Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-30 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on March 30, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN Note: Partial minutes Subdivision Committee March 30, 2006 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Candy Clark Jill Anthes Audy Lack STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher Matt Casey/Engineering Sarah Patterson/Urban Forester Subdivision Committee March 30, 2006 Page 3 Item 12 on Agenda LSD 06-1997: Large Scale Development (DIVINITY HOTEL & CONDOS, 484): Submitted by 112 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at 101 W DICKSON, BETWEEN CHURCH AND BLOCK. The property is zoned C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.41 acres. The request is for a 16 -story mixed use building with a hotel, restaurant, retail space, parking garage and condominiums with a total of 165 residential dwelling units. Garner: This property is located on Dickson Street between Church Avenue and Block Avenue. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and contains about 1.4 acres. A single -story commercial building, called Something Urban, was removed a day or two ago from this property. There is also a single -story house on Church Avenue that occupies the property. To get your bearings, to the north is Colliers Drug Store and the U. S. Post Office. The applicant proposes a 15 -story, 225 feet in height, multi -use building that would cover approximately 97% of the site. The primary function of the structure would be a 142 -room boutique hotel with some condominium units, retail space, restaurant and a bar. Amenities that would be included with the hotel would be a pool, fitness facility, ballroom, banquet and meeting facilities. On page 2 in your Staff report is the breakdown of square footages and required parking spaces. Right now the numbers that were submitted for Subdivision Committee, they have a deficiency in the parking and subsequent to the revisions, we met with the applicant and we feel that the parking spaces would be able to be provided. There was some discrepancies in the square footages of the numbers, so if we correct that, they won't have a deficiency with the next revision. Access to this site would be directly off of Church Avenue and Block Avenue with a 333 -space parking space parking deck incorporated into the structure. The project would also provide a 20' public alley linking the existing alley to Church Avenue. If you remember the Pettus vacation that went before the Planning Commission, this is the project associated with that. Street improvements: Staffrecommendations include installing a left-hand turn lane at the traffic light at Dickson Street and St. Charles and improving sidewalks to a minimum of 10' on all street frontages. The Park and Recreation Advisory Board recommended taking money in lieu to meet the parkland dedication requirements. I will let the Director of Planning, Jeremy Pate, go over Planning Division recommendations with regard to the Commercial Design Standards for this structure. We have several boards up here. Pate: I believe it is apparent to Staff that this project fulfills most of the requirements if not all of our codes and ordinances with regard to building setbacks, zoning, where the uses of property — I think the uses are Subdivision Committee March 30, 2006 Page 4 compatible. We welcome a mixed-use project on Dickson Street I think that is supported by our current plans in place, General Plan 20/20 and our ordinances. Under C-3 that does allow for a mixture of uses as well as the proposed Downtown Master Plan and zoning code. That being said, most of the discussion for this project will center around Commercial Design Standards as it did with the project just down the street for Underwood Lofts. It is my interpretation of the Unified Development Code that height can be considered as part of Commercial Design Standards. That is based upon the fact that a Commercial building by ordinance should "provide compatibility and transition between adjoining development in construction and appearance". I think it is hard pressed to argue that a building height does not affect appearance and that is why the determination and interpretation has been made. This project proposes a structure that is approximately 225' in height and 15 stories. This is obviously much higher than anything we have currently in the vicinity of Dickson Street although it does have some compatibility with projects both approved and in place in the downtown core area here around the Square. In terms of the recent project that was approved Monday night on Dickson Street, that project was approximately 50' lower in elevation than this project. It was also approximately 115' in height, over 100' shorter. We worked from October until this Monday night with the applicant to get to the Planning Commission level of approval in terms of trying to reduce height, utilizing materials and design approach that transitions from the surrounding non-traditional architectural styles, fitting into context the site in terms of massing and pedestrian scale. A number of those items were able to be addressed and hopefully some of the drawings you have before you that the architects and applicant will present will help the case as well for this project. We have met with the applicant and via conference call with HKS who is the architect on this project explaining our recommendations which ultimately are to decrease the height in an effort to meet the Commercial Design Standards in terms of transition and compatibility. I do want to reiterate that a mixed-use project is certainly welcomed on this site and we look forward to recommending the project on this site. We have discussed in many instances how Commercial Design Standards are applied and how they should be applied uniformly. My recommendation to the Planning Commission is that they should be applied uniformly. It also has to be based on the context of the site on which the proposed structure is located though. Again, last Monday night the Planning Commission recommended a fully metal building that meets Commercial Design Standard or waives a portion of the Commercial Design Standards, however, that was in the industrial park. I think the context in which a building is located is indeed important in providing transition and compatibility. We are recommending at this time tabling this LSD. We did want to bring it to the Subdivision Committee for some review and some comments from three members of the nine -member Subdivision Committee March 30, 2006 Page 5 Commission I think it is important to point out at this point, and though we haven't had any discussion between the applicants and Subdivision Committee yet, that if it comes to simply a disagreement, the Subdivision Commission finds it does not meet Commercial Design Standards, the applicant does not wish to change the building and they would wish to proceed to the Planning Commission, I would highly recommend that it proceed to the Planning Commission. Even if the Subdivision Committee recommends denial, simply because we have been in this situation before where an applicant and the Subdivision Committee simply disagree — it happens to the Parks Boards