REVIEW AND ACTION

Comprehensive Planned Development Detailed Application CPD2006-004AA, Fallsgrove Hotel Associates LLC – for the construction of a 133,598 square foot, six-story building containing two hotels in the Fallsgrove development at the southeast corner of Blackwell Road and Shady Grove Road.

Mr.  Hurlbutt presented an overview of the staff report.   Mr. Hurlbutt stated that the CPD was originally approved on February 22, 2000 authorizing development on the former Thomas Farm site, now known as Fallsgrove.  The approval authorized a total of 1,530 dwelling units, 150,000 square feet of commercial retail and 950,000 square feet of office/research and development space.  The CPD was amended and approved by the Mayor and Council on August 1, 2005 to allow a hotel.  The applicant is proposing a six-story, 133,598 square foot hotel and surface parking lot.  The building will be occupied by two Hilton Hotel brands, Homewood Suites and Hilton Garden Inn that will share a common lobby and other facilities.  The six-story building will be sited on the western portion of the site with a primary entrance from Blackwell Road located as close as possible to Shady Grove Road, which leads into the hotel parking lot and drop-off area.  A second entrance from Blackwell Road located closer to Fallsgrove Drive will provide the majority of the access for loading and dumpster areas in addition to the parking.  The hotel will have two access points off Blackwell Road with a 212 space surface parking lot.  Mr. Hurlbutt provided information about the landscaping of the property, which provides a 25-foot landscape buffer between the parking lot and Blackwell Road, pedestrian access through the parking lot, a sidewalk adjacent to the building that would access the shared use path along Shady Grove Road.  As part of the Mayor and Council’s review of this project, they voiced concerns about the architecture, which has been revised.  Mr. Hurlbutt pointed out that the façade of the Hilton Garden Inn facing Shady Grove Road has been refined to reduce the sense of scale and enrich the streetscape by varying the color and detailing of the brick, varying window sizes, adding curved balconies and redesigning the awnings.  The design of the Hilton Garden Inn and the hotel lobbies offer a more appropriate transition between the adjacent office buildings and the residential community of Fallsgrove.  The stair towers of the Hilton Garden Inn now have a glass corner design, which reflects and responds to the proposed office building across Blackwell Road.  The expressed structure and refined design of the entrance canopy now serves as a more appropriate invitation into the hotels.  The facades of the Homewood Suites have been redesigned to reduce the perception of mass and reflect the residential character of the community.  The roof design has been simplified and there are changes in the brick colors, some variation in window size, increased detailing, balconies and awnings have been used to accentuate the vertical articulation in the façade and reduce the perception of its length.    Mr. Hurlbutt discussed signage for the two towers, landscaping on Blackwell Road, and screening between the parking lots and the neighboring condominium development. 

Mr. Hurlbutt stated that they have placed the entrances to the hotel as close to the Shady Grove as possible and as close to the southern property line as possible.  In addition, the hotel dumpster would be located in the same location as presented in the CPD Amendment stage and provides screening with a fence and some landscaping.  Mr. Hurlbutt noted that a condition should be applied to both applications regarding a 20-vehicle parking lot located on the office parcel and would be for the sole use of condominium residents.  

In response to Commissioner Britton, Mr. Hurlbutt presented a rendering of what the hotel towers looked like at the time of the Mayor and Council review.  The changes were highlighted to show the corners of the Garden Inn building were opened up with glass.  Commissioner Britton asked if there was any consideration in realigning this project on the site to remove the parking lot from the front of the building and put it to the back to have the buildings more accessible to sidewalks, streets and pathways.  Mr. Hurlbutt replied that the applicant did outreach to the adjacent condominium association and entered into a private agreement with two of the three condo associations and part of that agreement asked that the hotel be placed as far away from the condos as possible and staff, in light of the agreement that has been approved, felt that it was an appropriate placement based on the desires of the condo residents.  Commissioner Britton questioned where the condominiums are in relationship to the parcel.  Mr. Hurlbutt pointed out the location of the parcel with respect to the adjacent condominium development.  He noted that the applicant felt that the placement of the hotel was feasible for the circulation to function on-site adequately for the hotel.  Commissioner Britton referred to the stormwater management and asked staff if there was something, specifically, that this site has to do for either quantity or quality control.     
John Scabis, DPW explained the stormwater management process in the Fallsgrove development.  He noted that the stormwater management concept plan for this site was approved on February 23, 2007.  Fallsgrove Pond 3, built by Fallsgrove Associates under the original concept approval, provides the majority of the stormwater management requirements for this site.  Pond 3 is a regional facility that provides full stormwater quantity treatment and 87% of stormwater quality treatment. This facility will provide the remaining 13% of water quality treatment and all of the recharge treatment for this site. 

