Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-03-12 MinutesPlanning Commission March 12, 2007 Page I of 45 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on March 12, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN ADM 07-2514 (C -QUAD) Approved Page 3 ADM 07-2524 (THE PINES AT SPRINGWOODS) Approved Page 3 PPL 07-2475 (BELLWOOD S/D PH.I1) Approved Page 3 R-PZD 07-2452 (THE LINKS AT FAYETTEVILLE, 400.401.361.362)Tabled Page 5 CUP 07-2486 (ROOT ELEMENTARY GYM, 408) Approved Page 30 CUP 07-2487 (VISTA HEALTH, 138) Approved Page 41 ADM 07-2517 (SIDEWALK AMENDMENT) Forwarded Page 43 Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 2 of 45 MEMBERS PRESENT James Graves Jill Anthes Candy Clark Hilary Harris Audy Lack Christina Myres Sean Trumbo Lois Bryant Alan Ostner STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher Glenn Newman/Engineering CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Matt Casey/Engineering Anthes: Welcome to the Monday, March 12, 2007 meeting of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission. I would like to remind audience members and Commissioners to turn off cell phones and pagers. Listening devices are available if you have difficulty hearing in this chamber. A staff member can help you with a headset. They are at this front table here. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, Lack, Graves, Bryant, Harris, Clark, Trumbo, and Anthes are present. Commissioner Myres arrived after roll call and Ostner arrived during R-PZD 07-2452 (Links) discussion. Consent. Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 3 of 45 Approval of the January 08, 2007 Planning Commission meeting minutes. ADM 07-2514: Administrative Item (C -QUAD): The request is to extend the approval of the Large Scale Development, LSD 06-1971, and Lot Split, LSP 06-1972. ADM 07-2524: Administrative Item (The Pines at springwoods): The request is to revise the Parks dedication requirement for the project formerly approved as The Arbors at springwoods. PPL 07-2475: Preliminary Plat (BELLWOOD S/D PH. II, 400): Submitted by JORGENSEN AND ASSOCIATES for property located NW OF WEDINGTON AND RUPPLE RD. The property contains approximately 20 acres. The request is for the Phase II of the Bellwood Subdivision with 17 lots zoned RSF-7, Residential Single Family, 7 units per acre, 2 lots zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and 5 lots zoned RMF -12, Residential Multi -family, 12 units per acre. Anthes: There are four items on the Consent Agenda. The first is the approval of the January 8 Planning Commission meeting minutes and I have forwarded comments to Mr. Pate. Second is Administrative Item for C -Quad which is an extension of a Large Scale. Third is Administrative Item 07-2424 which is a revision of a parkland dedication for the Pines at Springwoods. And a Preliminary Plat 07- 2475 for Bellwood. Clark: Madam Chair, I am recusing on the Consent Agenda and on the next item as well. Anthes: Ok, thank you,Commissioner Clark. Would any member of the public or any Commissioner like to remove an item from Consent to be heard? If not I will entertain a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Graves: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Motion: Graves: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda in whole. Anthes: Do we hear a second? Trumbo: Second. Anthes: We have motion to approve by Commissioner Graves with a second by Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 4 of 45 Commissioner Trumbo. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve the amended consent agenda carried with a vote of 6- 0-1. Commissioner Clark recused. Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 5 of 45 Unfinished Business: R-PZD 07-2452: Planned Zoning District (THE LINKS AT FAYETTEVILLE, 400.401.361.362): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL, SPARKS & ASSOCIATES for property located at THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WEDINGTON AND RUPPLE ROAD. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT 05-1636 (WELLSPRING) and contains approximately 152.23 acres. The request is for zoning and land use approval only for a new R-PZD. The proposed R-PZD would allow 1,221 residential dwelling units, 91,800 square feet of non-residential/commercial space, and 16,388 square feet of recreational buildings. The non-residential and recreational portions of the development would contain a golf course, a commercial `market' area, green space, park, and associated parking. Anthes: Our first item is unfinished business and that is R-PZD 07-2452 for the Links at Fayetteville. Harris: I shall be recusing from this item. Anthes: Commissioner Harris and Commissioner Clark have recused, we have two Commissioners that aren't in attendance. We have five Commissioners present. It requires five affirmative votes to forward an R-PZD. If the applicant would like to consider that or would like us to proceed please let me know. Oh, Commissioner Myres is coming. I see her out there. We have six. Would the applicant like to proceed? Lindsey: Yes. Anthes: Ok. Can we have the staff report, Mr. Garner? Garner: This item was heard at our February 26 Planning Commission meeting. It was tabled by the Planning Commission with some main issues of concern of the Planning Commission including: for this project to provide additional street connections in the northwest and southwest corners of the site, addressing how the retail and the commercial interacts with the surrounding on-site proposed residences, and also the scale and mass of buildings and unit types over the overall development. Just a brief background into the actual project. The applicant is proposing to rezone the property for a Residential Planned Zoning District to develop 1,221 units. The overall density would be about eight units per acre. The non-residential intensity would be approximately 700sq It of non- residential per acre and non-residential square feet total over the whole site of 108,000sq ft. The property is located on the corner of Wedington and Rupple in West Fayetteville. It has 152 acres. In response to the Planning Commission's Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 6 of 45 concern that I just briefly mentioned, the applicant has revised the proposed plan with revisions as noted in your staff report. I will briefly run over these and I will be happy to answer any questions you have. One of the first main changes is that... That is starting there on page 1. The applicant eliminated the mixed-use and apartment buildings along Rupple Rd provided for 166 town houses or row houses and three commercial retail buildings. They also included a four story version of what they are calling the Churchill building to provide an alternative massing throughout the development. They had previously shown that building as three stories throughout. They also are stating in their booklet that 30% of the multi -family units will be offered for sale as condominiums for each phase of the development. Another change was that they revised the layout of the tennis court and club house area to provide additional tree preservation. They also added a public street connection from the northerly portion of the public street west out to Rupple Rd. They also added a private street connection between two private parking lots in the southern portion of the site. And in total these changes reduce the number of dwelling units from approximately 1420 down to 1221. It also reduced the amount of non-residential square feet from 140,000 to approximately 108,000. Staff's findings have also been updated based on the revised project. Staff s primary issues of concern with the previous submittal still really remain in effect with this revision. We still find that the overall PZD fails to meet several of the City's primary goals and policies and several of the Planned Zoning District goals and policies. And I will just leave it at that and be happy to answer any questions. Thanks. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Garner. Would any member of the public like to speak to this Residential Planned Zoning District for the Links at Fayetteville? Seeing none I will close the floor to public comment and ask for the applicant to come forward. Mr. Lindsey? Lindsey: We would start off.. Excuse me, my voice is about gone. But we would start off by saying that we felt concerns from the group about connectivity and we did enhance the connectivity by putting, on the north end, putting a city street out as y'all had requested. And on the south end of having connectivity through a private drive that is there. And the same process we lowered the amount of units and we increased one of our units, which I think is a real positive, to a four story building that would have an elevator. A version of the Churchill building. With that we have six different types of buildings in this project. One of the things that is just kind of one of the overwhelming, I would say, in our favor is that 68% of this site will be left as green space when we are finished. The other thing that I think is quite important is when we started there was 28% tree coverage. Right now I think ours is... I am going to let you say, Jerry. What is ours now? Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 7 of 45 Kelso: As far as the existing tree canopy that we are trying to preserve is going to be somewhere around 17 or 18% and we need to mitigate the rest. Lindsey: We would need to mitigate the rest. But I think the point is when 28% is all you start with it is very difficult to do anything on the site and not have to lower it some. So we have lowered it. It is down to 17. With that we have... Those percentages do not include the park. Is that not right? And the park is highly green space and lake. That is about all the park is, is tree cover and lake there. Show the boundary of the park. And that does not include or count in our numbers. And so with that as a backdrop I think the green space concept that we are doing, plus we are willing to mitigate to enhance that, is awful, I would say, important. We have six different kinds of buildings. We have two stories, we have three stories. In the center of the town square there we have buildings that will have commercial potential on the ground floor. We would like to be able to say to you all that if the commercial doesn't work in that location we would like to be able to make that into some type of multi -family. When we were here before y'all made mention of the units that are the commercial part. So we left a little commercial. Show the commercial off of the road there. And show the areas that we changed to town houses rather than the Churchill type of building. That area will be fenced and made available to the community and available as town houses. We stated to you and now put in writing about the 30% of this can be sold and will be available for sale. I think the one point there, you know when you start talking about affordable housing, I made mention last time, that we went through the book. Somebody else may have done it differently but I didn't see it. I asked one of our people. And the multi -listing book in Fayetteville in new houses has two that are below the $130,000 level. And really the only way, there were some condo's down there in that level. But the only way you are really going to be able to make housing available to the moderate and lower income for ownership is going to be through some tool like this. We think this is a tremendously good project. We are willing to commit the 30% in writing that it will be available for sale and that we will systematically make it available for sale as we continue to develop this project. I guess our main point to say is that this is not even recognizable to when we first brought this down here. This plan is so different. It has a lot of extra cost in it over our typical deal. But we have, if you could have seen the plan that was drawn seven times ago back before we got with the City. And Lindy, my son who does this, he made the statement today that we was glad that he worked with the City in this because he thinks it is a better plan than when we started. So we would be available to answer question or deal with any of the questions that are the requirements that y'all would have if you did approve it. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Lindsey. Does that conclude your presentation? Ok. Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 8 of 45 Commissioners? I have a question for staff. We had an extra page handed to us tonight. Andrew, is there anything specific you would like to call out about that? Garner: Yes, ma'am. If you choose to approve this project I would like to add two conditions of approval. And on the memo there are recommendations number one and number two. I won't read those verbatim but those should be added as conditions of approval. Anthes: And for the public, those issues have to do with the trail crossing and parkland dedication. Are there any comments? Graves: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I have a question for staff. Just refresh my memory what this piece of property was zoned before it became Wellspring. I don't remember what it was zoned before then. Pate: When it was annexed in 2005, I believe the summer of 2005, or maybe 2004 with the island annexation all the properties out here were zoned RSF-1 for single family use. One unit per acre. Graves: So it just went straight from that to a PZD. Pate: It was just a blank zoning for all those areas. Graves: That was my question. Myres: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Myres. Myres: I have a question for Jeremy. I know that you are not recommending approval for this because it doesn't meet some of the goals of what a PZD should be. And that is outlined in the staff report but it is kind of spread in little bits throughout. And maybe just for my own clarification, what in order to receive staff recommendation what would need to be done to this project? Pate: I won't be able to answer that question. We simply base a recommendation on the project that we have in front of us. Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 9 of 45 Myres: Ok. Pate: I can tell you there are a lot of findings associated with the Planned Zoning District and those are from page 11 to 27 in your staff report. Some of those you will note very strongly... some of the particular components of this project very strongly meet the goals of the Planned Zoning District. Mr. Lindsey mentioned the green space at 68%. That is probably one of the largest percentages of green space we've seen with a Planned Zoning District so I think that is certainly positive. I would also agree that the project has come a long way from where we initially reviewed this particular application. In terms of findings that staff cannot support, I will just refer to some of these. I will quote from the City Plan 2025. "Traditional town form pattern would have a wide range of residential building types including single side yard and row houses along with multi -family residences." This current plan proposes 100% multi -family residences. Some for sale which as for mentioned has changed since the last meeting which we saw and have been offered by the applicant for sale. Traditional town form also generally has "streets that are divided into small to medium blocks with a high level of connectivity between neighborhoods." This proposed development has a very long linear blocks with most of the connections through parking lots and drive aisles. One public street has been added as discussed at the last Planning Commission on the northwest corner. Staff finds that it does not incorporate a high sense of compatibility in scale with surrounding properties. The scale and volume of the uses of the buildings proposed along Rupple Rd would not be compatible with the existing uses to the west which as you approved a preliminary plat tonight are primarily single family. As discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting the area of commercial out lots that the Planning Commission recommended does match up with the C-1 that is across the street. So I think that those uses in particular are very compatible in terms of development along Rupple in that particular location. I think it is more the scale of the overall units that face onto Rupple Rd in context with what is adjacent to them across Rupple Rd. I think reducing the size of the buildings might help in reducing the scale of that to transition. I think the burden and responsibility on any rezoning application or conditional use application is on the applicant to provide that transition and compatibility within the property itself and not depend on surrounding properties to do that for them. So I think that is certainly part of what our recommendation is based on as well. I do find, and I am just reading parts of our staff report, that the overall density is appropriate. I think we saw that and discussed that with the Wellsprings project that was prior to this. It was, I think, a little lower density but not much. I think it was around 1100 dwelling units and this around 1200, so I think the density is relatively similar. I think it is the development pattern. It is a public policy decision to be made to rezone this property in this manner. Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 10 of 45 Myres: Thank you. I think that is probably as much as I need. You actually highlighted the things that I had, but I wasn't sure if I had picked up the important parts. And thank you clarifying that. I am not necessarily inclined to go against staff's recommendation so I will be concurring with them on this issue. Thanks. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Myers. Is there further discussion? Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Madam Chair. I would tend to agree with Commissioner Myers. There are a lot of good things about this project. It brings a more affordable product to the town. The green space is helpful. But with the 2025 Plan I think a lot of people and myself also saw large pieces of property as real opportunities to shift a little bit away from the norm. I think if this same staff report were on a project that was 15 acres or 30 acres I could probably go against that. In fact I am not even sure if staff would be against it if the scale were smaller. But it is just so much land that I don't think I can vote for it tonight. The size is the factor that tips the scales for me. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Ostner. Are there further comments? Lack: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Lack. Lack: Question for staff. The number of units on the town houses as proposed along Rupple Rd would be? Do you know? Or maybe the applicant's could... Garner: 166. Per building? Lack: I am trying to get an idea of the mass and the scale of the individual buildings. Garner: I think the applicant can answer that, but I believe I saw in their booklet that it could be up to 11 units in one row and as few as maybe 5. That is kind of the general scale. You can kind of see on the plat, actually, you can see up to 11 individual blocks stuck together that represent one unit. Lack: Ok. And a question for the applicant. Would those address Rupple Rd with their door and a sidewalk along Rupple? Or is the front door to that unit on the parking lot side? Can you tell me? Fugitt: As it exits right now that really could be (unclear and away from the microphone) Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 11 of 45 Anthes: Mr. Fugitt, could I get you to come to the microphone so that your comments are recorded for the minutes? Fugitt: We haven't really addressed the Rupple Rd situation, but I am sure that could be implemented into the design to create that streetscape. I think there is quite a distance between the town house and Rupple but it could be done. Basically the town house plan is a 16 by 32 footprint for each individual unit and then those could be strung together as topography would dictate. Lack: Ok. How many do you anticipate? Is the number 5 to 11 units banded together? Fugitt: Right, and it would be that number based on topography and grading issues, drainage issues that type thing. Also when we get into certain maximum square footages for fire walls and that type of thing. So that would be the... Lack: And I guess the reason I asked that question is the previous zoning actually has town homes on Rupple Rd. And we were talking about transition that is one of the areas that we need to talk about transition. And if staff could pull from the archives, far beyond my memory, and give me an idea of what the scale of what that town home was that we had grown to say was acceptable. Pate: It looks like with the project and with the current zoning there was a maximum of six units that were together and those were broken into three north/south blocks and three east/west blocks. So they were essentially alley loaded facing out onto Rupple. An alley behind and then another set of town homes that faced to public street. So there would be a maximum of what looks like six in a row in those areas for the current zoning. Lack: And you mention that they are grouped into three blocks of units? Pate: Three city grid with three blocks between streets. There would be a street and then Rupple Rd, in three blocks there would be a north street, a middle street... Actually four blocks. A north street, two middle streets, and a south street. Lack: And as I am looking across at the plat that you are looking at I am seeing that that is the full top half or the full north half of Rupple that would be somewhat consistent with what we are seeing. That we are seeing about a fourth of the distance of Rupple. So approximately half of that and we have a road at the top and bottom? I am trying to get an idea of the scale and the address of the street and what we are seeing along Rupple. Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 12 of 45 Pate: I would say in terms of comparing the two, the town homes on the Wellsprings community didn't go down quite as far though it is pretty close. The units that were shown there were the mixed use development and the condominiums, at least one building and most of those were interior to a public street. Lack: I see on our plat that the entrance, the main entrance off of Rupple Rd into this development is across Rupple Rd from what appears to be another street or drive. Was that consistent with the other street or plan? Pate: Yes. Lack: Ok. So that would be a consistent point and then about half as many. So from the existing zoning we would proceed about another fourth of the way north to the property line and then have another road and then the rest of that would be golf course or green space. There are more of the condominiums to the south that what existed there. But we have talked about that is residential across the street and that the commercial may not be so appropriate at that location to transition from what was there. So along Rupple the main difference in the existing zoning and the zoning that we are looking at now would be basically the mass and the size of the buildings. Because we are real close to the same number of curb cuts onto Rupple. I wonder, a question for the applicant, is it palatable to look at breaking down that mass? We received from the previous zoning we were looking at about six units in a row, that sort of mass of buildings. Lindsey: I think that could be done in different buildings. What I would say is that in comparison of our project, and I would address this to Mr. Ostner and Ms. Myers also, that plan on the left up there has been approved. And it could be getting building permits right now. And the level of density there and the green space is not incomparable to what we have. And the amount of mass along the road, although it is in smaller buildings, and we can do the smaller buildings. The buildings we've got could be divided in halves along the road there. We don't have to have eight or ten. We can drop that to a four and a six as far as the town houses go. However that appears. You know it is just to me the green space and the level of commitment we have made to land that is for the beautification of the area and also for the people living there, to me, maybe I don't understand the rules but it sure seems to me that with the lakes and the green space on the right had side if you had to choose between it and the other it would seem to me that it would have the effect. As far as blocks are concerned part of this does not have this continuity of saying that it is lineally divided into blocks, the one that was approved. The bottom half of it is not going through that many streets. It is mainly internal; it looks like to me parking lots. If I can read the plan. So I think y'all helped us. I think it was a good idea y'all told us about as far as getting Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 13 of 45 more connectivity. All of that is positive. We are willing to lose that many units. We would just ask you to analyze these two choices and in recognition of everything that the City ordinances are doing to... We tried hard. That is all I want to tell you. We have really tried hard to get something that could work and at the same time gives the green space and the beauty that we want to own it for a long long time if we have to. We may not have to. We may have condos. They may start selling. We may sell the whole thing out and then that really would have accomplished the goal of affordable available housing for people in that category. Anyway, to answer you, yes that could be divided into smaller rows of buildings. If I understood you right. I don't hear so good sometimes. Lack: You did. Lindsey: But in smaller buildings, yes, it could. Lack: Ok. At the northeast corner of the property where the road comes in from the adjacent development we are adjacent to the park there. And looking at the plat overall I see a lot of public park land with no assigned parking or no parking or anything to the north of it. Certainly Bryce Davis Park has a little bit of parking now for the size that it is, but I am looking at the park trying to think of this additional park land, public parkland, and how do people get to that. Or how would they be welcome to use that parkland? Lindsey: This right here... Anthes: Mr. Lindsey, please come to the microphone if you would. Lindsey: This right here has on street parking for the park area. I think it is 16 spaces. You would have to look at this size, you can't see it on that other size. But this size here shows that this area right here has parking for the people, the city, anybody who wants to use the park. It is not dedicated to not one single building in any fashion. It is for that purpose only. Lack: Ok. And Jeremy, has Parks made reference to that being acceptable for parking? Pate: I do know that that was brought up during the Parks and Recreation Board meeting and that was a recommendation to provide that parking. I am looking, and their condition is "on -street parking shalt be constructed by the developer along this section of public street bordering the proposed parkland. A minimum of eight spaces shall be provided." And this plan shows fourteen, I believe. Lindsey: We did that by Park's request. Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 14 of 45 Lack: Ok. Lindsey: That's what Kim just said. I wasn't at the meeting but that is what he said. Lack: Ok. Well, I certainly am a big fan of the goals of the 2025 Plan and I think that it is definitely a worthwhile policy document. I guess I am having a little trouble reconciling stepping away from policy, but I see other policies. I see the green space. I see the environmental qualities of the site that go well above and I think that helps me to resolve the aspect of the 2025 Plan, the policy document that suggests the traditional town plan. It suggests the mixture of uses. While I think a mixture of uses would be healthy to this development I am reviewing the development that is in front of me. And I would certainly... My desire would be to have policy in our ordinance that would maybe require that or would take care of that as opposed to just a policy document that says this is an overall desire for the City of Fayetteville for which to regulate this sort of development. I am finding a little bit of weakness in the idea of denying a project on a policy. On one policy, on a policy document. I am sure there are other things in the development that other Commissioners might have objection to, or other points that we need to talk about. But to me it is coming down to an idea that the City wants a mixture of uses and a mixture of uses and mixture of housing types in a residential development is healthy and that is something the City wants. But are we quite there with the ability to require that? And the ability to deny a project on the crux of that policy? And for me I am finding some weakness there. And so I appreciate the road connections. While the one is public the other non-public I still see traffic moving through those. So I think I am maybe coming around to being able to vote for this. Lindsey: If I could address one thing and then I will sit down. For sure, and that is that in those issues there were six points that were made by staff. I think I am right Jeremy. And three of those last time were yes and three of them were no. We thought, and maybe we didn't. We didn't say yes and no this time on your report. But we thought that we made strides on two of those of the three. So we would like to hope that the three are still on our side for sure and that two of the other three, other than being able to say that it is a grid like they are talking about a (block in block). We can't do that and half a golf course. There is no way. You just can't make it happen. There is no way to do it. This is about as how to do it as we can dream up to figure out with the golf course. And we think that in many ways our connectivity and the tie in takes green space in consideration and is better. Now the last time that these guys came up here that basically sold it to us, they said they couldn't make it work. That was the reason why they got out. I think what I am trying to say here is that I believe as far as the questions of staff it Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 15 of 45 was three to three last time. We could go over those again if y'all wanted to. And we have made strides on two of the other three. And maybe it wasn't good enough for a yes to be there, Jeremy. I don't know. I am not challenging him on any of that. But we did try very hard and have tried from the beginning to make this be something that can work financially. Which this one over here would have been a bankrupts attempt. And still give the city the most of all that they want that we can give them. I think that Jeremy would say that we have tried. That there is no doubt that our plan has radically changed from the beginning. We have listened to what they said and what y'all have said. And we still are here to listen. But at the same time our argument would be summarized by the fact that if you look at those two plans not knowing what the buildings are going to look like on our houses or their town houses or anything, which one would you rather gamble on? The big time green space plan or the plan where everybody is stacked in there so tight that whatever the identity of it is I can't even begin to point out. It is not for me to decide on that plan at all. All I am trying to say is we don't want to make any comments about what somebody else did that was approved. I know they probably abided by the rules closer than we did. My only point is to say that we intend to do this as the nicest project that we have ever done in our whole lives with more variety and more diversity than anything we have ever done. So we would ask for you to help us and support us. I'll sit down unless you have a question. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Graves: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: This is my follow up to those comments and to the comments by Commissioner Lack. I think my main issue with staff s recommendation is just that it seems like what it essentially is is we wish this were a different development. And I would agree with the applicant's comment that you can't do what they are trying to do with this as far as having the golf course on it and have standard blocks through the entire piece of property. Staff wants a traditional town form. Staff wants more single family type housing to the outer edges and then transitioning inwards. I know those are all goals as we saw on the check list that the applicant referred to. Goals of the 2025 Plan. Obviously a policy document of the city that we are to follow. But by the same token you can't fit every project into a neat tittle box. We have seen it time and time again when things may not quite fit into the overall policy, but that is why it is a policy document. It is something that guides you and you utilize in making determinations and decisions on projects. But at the same time it doesn't handcuff you with shalls and musts. We have seen the Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 16 of 45 same thing on annexation ordinances that give you a list of things you are to consider. No one of which weighs more than another or no one of which is determinative of the outcome on the decision. There are other ordinances that we have that are like that, and the 2025 Plan is something that I would view the same way. And so when I look at the project I like it better than what was approved before. I think it is a nicer project and I do think overall that it meets the goals of what we would like to see happen. I mean, when you talk about the green space, you talk about the connectivity. And when you look at the plan for this particular area at the corner of Rupple and Wedington and the commercial hub that the City would like to see develop there. There is commercial towards that corner of the piece of property which provides that opportunity for anything developing on that piece of property to the south. And I do think that the multi -family housing and what was already approved there isn't a whole lot different in my mind than what this project proposes. It is shifted a little bit further south but it is very similar in nature. I am going to vote for this tonight. I may very well be in the minority. I know there are others that may not agree with the things I have said or may have other issues with it. But my concern at the last meeting was primarily the connectivity issue and it has been addressed. And the issue of having commercial all the way up the western boundary of the property which has been addressed. Those two things have both been changed from the last Planning Commission meeting and I do think that this is a fit there. And I understand Commissioners who may have other feelings about it. But this is just the recommendation; I am saying is essentially we want you to build something other than what you want to build. And for that reason I am going to go with what the applicant wants to build. And otherwise I think it fits what we want it to do. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Graves. Are there further comments? I have a couple of questions for staff. Do you recall how many acres, or perhaps the applicant does, how many acres the Cliffs is? Ballpark? Lindsey: Approximately 80. Anthes: 80? Alright, so it is about half as big as this? Lindsey: Yes. Anthes: I think a lot of us are struggling with the sheer scale of this. And I wanted to have a comparison with something we know on the ground. So the Cliffs is about half this size, and it is setback from Crossover Rd with a green space. Crossover is a different sort of road, I think, than Rupple is going to become. I think Rupple Rd is going to carry that amount of traffic but I think that the way that development is happening around it we might have something that is more of a community Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 17 of 45 oriented street rather than kind of the pass through that Crossover has become. But I do appreciate that the applicant is putting buildings that face onto that street and providing some life on Rupple. Although I am a little... You know we don't usually comment about residential building elevations except when we have a PZD and I am a little bit worried about the Parkwood town homes. Commissioner Ostner scaled this off for me a little bit ago and I think we have about 800 feet of this building along the street. While those buildings are broken down I think this is going to feel relentless. 