for instance. The Parks Board disagrees with a recommendation by applicant, we let the Planning Commission make that determination. So I would welcome the discussion on this project today and hopefully we can come to some terms even if it is tabling and we can work out some solutions — decreasing the height, stepping back off of Dickson Street, Block and Church, all three of which are public rights- of-way, I think that would be wonderful. Again, like I mentioned, Staff looks forward to supporting a project on this site if we feel it can adhere to Commercial Design Standards. We do feel like it meets the majority of them and Condition #1 states the four criteria, unpainted concrete precision block walls, square, boxlike structures, metal siding which dominates the main facade, and large out of scale signs with flashy colors. I think it meets all of those. We are recommending some changes with regard to that. Condition #2 — outlines, as you are all aware and have questioned me before the meeting, why this item is on this agenda with relationship to the ninety -day stay. Again, as I mentioned earlier, Staff wanted to bring this project to the Subdivision Committee to get some feedback from you with regard to Commercial Design Standards and the project in general, and there is an item before the City Council Tuesday night to waive that stay to allow this project to go forward. If that is waived by the City Council, this would be on your next Planning Commission meeting, if this project is forwarded. Other than that, other conditions of approval are pretty straight forward — determination of street improvements, mostly pedestrian improvements in this area with the exception of a turn lane on Dickson Street. I did pass out a traffic evaluation analysis that was completed by Carter, Burgis, that was just passed out to use today and that will be in your final Staff report for Planning Commission as well. There are a couple of waivers of some drive aisles, some of which can be worked out internally. I think is it a matter of discrepancy on where they are measured and if not, those would be waivers for four driveway widths and for the entry curb radii on all of the driveways that are proposed. There are some plat changes which are minor as well and the rest of the conditions are pretty straight forward. Casey (Eng.) The only additional comment I have to what Jeremy stated about the traffic is that the applicant needs to be aware that the water and sewer Subdivision Committee March 30, 2006 Page 6 system will need to be evaluated at the time of construction plans to determine if any off-site improvements are necessary. That is all I have. Patterson: I would like to state that mitigation will be required to replace 9,252 square feet of canopy. On-site mitigation will be difficult with this site so Staff is recommending that $5,500 be deposited into the tree escrow account before issuing the building permit. Lack: May we have any public comments on this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the applicant for presentation. Hennelly: Tom Hennelly with H2 Engineering and Eddie Abata with HKS and Brandon Barber the owner of the project. Barber: I want to thank all of you — I know this is a volunteer position and I appreciate what you guys do. I have been watching the Planning Commission and City Council, we have obviously, the Barber Group, taken some very large projects through over the past couple of years. I think we have been very diverse in our different developments, specifically, Wellsprings that has come through, and we have finally given Fayetteville some attainable housing. As you know, you passed Bellafont Phase II onto City Council the other night and is has to be a huge economic boost for that mixed use development and basically wanted to introduce myself briefly. I know we will be talking awhile about this project so I want to be brief; I know you guys are hungry, too. I just want to make sure you guys understand that we have been here for twelve years which is not an eternity by any means but we are citizens of Fayetteville, we are glad to live in Fayetteville. Inside our company which is growing fast have always wanted a boutique hotel in downtown Fayetteville. I think we will be talking about the specifics about Dickson Street but to us, downtown Fayetteville to Downtown Master Plan and just not a Dickson Street master plan. I think Dickson Street — obviously that address, we respect that historical part of Dickson. We also respect that Dickson is not what it used to be I think one of the most important things for me and our staff was to - we wanted a boutique hotel that residents and Fayetteville can enjoy another great restaurant, spa, mixed-use development. We also want something for our own recruitment, our professors, our medical and our development business. We love and are proud of Fayetteville. We want a place to put them up to stay that we can proud of and I think the timing is right to have a first-class hotel on Dickson Street and thirdly, I think we can't be naive to the growth anymore to what is happening in Benton County. A majority of the people that are coming in are landing in Bentonville or Highfill and the goal is going to be to get them to Fayetteville to stay, eat, drink, work, but specifically to play and create that destination of Dickson because that is one of the few hooks that we've Subdivision Committee March 30, 2006 Page 7 got with the University I think it is very imperative that we embrace the University and the cultural side and this is something we need. As we all know about what is happening in Bentonville and the big museum. It is just a matter of convenience. I think we decided to build this hotel with the rules and regulations that were given to me. I think Jeremy said it very well to where we have always dealt with the Planning Department in a very respectful way. We are not confrontational by nature which we know • we are going to be talking about specific words of height, compatibility and use, but this is a hotel we want to build by the rule book in our opinion and the zoning that you have given us. And lastly, we want to make this an economic debate. I think the reality of it is, is that we can't continue to not embrace these types of projects. I feel like we are talking out of both sides by saying we want mixed use development but we want it this way when we look at the fact that this a condo/hotel. We are bringing the retail, bringing the street scape, looking at the goals of 2008 and I'm looking at all the different things that this is and I think it is a critical time in Fayetteville to see what happens on this project which is why we want to build this project the way it is, because we think we have been responsible, we have C-3 zoning. We have limited room inside our site, but we think it is a critical time to have from the Mountain Inn which is not a privately funded development, to Divinity down to this Underwood Development, there is an opportunity to have these critical points in downtown Fayetteville and we understand that this is a pioneering development but we hope that everyone will be open minded and that we will have a very respectful debate. Hennelly: I would like to go over some of the contentions