Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout122-06 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO, 122-06 A RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF LSD 06-1997, DIVINITY HOTEL AND CONDOS AND TO APPROVE THIS LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, on June 26, 2006, the Fayetteville Planning Commission voted 5-4 to deny LSD 06-1997, Divinity Hotel & Condos; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 2006, the developer/owner of record of the property upon which LSD 06-1997, Divinity Hotel & Condos would be built has appealed this decision to deny the large scale development pursuant to § 155.05 (A)(2) of the Unified Development Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby grants the appeal of the denial of LSD 06-1997, Divinity Hotel & Condos by the Planning Commission and approves LSD 06-1997, Divinity Hotel & Condos with all Conditions of Approval as stated within the Planning Department report specifically including: (a.) All street and sidewalk improvements found in Condition 2; (b.)Granting all waivers for driveway/alley width and curb radius found in Conditions 3 and 4; (c.) Granting applicant's request to construct a span over the 20 foot wide public alley subject to the approval of the Fayetteville Fire Department and Fayetteville Solid Waste `01 �RWr'R""'•i, Division with a height clearance of at least 14.5 feet. .� .. • • • .�S ti,•G\SY pc•. PASSED and APPROVED this 6t' day of July, 2006. c FAYETTEVILLE ; ATTEST: SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk THE June 27, 2006 /a�Job. NB - C&A-+ BARBER GROUP., Mrs. Sondra Smith, City Clerk City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: Appeal of LSD 06-1997 Dear Mrs. Smith, Via Email: ssmith6Dei.favetteville.ar.us . Please accept this letter as my appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of LSD 06- 1997 Divinity Hotel and Condos to the City Council in accordance with section 155.05 of the Unified Development Code. Respectfully, 770 Brandon Barber Chairman cc: Jeremy Pate (inate(iilci.favetteville.anusl 2921 S. OLD MISSOURI nom). SPIT S SPRINCDALE. ARKANSAS 72764 1)479.756.8999 ))479.756.8997 W)Ir W.RARREIICROUP.RI% RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF LSD 06-1997, DIVINITY HOTEL AND CONDOS AND TO APPROVE THIS LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, on June 26, 2006, the Fayetteville Planning Commission voted 5-4 to deny LSD 06-1997, Divinity Hotel & Condos; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 2006, the developer/owner of record of the property upon which LSD 06-1997, Divinity Hotel & Condos would be built has appealed this decision to deny the large scale development pursuant to § 155.05 (A)(2) of the Unified Development Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby grants the appeal of the denial of LSD 06-1997, Divinity Hotel & Condos by the Planning Commission and approves LSD 06-1997, Divinity Hotel & Condos with all Conditions of Approval as stated within the Planning Department report specifically including: (a) All street and sidewalk improvements found in Condition 2; (b) Granting all waivers for driveway/alley width and curb radius found in Conditions 3 and 4; (c) Granting applicant's request to construct a span over the 20 foot wide public alley subject to the approval of the Fayetteville Fire Department and Fayetteville Solid Waste Division with a height clearance of at least 14.5 feet. PASSED and APPROVED this 6 s day of July, 2006. APPROVED: By: DAN COODY, Mayor ATTEST: By: ®� SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVIIIE, ARKANSAS KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO: Dan Coody, Mayor City Council FROM: Kit Williams, City A DATE: June 27, 2006 RE: Appeal of LSD 06-1997 (Divinity Hotel & Condos) The rules for what can be considered to approve or deny a Large Scale Development (LSD) were established by the Fayetteville City Council when it passed the Unified Development Ordinance and recodified it years later as the Unified Development Code. These rules have not significantly changed since my memo to the City Council of June 17, 2002 attached. §166.06 (c)(7)(d) (1) and (2) require conformance with the commercial design standards found in §166.14 (D)(2)(c) if the structure to be constructed is a commercial structure such as the proposed Divinity Hotel & Condos project. The major issue with this project has been whether the proposed Divinity Hotel & Condos provides "compatibility and transition between adjoining developments." Jeremy Pate, as the Zoning and Development Administrator, is charged by City Council through U.D.C. § 152.01 (D) for administering and interpreting Chapter 166 Development. Mr. Pate has opined that "compatibility and transition between adjoining developments" would include considerations of height even though this project was submitted and would be controlled.by the previous C-3 zoning allowance of no height limitation.. Mr. Pate made this identical determination during the consideration of the Underwood building which won approval of the Planning Commission a few months ago. As I have consisteritly explained to the Planning Commission, commissioners (and now aldermen) must accept Mr. Pate's interpretation of the design standards and may NOT substitute personal interpretations. Thus, aldermen must consider the proposed height of the Divining Hotel & Condos as a factor when determining compatibility and transition. You may determine its height is or is not compatible with adjoining developments, but you should not ignore the height because Zoning District C-3 had no height limitation when this was proposed. Alderman may consider the express purposes of the Commercial Design and Development Standards Section 1§166.14 (A)) when discussing the compatibility and transition issues. However, the U.D.C. has no provision that provides that economic or tax revenue considerations can be a factor in determining whether a commercial development provides compatibility and transition between adjoining structures or otherwise complies with the stated factors for approval or denial of a LSD. Although supporters of this project may be tempted to point to the obvious beneficial revenue and tax consequences if this project is built, such statements by the City Council could lead to legal challenges by opponents of the project. The