Commissioner Britton asked if there was any consideration for pervious materials for the entire parking lot.  Mr. Scabis replied that pervious materials had not been discussed in a lot of detail.     

Commissioner Hill questioned Condition 10 regarding no encroachment into the stream valley buffer in order to construct or maintain the retaining wall.  He said that retaining walls do need maintenance at times.  He said that a retaining wall was constructed in Tower Oaks without any access and had major troubles, which resulted in major environmental disruption to a forest area.  Commissioner Hill questioned whether this condition was imposed to try to get the applicant to make space to maintain the retaining wall.  Mr. Hurlbutt explained that that was the intention to prevent that problem from happening again.

Commissioner Hill stated his concern with Condition 16 regarding landscaping for public utility easements and that the applicant would be responsible for replacement of any landscaping removed or damaged by utilities when they are installing, maintaining or upgrading their utilities within the PUE.  He stressed concerns with Conditions 12 regarding stormwater management and sediment and Condition 25 regarding forestry.  He pointed out that both conditions include lengthy lists of requirements and it seems that staff does not have the final plans yet.       

Mr. Scabis explained that Condition 12 is standard and all the plans are required before the building permits are issued.  

In response to Commissioner Ostell regarding State requirements, Mr. Simoneau stated that applicants have done all that is possible to get this application going regarding construction, etc. with regard to SHA requirements. 

Commissioner Johnson questioned the Commission’s concern about the orientation of the hotel on Shady Grove Road.  He said that the staff report points out that one of the goals of the Fallsgrove Concept Plan is to ensure that the buildings be built as close to the road as possible in order to provide a more pedestrian friendly environment.  Part of the building is close to the road, but he does not believe that the intent was that some portion of the structure be close to Shady Grove Road; he believes that the intention was that the activity part of the building be oriented as close to Shady Grove as possible.  He said he would like to hear from the applicant and from the public why this building is not oriented towards Shady Grove Road.

Erika Leatham, Attorney, presented the applicant’s request.  She presented the background of Fallsgrove Concept Plan.  Ms. Leatham explained the PUE and landscaping issue.  She said the applicant is responsible for replacing the trees in that area.  Ms. Leatham explained the orientation of the building.  She explained that they tried to get everything on the site in a way that was agreeable with all parties involved. 
 
Bob Greenberg with Gordon and Greenberg, Architects stated that they were given orders by the Mayor and Council to go back and re-evaluate the architectural design of the hotels and come up with a more exciting and positive design for the City.  The buildings are unique to this site and designed to work with the community.  The facades have been reduced to a sense of scale; they have done various gyrations in use of color and varying windows sizes, curved balconies, and redesigning the awnings to try to enhance the look of the building.  Mr. Greenberg stated that they had added certain features such as the glass corners on the stairs to try to tie in with the office building across Blackwell Road.  The Hilton Garden Inn will have signage placed on the ends of the hotel and facing Shady Grove Road in each direction.  Mr. Greenberg stated that the community approved the signage placement. 

Mr. Greenberg stated that they have many discussions with the community as to how to position the entrance portion of the building on the site.  He informed the Commission about the many sketches and planning that went into the one-story entrance building.  The commercial part of the hotel will be located as far away as possible where noise could be generated, although, they do not feel there will be a problem with the traffic and parking because of the nature of a hotel.  Many of the people who come into the hotel do not come in all at one time.  They come in as a staggered approach to the hotel.  Therefore, they feel that sound and traffic will be controlled.  The entrance will also be visible for people approaching the site from Shady Grove Road as well as the parking; the entrance provides the most appropriate use for a more successful entrance to the hotel facility.  Mr. Greenberg further discussed efforts to keep traffic off Blackwell Road and not cause pedestrian and vehicular problems along Blackwell and Shady Grove Roads.    