800ft of the identical 16 by 32 unit with the same face and the same roof projection and the same front door repeated that many times. And so I have some concern about that. The commercial I think much better aligns with the adjacent commercial and that has been a positive response to our questions at the last meeting. I wish that was more of a community commercial kind of form. And I understand that we are going to see Large Scales on all of these different planning areas if this passes. Is that correct Mr. Pate? Pate: Yes. Anthes: So the specifics on any of these planning areas could slightly be altered in each of those Large Scales. Is that right? Pate: Yes. This is obviously just in concept only. We are establishing a zoning criteria however by which you would review the project. So as long as the project met that zoning criteria, if this were approved, it would need to be approved. Anthes: Because obviously, I think, when we are getting down to those intersections it would be nice to have commercial that is less of a strip mall kind of commercial layout and more of something that is contributing to the goals of the City Plan when it comes to walkability and building form and alignments and how buildings face on the street and parking is located on the side or the back. Within these different planning areas, there is room for further discussion on the form of development, so at a future date, that might get the plan even closer to meeting more of the City Plan 2025 goals than it does right now. The golf course and the green space. While the green space is something that is a huge benefit, it is also something that is very limiting to your ability to lay this thing out. As you acknowledged, it is difficult to do the lot block connection through it. And again I think you could provide a lot block connection to Rupple Rd by putting the golf course in the center of the development and then you could have the buildings connect at least to Rupple. But then I am going back and forth and saying does that get us anywhere? Is it any better? What the development team wants to construct is multi -family buildings in a similar footprint. Perhaps setting it back on the other side of a golf course with green space in between and giving you Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 18 of 45 some distance between that product and the road helps. Are there too few through public streets and connections? Personally I think there are too few. I agree with staff when they say that it forces too large a majority of circulation through private parking lots. And yet, I don't think we have any specific ordinance that tells us what percentage we can allow or disallow. I'm not fond of parking lot drive aisles, but we don't have anything in the city ordinances that prohibits them from using them. Pate: In looking at those findings I simply don't think it would meet all those criteria on 150 acres. Anthes: And so to follow up on that, and what Commissioner Lack was saying earlier, we have this one policy document, but how much do we hang our hats on that? We have the City Plan 2025, but we also have the PZD ordinance and we have the rezoning criteria. It seems to me, staff, in reading the findings, you are finding the same theme repeated through those. You are coming up with the same answer as to why it doesn't meet the PZD ordinance to enough of a degree to satisfy you, as the degree of compatibility and transition and flexibility that would be required in an acceptable rezoning. Is that true? Am I reading that correctly? Pate: I think to a certain extent that is true. If this were a rezoning to RMF -24 you would probably see very similar findings in just the rezoning section which is I believe the five findings that we have when you just look at a rezoning application. We have to look at both. Or at all three as you mentioned. The City Plan 2025, the rezoning criteria, and the PZD criteria. Yes, I believe in most cases you will find repeated elements throughout those findings in the project. And in this case most of them are the ones that you find. I think, to be honest, the ones that you find are positive are also repeated numerous times throughout those findings. Anthes: Ok. What do you tell an applicant that says needs to provide compatibility and transition within this project, which you say the burden is the property owner's? That property owner, their product is multi -family. They are not building single family residences at this time that I know of, though they did in the past. Do you ask them to partner with somebody that does? To sell another party a piece of property and let somebody else construct those? How do we get there? How do we get to the answer with a developer that doesn't build the product that we are asking for? Pate: I think it would be a similar situation as when the Planning Commission asked the applicant to provide commercial out lots. I don't think this particular applicant will build any of the commercial out lots. They will likely split those into lots and someone else will construct those and bring those through as Large Scale Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 19 of 45 Development. I know Mr. Lindsey and his group does have experience in the single family development business and other types of development but it may not be something that he is interested in doing at all. In this particular case the existing zoning, I would very much doubt if this plan were built that it would be all the same developer either. A project that immense. Much like CMN Business Park, which was zoning. A policy decision was made in the 1990's to rezone a lot of that residential and commercial, and as you know it is not the actual property owners that are developing the property at all. Anthes: I think that is the case in a lot of projects that we see. We understand that either the property may change hands or that different people may build different parts. But we have an applicant standing in front of us that I believe intends to build the whole thing and has the means to do so. That is unusual for us as well. Pate: Yes, I agree. Anthes: Mr. Williams, could you help us out? Williams: Probably not. But I just wanted to point out what Jeremy just read. The approval/rejection criteria. If you look at number one it says that whether the application is in compliance with the requirements of the Unified Development Code and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. It really doesn't say goals. It talks about the requirements of that. Now it does talk about compatibility later. Number 8. It also implies where it says "any other recognized zoning would be violated. And of course compatibility is within any zoning criteria. And when it talks about compatibility as one of those provisions, if number four says whether the proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding land uses now that is not talking about internal compatibility. But it is talking about compatibility with everything that is surrounding it. I just don't want us to have too high of a standard... a different standard because this is such a large project as opposed to another project where you would be saying well it has to be compatible with it's neighbors. But you wouldn't then be saying that well because it doesn't have enough housing types it is not compatible with itself or something. I don't know if that is actually... I don't know if we have that in the code as one of the requirements. I know that we have a lot of goals. But I think a requirement and a goal might be two different things. And when this was drafted it did say requirements of the Unified Development Code and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. It did not say goals. And maybe that was a mistake. Maybe the City Council needs to go back and look at that and make it broader and make it goals instead of requirements. But right now it does say requirements which I think is a little stricter term for you all to apply. Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 20 of 45 Anthes: Commissioner Ostner? Ostner: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Since scale and the size of this project is becoming kind of central part of my reasoning and my problem of voting for it is if you think about on average our basic preliminary plat might be thirty acres. It might be forty acres. By my crude memory if we take thirty acres as your average subdivision this is five of those. If we can imagine this piece of dirt chopped into five pieces and one at a time the owners started coming down here asking for RMF -24, RMF -24, RMF -24 I guarantee you by the third one we would say wait a minute. What's going on? There is a lot of that going on out here. For a vision of how this city is supposed to be built I am not sure all of that belongs. For me if there were five pieces by the third one I would just say no that's enough. There should probably be a different mixture. So I don't think we are being arbitrary. Zoning is basically about the City Council's opinion. If they think it is the way the city needs to grow they vote for it. We simply give a recommendation. I would hope they listen to us. They might not. But what they think about this is important. There are no laws to say `Mr. Councilman you've got to rezone this piece of dirt like that' boom, boom, boom. That would be easy. That would be easy for us. In fact we wouldn't be here. It would go right past us. It might not even go to them. Maybe there are some places that happens to your land but not here. So it comes back to what we think and how we envision this town growing. So I believe that scale is important. You have taken a good idea, a sound project I believe. And for me it is just so many of those good projects all in one that I would rather it not be. If it were a third. I know you can't do a golf course on 30 acres. Excuse me, 50. Then in my mind I don't have a problem with this much multi -family on the first 50 acres. Now, the second 50 acres I would probably want something else. Single family detached. Some sort of mix. I am not requiring mixed use. I am not requiring mixed use. I am not. City Plan promotes it and you have incorporated it in parts of this. But as other Commissioners have mentioned there are so many of the same building. There are so many of the same use over so much acreage that I am concerned. I think that touches on my opinion of the scale issue and the 2025 issue. I think I voted against 2025 several times already. I agree it is a good book of suggestions. It is a good learning document. We don't have to slavishly follow it. So those are my comments. Graves: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves, please. Motion: Graves: I guess my only response to those comments by Commissioner Ostner would be Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 21 of 45 that at least from what is being presented only 32% of this will have multi -family housing and 68% is going to be some time of green space whether it be golf course or park land or whatever. So the comments along the lines that if this were a third of the size it would be a different situation. Well, there are only roughly a third of this piece of property that are going to have buildings on it. If this were 150 acres all building and no park land and no golf course I wouldn't want to vote for it either. And as was pointed out this type of property couldn't be accomplished on a smaller piece of property anyway because of the golf course. And so it comes back to again my concern that what is really being said is that we wish this were a different project. And I am not sure that R-PZD ordinance or our goals of our 2025 Plan really contemplate that. Perhaps they should. But I don't think they do. I don't think that maybe they contemplate the thing that Commissioner Anthes touched on and that is having an applicant that intends to come in and do this project. You know, a turn key situation instead of having a number of folks come in and develop the piece of property. And so again I come back to being troubled by telling an applicant who happens to do a certain project that well we don't want you to do that. We want you to build houses even though you don't do that. We don't want you to build the golf course because we want traditional lots and blocks and that type of thing. And so then I get back to, from that point, does this type of project the way it is presented meet the goals of our 2025 Plan. I don't think you can fit them in a box as I said earlier. But I do think they meet those goals when I look at the six things that were presented last time. They're on page 12. We don't have the yes or no columns anymore. I don't know why those were eliminated this time. Goal one and goal two staff had already put a yes next to those as I recall. Goal three I don't think is possible if you are talking about a project that has a golf course as this one does. Goal four I felt a lot more comfortable with with the connectivity being addressed. Goal five, I think there was a yes next to that. And goal six they have now proposed that some of these are going to be for sale at an attainable price. Does it fit those goals? I think for the most part it does. Is there anything about this that violates a requirement of the UDC? I don't think so. I don't think there is anything in the UDC that says they have to transition within their own lot. We have allowed smaller 40 or 50 acre parcels where you don't have to have transition within that lot. You don't have to have single family around the edges and multi -family in the middle. We have seen plenty of 30 or 40 acre parcels that were completely zoned RMF -24 or completely RSF-4 and we let them build one type of building all the way across it. Maybe this is something that needs to be addressed. But I think as the book stands today I don't see anything that compels voting against this or would make me inclined to agree with staff s recommendation. For that reason I am going to move that we forward this to the City Council with a recommendation of approval with the stated 23 conditions and adding the two regarding the trails as numbers 24 and 25 and with findings in favor of staff's Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 