Arkansas Supreme Court has consistently required City Councils to abide by and follow the development ordinances they have enacted until they are repealed or amended. City of Little Rock v. Pfeifer, 318 679, 887 S.W. 2d 296, 298 (1994). Basing a decision on factors not found within the U.D.C. would be improper, possibly illegal, and likely would result in a lawsuit against this City and the project. The same holds true for opponents who should confine their remarks to factors found in the U.D.C., specifically the compatibility and transition arguments debated at the Planning Commission meeting. FAYETTEVI LLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVIIIE, ARKANSAS KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY LEGAL DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE TO: City Council FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney J DATE: June 17, 2002 RE: Appeal of Large Scale Development (What may be considered by City Council) Upon the appeal of any Large Scale Development, the City Council must follow the Unified Development Ordinance (specifically §166.05 C. 7. d.): " d. The Subdivision Committee or Planning Commission may refuse to approve a large scale development for any of the following reasons: (1). The development plan is not submitted in accordance with the requirements of this section. (2). The proposed development would violate a City ordinance, a State statute, or a Federal statute. (3). The developer refuses to dedicate the street right-of- way, utility easements or drainage easements required by this chapter. (4). The proposed development would create or compound a dangerous traffic condition. For the purpose of this section, a "dangerous' traffic condition shall be construed to mean a traffic condition in which the risk of accidents involving motor vehicles is significant due to factors such as, but not limited to, high traffic volume, topography, or the nature of the traffic pattern. (5). City water and sewer is not readily available to the property within the large scale development and the developer has made no provision for extending such service to the development. (6). The developer refuses to comply with subsection 7.b. and c. pertaining to required on-site and off-site improvements." Any objection or reason to deny a Large Scale Development must be included within those six stated reasons to be valid. If a proposed Large Scale Development meets the minimum standards of the Unified Development Ordinance, it must be approved even if every Alderman believes it is a terrible development unanimously opposed by the neighbors. "When a subdivision ordinance specificies minimum standards to which a preliminary plat must conform, it is arbitrary as a matter of law to deny approval of a plat that meets those standards. Richardson v. City of Little Rock Planning Commission, 295 Ark. 189, 747 S.W. 2d 116,117 (1988). If a denial is "arbitrary as a matter of law", the City would be overturned in Court and probably ordered to pay costs and attorney's fees plus other possible damages. "A The Richardson case is not the only Arkansas Supreme Court case holding that Aldermen and cities must follow the established ordinances. In Potocki v. City of Fort Smith, The Fort Smith Board of Directors rezoned land that had been part of a larger parcel in which the rezoning had been denied two months earlier. Their procedural ordinance required a one year wait from the earlier denial, but the Board decided to allow the rezoning anyway. Despite the fact that the Board of Directors has clear power to repeal or amend the procedural ordinance, the Arkansas Supreme Court found they were bound to follow it until it was formally changed. "A city simply cannot pass procedural ordinances they expect to be followed by their residents and then conveniently ignore them themselves. A legislative body must substantially comply with its own procedural policies." Potocki v. City of Fort Smith, 279 Ark. 19, 648 S.W. 2d 462, 464 (1983). Similarly, the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed with the Pulaski County Chancery Court that the Little Rock Board of Directors had acted arbitrarily, capriciously and unreasonably in a rezoning case. "(N)or does a city have to create a zoning ordinance or a land use plan or adopt planned use districts or planned commercial districts, but once it has done so it must follow the ordinance until it is repealed or altered." City of Little Rock v. Pfeifer, 318 Ark. 679, 887 S.W. 2d 296, 298 (1994). The Bottom Line Apply the FACTS presented by City Staff, the Applicant or public to any of the six factors listed in the Unified Development Ordinance to justify your decision. City Council Meeting of July 06, 2006 Agenda Item Number CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor and City Council Thru: Gary Dumas, Director of Operations Frani: Jeremy C. Pate, Director of Current Planning Date: June 27, 2006 Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission decision to deny LSD 06-1997 (Divinity) RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission denied Large Scale Development 06-1997 for Divinity Hotel & Condos at its regular meeting of June 26, 2006, with a vote of 5-4-0. Pursuant to the Unified Development Code §155.05 Appeals, the property owner has appealed this decision to the City Council for consideration. Staff recommended approval of the Large Scale Development, subject to the conditions as noted in the attached staff report. BACKGROUND The Divinity Large Scale Development project is located on Dickson Street, in the block between Block Street and Church Street. It is comprised of 1.96 acres currently zoned C- 3, Central Commercial. The project that is proposed consists of a mixed use building with 137 hotel and hotel/condo rooms, 30 condominiums, two restaurants and bars, banquet hall and meeting space and street level retail space, along with the required parking. The project was submitted on March 03, 2006, and has been revised on several occasions since that time, in response to public, staff and Planning Commission comments. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the project as considered on June 26, with conditions as stated Staff recommended denial of the proposed project with previous submittals, finding that the initial proposal of 15 stories/225 feet in height and following submittal of 10 stories/181 feet in height were not substantially compliant with the stated Commercial Design Standards, specifically concerning compatibility and transition to adjoining properties. However, in the drawings presented for the Planning Commission at its June 26 meeting, substantial revisions from that which had been previously submitted were considered. The applicant chose to acquire an additional %i acre to the south along Church Street; by doing so, this afforded the design team opportunities to reduce the overall building height and mass and to "step back" the structure from the street at intervals. All of these revisions are described in the attached staff report. For the following reasons, staff finds in favor of Commercial Design Standards: the reduction in height to primarily 8 stories and step -back of the facade away from the street as a means to achieve transition and compatibility in the Dickson Street area; utilization of compatible materials and design features such as brick, glass, concrete, balconies, overhangs, terraces outdoor dining and deck areas; and avoidance of "unpainted concrete precision block walls, square, `boxlike' structures, metal siding City Council Meeting of July 06, 2006 Agenda Item Number dominating the main faeade, large blank, unarticulated wall surfaces and large out of scale signs with flashy colors." Staff finds the proposal is in compliance with the Unified Development Code, or with waivers thereof as recommended by staff, and thus recommends approval of this large scale development. Several public meetings have been held to discuss this highly -publicized project, with a mixture of proponents and opponents given the opportunity to speak regarding the issues surrounding this project. A special Planning Commission meeting was held on May 01 for the Planning Commission to discuss this item separately from normal business items. Staff estimates approximately 11 hours have been spent in public meetings of the Planning Commission on this item alone, with the majority of that time being public comment both for and against the proposal. A significant amount of written comments are included in the attached staff report, again both for and against the proposed development. The Planning Commission discussed primarily the conditions of approval 1-5 regarding Commercial Design Standards (specifically compatibility and transition), street and sidewalk improvements, street waivers (curb radii and driveway width), construction of the parking garage over a public right-of-way (alley). The majority of the Planning Commission did not find in favor of the project with the conditions as staff recommended, thus the project was denied 5-4-0, with Commissioners Anthes, Myres, Clark, Bryant and Ostner voting against. BUDGETIMPACT None. Planning Commission Meeting ARKANSAS JUne 26, 2006 THE CITY OF FAYF,TTEV,ILLE. ARKANSAS 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone: (479) 575-8267 TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Andrew Garner, Senior Planner Matt Casey, Assistant City Engineer THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning DATE: pdated June 27 2006 LSD 06-1997: Large Scale Development (DIVINITY HOTEL & CONDOS, 484): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at 101 W DICKSON, BETWEEN CHURCH AND BLOCK. The property is zoned C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.96 acres. The request is for 8/9 -story mixed use building with a hotel, two restaurants, retail space, parking garage and condominiums with a total of 90 residential dwelling units. Property Owner: LYNNKOHN, LLC.; D., MC. & W., Inc., (LYNN WADE) Developer: THE BARBER GROUP Planner: ANDREW GARNER Update: The Divinity Hotel Large Scale Development was submitted on March 03, 2006; the project then consisted of a 15 -story, 225 -foot mixed use project. Through the development review process, staff and the applicant have worked closely together on revising this initial submittal to come to a point at which staff feels the project meets Commercial Design Standards, which in staff's findings is the only critical component of the Unified Development Code with which this project has not been able to comply. The Planning Commission last considered a proposal at a special meeting of the Planning Commission on May 01, 2006. The applicants requested consideration of the project to be tabled at the regular meetings of May 22 and June 12. In response to comments received by the Planning Commission and Planning Staff at the May 01, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has revised the plans and elevations for this Large Scale Development application. The applicants recently submitted revised elevations for the June 26 Planning Commission meeting, indicating several changes, including the acquisition of additional land, but not substantially revising the west (Church Street) elevation. Staff indicated that we could not support the project as submitted, for we did not feel the transition and compatibility issue had been resolved. Staff made suggestions for modifications to the applicant, and in the past several days, revised elevations to reflect these suggestions have been made and submitted. The following describes the project as it is submitted for consideration, and that which staff is recommending approval for this large scale development. K. Reporfs12006WC Repons106-26-06USD06-/997(Diriniry Hotel&Condatl.dot Current Submittal: The applicant has acquired an additional 0.54 acres adjacent to the southwest portion of the property. The additional acreage allows the two levels of parking to be removed from the main structure, and moves the parking to the newly acquired property. The parking structure now spans (14.5' height clearance) the newly dedicated 20' alley right-of-way that connects the existing alley in the middle of the block to Church Street. Dickson Street Fafade: This allows the majority of the Dickson Street hotel facade adjacent to the street to be reduced from four stories (65' in height) to two stories (45' in height), with the outdoor Razor Deck above. Above the 2 -story podium, the hotel, condominiums and fitness center/spa step back significantly. At the far east end of the building, terminating St. Charles Avenue, the fagade steps back 21 feet from the property line before four stories of hotel and a fitness center/spa top out