Arthur Fuccillo spoke on behalf of the developer, SGB Associates, and Fallsgrove Associates.  He stated that they have held many meetings with the community and this orientation was the result of concerted effort by all the citizens and groups involved.  One of the improvements was the placement of the buildings closer to Blackwell Road instead of having them loom over the condominiums.  Mr. Fuccilo stated that tonight is the culmination of approximately three years worth of effort of working on these issues. 

Trini Rodriguez, Landscape Planner stated that complex of hotels and the chain at one point wanted two entrances.  They are now proposing that the two entrances be made into one entrance. Ms. Rodriguez stated that they have signed an agreement with the utility companies in case something had to be removed.  She discussed the landscaping, enhancements to the facades of the buildings, pedestrian walkways, and parking circulation. 

The Commission discussed concerns regarding the massing and orientation of the buildings, parking and traffic circulation on the site, entrances to the hotels, ground floor retail, sidewalks, utilities on the site, and green buildings. 

The following citizens testified:

1.  Nolan Sklute, President of HOA of Condominium Building I stated that he was speaking for all of the residents of the condominiums who would be mostly impacted by the hotels.  They would really like to have a park on this site.  He said that they were very concerned about the parking on Blackwell Road.  Mr. Sklute stated that they have had many discussions with the developer, and the reason why the hotel has been setback because of its location to the condominiums, and they, also fought very hard to avoid a parking structure of any type on the site.  He noted that the residents did sign an agreement, which they felt was very fair on the part of the developer.  Mr. Sklute stated that the residents have some concerns about other issues associated with the hotel and that is the parking on Blackwell Road.  They feel that the code requirements were not met with the parking for the condominiums and were ultimately approved by the City.  He said he would like to sit down with the Commission and discuss this matter for they feel this is a very significant for the residents.  He asked that the reduction of parking on Blackwell Road be kept at an absolute minimum.  He stressed that the parking on Blackwell Road is very important to the condominium owners.  There are owners who have no place to park within the condominium areas; they have to park on Blackwell Road.  The developer will be constructing a parking lot for the condominium owners under the agreement they have signed, which will house twenty automobiles.  The other area that they have concerns with is where the entrances would be located into the hotel parking lot and they would ask that the location of the entrances be as close to Shady Grove Road as possible and as close to Falls Grove as possible.  Otherwise, there would be some interference with people coming in and out of the condominium area.    Mr. Sklute stated that moving the hotel closer to Blackwell Road or repositioning the hotel on Blackwell Road at an angle or putting up a parking structure would meet with serious disapproval from the residents most severely impacted and would be contrary to the agreement that they spent two years working on with the developer.     

Commissioner Hill raised a point that it appears as though they do not have full representation from everyone in the condominium block.  Mr. Sklute replied that, initially, they did not have a great deal of communication with the developer and that was brought out in the initial hearing when the residents from the condominiums opposed the hotel and office buildings.  From that point on, things moved 180 degrees when they began to have many discussions with the developer regarding the agreement and the other issues the residents opposed in the beginning.  Mr. Sklute noted that all of the condominium residents were invited to those discussions, and whether or not they chose to participate, that was their decision.  Commissioner Hill asked Mr. Sklute if he could be satisfied with this configuration of entire site.  Mr. Sklute replied that he was satisfied with the development.  He said he believes he speaks for the condominiums I and II, but not for Condominium III.       

Commissioner Hill commented that the applicant is taking credit for an extensive vegetative buffer between their side and the residences that sit on public utility easement on which they really do not have the right to say, “You cannot touch it”.  Commissioner Hill said he wanted to take this opportunity to make sure the community knows that that situation exists because it could be a big problem in the future when someone does need to maintain that easement.  Commissioner Hill pointed out the location of the easement. 

Commissioner Hill pointed out that Mr. Sklute mentioned parking problems around the condominiums.  He informed Mr. Sklute that the RORZOR Committee, which is the Zoning Review Committee, would, by the end of June 2007, finalize a draft of the new parking ordinance.  He said he would like to hear the observations from the citizens about what troubles the residents have in that area and what standards the Committee should be making now.   

Mr. Sklute asked if was possible to discuss the problems the residents have with the developer and parking requirements.  Mr. Wasilak suggested having a meeting with the Planning staff.  Mr. Wasilak discussed the problems with the width of the parking spaces and the shortage of parking spaces in the condominium community.

Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Sklute if the 20 spaces the applicant is offering to provide would help the community.  Mr. Sklute replied that those additional spaces would help a lot. 