I guess, that we had with some of the recommendations and the conditions of approval. Obviously the height as Brandon stated, the economics of this determine what kind of square footage you need to make a project like this work. We started out with 22 stories was the initial estimate and we got down to 15. In regards to Condition #1, we understand there is disagreement toward the application of Commercial Design Standards. Staff is recommending that the height be stepped back from three to four stories along Dickson Street. We have done that. The setback of the floors above that four-story may not be as significant as what Staff is looking for or what you all are looking for, but we would like to point out that the things that are specific to the Commercial Design Standards and all four of them are listed there for you and you are well aware of them. We feel like we have met these, we feel like Eddie has done a great job of articulating this thing and not making it look like a Large glass structure that was just set on the outline of the property. The further articulation of the south facade is no problem — that can be done through a variety of ways and we are happy to work towards that. The traffic study — we did get the traffic study this morning. We apologize for getting it Last minute. The impact of this development Subdivision Committee March 30, 2006 Page 8 on the traffic around there based on the review by Carter Burgis is minimal. It does recommend a left-hand turn lane onto St. Charles from eastbound Dickson. That was already a recommendation by Matt from Engineering and we have agreed to do that to the maximum extent as possible. I don't know that in the area that is available, Matt, whether we can get two full 12' lanes or maybe it would be some configuration there that would accomplish that. But sure enough, we are willing to do that. There are couple of waiver requests that we would like your consideration on. The driveway widths — normally. these are 15' drives one way drives are the standard. This is somewhat of an unusual situation in that these one-way drives are meant for the delivery drop off, check in, that type of thing, so there is an occasion where a vehicle will pull in — you will have a car parked for a number of minutes and another vehicle may be coming through to drop off or luggage or that type of thing on both the hotel and the condo. So it does allow for more traffic to come through rather than just stacking one-way traffic as normally a 15' drive aisle would. The curb radii 25' is the standard. We have tried to accomplish that wherever we could, understanding that this is an urban setting. Things are a lot tighter. Twenty-five feet radii are quite a bit more difficult to get. We would like to review those with Engineering and Planning on an individual basis and maximize those radii as best we can to provide for good circulation but also keep in mind that this is a tight urban setting. The changes to the plat, condition #7 are no problem. Condition #8, I think we may be able to convey this a little better in our plans. I believe that is a patterned concrete shown underneath at the hotel entrance, which may appear to be an overhang, but certainly we can clarify that. And we are within the building setbacks all the way around. The rest of the conditions of approval, we don't have any contention with at all. Lack: Commissioners. Anthes• I was looking at the site plan and what I was trying to determine is the distance between curb cuts — it doesn't seem to be marked here. And I wondered in Staff has comments about that. We recently vacated the alley as that led to Dickson Street for the project and I am concerned that we have some curb cuts are that quite close on Block Street to Dickson and on Church to Dickson and those curb cuts in relation to one another. Has Staff reviewed those and have comments? Pate: We have. Looking at the distance between Dickson and on Church is approximately from the curb cut 80+ feet, from Dickson down to that first curb cut. The one on Dickson on Block, approximately 60' I believe, which is what we would typically recommend a minimum - we would recommend 60' be a minimum on any highly trafficked street. We do have a unique situation with Block Avenue in that there is potential for Subdivision Committee March 30, 2006 Page 9 that to become a two-way street sometime in the future. It was recommend by Dover Kohl in our Downtown Master Plan and that is something that we have discussed internally. It has not occurred as yet, but it might be that it occurs with this project and that is another reason I think the evaluation of curb radii be done now so it is constructed correctly so it could accommodate two-way traffic if that is possible. With regard to how far the curb cuts are apart, the one on Block is about 45' from the edge of pavement and the one on Church is approximately 40' apart. Hennelly: If I could also add that those are one-way in and one-way out as well as part of the submittal on this project, we are recommending re -striping and making Block Street two-way from Spring to Dickson. We do understand that does have a benefit to traffic circulation particularly if you are going to have this number of people coming to stay in that hotel, it would be advantageous not to funnel them all down to Spring Street and have it go all the way around the block where you could come out and make a — you will notice we have a right -turn only from Block onto Dickson. Clark: Is that stacking distance going to be adequate from the corner of Dickson into your — I mean I like the picture of the covered drop off, I think that is a major advantage over the new hotel planned on the corner, but I am still a little concerned about stacking distance especially on a football weekend or a high traffic weekend, especially if it a two-way street now. One-way you can go around it, it is two, that can be a problem. Abata: I can address that. Typically for a hotel, you try to plan for about three lanes of traffic through the drop off area. We have a approximately close to three lanes and we are thinking the two lanes are for cueing space within the drop off itself and the third lane within the drop off zone is actually for bypass cars, so we think we can accommodate the quantity of cars that are coming in terms of volume to the hotel at one time. We don't think it is going to be that great — there may be four, five or six cars at one time. We think that the design of that drop off zone will accommodate it. It is important to note that the way the circulation works in terms of access to the above grade of the parking garage, there is a direct valet ramp at the corner of the drop off that links you directly up to the parking garage. You are not having to depend upon circulating back out on the street, circulating the block to enter the garage and then returning the car. Everything works off of that juncture. Anthes: I think I would like to follow up a little bit on what you asked. I think Commissioner Clark is worried about the distance between here and here, if there is overflow stacking required and how that would affect traffic on Dickson if it backed up the street. Subdivision Committee March 30, 2006 Page 10 Abata: I think we can