the building. The majority of the building, however, steps back approximately 70 feet (the width of the Razor Deck) before going any higher. The current proposal indicates four stories of hotel and two stories of condominiums at the +/-70-foot setback; this change from previous submittals allows the removal of two stories of condominiums that were previously on the western side of the building (Church Street), a side that staff could not support because of its lack of transition at 181 feet directly on the street. The utilization of this space more in the center of the property provides transition from the street, as well as from the taller element (elevator overrun and parapets to screen the cooling towers) to the west. The majority of the structure, then, tops out at 112 feet, located off of the street for the most part (see north elevation dimensions at 112 feet). Church Street Fagade: As mentioned in the description of the changes to the Dickson Street fagade, the acquisition of additional property required the addition of usable space in order to make the project work for the developer. This was originally proposed by adding two floors of condominiums (12 units) into the western portion of the building, facing onto Church Street. By doing this, the overall height of the building on this side did not change from previous submittals, and was still proposed at 159 feet to the top of the condominium parapet and 181 feet to the top of the elevator overrun, mechanical and cooling tower parapet screen. Staff could not support this fagade, for it did not result in a substantially different facade, thus providing compatibility and transition. With the relocation and addition of condominium units to the center of the property, two floors/stories were removed, thus reducing the height of the entire western elevation significantly, including the cylindrical element at the corner of Dickson and ,Church. As submitted, the top floor restaurant is located at the 112 -foot height. The top of the parapet for the restaurant extends to 135 feet, 24 feet lower than previous submittals. Additionally, this portion of the building has been set back from the property line as well, with the face of it 13 feet back. Previously, the fagade of the building was proposed directly off of the street without any additional setback. While the majority of the building does not go higher than the 112 -foot height, the roof top bar and restaurant, at approximately 8800 SF, is above this level. As the elevations exhibit, there is an additional height above this level, as well. Above the roof of the restaurant, a screening parapet wall is proposed, to screen mechanical equipment and cooling towers required for the mixed use project. An elevator overrun is also included; as an enclosed space, this is also counted in the building height, at the same 24 -foot reduced height of approximately 157 feet. This highest elevation is setback 42 feet from Church Street, which is notated in the North elevation. The updated square footage and unit breakdown of the structure K. 1Reports00061PC Reports10616-061 SD 06-1997 (Divinity Hotel & Condos).doc as provided by the applicant is listed in Table 1. Table 7 June 26, 2006 Planning Commission Divinity Large Scale Development Use Type of Unit Amount of Unit Parking Ratio (1 space per ratio) Parking w/out Reduction Parking w/25% Hotel Accessory Use Reduction Parking Required Proposed New Structure Parking Requirements Hotel # of guestrooms 77 1 77 77 Condo/Hotel # of units (all 1 -bedroom units 60 1 60 60 Condo 1 bedroom unit 30 1 30 30 Hotel Restaurant (street level) square feet 52212 100 52 39 39 Hotel Bar (street level) square feet 11567 50 31 24 24 Restaurant (rooftop) square feet 7$93 100 76 76 Bar (rooftop) square feet 1,250 50 25 25 Hotel Lobby Bar/Lounge square feet 1,862 50 37 28 - 28 Hotel Offices square feet 2,076 300 7 5 5 Hotel spa/fitness # of occu ants 20 4 5 4 4 Hotel banquet hall/meeting rooms # of occupants 697 4 174 131 131 Retail square feet 14,116 250 56 56 Warehousing square feet 81362 1 2,000 1 4 4 Total Parking Required 559 Minimum Parking at 30% Under Required 392 Total Parking Provided 370 Parking Credit for Existing Structures Onsite Office square feet 4592 300 15 15 Retail square feet 1300 250 5 5 Single Family Residential # of houses 3 2 6 6 Total Parking Credit 26 PARKING EXCESS +4 Background: A large amount of background information, including extensive public comment, is attached with this report. Request: The request is for Large Scale Development approval of the submitted site plans and elevations for the proposed commercial/residential development. K: IReports120061PC Reponsl06-26-0611SD 06-1997 (Divinity Hotel & Condos).doc Recommendation: Finding that pursuant to Fayetteville Unified Development Code Section 166.14 (13)(2)(c), the structure does meet the design element guidelines for commercial structures to provide compatibility and transition between adjoining development and finding that the project is in compliance with the Unified Development Code or requested waivers thereof as recommended by staff in the following written conditions, staff recommends approval of LSD 06-1997 for Divinity Hotel & Condos. It is the charge of the Planning Commission to determine if the project meets with current ordinance requirements, including Commercial Design Standards. The following conditions of approval are recommended: Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards and compatibility with the surrounding commercial developments. Staff finds that the revisions recently submitted for this project achieves an acceptable level of compatibility and transition to adjacent properties. While the C-3 zoning district now has height limitations that this project exceeds, this particular project must be reviewed on its own merits, subject to the ordinances in place at the time of the development submittal and review. Staff finds in favor of the proposed structure, finding that it is well -articulated, and transitions in appearance from surrounding properties, is compatible with development in the surrounding area, and meets the requirements of the Unified Development Code for commercial structures. Furthermore, staff finds the project has achieved acceptable levels of compatibility in utilizing architectural materials that are found in the surrounding area; reducing the overall height of the structure and diminishing the impact of the resulting height by stepping the building back on all facades; provided appropriate transitions to the pedestrian realm by propoging-.public facades on all sides, and where the parking garage is proposed, utilizing=display walls, appropriate lighting and materials mid -block to incorporate the structure into the design of the overall project. 