2.  Elaine Shiner stated that she lives in Condo Building II, addressed two issues.  She said her condominium overlooks Blackwell Road and the conservation area, but they can also see the back of what will be Homewood Suites and the driveway is going to be the service road.  She expressed concern about the screening that is going to be along the back of the Suites and she is also concerned about what to expect for service vehicular use of that driveway.    

Ms. Leatham clarified what Commissioner Hill stated about the PUE.  She explained that any plantings that would be taken out of that PUE easement would be replaced and that is a commitment as part of the application.  Therefore, at no point in time will the buffer be completely wiped out.  Commissioner Hill commented that he was trying to sensitize the community that there could be substantial trees that grow there and utility work could  violate the root zone of these trees that would then die off and be replaced by very small trees.     

Mr. Greenberg explained the service vehicular use of the driveway.  He stated that the residents would not see service vehicles from their condominiums.  They tried to use landscaping to buffer that view.  He noted that there would not be much volume of service vehicles coming into this hotel. 

Commissioner Hill inquired about the positioning of the trash dumpster.  Mr. Greenberg explained the location of the trash dumpster. 

The Commission discussed concerns regarding the choice to make this two hotels impacts the choices of locations of this building, and whether this would satisfy the community’s needs, broader representation from the community, activating the street as much as possible to make it pedestrian friendly, access from Blackwell Road, parking on Blackwell Road, massing of the buildings, entrance to the site, going green, eating areas, benches along Shady Grove Road.    

Mr. Hurlbutt stated that what he did not include in the staff report was specific language in the Resolution of Approval for Concept Plan amendment.  He stated that staff recommends that it should be put in as a condition as part of the hotel as well.  When the spaces on Blackwell Road are taken away for the development of the hotel, the 20-space parking lot would be provided at the same time for the condominium residents.   

Ms. Leatham stated that the applicant does not have a problem with the condition.  Mr. Wasilak explained that if this were two separate property owners, staff would not recommend this condition.  

Commissioner Hill moved, seconded by Commissioner Wiener to approve Comprehensive Planned Development Detailed Application CPD2006-004AA, Fallsgrove Hotel Associates LLC per staff recommendations.  He stated that his motion does not include the particular wording because he believes it is a matter of a different site and the Commission could take that up relative to that site.  He said, while he proposed this motion, he remains uncomfortable with the change of use on this site.  Still, he finds compelling the position of immediate residents and their expression of support for the plan.  The motion passed on a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Britton voting nay.  Commissioner Medearis was absent.

Final Record Plat PLT2007-00467, Jonathan Russell – to create a single record lot of 3.76 acres in the Fallsgrove development, associated with Detailed Application CPD2006-004AA.

Mr. Hurlbutt presented staff report.   The site has been approved and the lot needs to be recorded with changes made to Exhibit A. 

Commissioner Hill moved, seconded by Commissioner Ostell to approve Final Record Plat PLT2007-00467, Jonathan Russell per staff recommendations.  The motion passed on a vote 5-0.  Commissioner Medearis was absent.

Comprehensive Planned Development Detailed Application CPD2006-004AB, SG Office Associates, LLC – for the construction of a five-story, 114,776 square foot office building and structured parking in the Fallsgrove development at the northeast corner of Blackwell Road and Shady Grove Road.

Mr. Hurlbutt presented the staff report.  Mr. Hurlbutt stated that application is located just to the north and relates heavily to the hotel.  Similar conditions apply in terms of comprehensive planned development.  This site will be receiving some of the retail that was transferred from the Village Center.  This is a five-story office building that fronts on Shady Grove Road.  The single access point is located between the office building and a two and half story parking structure behind the building.  Access to the parking structure is internal to the site.  There is also an additional twenty-space parking lot that is not in the parking count for the office building to be used by the adjacent condominium residents and has the sole access from Wood Hill Road.  The parking structure will have 410 parking spaces.  The surface area between the office building and parking structure will have 15 surface spaces and loading for the building would be located at the northwest corner of the parking garage.  The Mayor and Council had basic comments about relocating that garage.  In addition, the community asked for additional screening (landscaping) along Wood Hill Road and evergreen trees on a berm as well as latticework and vegetation on the roof of the Wood Hill Road side to screen the garage from the view of residents accessing Wood Hill Road.  The office building’s design elements would include use of glass and brick facades with metal sail accents at one corner. 

