways or see the drawing on a larger scale or see it without trees drawn in it or whatever. I'm not sure that that's the case. I also see in the opening paragraph that we want it to accomplish one or more of the following goals. And there is a list of variety housing types being one of those goals. But there's several other there as well and we're not saying a person using the PZD ordinance has to meet all those goals. The more of them they can meet the better but, I don't think we can or should require them to meet every one of those goals in every case. And that we want to see every combination of what the buildings might look like. That actually goes contrary to what we've heard tonight from our Staff with regard to what we look at on residential uses. And it's not a criticism of anybody, I think everybody gets frustrated sometimes with trying to (a) to understand what we're wanting to do with the PZD ordinance and (b) trying to meet the goals with whatever those are with regard to making sure when we say its for the applicant to be able to rezone and get platted and so forth. All in one process without going through more than one time and with the idea from our point of view that we get to see what it is. I understand when someone doesn't feel like they get to see what it is. But, the idea is that we're all agreeing to in this condition is, we're not saying they've got to design it to specifically look like this. We're saying they've got to meet this concept. "The building shall be constructed to be consistent with the photos and concepts depicted." It doesn't say that we approve those concepts, it doesn't say that we are suppose to judge whether those concepts are constant with something else, it just says that they've presented us with a concept and they're going to have to build it consistent with that concept. I'm not sure that we're supposed to judge whether we like or dislike that concept. Maybe others feel differently, obviously some do, but I don't read the PZD ordinance that way in regards to residential uses. And so as far as that being the hang up for somebody, I have the opposite view point. Anthes: Thank you Commissioner Graves. Attorney Williams? Williams: Let me just read you what the unified development code states about what you should do and consider when you either to approve or reject a planned zoning district. And this is sub -section E entitled approval or rejection criteria for Planned Zoning Districts. "The following criteria shall be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in review of planned zoning district applications. Based upon the proposed mass development plan. Number 1 - whether the application is in compliance with the requirements of the unified development code or general plan. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 59 of 107 Number 2 - whether the application is in compliance with all applicable statutory revisions. Number 3 - whether the general impact of the rezoning would adversely impact the provision of public facilities and services. Number 4 - whether the proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding land uses. Number 5 - whether the subject land is suitable for the intended use and is compatible with the natural environment. Number 6 - whether the intended land use would create traffic congestion or burden the existing road network. Number 7 - whether the planned development provides for unified development control under a unified plan, and finally number 8 - whether any other recognized zoning consideration would be violated by this PZD. Those are the criteria that we really need to pretty much restrict ourselves to. The last one is pretty general obviously, any other recognized zoning consideration being violated, that's a pretty general one. And I do note that in what we require in our general project concept. Several things street lay and lot layout but it also will require building elevations. So that is certainly something to think about. But I do agree that these are more general elevations and not specific. It's not like a commercial design standard where you look and say this meets it. These are just general elevations to give you a better concept of the whole plan. So I do think that many good points have been made but I do hope that we're not hard on developers who are using what our preferred development plan is. And if it is something our Planning Department has recommended and you have recommended in the past and so has the City Council. Anyway, I wanted to read those eight to you because that is what we re supposed to be considering. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Williams. Is there further discussion? Ostner: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Question for Mr. Williams, you read the criteria to turn down a master development plan. Williams: Approval or rejection criteria. Yes. Ostner: Okay, I'm just wanting to double check with Mr. Pate that this is the master development plan. I thought we had two types of PZD currently. Williams: Well, this is approval or rejection criteria for planned zoning districts. Ostner: Okay. Thank you. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 60 of 107 Pate: And to that point, a master development plan is required to be presented for both development PZDs and non -development PZDs. So they all have to have a master development plan. Ostner: Okay. If I could switch gears a little bit. Did this go to subdivision or was it just something we just saw? Anthes: It went to subdivision. Ostner: Okay, question for staff. Directly to the west to this piece of property there's a street called out as Sawgrass, I believe. I'm just wondering how that is not a viable candidate for connectivity. Pate: That is actually a parking lot. It's actually parking spaces that abut this property. That is a double loaded parking drive aisle with the apartment complex there that exits to the west. Ostner: Well, I'm still wondering if stub -outs and connectivity have really been thought through. We're witnessing the replacement of housing. This housing was viable though it was older and it is, as the economy of Fayetteville changes the economy of these older living units - these older neighborhoods, is changing. People are looking to replace this type of housing. That is also what is directly to the west. An older product of housing types, that if you're to be realistic would be a candidate for replacement. I don't see why a stub -out heading to the west would really be that crazy. That land is developed but it is on the table the way the things are going. If those apartments are to be replaced and good old Sunbridge didn't build a stub -out, we've got two neighborhoods side by side that don't have to have any connectivity. This is basically just a question for the other Commissioners to think about. On the PZD, the applicant is allowed a little bit of latitude. A single family subdivision where they don't have to dedicate the streets is unbelievable. I've never seen it, the streets are there and it makes good sense. But I think they're getting a little bit of latitude there. On the other side of what they are offering is the little pictures of what they re going to build. It's not as clear as the applicant shouldn't bring any elevations or any drawings cause he doesn't have to. He wants to, he wants our vote. He wants us to have an idea of what he wants to build. On that give and take on the PZD, he's also being allowed to use these streets that don't connect anywhere. I don't think it's crazy to ask him to pull out lot 55 and make a stub -out. I'd be interested to hear on what other people have to say. I'm still not convinced that stub -out can't flow out to that parking lot. Because, it's gonna get used. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 61 of 107 Anthes: Commissioner Ostner, are you asking for a stub -out that basically lines with Village Lake Drive? Ostner: Yes. Approximately. Clark: I don't see where there would be a connection. Anthes: With a stub -out because you see there is a gap. Ostner: I would love a connection. Clark: Can it connect anywhere Jeremy on Sawgrass? Pate: Those are not public streets, they are just drive aisles. That's how our GIS division indicates those. So, it would likely take approval from the property owner of the Greens Apartments from the west. And removal of parking spaces there. Ostner: If I had to guess and the Fire Marshall was asked if he wanted another access into those apartments in the west. He would say absolutely I do. I don't know. Anthes: Well alternatively you could require a stub -out that went to the property line and was built like our standard stub -outs. With the sign that said redevelopment in the future this could connect. Pate: That would be an option. Motion: Ostner: I would like to offer that as an amendment or a condition of approval that lot 55 or there about be built as a stub -out. And to allow Staff to pursue that with the applicant as the process goes through. Anthes: And that would be aligned with Village Lake Drive? Ostner: More or less as I draw it. Anthes: We have a motion to amend the conditions of approval by Commissioner Ostner. Is there a second? I'll second that. We have a motion to amend to add a street stub -out in the vicinity of lot 55 to possibly connect in the future with Village Lake Drive. Will you call the role. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 62 of 107 Roll Call: The motion to amend the conditions of approval for R-PZD 06-2213 Sunbridge Villas was approved by a vote of 5-3-0. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Lack: Madam Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: I'm still having trouble getting over the Club house and just exactly what we do with that for commercial design standards. And I know I've heard explanation on that. I'm looking at item number 13 in the findings and I am finding that the only non-residential structure is the proposed club house. Which shall be subject to commercial design standards. That's page 15 of 40 in our packet. I can accept that it has to come back for conditional use, if there is something in the conditions or if we can say that the elevations which are specifically shown as elevations for the clubhouse are not something that we are approving at this time for commercial design standards. I would want for clarity sake, some verbiage that stipulates that. Because I would certainly not vote for as meeting commercial design standards. Pate: I think that Staffs intent on that comment that we did not put any conditions of approval. But, to clarify that we would not have a problem with that. Obviously it is a conditional use, much as we reviewed the last conditional use for a clubhouse that was also in a planned zoning district. And have the same type of conversation and we would like to clarify that, we can add the language from that finding. Lack: Is number 13 on page 15 of 40? Pate: That's the only non-residential structure on the site. Let me make that a condition of approval: The only non-residential structure on the site is a proposed clubhouse within commons or that planning area for the structure shall comply with commercial design standards. It shall be appropriately designed to provide compatibility with the proposed residential structures in terms of material and etcetera. And the elevations presented in the planned zoning district booklet are not at this time being approved by the Planning Commission. Lack: Thank you. Anthes: Mr. Pate. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 63 of 107 Pate: Yes ma'am. Anthes: It looks to me like the only representation we have is sheet E in their booklet that shows the proposed setbacks or building outlines. Is that - did I miss something? Pate: Sheet E - tree preservation? Anthes: Yeah, the tree preservation plan seems to be the only one that has building footprints on it. Is that correct? The reason I'm asking this is that, part of what we're approving with the PZD is this density and also a smaller minimum setback than what we would normally require in a single family residential area or a multi -family area for that matter. I'm questioning whether, without some assurances of architectural delineation such as porches or variety other than two types within 129 units, whether a less than setback is appropriate. And that it may be very oppressive. Pate: Adjacent to all other properties, the setback is relatively standard. It does decrease to 15 on the south boundary line, I believe is being required. And that's shown on pages B, C, D, & E, I believe if that is what you're referring to. Also you can look at the charts that are part of the PZD ordinance that requires you to put it in on the master development plan. Planning Area 1 indicates the setbacks. 15 -foot front, side is 5 -foot as opposed to the typical 8, and the rear is 15. There's also a zoning comparison chart that the ordinance requires. Those are required on the sheet, I don't remember off the top of my head but the RMF -24 has the 25 - foot front and the 8 -foot side on either a 20 or 25 -foot rear setback. So they are decreasing it to some instances to a 15 -foot and others to a 20 -foot for the adjacent properties. Anthes: So we're talking about very small setbacks off the street but, the garage is facing the street and only one elevation that actually has some sort of a porch or anything to soften that edge. Right? Pate: Yes, in most instances it's a 15 -foot building setback and utility easement. I thought that narrowed down, it may not; it may be actually all 15's on building setbacks and easements in all cases. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is there further discussion? Motions? Motion: Graves: Madam Chair. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 64 of 107 Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I move we forward with a recommendation for approval of R-PZD 06-2213 with a finding in favor on condition of approval number 1, on conditional of approval number 2, and number 3, and with the other 26 stated conditions of approval and that would be counting the one we voted on for the stub -out. And the clubhouse. Anthes: Motion to forward by Commissioner Graves, is there a second? Lack: Second Anthes: Second by Commissioner Lack. Is there further discussion? Will you call the role. Roll Call: The R-PZD 06-2213 for Sunbridge Villas was denied by a vote of 4-5-0. Anthes: I will call for a 10 minute break at 8:15pm - reconvene at 8:27pm Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 65 of 107 R-PZD 06-2256: PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT (932 GARLAND, 444): SUBMITTED BY ARCHITECTS 226, INC. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 932 GARLAND, BETWEEN BERRY AND HUGHES STREET. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RMF -40, MULTI FAMILY - 40 UNITS/ACRE AND CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 0.84 ACRES. THE REQUEST IS TO REVIEW A MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT WITH 37 DWELLING UNITS AND 22,854 S.F. OF COMMERCIAL SPACE. Fulcher: Good Evening, this is for a residential planned zoning district. It is for a zoning master development plan approval, although not for development as we've seen with some of the others this evening. This will have to come back through for a large scale development if this makes it through to City Council and gets approved. Specifically, this is a.84 acre site, zoned RMF - 40, for the most part, although there is a small portion of residential office in the north part of the property. It's bounded by Hughes Street to the north, Berry Street to the south, Garland Avenue to the west and a 20 public alley to the east. It will consist of one planning area with approximately 23,000 square feet of non-residential space, residential office and restaurants in the first two street level floors. The upper floors will contain a maximum of 66,000 sq. ft. of residential space, a proposed 37 dwelling units. The overall density is 44 units per acre. The surrounding land uses are quite different from each other. To the north it is predominantly commercial at the intersection of Garland & Wedington or North Street, depending on which side of the street you're on. Both are principal arterials. To the east is RMF -40 zoned property made up of older single family homes, apartment complexes, multi -family dwellings, and to the south and to the west is Elementary school and University properties. Obviously made up of an assortment of uses and land types. Staff is supportive of this proposed land use, master development plan & zoning. Finding that appropriate transition and compatibility has been achieved. Which is evident when looking down on some of the aerials looking down on the structure. You can see where they have pushed the bulk or the mass of the structure to the street edge. Commercial uses also are also located at the street edge and toward the existing commercial uses to the north. And then they've used the east side which is adjacent to some of the smaller residential structures to drop the building down to the 2 -level parking area, which you can see in the rendering that they have for you. Additionally, the project is consistent with many of the guiding policies of the City Plan 2025. Some of those, I will speak about, Revitalization. This is not necessarily a deteriorated area of town, but an older part of town. This is just a project proposed to revitalize that area and proposes infill, but at an appropriate density. Also it discourages urban sprawl by providing 44 units per acre, which is consistent with that adjacent zoning and also encourages a great deal of pedestrian activity in an area that already has a great deal of Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 66 of 107 pedestrian activity. In the project booklet you can see that they're proposing 8' sidewalks along most of this property to help with that movement, and by separating those sidewalks with a large green space between Garland, a principal arterial, and the building. With that staff is recommending that this item be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation for approval with 13 conditions. I just want to touch on # nine since this is not for development. Most of these conditions of approval are fairly vague and have more to do with when this comes back, that this should obviously resemble what we've reviewed tonight. Item nine is just about street improvements. These have been presented by the applicants, all but one, which is an 8 sidewalk that staff would request on Berry street which is proposed at 4' and all the others are at 8'. Staff recommends that be an 8', but that's something we will look at when we look at construction drawings or large scale development. With that, if you have any specific questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Anthes: Mr. Fulcher before you sit down, will you clarify the density is 44.04 density units per acre plus 27,027 SF commercial space. Is that correct? Fulcher: Yes that's correct. Anthes: Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address this master development plan for R-PZD for 932 Garland? Seeing none, I will close the floor to public comment. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Mrs. Rudzinski. Rudzinski: Good evening, my name is Yumi Rudzinski, I'm with Architects 226. It is our privilege to develop a piece of property to us that is very prominent towards the University. Our concept here is to design a building that would act as gateway to the University. Because, right now as you enter onto Garland Street to the University there are mostly bungalows and commercial properties that are set back from the street. And we thought, for this property it would be a great opportunity to provide us with a gateway that would announce the arrival into the University. So, the program for this again is mixed use and what we are proposing is to do retail or commercial areas where there are more activities at the ground level for the students. For the people that are living in the existing neighborhood that is pretty densely populated and then having lofts up all above. And the one great thing about this project, we were able to work with an owner that was willing to do something that is a little uncommon. Everyone else is afraid to try something different. And we were able to convince him that the City really needs something that we think we would like to be proud of and to have something that is not the everyday mundane building that is out there. That doesn't, to us, symbolize anything and he is Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 67 of 107 willing to go out on a limb for the City and the residents. We informed him that it was gong to be expensive and he is willing to take a risk and build a something that will stand time and a have a building that is timeless. So it's refreshing to hear from a developer who is willing to understand that this is going to be a very expensive investment. Again this is a conceptual plat and we didn't want to present you with something that was vague. We wanted to show you all aspects of the building, even down to some of the details. We had some comments about the activities on the street level going up against a building. We had a comment that it would be nice if we would articulate a certain edge more instead of having it just a stone wall. So we are starting to articulate it by putting display windows, or stairs taking you up to certain levels and trying to work with all areas of this site. This area has a great view to the north so we re trying to capture that. We are trying to provide a building that at the high points up on the south side it is a roof top level of Leverett School. View wise it does slope down 36' and so were trying to take an advantage of that and try to mediate both sides of Hughes and Berry Street. And also provides the habitants with a view to the north. So again these are true loft spaces and the idea is to be sensitive to all the buildings around there. That is to Garland Street is very thin. We wanted to push this building against a boulevard because on Garland, this is a true boulevard that is wide enough to be able to accommodate a building with this type of surface and this height. This gave us opportunity to push the building closer and to levitate some of the potential massing that could have consequences lightening wise to the building that is to the east of us. Again you can you look at the sun shading studies we've done. The geometry, massing of this thing is to really understand the existing building and how that's going to start impacting on those elements. Is there any questions? Anthes: No, we'll get back to you. Does that conclude the applicant's presentation? Mansfield: May I? Anthes: Mr. Mansfield. Mansfield: I would just like to add a few things. I'm Steve Mansfield, the developer of the project. We made a conscious effort to meet with all the neighbors and talked with the few true home owning residents that surround the property. We've had a meeting with the ward 4 group. We tried to do a ward two meeting, unfortunately with the flux the Commissioners are in, that was not doable but have attempted to extract as much public comment as possible for this project. And I'm proud to say that we have received no negative comments whatsoever. Matter of fact, we have received positive. Both in word and written and I wanted to share with the Commissioners on that. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 68 of 107 Anthes: Thank you very much. Commissioners. Trumbo: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: Believe it or not, I need some clarification. We are looking at a PZD but it is going to come back through as a LSD? Can you explain that to me, is that uncommon? Fulcher: No. Often we do, I believe we do see these as developments. At the same time, mostly with the ones I've worked on and the ones we've seen recently, this is simply for the zoning and land use for the ability to come back with a large scale development based on this intensity and density. Trumbo: I just figured out what we're doing. We come back through as a LSD with the actual plans. Pate: Other projects that are similar, that is the Wedington Circle project which is not very far from here, WellSpring and Park West, those types of zoning and land approval use projects. Trumbo: I was just a little confused. Anthes: You certainly don't see them every meeting. Pate: No. Trumbo: I do have another question if I may. Obviously this is a tall building. I'm curious the shading panel made the study, I believe you mentioned. I can't read that from here. Can you kind of go through what exactly is being pointed out? Rudzinski: Yes, my name is Russell Rudzinski. I'm with Architects 226. What you're seeing here are - we selected the Summer solstice and the equinox in the Fall and the Spring and the Winter solstice to study the extreme sun angles. Just for consistency sake, we picked the same time in the morning- about 9am and the same time in the afternoon - about 3:30pm. And by using the program that we used, we were able to determine of course that all times of the year. The properties to the east, because of the massing strategy we re using, were not being adversely impacted by any shadows our building might cast. In fact, particularly in the afternoon, when you get to Spm to 5pm. Certainly some of these apartment buildings maybe in the shadows Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 69 of 107 but in the middle of the summer time it might help on their electricity bills these days. But also, I think it's important to note that during a better part of the day through the 3 key solar moments in the year all the adjacent properties are getting ample sunlight. The property to the north is a commercial building and so it is going to be affected as the winter shadow certainly moves across it. But we think particularly with the width of Garland and the current setback between the structures located to the north that we re not adversely impacting natural light for the adjacent properties. Anthes: Thank you. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Madam Chair. I still can't see it. If you could just hand it to me. Anthes: Look at page 8 in your booklet. Ostner: It's just so much bigger here. Thank you. Anthes: I'm sorry we've closed the public comment section. Commissioners? Ostner: Madam Chair. Since this is a master development plan where the applicant is gaining zoning approval and there are no development approval attached to this application, I would in general be in favor of this application; it's right on the edge of me not being in favor of it. It's a little bit big for the area, but I think it could pass. I think the area might just come up to meet its mass and its look. Just as comment, with that being said, I do think the west elevation on the ground plane, not the ground plane. This 4th panel, the top picture really illustrates my concern. I don't think that experience by the pedestrian is something I would vote for in a couple of months when you all come back. When you tear up your suit jacket shoulder bumping into a building, that's not a proper pedestrian experience to me. If it was stepped back two or three feet, or if the sidewalk were changed. If there were maybe a few more doors or windows along that stretch, I think I would much more in favor of it. I do like the mixture. If I have to talk about commercial design standards I'm probably not in favor of the commercial design standards. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner, could you clarify what portion of the building you're talking about. Ostner: The first two floors are the commercial levels, only because there kind of cold, not inviting to the pedestrian. They're beautiful from an art and Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 70 of 107 architectural standpoint. I don't think it's appropriate for that spot. I think those are the extent of my comments right now. Anthes: And to clarify that for anyone watching, once again we are looking at a building that is primarily residential in nature. We do not have residential design standards. The commercial design standards only apply to this portion of the building that is commercial in nature and that is the first two floors of the building. Clark: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Clark. Clark: First, I want to thank the architects for providing so much information. I know you're probably sitting up there scared to death after we went through a couple of these tonight. But, this is exactly - you make my point. This is what I need to see before I know what I'm going to get. Whether I agree with it or not, it's there, it's out there, and I appreciate the detail. I started when I got the packet; this is an awful big structure for the placement. And then I drove by the area the day before as matter of fact and it is an introduction into campus. I think you nailed that comment and put it into perspective quite clearly. Just a few yards over the hill are even bigger buildings and I think this is potentially a very good introduction up Garland Avenue. Especially with the trees, especially with the set back you have along Garland at least in the renderings. I'm not as concerned as Commissioner Ostner, although I understand him about the huge setback. I'm not sure many people in suits are going to be scraping up against that building, but we can talk about that when large scale comes through. I think maintaining the viewshed is very important. Especially since the work that's been done along Garland Avenue with the trees and it looks very nice. And I don t know if this going take away anything from that. As a matter of fact, it might compliment it and certainly clears up an area that is not - if I had to pick what is there now and this in terms of an introduction into campus. I'm going to have to go with this hands down. Now whether or not it means we will agree on commercial design standards later on, I don t know, I haven t seen them. But I thank you for the detail you have given this. You have given us a firm idea of what you're going to do and what we can expect. And I like and I even like where it is. And there are some architects who are fainting listening to this as we speak. But I really do appreciate the detail you've given it and it's just amazing that your architectural firm can find the rendering on what the sun is going to do to a tall building. And show us what that shadow is going to look like. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 71 of 107 Anthes: I too would like to applaud the clear and thorough proposal. The width of Garland does allow for a height that the delicate street of a downtown street grid may not. I appreciate the cost of putting the parking under ground and I think it is important for this project. I also appreciate that you will be removing several curb cuts along Garland and that's beneficial as well. I do have a couple of questions. I'm not quite clear about the - I think there was a statement made about green space within the right of way? And I know that's a State Highway and I'm wondering what are the dimensions between the curb, the green space, the sidewalk, and how does that relate to the other side of Garland? And do we actually have something in the right of way that we're not suppose to or visa versa Pate: I believe there is approximately; and Jesse correct me if I in wrong; 25' or less from the curb to the sidewalk. Is that correct? Anthes: That is correct. Pate: That's existing highway department right of way and based on our master street plan. Of course applicants dedicate 55' for that right of way. They're proposing what you see in the drawing, a minimum 8' sidewalk along that area. That might vary depending on what uses are proposed. What that would likely be is a pedestrian access easement as opposed to additional right of way. And that would allow for, potentially preservation of existing trees along the street, if that's possible. And as the grade changes obviously the sidewalk will follow that grade up. The wider sidewalk would accommodate pedestrian movement within an access easement that is where we would recommend that be placed. Much like Dickson Street, where the right of way only encompasses a portion of the sidewalk, up to the building typically encompassed in a public access easement so that's the same kind of application that we're using. Anthes: Okay and on the west side of Garland, I believe we have a 10' sidewalk the City worked strenuously to get? Because I know it goes down to 8' at the University property. Pate: But there are some existing high priority trees and as you can see the site's being fully developed in an urban situation, it's not always possible. We do sacrifice things to have an urban component especially in our downtown area. So tree planting back in that area would certainly seem advisable. The 10' sidewalk would be adequate for street tree- urban tree well type plantings, but with the given green space that might be adequate as well so, we'll certainly take that into account as well. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 72 of 107 Anthes: I would like the applicant to consider what kind of street trees you're going use. The University has worked with the City and the highway department under lengthy negotiations to install London Plane trees all along that street. The University's intent is to then go back on either side of Garland on the University pattern and continue that pattern of that tree. If you would like to also contribute to that unified look, I'm sure that would be appreciated. Rudzinski: That's our intention if we can't save the existing trees. Anthes: As we're looking at this as a planned zoning district something Mr. Williams said tonight when he read what we were looking at. He stated that we need to look at whether any other recognized zoning consideration is being violated. My question is in relationship to the adjacent RMF -40 zoning district, there is a specific step back that is required when you go up. And it's my understanding that this height would never make it in this dimension in that zoning district. I guess I would like to hear from staff about the relevance of that language in the RMF -40 district. What you think the intent of that is and whether we need to be considering the applicability of that step back as far as the intent of separation and compatibility between zoning districts since this is one block in mostly RMF -40. Pate: I think certainly that anytime you're looking at rezoning a property, especially with the planned zoning district where essentially the applicant is creating a zoning district. They're going through all the uses, the set backs, the bulk and area requirements. So those are all things we have to compare to what is there. Sometimes what is there is not appropriate at all, obviously existing zoning districts on Mount Sequoyah that are RMF -24 and it's single family residential. But we do have to by ordinance compare what exists and what the function is. This being the highest density zoning district that we have we would expect for them to be developed at a very high density. It's not been such, especially on Rose Hill. It's not a very high density. I think the project to the east is a 3 story relatively straight forward residential multi -family development surrounded by parking. Plus if you reference the RMF -40 height regulations for any building which exceeds the height of 20' it has to be set back. That is from any side boundary lines. I think the purposes of that are you have smaller building side setbacks - typically 8' from the property line. So as the building gets larger and larger, especially in a multi -family setting, that was the purpose of that zoning ordinance was to set back for light and air. The things that are positive here, is there is an alley between the project to the east and this project, which allows for another 20' that a lot of projects don't have. So that's a 20' right of way to allow for additional set back even if it is within Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 73 of 107 the property line. When staff looked at this, we did discuss with the applicant what uses were present and they responded accordingly by putting the smaller portion of the site and stepping it down to respect the residential properties further to the east. So that's how we approached those comparisons in regards to setbacks and building height. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Pate, one question too. There is a diagram in here that has the building height and the data line? Pate: It's referenced on the second board there. Anthes: This is in reference to something that I have asked staff for several years ago and it's been on the work plan on and off. That is looking at visual corridor overlays. One coming up on Razorback Road from the south is one that is very important that we maintain the view of Old Main from the south gateway into Fayetteville. And I think with very minimal intrusion you could do that. When we look at a drawing like this, I am confused in that it is not taken from the view point of the person. And I what I would like to know is that where is it where the view cuts off. Because obviously you're looking up, you're not up high looking across at the roofs of these buildings. You're down in a car or on foot and coming up Garland and at some point this building will obscure what's behind it. Do you have any idea where that would be? Rudzinski: There is no view of Old Main from this location. Anthes: As you're approaching from the north and you're headed south coming along Garland, is there any point at which, when you're looking up past this volume, that there is a sight angle that might be cut off? I can't tell from these drawings, I'm just asking. Rudzinski: Old Main is sometimes visible when you peak, when you are Garland. Anthes: Can I get you to come up to the microphone please? Rudzinski: I can say the same thing. Coming from the north to the south, Old Main is not visible up to Hughes and Berry. It's only once you've gone further south past that where this building would be. Anthes: Okay, say I'm at Lucky Luke's. Rudzinski: You won't see it. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 74 of 107 Anthes: Okay, or somewhere coming up to that. There is no cut off point that actually is obscured. Rudzinski: No it's further up the hill. Rudzinski: Once you pass Leverett. We have taken photographs and even movies, that was one of our concerns when our building was on agenda and that is one thing we took into consideration was the view of Old Main. And there isn't one until you get past the Fire station and that is past our building. Anthes: Okay, there is a gap because obviously further to the north you do see it so I didn't know where the cut off was. So we feel there isn't going to be any impact at all? Okay, anything else? Clark: Madam Chair. Anthes: Let me just summarize my comments since this is a master development plan. I would like to see if we could achieve some kind of consistency on either side of Garland with the sidewalk widths and the also with the tree planting and species. I think some Commissioners had some reservations about commercial design standards. I'm always concerned when there is a solid wall right next to a pedestrian path. I can't tell because the elevation is sort of cut off but, that's just a solid stone wall along the edge going back along the side street pass the window or do we have any transparency pass that point? Mansfield: Which board are you referencing? Anthes: The fourth one in on the top. We have that nice transparent store front and then it looks like it gets solid. But I can't tell how far that goes back. Mansfield: This is the long elevation of the Garland view and there are some subtle adjustments between this portion and what you're seeing in that particular image. We most notably extended the opening that is better than 2/3's of the length of the whole site. This slope makes it difficult to have a point of access every 10' along the building. So we have retail here, which out to the face of the building and can be seen in this image here. And then in order to get more pedestrian level retail, we're actually stepping back into the volume of the base. Which you can actually pop back in here and this is all retail along that edge. Because of the slope it changes about 36' from end to end. We decided to end that with the terrace that might used by whatever use is in the red glass area. And the change between that image and this one is we actually set - we pushed that wall back and allowed for a stair to access that upper level directly from the comer, because there are Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 75 of 107 going to be a lot of pedestrians moving in that direction. And there is going to be a lot pedestrians moving pass the retail here and we thought it would be good to give them an outlet on the corner. And also since the slope is going so sharply up against the side of the building, wrapping store front glazing around that becomes a rather awkward condition. So what we're starting to look at or zoom on in that point is a smaller window that can act as a display box for whatever "Chroma" sells. Anthes: What about along Hughes Street? As when you are to the left of that store front window and you come back along Hughes. Is that solid? Mansfield: That is a solid wall but it's been recessed into the parking garage and above is what we're calling a restaurant at the moment. Anthes: And the separation between Cleveland and the curb cut into the parking garage. Have you achieved the distance that staff is comfortable with? Mansfield: Between Hughes and down here? Anthes: No, along Garland and back along Hughes. Pate: I would say it's approximately 130' or so, which is if this is the right scale. Anthes: That's pretty good. I would be encouraging you to look into curb cut waivers to tighten those radiuses up as much as you can. Pate: I'm sorry, that is about 130' to the alley and about 80' to 90' to the actually entrances to the parking structure and that still easily meets our standards. Ostner: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: On that alley, does the alley have a name? Okay, on the alley, what is the height of the building at the north end along that alley? I know it changes but what is it at its tallest? Rudzinski: The north end of the alley is currently we're asking for a PZD for about 118 feet. At the lowest topography of the site actually is 122 feet. Ostner: And at the other end, the southern end of the alley? Anthes: I'm sorry, Russell, I really need you to use the microphone if you would. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 76 of 107 Rudzinski: Well, it changes as you see in the model. It starts out at this end with a fitness center it's about 25 feet, then it drops down to the edge of the parking garage, but that changes as the slope of the alley drops. So it probably averages from this corner to the corner of the fitness center about 25 feet as well. Ostner: It's the box volume that the northern end would be the major height? Rudzinski: Yes and it would actually be this corner. Oh, right here? Ostner: That's the side I'm actually concerned about. Rudzinski: There's about an 8' change here, so we re looking at 122 minus 8 would be 114'. Ostner: So the box at the northern end is roughly 120' on the alley side? Rudzinski: It's 122 ft here and it changes about 8ft based on the model. It varies a little bit because Hughes starts sloping up the base of the hill. Ostner: And that's built straight up to the alley, it's a zero setback up there too? Rudzinski: Yes it is. Ostner: Okay. It's that connection that concerns me a little bit. Along the same lines as the spirit of the rule on the R -O. When R -O is close to or side by side to something that's residential. Since these two uses in these zoning districts are different we would provide with an extra step back. Well this is a zero setback on all sides, so there is a right-of-way, a small alley. It's the apartment building or what might replace it someday. They're going to look up and be - how wide is the right-of-way on that alley - Jeremy? Maybe 40'? Rudzinski: Twenty feet wide. Ostner: That's just something that concerns me a little bit. It's a serious jump. Now the other sides of the buildings are all street. Garland is a big street and it's appropriate. There is no extra setback we often see between zoning districts. Now I say that and I'm not sure I want you to fix it. But I do want it to be said that it's a conflict. That is an existing neighborhood, as Mr. Mansfield pointed out there aren't many owner occupied buildings back there, but it is a neighborhood. You don't have to own your house for it to be a neighborhood. It does concern me a little bit. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 77 of 107 Anthes: Is there further discussion? Yes. Mr. Mansfield. Mansfield: I just would like to add a comment that has become evident to me as we've planned this project and others that we've looked at. It's a philosophical issue that we all deal with when trying to reconciling the 2025 plan with the current zoning ordinances and setback ordinances as they exist. It is very difficult to create the urban infill and get away from the sprawl without building mass and density. And you can't build mass & density when your setbacks force you to go taller unless you're going to impact the neighborhood next to it. So all of our ordinances, the way they're written, no - let me step back. Some of the ordinances that are written from years past causes us as developers and architects to rethink what are the best use of the projects in respect to the ordinances in place. And the original purpose of the PZD conceptual design was to bring forward to you, concepts that don't fit in the box. They are round pegs that don't fit in our square holes. And I appreciate your comments and will take all your comments to heart and try to make adjustments to make the best building for the City that we can. Recognize if you would, that in that process there is not a perfect round peg to go in a round hole and by trying to play to meet the 2025 goals we sometimes have to push the edge of the envelope with regards to some of the other typical requirements that are on our books. And that is way we are coming to you today for a conceptual approval before we go ahead and spend a whole lot of money for something that is not acceptable. Thank you. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Graves: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Graves. Motion: Graves: I want to a make motion. Based on staff's findings and the information submitted tonight, in my opinion the density & intensity of the proposed use and the type of the proposed use as well as the requested zoning at this location is appropriate. And so I'm going to move that we forward with a recommendation of approval for R-PZD 06-2256 with the 13 stated conditions of approval. Clark: Second. Anthes: I have a motion to forward by Commissioner Graves with a second by Commissioner Clark. Is there further discussion? Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 78 of 107 Pate: Madam Chair? Anthes: Yes. Pate: This doesn't require an amendment, but I will change it before the City Council meeting. That condition number 5 - for phasing it says that the applicant will be granted one year from the date of Planning Commission approval to receive all permits necessary for development of the phase with a one year extension available. I will likely be adding one year from the date of Planning Commission approval of the large scale development not the approval of tonight, so I just want to make sure that the applicant and you are aware that I'll make that clarification. Anthes: Thank you. I have one other question I found in my scribbles about materials. I believe in the master development plan booklet you talked about stone but also a large quantity of metal. Could you please describe that? And I understand that is something we will look at with commercial design. Mansfield: Yes, at the moment you can see the building is comprised of 3 primary volumes. There is the base, that has the retail and the office space and in the current stage of development we are trying to find a stone veneer. It's durable, it has a preciousness, it's next to the earth and it's a base material. The glass volume you can see under this roof is going to be a thermal efficient store front system. The long bar that boarders Garland, I would not necessarily say that it is a large quantity of metal. Because most of that facade is actually glazed with the balconies for the units. But we're thinking about a non -reflective metal clinging system. Often times when that is said you think of a butler building or a warehouse building. We have our sights set on a high quality, high finish metal that - nothing of the caliber that Frank Gery uses on the Bilbao. But it's not going to be a railroad warehouse building per -say. Final selection of the material which I would like to be lead coated copper, final selection will take place before final development Anthes: And the upper portion? Mansfield: Essentially this bar is clad in metal. All of these white areas are glazing for the apartments. Even though the bar is a big expense, the percentage of metal to glass is quite limited. Anthes: And you're not anticipating any reflectivity in the glass? Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 79 of 107 Mansfield: We're looking for more of a brush finish instead of highly reflective surface. Anthes: Thank you very much. Are there further comments? We have a motion to forward, will you call the role? Roll Call: The R-PZD 06-2256 for 932 Garland was forward by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 80 of 107 ADM 06-2276: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (ZOTTI APPEAL): SUBMITTED BY SCOTT ZOTTI FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 676 WEST ASH STREET, CONTESTING THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR'S INTERPRETATION OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING SCREENING OF CERTAIN USES. Anthes: OUR ELEVENTH ITEM THIS EVENING IS ADM 06-2276 ZOTTI APPEAL. MAY WE HAVE THE STAFF REPORT, PLEASE. Pate: I will be presenting this item. The property is located at 676 West Ash Street under the ownership of the applicant, Scott Zotti. It currently contains a HMI Recycling & disposal, Inc., a tenant of the property. The property is zoned I-1, for Heavy Commercial / Light Industrial and is located adjacent to Ash Street and Chestnut Avenue. In December of 2005 a complaint was submitted to the City and entered by Code Compliance claiming the parcel had been cleared and gravel had been placed over the entire parcel. Upon investigation, it was found the above to be true and the semi -trailers and porta-potties were being stored on the gravel and in the right of way for Ash Street. This storage is visible from both Ash Street and Poplar Street rights of way and it was not screened. Over time, no change in conditions was observed. In May of 2006 a violation letter was sent to the property owner and tenant. On May 15th of this year, the manager contacted staff to discuss the violation and requested an on-site meeting. Staff met with the manager on May 16th, and it was agreed to move the trailers that were in the right-of-way. It was also agreed upon that the owners (Zotti) would construct a screening fence on the front, sides, & back of the lot and with the combination of the existing tree line would accomplish the necessary screening for the outdoor storage of materials. The applicant, as the property owner, is not agreeing to this screening requirement and has appealed the interpretation of Ch. 166. 10, buffer strips and screening, to be applicable to this property. The existing uses on the property, prior to the expansion, were considered existing non -conforming and thus were not required to be screened, much as many of the existing industrial businesses in the area. However, upon expansion of a use, that is required to be screened pursuant to the Unified Development Code. The applicant, I'm sure, has a presentation and their reasons are stated before you. Again this is not a Planning Commissions interpretation of how you feel the code should be applied. It's really an appeal of my interpretation. I am bound and the City Attorney can expand on this, I am bound to interpret the City's zoning and development code. Zoning interpretations and appeals go to the Board of Adjustment and appeals of development requirements come to this board, the Planning Commission. The applicant has appealed that section, pursuant to Ch. 166.10, the screening of outdoor storage materials. I have essentially 3 bullet points in your staff report that I Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 81 of 107 find that this does apply. Staff finds that the expansion of gravel and outdoor materials has been added to the property is defined as development and is thus subject to development regulations. And I'll go over the terms of "develop" and "development" as defined in the Code. "Permanently altering land by subjecting it to grading to make a site or area available by physical alteration." The next one, is the entire definition of grading and to be noted that no grading or drainage permit was issued for this site and therefore is in a manner contrary to our requirements. Bullet point 2 - staff finds that while the applicant does discuss Ch. 166.10 A (there is primarily an A, B, & C that are discussed in this review) it requires construction of a buffer strip, fence, or screen wall upon the Planning Commission reviewing it, it is required as such. Sub -section C, which I find as development administrator applicable in the situation, states " In all zones the following uses shall be completely surrounded by a view obscuring fence." Because of this requirement, staff is required to ensure that all development in all zones complies with this sub -section and again I want to point out, it is only the expansion of those uses. If it is a non -conforming existing use there on the property that what was in use prior to this ordinance being adopted, then those would not be required to all of sudden one day be screened. It is only the expansion of a use that kicks in the requirement. Screening for outdoor storage is clearly qualified in the ordinance criteria and does not differentiate between those projects requiring Planning Commission approval and those requiring staff approval. And that's why my interpretation of sub -section A does not require the Planning Commission to make this applicable. The third point is simply that the applicant has indicated that if this property should be screened then all properties in the area should be screened. I certainly would invite any complaints to our office. If there are any existing uses out there that need to be screened simply notify our offices and we will certainly investigate. Your charge in this particular action, you are to (A) affirm the interpretation of the Zoning and Development Administrator or (B) reverse in whole or in part the interpretation of the Zoning and Development Administrator and if B is your decision as a board than you would typically direct staff to change or modify the ordinance so that this applicable, if you feel that is appropriate. With that, I believe the applicant has a presentation. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Pate, I would normally ask for public comment at this time but appears that no members of the public are here so if the applicant would come forward and please state your name and give us your comments. Zotti: My name is Cheryl Zotti and tonight Scott Zotti is here also and we are the owners of the property at 676 Ash and we first would like to thank you for allowing us to come before you and hear this appeal. I believe Mr. Pate has Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 82 of 107 done a very good job in going over the history of why we're actually here before you tonight. I can say upon us getting this letter of notification, that we were in violation of your ordinance .We did notify your staff and start working with them and from the very beginning, I would say we had 2 major issues that we disagreed with from the very beginning. We do cover other areas in our memorandum to staff that you did receive. But the two major issues is that the idea of screening of semi -trailers. Because that is what we're talking about tonight, that lot, or area, is used to screen semi- trailers and we don't agree necessarily that that should be applied to screening of semis in industrial zones. And in fact, it is an Industrial zone and in fact, we believe it's a business where semis are used and facilities in Industrial zones. Quite often when placing Industrial zones and areas you give great thought to transportation. How are you going to locate them, how are you going to get semis in and out of it. Because I's just commonly known that every facility that is going to require by some degree or the other. It's how we move our product even from a small scale like ours to even a large scale. We did take some photographs to give you an idea on screening semi trailers in Industrial zones. We went into the south Industrial Park and started with the City shop, which starts the Industrial zoning and is I -zoning as well. We moved though that- Anthes: If you would hand them all to Hilary and she'll just pass them down. Zotti: Well, in regards to theses pictures, we start and quickly took a thirty minute drive through the Industrial Park. Starting with the City Shop facility, which is your entrance to your Industrial Park. This City Shop had several containers parked on a dirt, gravel area that was used for storage and has been for quite some time as storage. The Solid Waste Facility was using trailers at their composting facility. Moving into the Industrial Park, there are larger customers that use far more semis than we do and store in the same capacity as we do. Hannah's Candle, Superior Wheel, MarshalTown Tool, & I would thing that almost all facilities in one way or another. We took these photos from the road because the idea was screening. None of these facilities are screened. There were semis parked some in lots, some in the dirt, and some were actually parked in the road. And we think that the screening of trailers is going to have a large implication. Granted if you get enough complaints you go took at it. That's one our issues, if you tell us we have to do it. Now you got to tell Tyson Foods, Hannah's, & Superior and those guys. We just think it s a common use. Our second issue- Zotti (Scott): I've got a couple of comments on some of the pictures. I drove around - I mean the section of the code says specially that auto -salvaging yards, scrap metal yards, used furniture yards, and garbage dumps as specific examples as to what you're looking to be screened. And to me most of the semi Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 83 of 107 trailers don't fall into the same category if you're talking about Industrial use you typically expect semi trailers at an Industrial facility. I took the opportunity to drive around where else I could find semi trailers or other uses of outdoor storage that might be going on this City. And so that's basically 63 pictures I've taken here and I'm not gonna go into every one of them. The first page is an actual picture of the facility that the complaint has been driven on. And so that's page 1, page 2, 3, & 4 are examples of the same street or adjoining street down the same Ash Street. So that's some pictures of properties that go around this particular parcel. And as you can see, some of these could use some screening as well. And I would also like to point out that on page 7 and at the bottom of page 8, and at the top of page 9 are all examples of what I would term as outdoor storage. And that is all located all at the City Shop and if you look on the top of page 9, there is a semi trailer with the City of Fayetteville logo that is not screened at all. You make the ordinance and abide by the ordinance but when you have your own trailer setting out there, that kind of sets an example for other people. The rest of the pictures are taken through the Industrial park and other Industrial zones. And you typically find other semi trailers there. I don't agree with Jeremy's interpretation that semi trailers located in Industrial zones should be screened and in fact here are many places and things that aren't screened and could be thrown in while he is interpreting things. So that is basically what the pictures set out to do. Zotti: And the second issue is the ordinance itself and the use of this particular ordinance in regards to the response of the complaint. Specifically Mr. Pate read it and Scott did as well, but it specifically gave examples of salvage yard, scrap metal, used furniture, garbage dumps. That being said, we decided, it's a transportation business. And had we decided on this extra parcel to just start dumping metal for the purpose of recycling and processing and continue to dump that metal, then I could definitely envision the use of this ordinance to enforce screening. And it's very commonly grouped with this. However, we just think that the idea of semi trailers do not fit with this particular section of the ordinance. That being said, I've certainly worked at the City with 12 plus years. It's always tough to go against a staff recommendation, because we've worked with them and this is just his interpretation in telling us we need to screen this area. And we respect your Planning Division and in no way do we feel it's an argument or a disagreement. We, just for one, what we've done for twenty something years, the screening of semis is difficult for us to understand. And secondly we don't believe this ordinance fits well with what we do there. Your first picture is what we're talking about, in referencing salvage yards and metal yards. So with that I would be happy to answer questions. Anthes: Thank you very much. Would you pronounce your last name for me? Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 84 of 107 Zotti: It s Zotti. It's Italian. Anthes: Okay, let me ask you a question before you sit down. Have you addressed the issue of why no grading or drainage permit was pulled before work was done on this site? Zotti: No. The site was actually cleared before we owned it, before we purchased the property. It actually adjoins the property that was used in the semis. We actually just attempted to park the semis on it. It's a storage and movement of trailers, we don't use it for through fill driving. It's only got one way in. Given the time of year it was, the semis tended to sink, but not a lot. There not enough, their cargo is consistent, it's always the same product. We haul only two products and so when they started sinking we started gravel first. It was never our intent to make it an operation facility, a parking lot or anything like that. We just needed some where to stage our trailers. Like the pictures you'll see, sometimes they are on grass so it's a staging process. Anthes: In our staff report and in the photographs of our staff report, it's not just semi trailers we're seeing here but we're also seeing rows of porta-potties. Can you address that issue, because you haven't talked about that. Zotti: Sure, the porta-potties are also used. They are empty when they are stored there and again they are similar to the semis. In one of photos, like the propane tanks or the City shop photos probably have pictures of large roll off containers, which we have historically used. They remain on-site until a customer calls on them. So they are stored there until a customer calls for them. They're empty, logic will tell you that, they are not gonna haul them unless they are emptied. And so they sit there empty until a customer calls for them. I would say that ninety-eight percent of the use is for semis. But there some porta-potties that are stored there. Anthes: Thank you, Mrs. Zotti. Graves: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Graves. Graves: First of all this is slightly off topic but also on topic. This piece of property as I recall is very near to an item that was on our agenda several months ago or a year ago, where this body and the City Council elected to put a residential use and stick it right in the middle of an Industrial zone. I voted against it at the time and one of the reasons I voted against it was because I Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 85 of 107 accepted and believed what the applicant along with other existing businesses in the area told us. And that is these people are moving into an Industrial area and we're going to start getting complaints that affect a business that we have been doing in this area for some time. And so I'm a little bit concerned, because I see what was predicted to happen, is happening. That particular residential parcel is about ready to start selling units. And I don't know who the complainant was but I suspect I know who it was. And because they want to sell residential units and they don't want those folks to look at trailers. With that said, I don't think that the — I'm not sure that I accept that parking trailers on an Industrial parcel is a development of the property or an additional or new use of the property. Or that storing things inside of trailers parked on the property constitutes out door storage of material. You know maybe if it was like a salvage yard, where old junk vehicles were just sitting there on the property or scrap metal or something like that related to the business was just sitting there outside not covered in a tarp or not enclosed in a garage. That seems more like what outdoor storage of materials is related to. I'm not sure that parking a trailer is quote unquote materials or parking trailers is storing materials. I might see the argument with the porta-johns maybe they should be inside one of the trailers. But the trailers themselves, I don't those are materials or parking them is storing materials. My concern there is a knee jerk reaction that trailers are ugly and we want them screened but, again this is the area of town that where this has rationally been, with a heavier type of use and with truck traffic and near railroad tracks with rail traffic. This is an Industrial area, it might be the case as several Commissioners stated when we approved the residential use out there. This is an area that some folks want to target for redevelopment. But right now it's an Industrial area and so despite the knee jerk reaction, I mean here there are going to be a lot of trailers parked out there and there's going to be a lot of other things considered unsightly if it was a different area of town. But it is in this area of town, which is Industrial right now. And I just think that viewing this as something that ought to be screened is at the very least a very overly restrictive view or viewing things in a vacuum for what that area consists of and what the uses are in that area. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Graves. For clarification, Mr. Pate, the outdoor storage of materials. I believe we saw Conditional Use requests for outdoor storage of material in trailers at the Wal-Mart stores for lay -away. And we denied those requests, how do you view the storage of materials in those trailers as opposed to this. Pate: Those were not allowed because only the storage of material items are allowed in Industrial districts - warehousing type materials. So that was a Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 86 of 107 different zoning district entirely. It was required to place them in a structure as opposed to storing things. Anthes: Thank you, and in the photographs that were presented to us tonight. How many of these structures were built when the current zoning ordinance was in place? Pate: I could not answer that question at all, I'm sorry, I have not been around as long as many of them have been constructed. Williams: Is your and maybe Mr. Williams would know, is your feeling that most of these Industrial uses were around before we had zoning or any kind screening requirements? I guess I could ask the question another way. When did the requirement for screening of these uses come into effect? Williams: That's kind of a hard one too. I would think that the City's transfer station and the City's shop were built after we had at least some of these standards in effect. Obviously these standards change all the time. So it's very difficult to say, the rest of these buildings might be in effect at that point in time. But I think there were some screening requirements when I believe the City shop was in fact built. Anthes: I guess it's just really hard to evaluate a condition that exists, I mean we have a sign ordinance now we didn't use to. And there are signs that are existing before that sign ordinance but that doesn't mean we would permit those signs now. So I don't know how to evaluate these photographs based on whether they're allowed or not. Williams: Well in the signs as you well know are not grandfathered in anyway and if they're in violation of the sign ordinance, we're re still going to write a violation on that. Let me point out one thing that I think I have told you all before but, I want to tell you one other time. When courts look at zoning law and development law they all say it's "in derogation of the common law." What does that mean? That means that it's interpreted against the City. It has to be fairly clear in our favor or it's interpreted in favor of the property owner. So if there is a doubt, if there's a question, then the interpretation goes against us and must go in favor of the property owner. That is just one of those bedrock principles I think I have said that to you before to you in memos. I wanted to remind that to you because now we're talking interpretation of our own ordinances. If the ordinance is clear then you certainly interpret it as it clearly states. However, if it is unclear then you're trying to weigh it, then the weight should go to the property owner and not with the City. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 87 of 107 Anthes: Thank you Mr. Williams. Is there further discussion? Yes, Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Madam Chair, thank you. That really helps me because I don t really see anything in the administrative item that has much to with zoning. This could pertain to C 1 or C2, it's about defining spreading gravel and storing trailers as I understand it. If spreading gravel is defined as development, that sets in couple of dominos to fall over and things need to be screened. If you take that concept and simply multiply it, a guy buys 10 acres covers it in gravel and covers it in trailers. Then it's a type of development, it's not pretty, there's not curbs. But it's providing a service and he is using that land much differently. He can make money on it. He's invested money in it. The drainage is severely altered, I believe 5 or 4 inches of packed SP -2 water runs off almost like concrete. I think it's pretty clear to me that spreading gravel and parking trailers would be defined as development. Just one or the other, maybe not. If a guy goes and spreads gravel all over his yard, that's his landscaping. No, I don't think that's development. And if a guy just parks trailers in a field, he's not really investing in that land, he's just risking getting stuck in the mud all the time. But you put the two together and I do believe it's defined as development. Going through Jeremy's three bullet points on page 3 of 20 is helpful to me to try to understand this more clearly. It is an awkward place, but the way I understand it, it's not exactly the parking of trailers that's wrong. It's expanding the use without going through the permits. If this area hadn't been expanded then everything would simply be what it is today and there wouldn't fences or buffer strips required. Because it was basically grand fathered in, it's not conforming, we didn't know when it happened there it is. You have to wait for that guy to expand his project before you can kick in the rules. We see that all the time. It is a conflict, it is awkward for those building for those homes to be situated next to this Industrial area and I don't know if the guy building them is coming after these guys or not. I'm not really concerned about that as much as I am about the fairness of the rule. I believe I in in favor of option A - affirming the interpretation of the zoning. Graves: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I just have one more comment and it's not bickering or arguing. My concern with using development for this is how many square feet of gravel, one trailer, two trailers? When does it become development? Clearly when you add onto a building, you're developing under our ordinances. But in an Industrial area in particular, if you're parking one trailer out there is that Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 88 of 107 development? Is throwing down 20 SQ FT of gravel to park that one trailer on, is that development? I think that problem with using the term of development for what occurred here, is that's not as quite as clear cut as what it first seems. I just think that when you drive around this area, and the reason I've been down there I use to live there at the Law Quad many years ago. Recently using Kitchen Distributors, there are a lot of trailers parked out there and they are not screened and I understand that no one's filed a complaint against those folks and so maybe they're complaining and maybe they're not. But this area is what it is and I don't know if we want to go down the road of calling what occurs in the Industrial area with parking trailers in areas that are heavily traveled by trucks and semis hauling trailers as being development. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I am very thankful that Commissioner Graves reminded me of exactly where this is located. Because I remember very well our discussion about the residential units that are going in this area and I was adamantly opposed to it. For the exact same reason, the Industrial patrons had been there for a very long time are now going to be subject to noise ordinance violations, a plethora of potential issues. And I will look at your pictures which you provided us which I think it is great. And I think why isn't it an issue here, okay it's an issue here because they don't care, it's the Industrial Park. You're in a very unique situation, you're an Industrial zoned property in the middle of developing residential areas. And I'm struggling with it, because 9 times out of 10 I agree with Staff. But this time I don't know that you should be punished for what you haven't done because you didn't have to. And I don't know that anybody has proven to me that there was malice or forethought in terms of development when you put the gravel on it. And at the same time I think, why the heck wouldn't you want to screen it because these people are gonna gripe. So that's, I m just throwing that out there, not as a requirement, but as a why wouldn't ya. I don't think I agree to uphold or overturn, wait a minute, I'm voting for B. I don't see a clear enough case de facto to require this business in an Industrial area that is an Industrial client, to do something just because we have residential that is offended and at the same time my underlying comment is - screen it. Just to take this away, this is difficult, I mean as I'm listening to the discussion and Mr. Williams helped as well. And I sincerely hope this is not a signal of a trend of complaints against the Industrial tenants that are in that area. Like there was a moving company I remember clearly, I hope we don't see more of this. But for that reason I'm gonna stand my ground and be consistent and support the Industrial use. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 89 of 107 Anthes: Thank you Commissioner Clark. A question of staff, about the issues of development versus non -development. When a building is being added onto we have a calculation that says if x number of square foot or what percentage of that building is added onto, then that constitutes what, when development occurs and ordinances kick in? You know there's a percentage of modification that makes that kick in. With this site, I'm not sure how that works. And I am wondering because it says parcel. Has it been cleared and gravel put over the entire parcel? It sounds to me like there has been an expansion because the way that was stated. It sounds like that was an area that was not cleared and it was a smaller area of use before. And I guess I'm wondering is in this, has an expansion occurred and what percentage has expanded? Does that kick anything in as far as development? Pate: That really gets into chapter 169, which is Physical Alteration of Land and chapter 170 Storm Water Management of drainage and erosion control which are our Engineering chapters. And they subsequently refer to the drainage criteria manual which is not a part of our ordinance. There are exceptions, you don't have to get - they're very few. Five exceptions where no drainage permits are required. There's something for excavation below finish grade, such as a basement footing, swimming pool, hot tub, septic system, retaining wall, a cemetery grave is one, refuse disposal site, controlled by other regulations. A single family or duplex does not require a grading permit. Any building addition of less than two thousand square feet does not require a grading permit, but it obviously requires a building permit. So those are the five exceptions where a grading permit is not required, other than that it basically states that no grading, filling, excavation or land alteration of any kind shall take place without obtaining a permit. Obviously Commissioner Graves nailed it on the head when he said would a wheel barrel load of soil dumped onto garden require a grading permit? No. So where that line is drawn is fuzzy at best. I'm not sure that the drainage criteria manual helps in that regard anymore so. I did speak with our City Engineer and showed him photographs of the site. And I believe one of them visited the site with code compliance and stated that this property would require a grading permit to do what has been on the property. So in terms of this specific case, then yes, a grading permit would be required. But I can't answer in every situation on that. Anthes: Okay that wasn't my entire question though. A permit would be required, I guess there are two issues, is whether the work was done is actually meeting our ordinances. And I'm not sure on that and Engineering is not here to ask. But, my question is not that the grading occurred and that it would require a permit, but was there an expansion of the use with the grading that occurred. So was storage area added? Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 90 of 107 Pate: Yes. I don t think that's in dispute. I think there was an area that was not previously utilized for this use that is now utilized for this use. Anthes: And can you guess about what percentage of area improved? Pate: That I'm not sure about. Zotti: I can tell you a little bit about our operation. We move semis in and out, we had a state contract for waste tires- Anthes: I'm not really asking about your operation. I'm just wondering if you... Zotti: When you say expansion of operations that means growth to me. Anthes: How much land did you have covered in trailers before and how much land do you have covered with trailers now? Zotti: I think both properties are a little less than an acre. So that property is now utilized, there are as many trailers parked on the other, there are more on the new property. Anthes: So if you had a little less than an acre and then you expanded by a little less than an acre. So you've doubled the amount of storage? Zotti: Of land but you've got a building with eight docks out of it and that will hold 8 semi trailers and behind it you have a large area where you can hold up to 12 trailers. We can not physically get that many trailers on that particular parcel and get them out of there because there is only one way in. Anthes: I understand. I'm just purely trying to figure out how much land has been improved and it sound to me like have about doubled the capacity of storing trailers on this site by the grading and gravel addition. Is that a fair enough statement? Zotti: With all due respect, with semi trailers it s not as easy as it sounds. There is a building with eight docks that will hold trailers because you have access to get around the building and get them in and out. There's only one way to back a trailer in and get it off, so I can not put as many trailers on that acre as the old area. If that answers your question. And whether this helps or not, if you went to the site there is less than 2 inches of gravel. We did not compact gravel, we did not change the slopes in anyway. We were parking trailers before the gravel and so what loads we had provided less than 2 Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 91 of 107 inches over the entire lot. If you went out there today you would probably see the dirt. Clark: Did you grade it or was it graded before you bought it. Zotti: It wasn't graded, not in an engineered manner no, it was not and we didn't grade it. It was a fairly smooth, it was a wooded area I suppose, it was more shrub I suppose and he cleaned it up to sell it. And in cleaning it up, do you brush hog around a few trees or just do you take them all out. And that's what it came down to and then again with us moving on we just put these semi trailers on it. And it seemed to work except that it was a little bit of a soddy season and we put gravel down. But again, it was less than two inches of gravel. Ostner: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Mr. Pate, is this body empowered to basically work up an item to give them a variance that would not deal with your interpretation. I'm just trying to separate the two issues. Their issue and your interpretation. Pate: A variance from just screening essentially? Ostner: Basically. Pate: I believe so. Typically development requirements under variance sections can be granted thereof by the Planning Commission. Under chapter 156. Ostner: Okay, I would - in trying to share my concerns a little more thoroughly - I would be very willing to make a motion to give them a variance so they don't have to do screening. My reasoning is, there is a car dealer on highway 62; I'm simply painting a picture; who has a proper car lot. And there is a nice flat 3 acres right next to him. And he spreads gravel for a week and parks cars to sell them. Today Jeremy couldn't stop him if we over turn Jeremy's interpretation. I believe that guy spreading gravel to promote his business ought to come through the proper channels. Now it's not fair what they're having to do. Here's Jeremy's interpretation and here's their issue. Let's give them a break and uphold Jeremy's interpretation. Because spreading gravel and making a whole bunch of money off of it should come through the some channels. Who's with me? Anthes: Where do the porta-potties fit into that? Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 92 of 107 Ostner: You're storing materials and making money. It's the same issue, Lowes puts lawn tractors out front, it s called storage of materials. These guys put Bryant: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes. Bryant: I have questions for the applicants. Seeing how you're bringing trailers in and out and you got eight dock spaces. Are you running day cabs or over the road? Zotti: We do have some of both. Bryant: Okay, how would the drop trailers that are on your lot, how often do you turn a trailer? Zotti: Probably every day or maybe three days they would sit on that particular lot. Actually most of those trailers, and I know you don't want these kind of details, I apologize, most of them go to Oklahoma. You can only make a few turns, it s a small business and so with only two drivers. The trailers that you saw, the turns can only happen 3 or 4 days. It's not you got 10 trailers moving every 3 or 4 days maybe. Bryant: So there's a possibility that at least one trailer is there for a week. Zotti: Well, you would hope not but there could be circumstances. Bryant: If you're running 2 drivers or 1 -one day and run one the next day, you're turning a trailer every other day. I'm just kind of looking at this strictly in the picture. From the other trailers that are there, that's strictly holding the waste tires which explains them sinking back there. That trailer's probably sitting at 38 to 40,000 pounds. So if you're turning one of these every three to four days or at least once a week. So you are storing on your property at least a week. Zotti: There could be instances where there is a week. They try to turn them every 3 days to get them to the mill. Those trailers typically never weigh over 10 ton. Just do you know. You can put a lot of tires on there and you hope to get as much because your transporting them so far. So maybe 20,000 pounds are sitting on them right now. Bryant: Okay. So you don t have a full trailer if you got 20,000 pounds on there. Because they bulge out on the sides as well. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 93 of 107 Zotti: That's right and each tire weighs maybe 25 pounds, a car tire. A truck tire weighs more but you get less on the trailer because they're big. So a typical trailer might be 8 tons, we try real hard to get 10 tons because it s going to Oklahoma so we can maximize fuel. Ostner: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Well I'm gonna try to do something here. I would like to do this in two parts. I would like to support Jeremy but I would also like to give them a waiver or a variance in this case. I just formed a motion, can't really create an item, it seems that it's really separate from what we have in front of us. Williams: Well, you could probably, depending on if you get majority vote, go ahead and affirm the interpretation of the Zoning and Development Administrator and at the same time create a variance for the applicant so that they would not have to provide screening on these trailers on this lot. I think if your fellow Commissioners agree with you, than I think you could probably do that even though it is unusual. It has not been advertised and I would also ask Jeremy if he feels like there would be procedural problems in doing that. Pate: I don't think procedurally the item was advertised to get on the agenda. It was advertised as a variance. I do think that under our variance section, that you would need to discuss or describe that the situation is unique to the property and you may grant a variance if you find undue hardship. And on a temporary or a permanent basis to the development from that provision so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest secured. I'm not sure if that's not screening trailers but screening porta-potties or moving the porta-potties to a different part of the site so that they're not visible to the public right-of-way or however you decide is appropriate here. So that's entirely up to you. Ostner: Okay. Graves: Madam Chair, may I ask a question. Ostner: Sure. Graves: I'm just curious can it all be in one motion because I may vote one way on whether we're affirming or not. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 94 of 107 Williams: If I was gonna present it. I would present it all in one motion if I thought I had a chance to pass it. Motion: Ostner: That's exactly what I would like to do. I would like to first state that I do think there is undue hardship on this applicant. Being in an Industrial zone means you work on gravel and you store trailers and that's supposed to be okay. And it's unique to this property, because this land adjacent to it has recently been rezoned to a residential non -industrial use. And furthermore, the interpretation, not only here at City Hall but City-wide has been pretty clear you can spread gravel and park things and not have to go through red tape. And suddenly maybe we should go through the red tape, so it was unclear to the applicant and I see that. So that is my statement on the variance and I would just like to make a motion that we, on ADM 06-2276 we affirm the interpretation of the Zoning and Development Administrator on his interpretation on these sets of rules, while granting a variance to this particular applicant, to allow this operation to continue without screening. Trumbo: Second. Anthes: Motion by Commissioner Ostner with a second by Commissioner Trumbo. I'm not going to try to restate what that was. Is there further discussion? I agree, in principal with what you just did and the motion. To me though, I keep coming down to what is defined as development and I've got to say that I've got to hold the line here when this goes through and say that when you double your area for use or any use and you acquire a new piece of property to do so, I have to go with that as being defined as development and that I believe that kicks ordinance review into place. That would be my reason to vote against this option. Anthes: Okay, is there further discussion? Will you call the role? Roll Call: The ADM 06-2276 for Zotti Appeal was approved by a vote of 7-1-0 Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 95 of 107 ADM 06-2294: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: (USE UNITS): THE REQUEST IS TO ADD USE UNIT #15, NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING GOODS, WITHIN THE R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. Pate: This is a request to recommend approval to amend the Unified Development Code Chapter 161.15 B-2 specifically, which is the R -O Residential Office zoning district. This would include use unit #15, which is neighborhood shopping goods as a conditional use as I described at the agenda session. Neighborhood shopping goods as a use unit that is less intense than your general shopping goods. Use unit 15 is allowed by right in all commercial zoning districts: C-1, C-2, C-3, & C-4. It is not allowed by conditional use by any of those. In our review of this unit 15, there are many uses that we feel would be appropriate in a residential office district with appropriate conditions and safeguards in place to protect adjoining neighbors specifically. Those things include a book store, a bakery, jewelry store, a potential hardware store, a pet shop, optical goods, tailoring, dry cleaning is only allowed by use unit 15. Some of these uses would obviously be objectionable and that's why we're not proposing a use by right And things we would look at for conditional use would be hours of operation, time of delivery of service vehicles, & potentially all of those issues we look at with an eating establishment, which is also a conditional use in that zoning district. We feel this is consistent with CityPlan 2025, which is to encourage a more diverse mixture of uses. Additionally there are several residential office areas in the City, there are offices currently, you can't walk to the bakery, you can t walk to the dry cleaning office on your time off at lunch if you wanted to do so. You have to get in your car and drive to the commercial node and drive back. So I think where appropriate, there are certainly some uses that could be considered as a conditional use. So we are recommending that this be added into that R -O zoning district as a conditional use. Motion: Clark: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I move that we approve ADM 06-2294 as eloquently explained. Trumbo: Second Anthes: Motion to forward by a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there any discussion? Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 96 of 107 Ostner: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: We should call for public input even though there is no one here. Anthes: There's no public here and there is no other applicant here so let's state for the record that unless the camera man would like speak. Clark: They want to speak on the time limit. Anthes: I'll close the public comment section and ask for the vote. Roll Call: The ADM 06-2294 for Use Units was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 97 of 107 ADM 06-2283: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (PLANNNG COMMISSION BY-LAW AMENDMENT) REQUESTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS INCLUDE LIMITING TIME FOR PRESENTATIONS/PUBLIC COMMENT, CLARIFYING RULES FOR ABSTENTION FROM VOTING, AND ADDING RULES FOR ADDING ITEMS TO A FINAL AGENDA. Pate: I presented this item at our last meeting and very few changes have been made with the exception of those that were noted. The amendments that are included are abstaining members to withdraw from the Planning Commission meeting room, essentially to not speak on their respective item until a vote has been cast by the remaining members of the Commission. Following a vote concerning the matter, the abstaining member may return to his seat. Pretty straight forward language I think, as requested from the Commission. Also some housekeeping items, Item H under article 3 talks about presentation by applicant on an item. Consideration shall be limited, confined to the information pertinent to the application - which I believe the Planning Commission does already, this just sort of puts it into the by- laws - and shall be limited to a period of time that not exceeds 20 minutes, that would be for the applicant only. Speaking time limit of 10 minutes per citizen or 20 minutes per neighborhood group shall be enforced by the chair. And all comments should be direct to information pertinent to the application as determined by the Chair. And then an extent ion could be permitted by the Chair upon petition. Item M adds essentially what we did a few weeks ago, by adding the item at the Planning Commission agenda by super majority or two thirds of the voting members. If the item has met all notification requirements of the Unified Development Code, that will be very rare I anticipate and very rare at the City Council level and it's simply following that procedure. If there is an item, primarily an administrative item that did not get on the agenda for whatever reason and time is critical. In article 4 subsection C, I also went through the subdivision committee procedure. The Chair shall designate three teams of 3 Planning Commissioners to alternate as subdivision committee members along with a Chair of each subdivision committee. All six members shall be eligible as alternates. So essentially as our current practice is in place it is reflective of that. In terms of public comment, obviously Ms. Allen was here earlier and she expressed her opinions. We received no public comment tonight at least as I have it noted on my chart and it was a very long agenda with some very difficult items to get through. So just keep that in mind as you're looking at this. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Pate, again I don t see any members of the public unless one of camera men would like to address this item. Seeing none I will close floor to public comment and ask for anybody's comment. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 98 of 107 Trumbo: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes. Trumbo: Item E, discussion of abstaining members, while I think every member of the public, including Planning Commissioners, should be able to discuss their own projects, if they have a project coming through, I understand the conflict of interest that might appear. Though reluctantly, I am going to agree to this. I still think that if you have a project, that is your project and you can answer the questions that the public might have or the Planning Commission better than anyone else. You ought to be allowed to do that so I have some reservation but I don't see any solution. It needs to be clear, defined, moving forward. So unless somebody has a better solution. I will reluctantly support that. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Harris: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Harris. Harris: I actually do have a discussion concerning the time limit. I certainly understand why one would like to consider it. I just simply do believe that the weight of democracy at the municipal level is such that it goes on the other side and we're placing here. And I would prefer that we did not put time limits and that it would be up to the Chair's discretion to say when someone was repeating. And I understand that that could easily look like a discriminatory practice of some sort. And I understand for the 10 and 20 but, I'm gonna say tonight that I would prefer not to have that time limit in there. Anthes: I would like to remind Commissioners that I guess about last year we did we have another amendment that was proposed to our by-laws limiting the time to much smaller, 3 minutes per member of the public and 10 minutes per applicant. That motion failed that amendment failed. We've been watching the time limit that people have been speaking since then and it appears to us that as we discuss the possibility of making this amendment that 10 and 20 minutes seem to be ample time for ninety some odd percent of anybody speaking. But, it would curtail those that tend to use floor for other purposes and we wanted to have the means to control that a little better. And have it be an expectation so that everyone would know and we obviously would put in the extension as a way to get around that if there Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 99 of 107 was some issue that required longer time. We wouldn't be cutting it off but that we would allow that extra time by petition. Graves: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I would agree with the comments. I didn't know that we had been actually monitoring it. But I believe that what happens sometimes is when we have particular contentious items, obviously we have more speakers on those items but we sometime have some individuals who want to try to lengthen the meeting to the point of not voting on it simply because they're opposed to a contentious item or at least that's my suspicion of their motivations because it seems like we're getting filibustered instead of actually having constructive comments to provide. And that's obviously not the case in 99% of the situations, but we do have from time to time and they may not repeat themselves. They just may be really good of talking about a lot of things related about that project and go on and on and on. And we can't move forward as a body and other members of the public can't speak on it because they get tired and go home and they get frustrated with the whole process. And so I'm supportive of the time limits because I am thinking that they are more than adequate in almost every situation that we encounter. Clark: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I respect