2. Planning Commission determination of street improvements. A professional evaluation of traffic movements and intersections in the vicinity was provided in writing (see attached). Based on the information provided and the project proposed, staff recommends the following street improvements: a. The applicant shall install a left turn lane at the traffic signal at Dickson Street/St. Charles with adequate stacking distance to be approved by the City Engineer. All construction and relocation of utilities, signal devices, etc. shall be at the cost of the developer and coordinated with the, City of Fayetteville. N r b. The applicant shall install a minimum 10' wide sidewalk along all street frontages this project abuts, and construction details (color, brick tree grates, street lights, etc) shall match the Downtown/Dickson Street Enhancement improvements. c. The applicant shall construct new sidewalks along Block Avenue south to Spring Street, to match those on Dickson Street. The applicant shall coordinate with staff to facilitate these improvements within existing right-of-way, and to plan for street tree plantings in structural soil, as approved by the Urban Forester. d. Street lights shall be installed by the developer (matching Dickson Street lights) along all project street frontages, as coordinated and approved by staff. 3. Planning Commission determination of a waiver for driveway width. The southern driveway exit onto Block Avenue is 16.3' in width and the southern driveway entrance into the condo drop-off from Church Avenue is 16.3'. These are one-way driveways which require the aisle K.IReportsl2006lPCReportstO6-16-06USD 06-1997 (Dirintry Hotel(( Condos).doc width to be no more than 15'. Staff recommends in favor of the requested waivers finding that the additional 1.2 and 1:3 feet requested would not cause adverse impacts to traffic movement or traffic safety. 4. Planning Commission determination of a waiver for driveway curb radii. Driveway curb radii are required to be 25'. The applicant requests the following waivers of this requirement: a. The northern condo drop-off driveway exit onto Church Avenue has a 19.5' curb radius on the northern curb. b. The northern condo drop-off driveway exit onto Church Avenue has a 10' curb radius on the southern curb. c. The southern condo drop-off driveway exit onto Church Avenue has a 10' curb radius on the northern curb. d. The 20 -foot alley ingress/egress onto Church Avenue has a 14' curb radius on the northern curb. e. The northern driveway entrance on Block Avenue specifies a curb radius on the southern curb of 10'. f The southern driveway exit onto Block Avenue specifies a curb radius on the northern curb of IV g. The driveway into the parking garage onto Church Avenue has 14' curb radius on both the northern and southern curbs. Staff finds in favor of the requested curb radii, finding that the requested curb radius are suitable in this urban setting with limited space to provide the full 25' on all driveways and will not pose a traffic safety hazard. Planning Commission recommendation to City Council for determination of a waiver to allow a structure to be constructed over public right-of-way. The proposed structure spans the new 20' alley right-of-way that would be dedicated with this project. Staff recommends in favor of this waiver finding that allowing the building to span over the alley as proposed will continue to allow public right-of-way and necessary vehicular connection, as has been the case with the span of the alley in the Town Center project and the approval to span an alley for the East Square PZD proposal. As with these projects, staff recommends that this waiver is subject to the approval of the Fayetteville Fire Department and Fayetteville Solid Waste Division to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles and solid waste service vehicles both through the overpass and south on the existing alley to access other properties currently served by the alley, and that the minimum height clearance be 14.5 feet or as otherwise determined by these divisions. 6. The plans shall be revised as follows: a. The plat shall have two points on the boundary described in State Plane Coordinates, Arkansas North Zone, North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83). b. The plat shall have a point -of -beginning from a permanent well-defined reference point clearly labeled on the drawing. c. The plat shall be revised to be consistent with the information presented on the building elevations regarding the building number of condo and hotel units. d. Revise the parking table on the site plan to eliminate the 25% reduction for the retail use and roof top bar that are not considered to be accessory uses to the hotel. K:IReporns12006VC Repons106-26.061LSD 06-1997(DiviniCv Note! & Condos).doc e. Revise the Tree Inventory and Mitigation Chart to show that all trees that meet the Significance requirement as set forth in our Landscape Manual are considered a High Priority for preservation. Staff finds at least 7 trees that meet that requirement. This canopy should be mitigated for using the high priority density factor, 290 square feet. Right-of-way dedication in accordance with the Downtown Master Plan street standards as dimensioned on the submitted large scale development plat for Dickson Street (Main Street with minimum of 55' right-of-way), Church Avenue (ST -40 with a minimum of 40' of right- of-way), and Block Avenue (Main Street with minimum of 55' right-of-way) along the project frontages. 8. Bicycle racks shall be installed in accordance with city codes. 9. The plans indicate trees to be planted along the project frontage with approximately 30' between trees. These plantings shall match the Downtown/Dickson Street Enhancement Project (DDEP) improvements with approval of the species to be coordinated with the City's Urban Forester. Tree grates shall be provided for the protection of planted trees. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted at the time of building permit. 10. The proposed street tree plantings will require structural soil. A note should be added to the landscape plan indicating as such. Structured soil is required to be installed prior to the sidewalks. Coordinate with the Urban Forester prior to construction. 11. Prior to building permit, a cost estimate for all required landscaping is to be submitted for review. Once approval is gained, a guarantee is to be issued (bond/letter of credit/cash) for 150% of the cost of the materials and installation of the plants. This guarantee will be held until the improvements are installed and inspected, at the time of Certificate of Occupancy. 12. Mitigation will be required to replace 12.780 square feet of tree canopy removed. On-site mitigation is not an option for this project due to the site constraints. A check shall be deposited with the City before issuance of a building permit. The amount is dependent upon the canopy deemed significant, as outlined in Condition 6e of this report, and shall be approved by the Urban Forester. The money will be deposited into the City's Tree Escrow Account. These funds will be used to plant trees in the vicinity of this project. 13. Payment of Park fees for 90 multi -family units in the amount of $61,200, or the actual number of units as approved and constructed, shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. Standard Conditions: 14. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives: AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications). 15. All mechanical utility equipment (roof and ground mounted) shall be screened using materials that are compatible with and incorporated into the structure. Ground mounted equipment separate from the structure may be screened using large grasses or shrubs. A note shall be added to all construction documents stating as such. K. Wepornt120061PC Reporis106-26-M SD 06-/997(Divinity Hotel & Condw).doc 16. All exterior lighting will be reviewed for compliance with the City's lighting ordinance at the time of building permit. A lighting plan and manufacturer's cut -sheets of the proposed fixtures shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by Planning Staff as part of the building permit review. 17. Trash enclosures shall be screened with access not visible from the street. The trash enclosures shall be constructed with materials that are complimentary to and compatible with the proposed building. A detail of the proposed screening shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of the building permit. Any additional dumpsters located on site shall be screened from the right-of-way. 18. All freestanding and wall signs shall comply with ordinance specifications for location, size, type, number, etc. Signs are not allowed to be placed in utility easements or right-of-way. 19. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 20. All existing utilities below 12kv shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall be located underground. 21. Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 22. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. An on-site inspection by the Landscape Administrator of all tree protection measures prior to any land disturbance. C. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area and all utility easements. d. Project Disk with all final revisions. e. One copy of final construction drawings showing landscape plans including tree preservation measures submitted to the Landscape Administrator. f Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with ,. the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by Section 158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Additional conditions: K. IRepons120061PC Reponsl06-26-06USD 06-1997 (Dicinim Hotel B Condos).doc Planning Commission Action: O Approval X Denial O Tabled Motion: Graves (motion to approve) Second: Trumbo Vote: 4-5-0 (commissioners Anthes, Myres, Clark, Ostner, and Bryant voting `No') Meeting Date: June 26, 2006 ' Comments: The "Conditions of Approval" listed in the report above are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item. Signature Date K. IReportsl20061PC Reports106-26-061LSD 06-1997 (Divinity Hotel & Condos).doc Taye PC Meeting of June 26, 2oo6 ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 444-3470 TREE PRESERVATION and PROTECTION REPORT To: Fayetteville Planning Commission From: Sarah K. Patterson, Urban Forester Date: June 21, 2oo6 ITEM # LSD o6-1997: Large Scale Development (Divinity Hotel & Condo) Requirements Submitted: T Initial Review with the Landscape Administrator T Site Analysis Map Submitted T Site Analysis Written Report Submitted T Complete Tree Preservation Plan Submitted acres Canopy Measurements: Total'Sife'trea ' acres 1.956 square feet 82,20 i�_xistin-rTree,Cano acres o.6 square feet 285366 percent of site area 23.29% 1Existin &ree C_ano_: kPresefved acres o square feet o percent of total site area o% 06inefibMinim m Cano - `iReTuired! 1 FINDINGS: The desirability of preserving a tree or group of trees by reason of age, location, size or species. • This site is 33.29% canopy covered. Very few trees on the site are significant and most are in fair to poor condition. The site currently has several buildings and houses with drives. There are two fence row of trees on the southern portion of the property. These trees are in poor shape, covered with vines while several are thorny locust species. The extent to which the area would be subject to environmental degradation due to removal of.the tree or group of trees. • Environmental degradation will occur minimally on the site. Green space and canopy cover will be removed and replaced by a large impervious area. The impact of the reduction in tree cover on adjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood and the property on which the tree or group of trees is located. Canopy removed should not affect the adjacent property owners. Whether alternative construction methods have been proposed to reduce the impact of development on existing trees. N/A Whether the size or shape of the lot reduces the flexibility of the design. Size and shape of the lot does not reduce flexibility of design. The general health and condition of the tree or group of trees, or the presence of any disease, injury or hazard. • The general health of