22 of 45 recommendations on number 1, 3, and 2. That is my motion. Trumbo: Second. Anthes: We have a motion to forward by Commissioner Graves with a second by Commissioner Trumbo. We need to follow up with staff on a comment you made because it is something that I am struggling with as well. This idea of finding of compatibility and transition of land use within a project as a requirement of a rezoning request. Because that is different than a goal of the 2025 Plan. I want to be sure that we are really clear about it. Pate: I am going to refer to part of the findings in our Planned Zoning District ordinance as well under Residential Planned Zoning District purposes and intent A through E. One of them is to provide a framework for them that in effect a relationship differently in uses and activities within a single development can be planned on a total basis. And then also to provide harmonious relationship with the surrounding development minimizing such influences as land use incompatibilities, heavy traffic congestion, etc. I think those are findings on which we have made in the negative in terms of that particular case. I struggle with the literal interpretation of that meaning of the word "requirement." All of City Plan 2025 and rezoning findings are policy statements. They are policy statements on which the City Council looks at a project on a case by case basis and make a policy decision. That is essentially what a rezoning application is. These particular applications have a development that is tied to them so we are also applying the actual requirements and codified ordinances of the UDC upon this project and we will continue to do so if this project is approved. We will then hold a Planning Commission to the applications that you have before you and the zoning criteria by which it is approved. So I think that Mr. Graves is certainly correct in his comments that not every Planned Zoning District ordinance that comes before you will fit every one of the goals. I think that staff will certainly state that we have recommended projects that don't meet all of the Planned Zoning District rezoning and City Plan 2025 zones. And we will recommend approval and denial of projects that fit both of that criteria. I think from our perspective we have to make the best recommendation that we can as a Planning staff to the Planning Commission and the City Council ultimately for the policy decision meeting the majority of those goals. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Is there further discussion? Well, this one is really realty frustrating because the intent is there to really do it and to do a good job. And I believe Mr. Lindsey is being very candid with us when he says he is building in more extra costs than he has ever done in a project before and that he has put together a plan that is better than what he has built here before and which has Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 23 of 45 been allowed. I want to commend the design team for that, and I want to commend staff for working through the iterations. I never saw the first ones, but I think we have come a long way. We have even come a long way since the last meeting. Where I am struggling is that I am looking on page 22 of our PZD booklet where it talks about the zoning districts. I am not looking at the existing zoning. I am looking at the proposed Links and where the different districts are, and I am thinking about this as if I were looking at this as a straight rezoning request. I look at the different planning areas. We have 3.03 acres in Planning Area I, which is the market district. 4.9 acres in Planning area II, which is a market district. 5.17 acres in the Club House area. And then there is Planning area IV, which is residential and golf course, and which is basically a rezoning to RMF -24 and that is 107.27 acres. I look at that and I think about the one... There was something near here recently. They came through with a rezoning request. I think it was for straight RSF-4 and we said you have this proximity to these other things, could you please come back to us with a PZD or some way that we can see some other transition within your development. They came back and that applicant doesn't build multi -family but they came back to us with a rezoning request in different pieces and are going to add other uses. I think there are some multi -family and others.... remind me. Pate: I believe it is actually the project you saw before this, Bellwood phase II which is RT -12 Residential 2 and 3 family, 12 units an acre and a portion of that site is C-1 which is neighborhood commercial and RSF-7 which is residential single family seven units per acre. Anthes: And we required that on a project of 20 acres. So I am looking at what we have done before and how we can be consistent and I am a little caught. I mean, I want to vote for this project. I don't know that I can. I think staff has made a very convincing argument in their findings, and I am not sure that I can find reason to vote for it today. I would rather, and I hate to say this, but I would rather table it and have the applicant take one more look at it to see if we can get there. But you might very well have the positive votes to go forward in any case tonight. I just don't want a no vote on the motion to forward on my part to be a no vote on the project. I think the project has a lot of amenity and deserves to be built in some form. Myres: I agree. Anthes: And we are probably close to it. So I guess I am still a little bit up in the air about it. I think good arguments have been made on both sides tonight and I try to come to these meetings without a preconception and listen. I think we have heard good arguments both ways. Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 24 of 45 Ostner: I would second your motion to table if that was a motion. Anthes: Well, let me look at the applicant and say, is there any more room in this? Or are you where you are where you are going to end up? Lindsey: I would respond back and say to you all is there something that you see, like we did last time that would make sense to anyone to make it so that it would be compatible across the board? I don't know what it would be. We started with staff and we compromised all the way through. I would point out to y'all that this operation over here only had six building types, not ours but the other one. That is what they are telling us. I am assuming that is true. I am assuming they went in there they could have made different decisions later. But their initial plan was based on six building types. We are talking about six building types. We are talking about, as we see it anyway, 102 acres that will remain forever green space under this PZD. I don't believe that another commission or any condition would ever change that. Why would we destroy what we have already built by going in and trying to redo the golf course or something? So there are some things about what we have done here that lets people know forever out there what they are looking at. People on the north of us, if you live north of us and are looking down on those golf holes would you prefer that or this? If you live south and are looking across the park and the golf holes....? You know, I can't speak for everyone. We had nobody come against us. Not one single person that I know about has spoken up against us. So I guess in my whole point of it is if the neighbors around you prefer it and like it and all of that is in positive light, if somebody could tell me what would make a difference we would table it for sure. Anthes: Well, there were a couple of things in our staff findings that I believe outlined some options. One was that there would be a greater variety in building footprints and facades and that there would be some residential single family detached as part of the project. Is that correct Mr. Pate? Pate: I don't recall off the top of my head. Myres: That is my recollection. Anthes: And then there is also that staff stated that they would recommend reducing the amount of circulation that is through private parking lots. Pate: I think that is what I was just looking at. Attempting to try to look at smaller to medium sized blocks with a higher level of connectivity within the neighborhood. Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 25 of 45 Anthes: Which I think you could do within the project itself. Maybe it wouldn't come out to Rupple Rd, but within the center that is surrounded by the golf course and within each planning area there could be a heightened level of connectivity. Lindsey: One of the things we did because of organization and talking to Jeremy, I mean, all the parking lots are interior. We did everything we understood other than the building layout and then this criss-crossing layout of the normal lot layout. We think we did almost everything that the urban plan would have called for except that. And then we corrected two. You had three things yes and three things no, and we took two of those as they were pointed out and we think that we changed those two to where they should have been at least more yes than no. So I guess our point would be that if y'all have something you could tell us that would make sense.... I don't know where we would put the single family if we chose to find a spot somewhere. To me the biggest advantage that we can lay out is some kind of really nice condominium arrangement would allow someone who could pay $120,000 for a place to have a chance to have homeownership. I think y'all brought that up and I think that is areal good point. We agree to that. Most everything y'all have asked us we have tried to find an answer whether it was staff or here. Maybe we haven't done a good enough job yet. We are always willing to work towards doing a better job. Anthes: Do you think it is a possibility that you could introduce some residential single family into this? Lindsey: Not very much and make it make sense. See, what they did is they had a deal and they priced it out and they saw it as bankruptcy. It just wasn't going to work. I don't know their deal. I didn't see their numbers. They just told me when they were selling it that they couldn't make it work. So my whole point would be that we've done the town houses side somewhere back over there. In some pod we could do single family but it would just be kind of like just something that would maybe pacify what y'all want. Or tell us what y'all want and I am sure we could put.... If you would pass us with say, put your finger on north of the last street we've got there. Can you mark that? I would assume that we come in here and took this pod here and then come back in and did a couple of sites in here and did single family housing in here if that would be enough? I doubt it would be enough. And I don't know how to mix. This isn't going to work. So I would rather you turn me down than me make a mistake that would not make sense later and wouldn't be affordable, wouldn't be attainable. 200 and something thousand dollar, $250,000 houses in this setting. We would much rather do condominiums and make that available. I think that is a big time winner for the community to give them a chance to have affordable available housing under those terms. Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 26 of 45 Anthes: Well, it sounds like we have an applicant that is willing to work with us, but we are also not supposed to be sitting here trying to design a project from the podium. And as staff has stated this evening, we need to evaluate what is in front of us. Of course, we always do that based on our knowledge of what we have approved before and how we have done it. We have tried to be as consistent as possible but I don't.... I'm now starting my fifth year on this commission and I have never seen anything quite like this, this scale and this kind of zoning. I don't know. Is there further discussion? Graves: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Graves. Graves: I would just say again that after hearing the discussion and the exchange with the applicant that it would just really concern me to have an applicant feel like they have to build ten detached single family houses just to throw the city a bone or something when it is not something they want to build and it is not something they intended to use or sell as part of their project. I don't remember.... I know that we have encouraged transition. We have encouraged mixed use on different pieces of property. This piece of property has different types of uses on it with commercial, with condominiums for sale, with town homes, with multi -family. So the types of things that we typically encourage, this is already happening here. I don't remember ever having a situation where someone who didn't intend to or want to build single family homes, for example where there was a requirement that they do so or that there was a feeling or a sentiment by an applicant that they needed to do something that they didn't intend to do or to sell as part of their project. So, you know, you pointed to Bellwood. I don't even remember Bellwood. Maybe I wasn't here that night or maybe the applicant was in a different situation there. I don't know. I don't remember. But I am just not comfortable with when I hear the applicant say "we can build some homes. I don't know where we would put them and it is not something we build and it is not something we do but I guess if you want us to we could." That just doesn't make me comfortable. It doesn't bother me to have a concentration of multi- family in the middle of this parcel given the amount of green space we see, which also serves as a very large buffer from what all is around it. I would again just state my support for it as is. Anthes: I don't think that is where I am struggling, Commissioner Graves, because I agree. I think that amount of green space and that setback does so much to relieve the impact of this amount of multi -family. Though we will still see the repetitive building forms. We still we see the repetitive masses in elevation. It is still somewhat buffered from the major arterial roads around it by that amount of Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 27 of 45 green space. I guess I still keep going back to this table and looking at the rezoning request. We have a concept plan and we know we are going to see Large Scales in each of the areas. We know that those areas can be refined as they come through, and I think there are a lot of possibilities there. But that rezoning request in that planning area four, I am still just concerned about it. And there is no reason to ask an applicant to do something that is not meaningful. I mean, throwing a handful of houses somewhere that doesn't make sense, that doesn't become a part of any neighborhood that doesn't provide a transition, I don't think is what staff is saying when they made that finding. What they are saying is that if it were to be required then it would have to be meaningful. I don't know. I am still on the fence. Graves: Madam Chair, I would add that we all the time have applicants that don't want to make street improvements that we require or pay assessments that we require. I maybe view that differently than having to build a type of development that they don't want to build. That just seems a different ball of wax to me. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Madam Chair. I don't think we are asking for them to build something that they don't want to build. Applicants come here all the time and don't get the zoning that they want. That is what is going on tonight. We are talking about dirt. We are talking about what use will that dirt have. These plans are fleshed out because the PZD gives them the flexibility to have different zoning districts and it in turn requires them to show us sketches of what they would build. These are not development plans. We are talking about land use. I agree. If an applicant were to stick a single family land use in one part of a project, that would be inappropriate. That would not solve the problems that the staff has illustrated. This is a land use decision. It is a rezoning. It is a rezoning that has been custom crafted and they have to show all these drawings and all this research to get their custom zoning. I would also tend to agree with Commissioner Anthes that if I do have to vote no it would not be a negative for this project. It would simply be, for the reasons that I have already stated, this project has merit and I would like to see it built with a little bit of a different layout. I have delineated those specific qualms that I have with this layout and with these land uses. Thank you. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: Madam Chair. I think this comes out to eight units an acre. Is that right Jeremy? So it is really not 24 units an acre. Last time I was concerned about the connectivity to the streets made to the main streets, Rupple and Wedington, and they are there now. This isn't the ideal urban development but Fayetteville may Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 28 of 45 not be the complete ideal town where that is going to work in all cases. It is a college town and college towns need affordable housing for students and for waiters and waitresses and workers and $500 or $600 bucks a month to live somewhere this is the product that we need. I would like to see Wellsprings developed but I know that is a project that is a huge risk. We are not supposed to get into money but it wouldn't happen anytime quick. There is not demand for all that. There is a need for these apartments. I don't know if I should be commenting on that but it is a reality. I would like to go ahead and vote on this and let Mr. Lindsey move ahead with his vote either way. I am in support of it and I think we need it. Anthes: OK. Myres: Can we have a timely vote please? Motion: Anthes: Yes, we can. Because I am just so on the fence about this and this could fail, so I am going to move to table this request tonight. The reason why is because I do agree with staff that we have too few public streets and connections and that could be helped by changing that southern connection through the commercial area to a public street rather than a public drive. I think there is an opportunity to adjust a few of the scale and mass portions of the appearance on a few of the unit types. I think it is worthwhile to study, albeit briefly, the opportunity to insert some residential single family in here. I think there is a way to break up the facades because we do look at facades on PZD's on the town homes in a way that would make them more ingratiating to the street. And because staff has come through loud and clear on the rezoning piece that is a policy decision I feel like I really have to rely on that. We have an applicant that seems willing to take another hit at it, and that being the case, I will move to table. Ostner: I will second. Anthes: We have a motion to table by Commissioner Anthes with a second by Commissioner Ostner. Is there any discussion on the motion to table? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to table R-PZD 07-2452 The Links at Fayetteville was approved by a vote 4-3-2. Commissioner Clark and Commissioner Harris recused, Commissioner Graves, Trumbo and Lack voted No. Commissioner Ostner came in during the discussion, and in time to vote. Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 29 of 45 Trumbo: What about the other motion? Anthes: The motion to table trumps it. Trumbo: Ok. Anthes: Alright. Thank you for being patient with us. I hope that we can get there. Lindsay: We'll keep trying. Anthes: Alright. Thanks. Can we ask our other two Commissioners to come back in? Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 30 of 45 New Business: CUP 07-2486: (ROOT ELEMENTARY GYMNASIUM, 408): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL, SPARKS & ASSOC. for property located at 1529 E. MISSION BLVD. The property is zoned P-1, INSTITUTIONAL and contains approximately 0.90 acres. The request is for an 8,494 s.f. school gymnasium. Anthes: Our first item of new business is Item 6, Conditional Use Permit 07-2486 for Root Elementary Gymnasium which is also known as the Barbara Broyles Center. Can we have the staff report please? Garner: This property contains just under 1 acre. It is at the southeast corner of Mission Blvd and N Eastwood Dr. It is zoned RSF-4. The property is developed for the Root Elementary School and the subject portion of the property is zoned RSF-4 and is currently developed for a playground and basketball courts. The applicant proposes to remove the basketball court and a large chain link fence and the playground of the property and construct a new 8500 sq ft gymnasium. As mentioned the property is located in single family zoning district, use unit for cultural and recreational facility under which a gymnasium falls is allowed only by a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant therefore requests conditional use approval to allow the gymnasium on the property. Staff has received some phone calls and a letter from the adjoining neighbor adjacent to the south. The neighbor is not opposed to the project but had several recommendations to make the project more compatible with the neighborhood. The letter is attached and included in your packet. In making our Findings of Fact for this conditional use approval staff does find in favor of granting this request finding that a gymnasium in this location will not adversely effect the public interest with appropriate and sensitive design measures in place. The school has been in existence for many years and is associated with the character of this neighborhood. Removing the existing school basketball courts and replacing them with an enclosed gymnasium wouldn't adversely change the character or the appearance of the neighborhood. We will just summarize by saying that we are recommending approval. We do have several conditions of approval for this project. Conditions number one is Planning Commissioner determination of compatibility of adjacent properties and those within the same district. Condition number two is Planning Commissioner determination of sidewalk improvement. The City Sidewalk administrator recommends construction of a 6ft wide sidewalk along the project's Mission Blvd frontage. This would fill in the remaining gap of the property that does not have a sidewalk in front of the school. We have several other conditions here related to the lighting on the property, the hours of operation. And Condition number six also included that all mechanical and utility equipment should be screened and use of materials that are compatible with and incorporated into the structure. We Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 31 of 45 also added the statement there that this equipment should be located as far away from the south and west property lines as feasible to minimize noise to the surrounding residents. There are architectural renderings of this gymnasium and we have condition number eight that just says that this development is to be generally consistent with those elevations that they have presented here. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Anthes: Alright. Thank you, Mr. Garner. Would any member of the public like to speak to this Conditional Use Permit for Root Elementary gymnasium? Seeing none I will close the floor to public comment. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Good evening. Burgess: I'm Wes Burgess with Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates representing the school district. I will be very brief. We have looked at the conditions of approval. We are fine with all of those. If you are interested in knowing why we had gone for a setback variance other day there is a couple of high pressure gas lines that bisect this site. So by moving the building l Oft to the west we were able to avoid those. The reason that we are coming with this project is the gym over at Root now is badly in need of replacement and this is pretty much the one location on the site where it will work so we are attempting to beautify the area with the project as we are doing with it. I would be happy to answer any questions. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Burgess. Commissioners? I have a question for staff. There was a very articulate letter in our packet from Hank and Stacy Griffin. What is nice is that for every concern they had they also listed a possible solution, which is great. I was wondering if staff has looked at that and if any of those suggestions may be incorporated or would be supported by staff? Garner: We have read these. I think that we felt that the conditions of approval that we added were appropriate for this project. We didn't have any particular objection to a lot of these either, but we didn't really feel like they were necessary to pull out and place in the official conditions. Anthes: As far as the conditional use. Garner: Right. Anthes: Mr. Burgess has the applicant seen that letter and are you willing to concede any of those points? Burgess: We are more than happy to work with the Griffins. It looked to me like a few of the concerns were included in the Conditional Use. We had originally suggested Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 32 of 45 extending the privacy fence that is along their property line and in lieu of that we are more than happy to landscape it and not extend that fence. We will located the unites as far away from them as we can to make that work. So certainly we are willing to work with them. Anthes: Thank you. Are there further comments? Are there motions? Motion: Myres: I'll move. Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Myres: Thank you. I will move that we approve Conditional Use Permit 07-2486 for the Root Elementary gymnasium with the attendant Conditions of Approval as stated in the staff report. Clark: I'll second. Anthes: I have a motion to approve by Commissioner Myres with a second by Commissioner Clark. Are there further comments? Ostner: Ma'am. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Madam Chair, a question for the applicant. Is the southern boundary the privacy fence? Burgess: What? Ostner: Is the southern boundary a board privacy fence? Burgess: Actually the fence is slightly on the school's property. The actual property line is just a couple of feet south of the fence. Ostner: I am just wondering if the fence is a board solid privacy? Burgess: Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood your question. It is. Yes. Mr. Griffin might want to describe it more fully. Ostner: Ok. I guess my question to you and staff is that board privacy fences are not self- Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 33 of 45 policing. Right now that area is kind of a park like atmosphere with basketball courts and what -not. So my question is whether that privacy fence is helpful in safety whereas public schools are putting in these wrought -iron fences that people can see through. You can see who is on the other side. What would you say to that? Burgess: Are you asking if we would be interested in removing that existing fence? I will let the school district address that one. Turrentine: Fred Turrentine. Director of Facilities, Fayetteville Public Schools. I think that would be a decision that we would certainly want to involve the neighbor in. Now, Washington within the last two weeks we have taken down the chain link fence that looks something like in the inner city. The fence was deteriorated. We put in a very expensive, over $40,000, a wrought iron fence. It has really enhanced and beautified. We intend to do that on Mission. To take down.... It is a l Oft chain link fence.... take down that chain link fence and put a wrought iron fence. But I don't think we would want to do anything to the neighbo'rs fence. It was his cost. It is in very good shape. It was a very expensive fence. Ostner: I thought that was on your property as Mr. Burgess.... Turrentine: We didn't actually build a fence. Our neighbor did. Ostner: Ok. But it happened to be over the line. Burgess: That happens sometime. Ostner: Sure. Well that is a little bit different than the way it started out. I would still like to share concerns that on playgrounds and around children that a privacy fence allows places that you can't see. I am wondering if anyone else understands. The neighbor has a different opinion possibly, but there are lots and lots of people and children and this is a conditional use. So that was my first question. I guess the second question is since the neighbor to the south is requesting more brick on that south elevation, are you all going to do that? Burgess: Of course that is a cost issue, so again I will let the school district address that. Turrentine: We have an appropriation number that our school board has appropriated. We are out at present and bids will open the 15`h. If the project comes in under bid we would certainly be willing to increase the amount of brick. If the project comes in over bid then there is a high possibility we won't do the project. I could only say if the project came in under bid that we would be willing to still spend the Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 34 of 45 $750,000 that we validated and make improvements to the building. Ostner: Ok, that's fine. I just wanted a more specific response to the issue. A question for staff. When you mention condition seven, "landscaping shall be planted in conformance with chapter 177," does that include a foundation landscape buffer? Or is it simply buffer? Pate: The buffer would be a long the south side which is where is buffer would be required adjacent to the residential single family lot. We don't have any code requirements for foundation planting around the building and we don't have any requirements for that in terms of our ordinances. There would be requirements to plant additional trees and screening adjacent to the existing parking lot to a certain percentage because this building is a certain percentage to the overall school area. So we look at that percentage and then place a certain percentage on improvements to landscaping on the school property. So there will be additional plants along Mission Blvd as well. Ostner: But not at the building along Mission? Pate: Not adjacent to the building, no sir. We don't have.... The city does not require any plantings in regard to that. Motion: Ostner: Well, I just wanted to make sure of that too because on the letter, the first item is "the appearance of the building facing home" she asked about brick and she asked about landscaping. I believe most people when they talk about landscaping hear a building they think of a foundation plant instead of brick and metal building coming down to concrete or dirt or grass. Something. I would like to include that as a condition of approval. I think it would make a great difference with this project. I would even be willing to phrase it "if their budget allowed". I will make a motion that we add a condition number nine that the south elevation shall have a foundation planting if the school board's budget allows it. Anthes: I have a question of staff or the City Attorney on that. How do we make a motion that is contingent on a budget? Or can we? Pate: We would simply have to trust the applicant to fulfill that condition if they are able. Williams: I would make that more of a recommendation as opposed to a condition because in fact that is really what it is. It is really up to the school board I think on that, so Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 35 of 45 would simply in the notes make the recommendation that that was what you would like to see. Ostner: Ok. So I would like to strike that and offer a condition of approval number nine that says a foundation planting on the southern elevation is recommended. Anthes: I am confused. I thought that your recommendation was to not make it a condition of approval, but to make it a recommendation in the record. Williams: I think probably if he phrases it that way it is not really a condition of approval but it will certainly make it to them so they will hear it. Ostner: It is a condition that strikes out the condition. Anthes: Ok. Do I hear a second? Myres: Second. Anthes: We have a motion to amend and add a recommendation that foundation plantings be added to the south side of the building. But that is a non-binding recommendation added to the conditions. Ostner: It's a request. Anthes: Will you call the roll? Harris: Madam Chair? Harris: I would just like to revisit Commissioner Ostner's concern about the privacy fence. And I guess I just need to be educated. I am trying to remember where the privacy fence is and how many feet it runs. It faces a private property doesn't it? So it is really separating between the school and a private property. That would seem to me to be a difference between the school and say public property where perhaps a wrought iron fence would be more appropriate. Is that standard now to place wrought iron as opposed to privacy fencing between schools and...? I mean, do you know that? Ostner: Between private properties? Harris: Does anyone know between schools and any sort of property public or private? Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 36 of 45 Ostner: Well it is not standard. Not that I know of, no. Harris: Ok. Just out of curiosity. Well, I think I am satisfied just to sort of answer the issue that you have raised just in terms of it being adjacent to private property. So thank you. Anthes: Any more comments on the amendment. Will you call the roll? Roll call: The motion to amend and add a recommendation that foundation plantings be added to the south side of the building was approved by a vote 8-1-0. With Commissioner Graves voting No. Ostner: And Ostner can vote yes. Pate: I'm sorry. I had you as absent. Ostner: You must be mad at me. (Laughing) Anthes: So we have a motion on the table to approve. Are there further comments? And I do have a question to Commissioner Myres who made the motion. I assume that you are making positive determinations on one and two? Myres: Yes. Anthes: And the second agrees? Clark: Oh, absolutely. Anthes: Ok. Is there further comment? Will you call the roll? Oh, I'm sorry sir public comment is closed. Griffin: Ok. Anthes: But you know, tonight is crazy. Is there something that you would like to add? Griffin: I live at the home next to the basketball court. Anthes: So are you the person who wrote the letter? Griffin: Yes, I am. Anthes: And so you weren't here when I called for public comment? Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 37 of 45 Griffin: Yes, I was. But you just skipped over me. I just supposed you would come back to it. Anthes: Well, you know what, come on up. Griffin: My comments... Anthes: If you would go ahead and state your name for the record? Griffin: Pete Griffin, 1414 Eastwood. Anthes: Thanks. Griffin: Just a couple of comments. If you are on the other side of that fence, if you are on the south side of that fence, you are in my yard where my dog is and where my pool is. So an 811 fence keeping my property private from that public school is a smart thing. It is a good thing. Now if you are talking about extending my fence across my front yard then you would have the concerns that you expressed where people can conceal themselves on the other side. Although I didn't list that as one of the reasons that I opposed it, it's another reason. But there are good reasons. I don't hear anybody talking about extending that fence anymore. However, I would like to again just reiterate my concern about not finishing the south side of that building. It is being finished on three sides, obviously for one reason, and that is esthetics. And yet for some reason the side that faces the neighborhood that is not important is what I hear. And a promise from a contractor that if they can afford it they will finish that fourth side really doesn't answer the question. My dollar is that it is not going to be in the budget. Initially they had large exhaust intake loops and so you couldn't brick it for other reasons. But those intakes aren't there any more. It is air conditioning. So there is really no reason why that side facing the neighborhood, this is a conditional use so yes you can put that in there it seems like. On the condition that they finish it and it is as attractive to the neighborhood as much as it is to Mission or to Root Elementary School. It would be obscured to say, well why don't we not finish the side on Mission and finish my side. I don't know why we wouldn't finish and put that in there on all four sides. I don't even hear that if that is not done that it is going to landscaped at the foundation, another unbinding promise that "well, ok maybe we will put a plant there", but I have gotten neither. So I have an unfinished building that is going to just like you at the back of the (unclear) but that is not as pretty as my neighborhood. So I would like to reiterate how important it would be to me to have that side finished. Also I didn't hear anybody address my concerns about the foot traffic that is going to be traipsing across my yard and stepping off the Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 38 of 45 curb and being a hazard for the children. That is in my letter also. I didn't hear that addressed. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Griffin. Let's quickly go to staff about that. The foot traffic, as I understand it, the extension of the wrought iron fencing is going to guide the foot traffic in a different direction. Is that true, or am I not looking at the site correctly? Pate: I believe will change from what it is currently. Probably a lot of people trespass on Mr. Griffin's property to get to the gym where the gate is currently. I think that situation will change because the primary entry will be on the eastern most side which faces the school. Additionally there will be a requirement for sidewalks on this property to complete that pedestrian connection out. So I think that will certainly help in that regard. Anthes: And then the matter of the building elevations? I mean we don't have a finding for commercial design standards with the development plan like we normally would. Can you talk about what staffs findings were with respect to the building itself? Pate: We felt that the overall building was relatively well articulated for the use proposed and that it fits into the school. We did in our preliminary meetings with the applicant discuss utilizing materials that were already utilized on the school property which are the same materials which have been provided and shown here. If the Planning Commission finds that it is critical to find in favor of compatibility with this project you can make conditions to enable that project to become more compatible with the overall neighborhood. That is one of the overall bases of criteria for of a conditional use request. I do want to clarify, though, for the record, condition number seven does require a landscape buffer along the south property line so that is adjacent to this property. It says the buffer, regardless of whether it is a foundation recommendation or not, that is required as part of our code "a vegetative buffer shall be planted along the south property line. Where there is not adequate vacation that shall consist of continuous planting of trees and shrubs to provide a solid vegetative screen for noise and visual buffering and the Urban Forester shall determine what is adequate in that regard," as is typical. Anthes: Ok. And normally landscape and fences don't qualify as mitigation for commercial design standards. In this case, what are our goals here? Pate: I would remind you that you are actually not making a commercial design standard determination here. You are making a determination of is this use, this structure that is being proposed as a gymnasium on the school property, is it Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 39 of 45 compatible with the neighborhood in this area? So if you can make that finding with the building as shown, or otherwise, then that is the way you should vote. Anthes: Ok. Commissioner Lack. Lack: At great risk of seeming unsympathetic, which I am not, the majority of the building, the north and east elevations have a brick veneer wainscoating that I would guess is from 3 to 8ft and when I look at the south elevation and the fact that we will have an 8ft privacy fence along that at least to the position of the residents. It wouldn't necessarily extend through the front yard, but the 8ft privacy fence and the landscape buffer that is required is a buffering that will grow taller and actually screen more of the building than what would be seen. So my concern is that if we required a matching 8ft wainscoating of brick matching what is happening on the north side that it wouldn't help any. It wouldn't better the condition or better the appearance because it is automatically screened by an 8ft... Griffin: First of all... Anthes: Mr. Griffin, public comment is closed. I need for you to sit down if you would. We don't do a back and forth here. Griffin: Alright. Anthes: Ok? Griffin: But that was addressed earlier. Graves: Madam Chair? Anthes: Wait just a second. I don't think Commissioner Lack is finished. Lack: So with that I think I feel comfortable maintaining that vote for approval. Anthes: Ok. Commissioner Graves? Graves: Madam Chair. Question for staff. Would there be any requirement that the vegetative screen or the buffer be something that screens it year round as opposed to something that the leaves are going to fall off of and you can still see the... Pate: Yes. Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 40 of 45 Anthes: Are there any other comments on the materials on the facades and whether there is any need to change the conditions? I mean, if we were truly evaluating commercial design standards, I would hold my vote to the fact that the fence and the landscape aren't a substitute for those materials. In this case, there is an 8ft fence that is actually higher than what a lot of times we get, and the existing school use that has been there for a long time-- the expectation that the use would be retained which is an advantage to the neighbors and the neighborhood. I will support the request as it is written. Are there further comments? Will you call the roll? Roll call: The motion to approve CUP 07-2486 Root Elementary Gym was approved by a vote 9-0-0. Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 41 of 45 CUP 07-2487: (VISTA HEALTH, 138): Submitted by EGIS ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at 4253 CROSSOVER RD. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and contains approximately 9.94 acres. The request is for a new 6,452 s.f. hospital facility (Use Unit 4) to the existing Vista Health facility. Lack: Madam Chair, I will recuse on the next item. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Lack. Alright. Item number seven is Conditional Use Permit 07- 2487 for Vista Health and this one is Suzanne's. Morgan: This project site is located south of the intersection of Crossover Rd and Zion Rd. Adjoining properties to this subject property are Youth Bridge, Tea Corner, as well as some multifamily dwelling units. The current facility for this location was originally approved in 1981 with a Conditional Use and Large Scale Development. There was an addition made in 2001 and again the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use as well as a Large Scale Development for that addition. At some point the applicant added a metal storage facility on the property. You can see that on page 14 and that is the location on which they are proposing to add to this property. The addition is 6,452 sq It and will consist of 26 beds and 800 sq ft of medical office space. The development does not require a Large Scale Development and they have submitted a building permit. It was in review of this building permit that indicated... Or that staff realized that a Conditional Use Permit was necessary. Therefore the applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the expansion of the hospital medical use, use unit 4 in the R-0 and C-1 zoning districts. In review of this application staff finds that the proposed use will not adversely affect public interest as this property has be utilized for this use for over twenty years. The expansion of the building will be done in a manner that is compatible with the existing building in review of design or compatibility we find that it is appropriate. We are recommending approval with three conditions and those are on page 1 of your staff report and I will be glad to put up elevations of the proposed additions. Anthes: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Would any member of the public like to speak to Conditional Use Permit 07-2487 for Vista Health? Seeing none I will close the public comment section. Would the applicant make a presentation? Good evening. Davis: Good evening. I am Gary Davis with Egis Engineering and this is Kyle Maples who represents Vista Health and we would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Anthes: That was short and sweet. Thank you. Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 42 of 45 Davis: It's getting late. Anthes: Commissioners? Clark: Ok. Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Motion: Clark: This looks very straightforward, and it certainly looks like it is going to be an improvement over the metal building that is back there right now. So I will move that we approve Conditional Use 07-2487 with the Conditions as listed. Anthes: We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Clark. Do I hear a second? Myres: I'll second. Anthes: A second by Commissioner Myres. Further comments? Will you call the roll? Roll call: The motion to approve CUP 07-2487 Vista Health was approved by a vote 8- 0-1. Commissioner Lack recused. Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 43 of 45 ADM 07-2517: Administrative Item (SIDEWALK AMENDMENT): Submitted by Planning Staff to request amendment of the Unified Development Code, Chapter 177.05, Street Tree Planting, regarding sidewalk width and urban tree wells. Anthes: Our final item this evening is Administrative Item 07-2517 for a sidewalk amendment. Are you giving this one Mr. Pate? Pate: I will be. This is a request that has been promised to you for some time now. In late 2006 we submitted a consolidated landscape ordinance to the Planning Commission and the City Council which was passed, Chapter 177, and has been in effect for several months now. We are making the revision to that chapter and realized essentially that especially in urban conditions... we have a requirement now for urban tree wells. We had not previously seen that to a great degree and sort of just would wing it when a project came through and when a structure was located adjacent to a sidewalk in order to get an urban canopy. Prior to this we really didn't have a requirement. You only had to plant street trees if you had a parking lot adjacent to it so we felt that it was important to continue our urban forest with urban projects as well. So this would apply to downtown projects as well as new projects. The current requirement states that a l Oft sidewalk width is a requirement for a grater when what we call an urban tree well with a tree grate is utilized. I think we have realized on several projects that have requested and have been granted variances by the Planning Commission and City Council that that is excessive to even meet ADA requirements or those requirements as I listed in the sidewalk/corridors section that I copied for you. So we are recommending that that be reduced to 8ft in width and you have a memo to that effect from the Urban Forester. Secondly we would add section G to Street Tree Planting Standards 177.05(B)(3)(g), which would essentially state that development application developed for urban tree wells shall not be required to also provide the landscape area exclusive of the right-of-way. That is essentially clarifying that if you are building up to the sidewalk and provide urban tree wells you are not also required to provide the landscape area exclusive of that right-of-way. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate. There are no members of the public here so I won't ask for public comment. The city is the applicant so we don't have that. So we are on to discussion. Are there comments? Yes, Commissioner Clark. Clark: Is this to forward to City Council? Anthes: Yes, this is a motion to forward. Motion: Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 44 of 45 Clark: Then I will make a motion that we forward Administrative Item 07-2517. We have heard about it, we have read about it, we have talked about it and here it is. Anthes: And we have done it. Clark: We have done it. Myers: And I will second. Anthes: We have a motion to forward by Commissioner Clark with a second by Commissioner Myers. Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Madam Chair, Thank you. So Jeremy, basically if they are going to do urban tree wells and have a wide sidewalk that narrows down to 8 at the well... Is that the way that I am reading it? Pate: Actually you would have to have a minimum of 8ft of sidewalk in all locations. But where the tree is located that would include the minimum of 4ft tree well, so you would still have a minimum of 48in of clearance. ADA requires 36. So you still have a foot above and beyond what ADA requires. Ostner: So basically when they do that the 15 to 25ft requirement of green space goes away. Pate: Correct. Ostner: They do that instead of it. Pate: And that is to encourage that buildings be up on the street. Ostner: Right, right. Ok. That answers my question. Anthes: Is there further comment? We have a motion to forward. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to forward ADM 07-2517 Sidewalk Amendment was approved by a vote 9-0-0. Anthes: That is our final agenda item. We did have a nominating committee meet tonight and they are going to present their slate of officers for 2007. And who is going to do that? Commissioner Lack. Lack: I will do that and yes we did meet this evening before this meeting and Planning Commission March 12, 2007 Page 45 of 45 deliberated with great consternation. Our findings were that we would like to nominate for Chair Commissioner Anthes, for Vice Chair Commissioner Trumbo, and for Secretary Commissioner Clark. Anthes: Ok. The slate of officers as presented will be voted on at our next regularly scheduled meeting. Are there other announcements? Pate: We have Subdivision Committee meeting on Thursday and you should have received your packets last week. We got them out early. It is not a large agenda so if you do not have those or you are not going to be able to make that let us know as soon as possible. Anthes: Ok. Anything else? We are adjourned.