get about three cars staged along this edge and the secondary lane will about another six cars, then have a zone for bypass, so we think there is enough queuing to deal with it. Anthes: Remind me how many guest rooms? Abata: About 137. Anthes: And you think you will only get six cars maximum at a time? Abata: Typically for a boutique hotel it is not that high; if is not like a convention hotel. Anthes: I'm not so worried about football, that is five/six weekends a year, we can't design our City for five or six days a year. But a lot of boutique hotels are located in places with transit that have alternative ways to get to a site besides a car and we just don't have that in Fayetteville at this point, so that is my concern. Barber: Well, we will have as far as — getting back to what I was saying about Benton County, we will have limos, etc. — the goal is going to be to get them to come here. So of lot of these people in the sense of week day traffic that we know is a majority of what is going into the hotel rooms with the vendors coming in, the goal is to get them here and they won't have cars. That will be a part of the service of it. I think that will help dramatically how many people we are picking up as a service to get them here. Anthes: Oh, I hate that you said limos, I was really in support of your tighter curb cuts. Barber: Again, limos, town cars, whatever, we haven't thought which is going to be. It is just very important from the A & P Commission, the people we have spoken to, that we have the vehicles to pick them up and bring them here, otherwise they won't come. Hennelly: I would also like to add that is the hotel drop off and all the parking that is available within the hotel is parked by a valet staff that is there all the time. That staff's main function is going to be to get those cars, get the luggage out and get the cars on the deck as quickly as possible, so you are looking at really minimizing the amount of stacking that is going to happen. Subdivision Committee March 30, 2006 Page 11 Anthes: I am just thinking about the Peabody or the Capitol in Little Rock and how many cars stack up there at any given time. I have waited for quite awhile. I don't know how many guest rooms they have in comparison. Barber: I think that is more significant than what we are looking at here, but the point is well made. Anthes: Let me go ahead and talk about curb cuts, curb radii. I am in support in all of our downtown area, of tightening those radii to more urban condition than what we have done in our current standards which are very suburban development pattern. But also we want to make sure that people aren't hopping over them, particularly if we are talking about larger vehicles. I guess I would encourage you work with Staff to work through those. Hennelly: That is what we would like to do is maximize those as much as possible and I think there is room particularly at both the condo and the hotel drop off, the islands in the middle there to be able to enlarge those radii to as large as possible. But also keeping the urban. Anthes: I guess I would like to move over to the Church Street side. I have a couple of issues on that side. First of all, there are long expanse of blank wall and in the packet we were given, we were actually only given the north and west elevations. I obtained a copy of this booklet so I have seen the other two elevations. I think the rest of the Planning Commission needs to have copy of this so they understand all of this. Hennelly: I thought we did. Did we submit those? Lack: I actually would like to have the full packet. Anthes: But looking at the Church Street side, I believe I do have the Church Street elevation, there is quite a long wall on the pedestrian side that has no articulation at all — it is very blank. And also, I am also concerned, as I understand it, a wall that goes straight up 225' directly from Church Street, which is to me is an enormous problem with the residential street and that scale is very hard coming right down on Church. We are talking about compatibility and we have to get to that issue, so I might as well just start it. I do have a problem with some of the curtain wall — the amount of reflectivity and reflective material in this area. I have a difficult finding compatibility for it. There are glass drums on the corners. This material — is it kind of stepped back —that is the parking garage level? Abata: That is the parking garage with a screening wall. Subdivision Committee March 30, 2006 Page 12 Anthes• Usually we require elevations that are labeled with the street side, the direction and then all the materials are called out on the elevation. That isn't the way we received it in the packet, so we would need to have that. So what are those panels? Abata: There is a portion that is corrugated metal and flat ? panel that make up that screening wall across the parking lot. (inaudible). It is not just a plain flat wall. If you don't mind I would like to give you a little perspective of our vision and perspective on the project, then hopefully I can address.... Anthes: I wish you could have done that during the presentation. Abata: I don't know if it would be best to walk you through the boards up here. I think it is important to talk about not only the architectural character of the building but on another level on how the building has been sited in such a way that actually responds to Dickson Street and this idea of the spirit that Dickson Street exuberates. I came to Fayetteville about four months ago and we met the Barber group and came to look at the site, I was very surprised at the community of Fayetteville. It is a really great, interesting community. It is filled with spirit, it has a lot of character and one of the reasons I think it is such an interesting place is because of the locations of Dickson Street themselves. They are pedestrian oriented, boulevards, there is a lot of character in terms of how the materials are used along the building facades. There are changes in materials, character to those facades. They are just not pompous buildings and shops, there are bars, there is entertainment. There is life and energy along that street scape. We think it is important to try and engage it with our project. In terms of how this building is actually organized on the site I think is first and foremost the think I want to talk about and then we can go into the massing of the project and describe the material and character that actually brings that building to life. I want to show you the first plan which - this is Dickson Street to the north, this is Church to the west and Block Avenue to the east. I think it is important to note that it was our goal to really energize the corners of this property and the way we are energizing those corners of the property, is that we have located the hotel lobby and the lounge and the bar environment, that energizes that hotel lobby at the corner of Block and Dickson. So the majority of circulation we think coming off of College turning down Dickson. Dickson Links you from College all the way through that entertainment and arts district and all the way up to the campus. We wanted that to be your focal point as you come to the property and this becomes a people space that