these trees is fair to poor. The placement of the tree or group of trees in relation to utilities, structures, and use of the property. All trees will be removed for the construction of the structure. The need to remove the tree or group of trees for the purpose of installing, repairing, replacing, or maintaining essential public utilities. All trees will be removed. Whether roads and utilities are designed in relation to the existing topography, and routed, where possible, to avoid damage to existing canopy. N/A Construction requirements for On -Site and Off -Site Alternatives. N/A The effects of proposed On -Site Mitigation or Off -Site Alternatives. • Mitigation will be required on the site to replace the 12,780 square feet of canopy removed. The site will not allow for on-site mitigation. The effect other chapters of the UDC, and departmental regulations have on the development design. N/A The extent to which development of the site and the enforcement of this chapter are impacted by state and federal regulations: • N/A The impact a substantial modification or rejection of the application would have on the Applicant: • Staff is recommending approval of the submitted Tree Preservation Plan with the following Condition of Approval. Conditions of Approval: 1. Please revise the Tree Inventory and Mitigation Chart to show that all trees that meet the Significance requirement as set forth in our Landscape Manual are considered a High Priority for preservation. Staff finds at least 7 trees that meet that requirement. This canopy should be mitigated for using the high priority density factor, 290 square feet. 2. Mitigation will be required to replace 12,780 square feet of canopy removed. On-site mitigation is not an option for this project due to the site constraints. A check shall be deposited with the City before issuance of a building permit. The amount is dependent on condition 1 of this report. The money will be deposited into the Tree Escrow Account. These funds will be used to plant trees in the vicinity of this project. WOIt144iNIN0� INC. June 19, 2006 City of Fayetteville Planning Commission 113 West Mountain Street . Fayetteville, AR 72701 RE: DIVINITY HOTEL LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT Dear Commissioners: We arepleased to submit the revised plans for the Divinity Hotel and Condominium Large Scale Development. When we adjourned the last Planning Commission meeting, you requested that if we were to resubmit that it include significant changes. We think you will agree that significant changes have been made. This current submittal includes an additional 0.54 acres of property located on Church Street to the south. This property was neither easy nor cheap to acquire. However, the additional acreag a allowed the architects to remove the parking levels from the main structure and move them to the newly acquired property. This effectively lowered the Dickson Street fagade an additional 2 stories. It also allowed fora reduction in the Block Street elevation. We feel these changes go a long way towards making this project more compatible with the surrounding area. Please also accept this correspondence as an official request fora waiver from the requirements regarding structures spanning public right of way as it pertains to the Divinity Hotel large scale development. We are requesting permission to span the newly dedicated 20 alley right of way which connects the existing alley in the middle of the block to Church Street. We have provided 14.5 feet of vertical clearance over the length of the alley to accommodate emergency and solid waste vehicles. Vehicles traveli ng north have a 20' fuming radius to the west, vehicles -traveling east have 10' turning radius to the south. Both the fire and solid waste departments have reviewed the request and plan and given verbal approval. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, i Thomas A. Hennelly, P.E. President H2 Engineering, Inc. 2758 Millennium Drive Suite 1 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703 Phone: 479. 582.4234 Fax: 479.582.9254 Divinity Hotel / Condo Fayetteville, Arkansas June 26, 2006 Narrative of Project REWS/ONS In hopes of making "significant" changes to the project in order to improve the overall compatibility of the building to the context, the owner has purchased adjacent property south of the site. Significant revisions to the Divinity Project include the addition of a southern parking deck that provides a street -level opportunity for public interaction through retail showcase windows, evoking a stronger sense of connection to the variety of storefront shops along Dickson. This addition allows the parking decks of the former design to be pulled out from beneath the tower, resulting in a reduction in height of building mass along Dickson Street from 65'-0" down to 45'-0". In turn, the three public levels along Dickson relate better to the scale of the street and the immediate vicinity. Retail at street level encourages interaction from the sidewalk while the pre -function space at the second level offers a framed view up Dickson towards campus. The Razor Deck pool area overlooks the streetscape From the third level, providing a sensory connection to street, just 3 stories below. The height of the hotel mass along Dickson Street, now 83'-0", sits well below the 108'-0" of the previous design, and the setback from the property line, at 21'-0", serves to help further reduce the perceived height. Overall height of the building now totals 159'-6", and undulation of the building facade on all sides helps to integrate the building mass into the eclectic spirit of the area while providing a more human scale. The Condo tower, now set back 13'-0" from the property line along Church Avenue, steps away from the mass of the hotel below, reducing visual impact and improving the perception of scale at street level. Increased balcony depth within the hotel zone along Church Avenue serves to improve architectural articulation, furthering the conceptual link between the existing and the new. r Wit, yx r' I I r s �' IIIIi C' e TJ t. m m, ma , . LT Y lYri-J. i' � r Yl w•i- IL r 41 i; ly 1. a � (. q r - r . _ '.' as • i _ N �:. i "• t _... -;�a i SIYE ACCESS STUDY — DIVINITY TABLE t SUMMARY OF 24 HOUR COUNT VOLUMES Loca ion Block College Aw ue Church Dickson St. Sprung St. 8wln DispipL. Dickson/5 At Dickson SI. Bhm Dickson and Own Block and Brim Block SON Church and Church Pring 71me SIB NB SB NB I- SB. EB W8 EB. WB 1500 169 706 1326 83 22 346 431 50 32 1600 153 848 1470 83 16 353 435 37 27 1700 137 782 1418 96 19 322 401 W 34 1800 97 787 1276 116 16 311 439 34 20 1900 63 463 936 55 12 192. 