Mr. Hurlbutt noted as discussed before, the County only allowed service vehicles to egress onto Shady Grove Road.  This will be done so that service vehicles could access the loading dock as shown before and will exit underneath the building.  A shared-use bike path exists along Shady Grove Road and there is an existing sidewalk on Blackwell Road.  The applicant is required to provide a five-foot sidewalk along the Wood Hill Road edge of the property, which was not part of the original street plan.  

Commissioner Hill inquired about a special concern of the viability of retail on this site.  He asked if there would be a potential to reuse that space if something else happens.  Mr. Hurlbutt explained that the retail-parking requirement is higher than office, so, it could be substituted with an office component, if it was found not to be viable.

Commissioner Ostell questioned page 6, #2 of the staff report regarding the only entrance to the 20-space parking lot from Wood Hill Road.  Mr. Hurlbutt explained that, as with the hotel, there were also some conditions that the Commission required such as the berms and landscaping condition that there be no entrance for the office building or parking structure would be located on Wood Hill Road.  During the review of the project, staff understood concerns and the desire of the condominium residents not to have access from the parking structure onto Wood Hill Road and the applicant demonstrated that a single access point was functional; it was the desire of staff that there be a second access point be constructed, if needed, in the future.  

Mr. Saleh explained that when staff reviewed this development, they felt that one access would be functional, however, they felt that if, in the future, there is an extension of Blackwell Road, the 20-space parking lot could be easily connected to the office garage structure should there be a need in the future.    

Commissioner Ostell questioned the low amount of $25,000 for a traffic light in Condition 21.  Mr. Saleh explained that this is an intersection that belongs to the County and the $25,000 would be a contribution from the City for that signal.   

Ms. Leatham stated that the applicant does not agree with Condition 23 regarding two accesses from Wood Hill Road.  It is exclusively prohibited by the agreement the applicant has with the Condominium Associations. 

Jim Policaro with Lerner Enterprises, explained the concept plan for the office building.  He noted that there is planned a restaurant in this building, which would be on the ground floor.     

Rick Donnelly, DVA Architects, explained the building design. 

The Commission expressed concerns regarding the parking lot, lighting in the parking garage, sharing office parking spaces with residents after hours, pervious material for the parking garage, and density of landscaping and trees so people could hide behind.  

The following citizens testified:

1.  Nolan Sklute, President of HOA of Condominium Building I discussed permit parking.  He asked the Commission to support permit parking for Blackwell Road and Falls Grove Road, which would really help significantly.  Mr. Sklute had questions for staff regarding the two accesses from Wood Hill Road.  He said that the agreement they signed calls for a gated parking lot.  He also asked staff if they were doing away with what the Mayor and Council already approved.  Mr. Hurlbutt replied that staff does not want a limit placed on no access from Wood Hill Road because there may be a need for a second access at a future time.  Staff would be happy to make a compromise by including a condition that would read, “Access from Wood Hill Road would not be enforced by the Planning Commission.”  Mr. Sklute asked that the agreement that the residents worked so hard on for two years not be undermined by language.  Condition 23 does undermine the agreement.  Mr. Hurlbutt noted that if the property owner wanted to come back for a second access point, staff would request that it would have to go back through the detailed planning process, which would go before the Mayor and Council and it would have to be an amendment to the CPD.  Mr. Sklute suggested leaving the language out of the condition and if it has to be brought up at a future time, and then bring it up at a future time.  

Mr. Saleh explained the access point on Wood Hill Road is in the future.  He stated that it is important to have a second access to the office building.   

Commissioner Hill suggested adding an additional qualification to say that the opening of this access point could only be accomplished by approval of the property owner and those ownership interests on the adjoining road.  This would only happen if the residents would agree.  Mr. Hurlbutt stated that language could be added that would read, “The 20 spaces are retained for the condo residents’ use.” 

In response to the Commission, Mr. Saleh explained the need for two access points on Wood Hill Road.  

Ms. Block explained that it would be an amendment to the CPD with all the input from the community, if a second entrance were to be installed.  Mr. Simoneau, Director of DPW further explained the situation.  The Commission, staff and the applicant discussed concerns about the parking and entrances to the site.  Ms. Block read the CPD procedures with regard to access points on Wood Hill Road. 