interacts and enlivens the energy interfaced with Dickson along this corner. On the opposite side of the site, the western edge, we have located the named specialty restaurant which will also enliven the space, a lot of character, people will be able to interface and possibilities for outdoor dining along this edge and Subdivision Committee March 30, 2006 Page 13 infilling between this anchor -east and the west, we have an infill opportunity for shops, cafes, retail opportunities, people spaces that interact with the sidewalk. So if you look at this globally, we have really tried to enliven this eastern edge of the block with the hotel drop off, lounge and energizing the northern edge of the project with retail shops and a major, significant restaurant on the corner. As you come around the site, this becomes the condo drop off dedicated for guests and owners. We tried to pull all the services as far away from Dickson as possible so it is behind the scenes and is not visible. Trucks can come up Church here, turn in, access the dock, in and out, or however you want to route, really trying to maintain this frontage. As we move vertically up the building, I think it is important to note that we have even taken into account - we have over 12,000 square feet of meeting space which is a great amenity for this location, this community, this project and we have a banquet space and additional meeting rooms. The communal space which we call free function that interfaces with all of these meeting spaces, we placed that on edge with Dickson street. This will be a really be a cantilevered projecting out, kind of lower the scale along the street. This becomes an activated zone within this floor plan. It also interacts with Dickson Street. Now the next two levels above this are parking, as we move above the parking levels, we are taking advantage of the four story podium which creates the basis of the entire complex — we are activating the roof with a ? called the Razor Deck. We are thinking this is an outdoor communal space that could be hosting parties for game days. A lot of stuff that could take advantage of it and really interact with the street as well, not only at level one or two but also at the upper roof area. Now this plan is also showing the U -shape plan for the hotel that would bring the outdoor space. As we move vertically up again, this is where we get to the hotel tower which sits on top of the U-shaped hotel. So in terms of mass and design guidelines really talk about and reference a lot of the historic structure having a base condition, a middle condition and a top condition. We are presenting something that many people think is modern, but to us, from an architect's perspective, we think that this not only a modern building but a ? building. It uses common materials all the way up and down Dickson in a way that is fresh and kind of progressive. These few images is a series of images that kind of show the life and energy this project can have a street level. This is the corner of Church and Dickson, this is the big glass drum is the restaurant environment. The energy and the life of the inside actually extends to the outside. There is an opportunity for outdoor dining, to interface with people. There is character with the facade. The is canopies along the retail, there is undulation across that facade. We are talking about a materials board — about materials of copper, potentially ? — rich, real materials. We are talking about using brick, common material found along Dickson and within the community. We have steel canopies, corrugated metal and this object right here is sort of a projecting Subdivision Committee March 30, 2006 Page 14 cantilevered pre -function zone of the meeting space above. The vote for that was a gesture toward of not only trying to reduce the scale of this four-story podium down about 20' but actually angles itself out in terms of a picture window back to Old Main which sits up on the campus. It might not be evident to the average person of what we are trying to achieve, but there are layers of information and concept that actually we think hold and build and connect with Dickson Street, community and enliven this whole street environment. This is just a 3-D image of this project. I wanted to address the massing. This component right here which we are calling the podium which is the base of the whole complex, it is four stories of building height. That is the facade that people are really going to interact with at street level. As you move up into the hotel tower, we are actually stepping the building back approximately 10' from the face of the building. Face of the building is set back five feet from the property line, so we are really about 15' from the property line to this base of the building. So we are trying to transition this building back, step it back and respond to some of the concerns with regards to scale. We have chosen to place the tallest component of this project 60' back from the face of the building, trying to address the concerns of how this would impact people at street level trying to get that as far back as possible. Once it is further back, once you are down at this level, you will never really perceive that the building is really taller than what you are experiencing at this level. We think that is an important consideration. To address one of your comments that the western face is just a big flat wall. If you do look at that western elevation, this is merely an elevation. We have tried to be responsible towards trying to give this facade some depth and character. It is not just a glass facade, it does undulate, there are a series of balconies that people would come out of their condo or hotel unit and interface with the street. We want the building to connect and embrace the street scape, especially for the condo units, we think it is important for that relationship for the tower to relate back to the drop off. I want to reiterate that we are thinking about using corrugated metal for elements of the facade where there ? window down this plane, there is concrete balconies that project out with a variety of profile, potential pipe railing to give it a bit of character, a glass element that integrates itself with composition of brick and metal. This is not a down and dirty project; we are supporting quality, we are supporting character. I think the imagery here, the imagery of what you see at street level, I think gives you the life that this project really gives. One last thing, the Design Standards for the downtown district, I know haven't totally been adopted up to this point, but we are also trying to be responsible with regards to a lot of those issues that are called out. They call out a lot of things we can't do right now — projecting beyond the setback, still within the property line to help bring that sense of scale down along the pedestrian street scape. We would like to jut that free function zone out even more so it allows the facade to undulate even more and have Subdivision Committee March 30, 2006 Page 15 Lack: Anthes: Hennelly: Abata: a little more character. We really feel the building; we are set back and we are only overhanging about five feet. If we can do a lot of this stuff, we would love to, but it