294 29 18 2000 26 255 576 37 : 8 148 238 - 17 9 2100 27 177 450 20 11 109 199 14 4 2200 19 184 377 _ 20 4 91 146 15 3 2300 10 114 269 19 :7 46 104 6 2 2400 20 109 177 13 4 70 103 - 5 3 100 13 67 104 18 5 28 51 4 3 200 6 48 62 10 4 35 52 2 0 300 2 26 49 3 0 19 25 2 2 400 3 42 48 6 1 11 14 0 0 500 15 - 42 84 5 4 . 19 39 3 2 600 5 95 129 5 2 10 31 1 0 700 50 264 335 B 3 41 86 4 3 800 132 689 720 39 32 136 212 28 23 900 127 555 880 46 18 172 288 25 22 1000 164 559 938 69 19 197 354 25 23 1100 195 626 974 72 15 255 339 29 28 1200 193 826 1148 118 - 17 319 42649 36 1300 191 820 1409 82 27 362 501. 73 38 1400 180 -751 1488 96 25 373 497 45 30 Hr Td&J 19971 9835 166431 1119 - 291 .3965 57Ml 5521 362 Peak Hour forth¢ Study The peak hour of operation for the traffic developed by the project and the off-site development is the PM. This study will be looking at the Level of Service for the intersections of Dickson & Block, Dickson & Church, Dickson & College, Spring & Block and Spring & Church. 3/2472006 2 r�buramnau mawn�mrn�mmior-ma.m� I Cqrtilis SIVE ACCESS STUDY— DIVINITY Figure 2 w J tA4 227722 \ X394 X�� 4 U 2 10 o mI N 85 54 N a�Xj o� 90 375 60 151 DICKSONS 19 a �� 24 927 8 77 V/ 76. LJ Q wLLJ w x LLJ U �= OJ J zg m23 O vl 5 19 12 115 SPRING ST. 29 to 0 10 o w a Q-, 0 z V) x W i. 3/24/2006 ' - 3 - Tvduam��xie�o�xr'�mahmoam-mama �Ctiefa8tltgCiS SIl E ACCESS STUDY — DIVINITY EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 24 Hour volume counts were taken along Dickson Street, Block Avenue, Spring Street, Church Avenue and College Avenue to help determine the peak hours of operation through the project area. Turning movement counts were performed at the intersections of Dickson & Block/St Charles, Dickson & Church, Dickson & College, Spring & Block and Spring & Church. Table 1 shows a summary of the 24 hour volume counts and Figure 2 shows the existing peak hour turning movements for the project area. More detailed count data are available upon request. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, based on service measures such as speed and travel time,freedom to maneuver, traffic intCauptions comfort; and convenience as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual. Snip Controlled. The LOS for a stop controlled intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined for each minor movement. LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole. LOS Criteria are defined in Table 2. TABLE 2 LEVEL .OF SERVICE CRITERIA- UNSIGNALUED A 0-10 B >10-15 C >1&25 D >25-35 E >35-50 F ,rs LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA- SIGNALIZED A 0-10 B >10-20 C >20-35 D >35-55 E >55-80 F ,on Signal Controlled The LOS for a signal controlled intersection is determined using delay by approach and for the intersection as a whole. LOS Criteria are defined in Table 2 from the Highway Capacity Manual. 3/24/2006 rsam�ovri�,ara�.m,ra,�m-aiosex -4- CaftersGuigess S111 a ACCESS STUDY — DIVINITY The intersections of Dickson & Block/St. Charles, Dickson & Church, Dickson & College, Spring & Block and Spring & Church were analyzed to determine the existing LOS for each intersection using the Highway Capacity Software. The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 3. A detailed report for each analysis is available upon request. Due to the existing geometric layout of the Dickson & Block/St. Charles intersection the eastbound traffic is experiencing excessive delay. TABLE 3 PM Existing Level of Service LOS n LOS 0 OFF-SITE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC The study area is commercially developed along Dickson Street and residential development to the north and south. The University of Arkansas is to the west, and the Fayetteville Square is to the south. The areas adjacent to the study area are fully developed at this time. SITE DEVELOPMENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC The Divinity Development is a mixed use traffic generator with components of residential, offices, retail and lodging. Table 4 shows the land use types, size, 24 hour two way volume and PM peak hour entering and exiling volumes (including pass -by trips). Figure 3 shows the layout and distribution of the proposed development traffic in the study area. Traffic was assigned to the area based on the surrounding developments, available parking and the layout of the development building with respect to parking and use. Intemal.Trip Capture Due to the mixed use components of the development and some internal trip capture should occur. However, internal trip capture has not been applied to the development. 3/24/2006 5 'waa101671¢r«m�n;mo.m-zaaee� COrter°13ur9e5s ©��� oe��ltl■ t��tt� 0 OFF-SITE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC The study area is commercially developed along Dickson Street and residential development to the north and south. The University of Arkansas is to the west, and the Fayetteville Square is to the south. The areas adjacent to the study area are fully developed at this time. SITE DEVELOPMENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC The Divinity Development is a mixed use traffic generator with components of residential, offices, retail and lodging. Table 4 shows the land use types, size, 24 hour two way volume and PM peak hour entering and exiling volumes (including pass -by trips). Figure 3 shows the layout and distribution of the proposed development traffic in the study area. Traffic was assigned to the area based on the surrounding developments, available parking and the layout of the development building with respect to parking and use. Intemal.Trip Capture Due to the mixed use components of the development and some internal trip capture should occur. However, internal trip capture has not been applied to the development. 3/24/2006 5 'waa101671¢r«m�n;mo.m-zaaee� COrter°13ur9e5s i SII 'ACCESS STUDY — DIVINITY Figure 3 N w J Q U ' 2 N 27 37 8 1DICKSONS » L 2� 3 Li Q w w = Q Q Z U p Ux W J O m J . U in U V) col I!�- M`+' \ MWS / O SPRING ST. a N � Of 0 x Yd w a a a w 0 a 0 a 3/24/2006 -6- Corte rvoaiomua¢ras •�r�w� m-maaex eraMo gess