former Commissioner Allen's position on this and since she was my mentor, I opposed time limits. When the first time we voted on it, I felt compelled to explain why I'm gonna change my mind. I have noticed that there are some people and they're aren't that many of them, who have filibustered us. They have also gotten into a barrage of personal attacks and I am hopeful that by giving them a known time limit, just the phrase alone, they will rein their comments in to be on point and specific. I will point out that this amendment does not prohibit or limit the number of people who speak. It just limits the amount of time they can speak and having been, once upon a time as speech teacher, who has sat through a number of good and bad speeches, I can tell you that 10 minutes is as intimidating as heck. And I'm thinking that there are a lot of folks out there that don't even come close to that. But if they do and they re salient and on point, the Chair can still extend their time. But if not and they are off course and getting into a barrage of personal attacks that we don't need to be a part of, the Chair now has something substantive to point to reign them back in. If this does Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 100 of 107 not work or gets abused in any shape, form, or fashion then I think we can bring it back to discuss it again. But hopefully this will set much clearer expectations. The only thing that I am in the least bit disappointed in is that we're giving the applicant 20 minutes. Because oh my gosh, that just sounds like a lot and I hope that people don't think that they have to take that. Because by the time this project gets to us, some of us have seen it as many as three times. Subdivision, Agenda, and here. And sometimes an applicant can speak too much and shoot themselves in the foot if they go too long and raise questions that I would never have thought of So timeliness and being succinct I think are very important and I hope that we're not sending a message to applicants that we really want to hear you for twenty minutes. So I am going to change my vote on time limits. I think that the rest the changes in the document are very good. And especially the subdivision system which I think is working out wonderfully well and is not burdening anybody with six months of incarceration. Motion: Trumbo: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: I would echo Commissioner Clark's statements and make a suggested amendment to item H and third sentence a speaking time limit of no more than 10 minutes per citizen or 20 minutes per neighborhood group shall be enforced by the Chair. I would like to add no more than, to make it clear you certainly know how to fill the 10 or 20 minutes. Anthes: Motion to amend by Commissioner Trumbo, do I hear a second? Clark: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Clark. Is there discussion? Will you call the role. Roll Call: The motion to amend ADM 06-2283 for Planning Commission By -Law Amendment was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Motion: Clark: Madam Chair I'll make the motion that we approve ADM item 06-2283. Anthes: Do I hear a second? Trumbo: Madam Chair, I'll second. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 101 of 107 Anthes: We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Clark with a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there discussion? Ostner: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Mr. Pate, on item M an item may be added for consideration to a final agenda of Planning Commission, etc, etc. Am I assuming that is the current final agenda at that moment to be heard or final agenda in 2 weeks. If we're sitting on agenda on Thursday, is that where we're discussing this or are you seeing this as a Monday night discussion? Pate: This is primarily as a Monday night discussion. If an item comes before you on the Agenda session, you don't know when it - actually no one takes vote at an Agenda session - so you can add an item. Ostner: We do go around the room and say yah or nay on the consent. Pate: Right. Ostner: Which is similar to adding or throwing out. Pate: Right, but there not any official motions or seconds or any votes taken at an Agenda session, because it s not a public hearing. It's public but not a public hearing. So if there is something at the Agenda session that you would like to add, then I think it is perfectly appropriate and fine to do just as we do now. We don't typically do that very often, but if someone has something they would like to add, it's a matter of notification requirements that I think would be fine to just to add to the Agenda session and can be published with the final agenda. Anthes: Mr. Pate, is this the same language that is in City Councils by-laws regarding this? Pate: I looked at some of their by-laws and did not actually find language that discusses that very much. It may be that they have a standard practice also but I didn't get too involved in that. Ostner: Okay so maybe we should at least clarify that. An item maybe added for consideration to... Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 102 of 107 Pate: At the Planning Commission meeting to the final agenda planning commission at the meeting. Ostner: At the same meeting. I'm not sure how to phrase it Anthes: Do we ever see a final agenda other than at our meeting? Pate: No. It's a tentative agenda. Graves: It could say "an item may only be added for consideration at a meeting of the Planning Commission by the affirmative vote of two-thirds." Something like that. Trumbo: Add only — "may only be." Clark: Jeremy, is there anything that we consider that does not require notification? Pate: There is. Administrative items, I believe final plats do not require notification because preliminary plats have already been approved and you're just certifying that they built what they said they were going to build. I can t think of anything else. Ostner: I'm just kind of throwing it out there because we do have the option with this being added to not add items at the last minute. And simply say, okay we're going to add it in 2 weeks and I'm going to say something in a moment. I'm gonna propose that we add something to our next agenda. But this is clarifying the issue of, are we gonna add things at the last minute to this meeting tonight or are we not. Graves: See if this works. "No item not on a final agenda may be added for consideration at the meeting of the Planning Commission except by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the voting members." Ostner: Or we could just throw out the double negative. Only items... Graves: I tried to figure out how to do it without the double negative. I don't think there was a way as clear as what you were hoping for. Ostner: That sounds fine. No item shalt be added for consideration to a final agenda at the... Graves: At the meeting, that's what we're getting at. You can't do it at the meeting unless... Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 103 of 107 Ostner: Unless there're two-thirds. That sounds good to me. Anthes: Will Commissioners Clark and Trumbo accept that as friendly amendment to their motion? Clark: Thinking about it. Trumbo: Yes. Clark: I'm starting to get hungry, Trumbo: Yes, I will agree to it. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Will you call the role? Pate: Can I just read that back real quick? Anthes: I'm sorry. Pate: No item shall be added for consideration at the meeting to a final agenda of the Planning Commission accept by the affirmative vote of two-thirds. Ostner: How about the meeting at hand? Anthes: More words. I guess my question is that I don t think that we see a final agenda except at our meetings. So I don't know that anywhere to vote. I don't know if this is... Ostner: Labeled a tentive agenda. Graves: We get the tentative circulated and we don't get the final one until after Agenda anyway. Pate: Correct. Graves: Because we don't decide what is on consent and what's not until at agenda. Ostner: I know that's what we call it. But if a guy runs in at 8 am on Friday after we have done agenda and he wants on. What does Jeremy say? Clark: Why don't we flip this and think about this. An item which has met all notification requirements in the Unified Development Code may be added Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 104 of 107 to the final agenda of the Planning Commission during a meeting only by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the voting members. Anthes: That sounds fantastic. Ostner: Did you catch that? Pate: I'll get that after. Anthes: Will you call the role? Roll Call: ADM 06-2283 for Planning Commission By -Law Amendment was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Anthes: I have one announcement. Alderman Cook and I have requested staff to bring forward multi -family design standards for discussion and consideration in your review. And I want you to know that will be coming forward and to be thinking what you think about that. And does anybody else have any other discussion? Graves: Madam Chair? Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Graves. Graves: I just have a request of staff in my continuing warfare on people adding, tabling things and them being on later agendas. Because it's also my thought process that if you see yourself at the end of the agenda and you don't want to be here all night that you might elect to tell somebody that you want to table it so you end on the top of the agenda the next time under old business. And that is that they at least have a reason that's presented to us for why they're requesting the table. So that whenever you tell us they want to table it, you also tell us why they want to table it. Pate: Certainly. Graves: So we can factor that into our decision. Pate: Very good. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Madam Chair two weeks ago we denied a R-PZD, I believe it was called Stadium Center. I'd like to propose that we reconsider their completely revamped proposal. Did everyone see the drawings? I tried to pass them Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 105 of 107 around earlier. The density is, it says it on there, 6.9 units per acre. The street on the west side goes straight through all the way to the commercial district. Those drawings aren't binding but that is close to what he would present if tonight we voted in favor of putting it on another agenda. Anthes: I want a clarification from Staff. I think before we voted on that item, we asked if they could bring it back with major modification. Is that what we're seeing here and do we need a motion to reconsider in that case? Pate: This was denied so unless they appealed, it was dead in the water. Anthes: I m sorry. There were several that night that were pretty confusing. Clark: Madam Chair. Trumbo: Madam Chair. Ostner: I'll be glad to answer any questions. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: I have a question before we go any further. I recused from this item at the meeting. Do I need to recuse from this discussion as well? Anthes: Yes, I think so. Trumbo: Then I'm going home. Ostner: I would have to say no, since you're voting on an item but ... [laughter] Anthes: And you were here? Clark: Yes. Anthes: And you were here? Not here? Ostner: Yes, I have to, in order to bring it up tonight. Anthes: So, have you officially moved to reconsider? Motion: Ostner: Well yes, I'll make a motion that we reconsider Stadium Center, the Residential Planned Zoning District with these sketches being a hint of Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 106 of 107 what the development is going look like when they come forward. Anthes: Ok, do I have a second? Lack: I'll second it. Anthes: We have a motion to reconsider by Commissioner Ostner with a second by Commissioner Lack, is there a discussion? Clark: I think this is cool. I think the developers are, I appreciate them coming back to us. I wasn't here for the original vote, but I appreciate them coming back here to let us have another shot at it. I think that it's just cool. Ostner: If you vote to reconsider, you in no way shape or form, have to vote for it. It's simple to bring it back to the docket. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Can you call roll? Roll: The motion to reconsider Stadium Center with the sketches in hand was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Pate: I would like to clear one quick question, where would you like this on your agenda? Should we place it where we could or place it in old business? How would you like it? Anthes: Where would you typically put it? Pate: Typically old business, if it's coming back. What we could do is put it in new business and lump it with the PZD's at the end or however you like it. Lack: A reconsideration is not necessary old business. Pate: Ok, we'll put it on new business. Ostner: I wonder if it even needed to start at Subdivision again, it was a question for Jeremy. I think it's significant enough to warrant. Pate: Obviously the density has changed and the types of units have changed. We have spoken with the applicant about this before, I believe presented it to you, I think we wilt be able to work through everything by the submittal deadline which is Monday. They still have the week to work, I think we will just need the time to work on details, so I think we will be able to get this done. Planning Commission October 09, 2006 Page 107 of 107 Anthes: So, does that mean you do want to see this at Subdivision or not? Pate: I think we can have everything hammered out at Planning Commission level. I think we identified all the issues at the denial stage and staff had recommended all the conditions. Really, it's just a matter of updating the booklets and plats. Anthes: Everybody comfortable with that? Ostner: I would be fine with that. Anthes: Ok. Clark: At Subdivision? Ostner: No, it's going to skip Subdivision. Anthes: At Planning Commission with the PZD's at the end. Clark: Ok Anthes: Alright. Pate: One quick thing, if you all can keep your Maynard plats, that's the item that was tabled. Ostner: Andy threw everything away. Lack: Somebody has it. Anthes: Alright, we are adjourned.