would require variances and we don't want to proceed down that line. I have tagged a number of issues within this design guideline and I think we meet a lot of them. Again, the idea of projecting over and beyond the face of the building kind of reduces the sense of scale. In terms of finishes and materials, it calls out brick as a common, acceptable material for this project. We are integrating brick, integrating cast placed concrete, there is metals, corrugated metals,, flat metals. This idea of the base, middle, top, we are trying to respond not only across the entire project but across the base of the building. If you look at — we are trying to break down even this component here where there if retail, there is an anchor on this end and an anchor on this end. This becomes to use the base condition — this big drum steps in to create a reduced sense of scale — there is a middle condition of pre -function. The global idea — this becomes the base, the hotel becomes the middle and the condo tower is the top. We are looking at that at all different levels. I could go on and on. That is my view. I appreciate that. I didn't have that information in my packet so it helps me to get up to speed to the analysis on the building. Moving around the site. The condo drop off - in this design, it looks like you expect nearly as cars or vehicular or waiting cars at the condo drop off as you did in the hotel. Is that true? No, that is not true. I think... It is a little bit smaller. We only have potentially two lanes of queuing versus three. Because it is not as long, we are needing more depth on the condo drop off to kind of circulate and through the drop off and back out, whereas the hotel drop off is a little bit more linear so it doesn't require as much depth, you can actually circulate. It may seem to be similar in scale, there are only 23 condo units within the big tower, do there will not be much volume of traffic we don't think Anthes: And you feel you need a full drop of, instead of a pull out for that? Abata: I think it would be a nice amenity for a condo owner who is paying high dollar prices to be able to get off the street and be welcomed by a valet person taking the car or a guest coming to visit you. Hennelly: That is also the return area for the condo parking, below grade condo parking, so there is a need for vehicles coming out of the parking deck to have room to maneuver while someone is parking in that drive. Subdivision Committee March 30, 2006 Page 16 Abata: I do want to mention that there is a below -grade parking level dedicated totally to the condo owner. All the above grade is dedicated for hotel and guests. Hennelly: They enter that from the alley that was rededicated when we vacated the one through the Pettus property. They enter the parking deck through there and they return back to street level through that drop off area. Anthes: Moving to the south side of the building. A question for Staff. What is the property owned by Lynn Wade out there currently to the south — is it zoned C-3 as well? Pate: It is. Anthes: I am thinking about and I think that building has been vacant for some time. If that property redeveloped and it is on an alley, it is not on a standard residential alley anymore, it is basically a lot of service — semis backing up, trash compactors, a lot of noise and potentially odors and other nuisances there. What can we require for mitigation for the adjoining property owner to that kind of condition? Pate: I think if it was a residential property, certainly we could we could require that. I believe this entire block is zoned C-3 and anticipated a mixture of uses within this block. You are right, that structure has been vacant for quite some time. I'm not sure what the plans are. As a service alley, that is typically what a service alley functions as and utilizes those uses that you do not want to see on the public right-of-way, such as trash removal, rear access. You might remember from the vacation, it served other properties in the vicinity as well so I don't anticipate specific screening requirement for that. I would actually anticipate that this would be an asset to the property to the south to utilize for access as well. Hennelly: It was also in the vacation process of the alley, the original alley and the rededication of this one, we did meet with Mr. Wade and explained to him that this would certainly serve as a service alley for trash, emergency vehicle and that type of thing, so he is not under the impression that it would be strictly passenger car traffic. Anthes: Is there anything you can offer him as mitigation if there....I don't know what he is planning to do there. Hennelly: He did not seem particularly concerned and he did speak at some point of developing that property or trying to renovate that building but wanted to wait and see how this all panned out. Subdivision Committee March 30, 2006 Page 17 Anthes: Those are my ground level concerns. I do have a couple of comments. You talked in your presentation about how much attention you have given to the street life on Dickson Street, but I didn't hear the same kind of sensitivity on either Block or Church. I do have a little issue about pedestrian ? on those two streets and how it is being incorporated in a way this building is currently designed. The other thing is that you emphasized the four-story ? that is also called out in the Downtown Master Plan, but the policy document ?. Two of those levels are a parking deck and they have an opaque screen — they don't have windows with lights and people and those sorts of things in them. As far as contributing to the street life on those two levels, it is not reading to me the same as a four-story building that has occupiable space in them. I don't necessarily agree with your analysis of that. I know you have a long way to go with this process, so I am just providing those comments. I do have a lot of concerns about height and compatibility to Commercial Design Standards in this area, particularly with the tower directly on Church. I know you have said you have articulated the facade and the ins and outs, but there is still a mass of considerable height directly on Church Street. Clark: I'm not an architect, I am just a citizen. I think the building is beautiful and I actually think it follows the theme in the Colliers building across the street. I think it is too tall. I look at the buildings around it, the Hancock (?) building to the east that is going to dwarf it. When you turn on Dickson Street, I think that is going to be the predominant thing you focus on. It is good for you business, I'm not sure it is good for the view scape on the entire street of Dickson. I don't think there is any chance in heck you can make that left turn lane, the way it is narrowed onto St. Charles which is by far one of the most dangerous streets in Fayetteville with the post office there. I go there twice a day. I don't think the building is out of place on this piece of property. I'm wondering as I am looking at this, why can't you put some housing decks on top of the parking decks? Take some of your height and shift it over? I know not what I am talking about structurally, but I will throw that out as a possibility. This tower concerns me greatly simply because I think it is going to be the focal point and I don't think it should be the focal point on Dickson Street. I didn't vote for the Lofts at Underwood, either and if I had to pick between the building, if someone said you had to pick one, I would pick the Lofts at Underwood, simply because I think it looks more in the tradition, the historical tradition of Dickson Street. I think this is very contemporary and I like it because it is very contemporary, but if you are trying for my taste to incorporate into the architecture is the whole of Dickson Street, I don't know that this would necessarily do it and this building is well suited in a lot of other places as it is, Dickson Street is not one of them. I find it nice this morning that height is something we can look at with compatibility Subdivision Committee March 30, 2006 Page 18 Lack: since that is what I have been saying for several weeks now. Because of height, I don't think it is compatible with the existing developments in the area. I don't even have the southern elevation, but I certainly see what Staff is talking about. If you put more stories on the parking deck and lessen the tower maybe that would give you more articulation. I don't know. I am anxious for the City Council to make a determination about height, I really am because we need guidelines — we need definitive rules to follow. When left to my own devices, I go back to compatibility — I think height is a factor of compatibility and I don't think it is here in this height as represented. I think it could be and I think that lot is a very good place to build a mixed use facility and I hope you will continue. I like the trees inside the building — I think that is one cool concept. It tries to green up that corner as well and I think that is part of Dickson Street — the greenery. I see this building coming in and undoing a lot of what has been done on Dickson Street more pedestrian friendly, to make it more traditional, historically traditionally and you are going to have to destroy a lot of that to get what you want on that corner. I'm not sure that is a good trade off. I'm simple — I will give it back to the architects. I have a few comments and I would say that from a design standpoint, similar to the way we spoke about Underwood's, the way I specifically spoke about Underwood's. But the contextualism of the height was certainly an issue and that was certainly something that while this area will certainly change, if it changes to the regulations we currently expect, then I would still have an issue from a contextual standpoint. When we discussed that project just as an issue of protocol, I was not one of the commissioners that felt that the height was a violation of the design standards, but the compatibility would directly attest to height. I don't know that I would be here, although we have added considerably more stories. I appreciate the stepping back, I appreciate the materiality of the building. I couldn't say from the Subdivision Committee that I could say that we could forward it forward with a nod to the yes for Commercial Design Standards but more in the light of some materials in that we do see the metal panels which I like very much but they are specifically discussed in Commercial Design Standards. And I think with that, there would need to be some waivering which I hope we could do because I like the articulation of the metal, I like the articulation of the concrete which I would hope you wouldn't paint as our Commercial Design Standards would dictate. It would be inconsistent with the design theme and the materiality and the expression of materiality of the building. I am fond of the articulation of the west — Church street, the large blank wall does have some problems with pedestrian scale and it certainly could be enhanced. I think that is a simple enhancement. I would hope that there is program inside that that could interact with the street. The materials themselves and the idea of an historical reference in downtown is something that is set Subdivision Committee March 30, 2006 Page 19 for the Planning Commission to discuss at a later date in architectural standards, not the actual controls within the actual Downtown Master Plan which I am anticipate would be a lengthy discussion in that I feel like that a successful city is a collage that grows over time and is expressive of the times in which it develops and this building would certainly enhance that, while attaining to the commercial, the urban setting and setbacks, the containment of street. A nice urban expression and that the materials would be expressive of history, because history is past but what happened in the year this building was built. With that I would hope that we could get beyond that and get into the building as a nice expression of current architecture. As far as the functional issues, site and things, I think we have gone over that extensively and appropriately. I would have some concerns and I think it warrants further study on what happens to the south of this building both in program and function and in building elevation. Anthes: Are you saying that on the west as well? Lack: Clark: On the west, it probably is an easier manipulation of articulation when we are talking about that wall and if there is the potential to set it back so you get a corridor or some sort of play there. Certainly the larger is the ideas of what happens on the south side. And also, I think the east side has some reference as well. I'm not sure exactly how much of that is going to be visible as you come up Business 71, but I'm thinking that if this height maintains itself and wins out, you are going to be able to see a lot of it. So I am thinking that the south side is really stark in contrast to the other three sides. I think you can fix that. But I think in the eastern elevations are going to be visible coming into town from that corridor as well. So maybe the south and east side. Lack: The east I don't have any problems with. Anthes: We have had a lot of discussions on buildings that have come through recently that have structured parking and have facades that need to be treated and what is the appropriate amount of articulation on those facades. Those were not up front and center and this is, so I anticipate there would be more discussion about that. I'm not sure you are there. I am not going to get into a discussion about style, but I have concerns about materials. I need to understand if they are highly reflective, because that obviously has repercussions for ? I don't think you need to. 1 just want you to understand. There is an issue about what is nearby and how you are respecting it. We have been having those discussions internally and I expect a lot of people will show up at meetings about this building and be concerned about the steeple at the Methodist Church. We have a lot of precedence in this town about terminated views with landmark Subdivision Committee March 30, 2006 Page 20 buildings. I believe the Methodist Church is one of those buildings. It will frankly be dwarfed by this development and I expect that will be an issue for the residents of Fayetteville. I am also concerned about — we have a lot of discussions about how urban is Fayetteville, how urban will Fayetteville be, what is the appropriate response..... Yes, we are changing, and yes, let's embrace what we need to be, but also I need to be reminded all the time about how the street grid, the topography and the views in Fayetteville are delicate. There is a delicate scale that exists on the ground here. You are talking about putting one of the tallest buildings we have ever seen in Fayetteville on one of the hottest parts of the site topographically, next to an historic structure and its impact will be great. We also have a very small scale street grid with narrow streets that tend to, from a livability standpoint speak to smaller and lower buildings next to them, and some way to step up to respond to not create canyons and a lot of shadow and a lot of wind and inhospitable walking traditions. While I appreciate all the work that has gone in it, and I know your hearts are in the right place, I think Fayetteville needs this kind of thing, I appreciate the economic investment, I love the mixed use. There are all sorts of things I love about this project but with its street expanse (?) on Church and on Block and the overall scale of it in the context of the street ? in downtown and in this particular elevation, I just can't support it. Hennelly: If I could address a couple of things that were brought up, for clarification if nothing else. This eastern elevation and the side of the parking structure that you were referring to. You do need to keep in mind that the Shurkey residence, that large old residence immediately to the south of this, is directly east of there with the trees. That is shielded and screened and broken up in that regard from Block Street. The other thing, the church steeple, I'm not sure what the visual impact of this other than it dwarfing the church would be. Anthes: Shadow. Hennelly: Late in the afternoon in the winter at times. The other thing that struck me when we first started with this project was in the meetings of the Downtown Master Plan that I have been to, there has been some discussion with the idea of these anchor points throughout the town that tie the whole town together, and I think that was one thing, and I am not an architect, I'm an engineer, I see things in black and white. But the idea of being able to spot an anchor spot in town and tie Block Street to the Square to the Renaissance Tower, to the end of Dickson Street and expanding that entertainment district seemed like something that this accomplished very well. You can debate all day the architectural style and who likes it and who doesn't but I think, in my view, this does expand or Subdivision Committee March 30, 2006 Page 21 provide for expansion of the entertainment district, the vitality of the downtown area as an anchor board. Barber: I would also like to add that going back to what you are saying about good for business. I think that we respect the opposition to the project, we have been pleasantly surprised on how good, obviously it is going to be for Dickson Street business and the Dickson Street addresses, if we are going to say Dickson Street and we know what it is in the vicinity of Dickson Street and I guess it goes back to a level playing field of the height of another project -it is probably going to add another two stories. What I want is an interpretation of what this compatibility is because we just went through it with Bellafont that there were some problems with design standards but that kind of project that is 12-16 stories high with 1-2 stories next to it — the Mountain Inn is going to have 1-2 stories next to it. I really think there needs to be an interpretation and no different than the movies theatre being good for business. Nobody is more excited about a movie theatre, I am so excited about it. I wish we could have that excitement about a luxury hotel downtown because I watched that Planning Commission meeting, it was kind of a box, but boy we have to vote for this. I feel like we have to have a big picture on this project and respecting the debate but understanding too, that we heard the stories of when the Hilton, Radisson went in and the same arguments we are having and that was thirty years ago. It is a different time, we do respect the history of the town and I think what this project will bring , no different than what you are saying about Block Street and Church Street, Mr. Wait's property. There is nothing happening right now and Block Street is not — and if you are going to have a corner, a gateway to the Square, what better project than this to tie those two together. Anthes: I am asking that the walkability be along the whole side of it not just on the Dickson Street Side. Hennelly: One of the challenges that we were faced with in the design and I think they have done a great job with it, is we do have street frontage on three sides of this property. And other than shoving everything in the highest part of this structure to the middle of the site, you have to make a decision where that goes, where the service entrance is. Not all three sides can be 100% pedestrian compatible. I think we do understand where everyone stands as far as their opinion and the way they would vote on this. This is a privately funded development and Brandon and his company have invested a tremendous amount of money and where we are right now, he obviously feels very strongly about this. We would like to be able to bring this to the whole Planning Commission, even if it is with an unfavorable recommendation from the three of you with regards to Commercial Design Standards and allow this discussion. Because this is really the Subdivision Committee March 30, 2006 Page 22 only real discussion about this — the height and how it fits in — the compatibility with the adjacent developments, so we don't think coming back to — well I don't think it will even be the three of you, it will be another set of Commissioners. And ultimately we will have seen the entire Planning Commission if we have to keep coming back for Subdivision Committee, so we would ask that you forward this to the who Planning Commission and allow us to have our day there as well. Anthes: I have a question of Staff in that regard. What is the appeal process if the project is denied at Subdivision? Pate: I would recommend that the project not be denied at Subdivision simply because the applicant can appeal to the Planning Commission through the separate boards, but at any point in my career here, if there have been questions as to a project, we always have simply forwarded it to the full Planning Commission so that all nine Commissioners as opposed to just three have the opportunity to voice those same concerns. Obviously, three could be in the majority, so we would recommend to forward to the Commission even if it is a recommendation for denial. If you feel it should be denied by the three of you, then we recommend that you forward it to the Planning Commission for that debate. Same with approval for this project. Anthes: I will move that we forward LSD 06-1997 to full Planning Commission with a recommendation to deny. Clark: Second and with a request to Staff to put this high on the agenda because it will generate a lot of talk. Lack: I will concur. Pate: It will be forwarded with that noted in the minutes.