Commissioner Johnson asked to obtain clarification from staff with respect to the application for the hotel.  There were a number of these items that were included that indicated in the staff report that they must be provided and required by the Planning Commission.  The motion that was approved did not say anything about those five items, so, are they not required?  The Commission must be proactive in saying that they required them and if the Commission did not do that for the hotel, they are not required.  Mr. Hurlbutt replied that that is correct, but, with the hotel, all those requirements were already provided by the applicant.

Commissioner Johnson noted four items that the Commission must determine should be required.  One of these items is that there be no second access on Wood Hill Road.  If the Commission does not include that requirement than there could be access, but it would become a structural problem.  Mr. Hurlbutt stated that staff would prefer that that be addressed now so the applicant does not have to do that later on.           

Commissioner Hill reworded Condition 23 and stated, “Design and construction of the parking structure must structurally allow vehicular access from a second street driveway, although no operational opening of said driveway is approved or required at this time.”  Mr. Hurlbutt stated that he believes the condition meets the intent.  He just questions that second access point. 

After further discussion, additional language to the condition was recommended.  

2.  Thiel Sullivan, 701 Fallsgrove Drive, #404, President of Homeowners Association of Condominium Residences II spoke about the traffic on Wood Hill Road.  He stressed that they do not want an access to the garage on Wood Hill Road. 

Ms. Block explained the process regarding the requirement of the CPD.

Wes Guckert with the Traffic Group stated that if there was a challenge at the corner of Shady Grove and Blackwell, he believes that the County would reconsider that access being used for service vehicles for other reasons.  Mr. Guckert said they believe that the majority of the cars coming out of office building would be making right turns.  Therefore, they will not be in a situation where they are trying to cut through a queue to make a left turn to go east or south on Blackwell Road.  Because of staff pushing, logically so, they jumped through many hoops to show staff that this would work and it would not be a problem.  They feel very comfortable that it is not going to be a problem.  Mr. Guckert stated that if there is going to be an issue, there is an existing entrance that is going to be built, even though it is going to be signed internally for service vehicles, he believes that could be part of the solution in the future, with the County’s cooperation. 
Commissioner Britton asked Mr. Guckert how many could queue, if a traffic light is put in at that intersection.  Mr. Guckert replied that approximately 10 cars could queue there in each lane. 

3.  Barry Gordon stated that he lives in Condominium Building I and he drives on Wood Hill Road everyday.  He said it is a street with an accident waiting to happen.  It is a dangerous road now and will be more so in the future.  The street is too narrow now and will be for future use. 

Mr. Hurlbutt stated that staff would like to clarify that it saw the second access point as alleviation for any traffic that was coming down Wood Hill Road to access the garage before going to the Wood Hill/Blackwell intersection and conflicting with the access point from the condominium residents.   

Mr. Fuccillo stated that, Plan A would be that the Commission could require that there be no access on Wood Hill Road was the agreement with the condo residents.  Plan B would be that they would design the garage in such a way that access could occur onto Wood Hill Road from the corner by grade coupled with two things:  1) that access is not required today and 2) the applicant would be required to amend the CPD to accomplish such a fact.  Coupled with those two things, it is not required today and the applicant would be required to amend the CPD.   

Ms. Leatham stated that they would come back to amend the CPD.  With respect to the condition for pervious pavement, the wording should be flexible in that it have to be analyzed to make sure it would be practical. 

Commissioner Hill stated that he would like to amend Condition 23 and add Condition 26 about pervious paving, if engineering proves feasible. 

Commissioner Johnson pointed out that the Commission must decide about Items 1-4 from the Resolution of Approval for Concept Plan amendment on page 6 of the staff report.  Mr. Hurlbutt stated that Item 1 was to provide a 3 to 7 foot berm and associated landscaping, which has already been done.  Item 2 was that the condition be modified to require the design of the parking structure to allow for a second access point that would not be approved now.  The Commission would not be requiring Item 2.  Mr. Hurlbutt stated that Item 3 regards public access for the retail on Shady Grove Road.  The applicant does have access up to the courtyard between the building and the parking structure.  The retail has separate access points to the exterior of the building, but there is also an internal hallway within the building that provides access to the ground floor retail on both the Shady Grove Road side and the backside between the building and the parking structure.  The intention was to limit activity on the condominium side and prevent people from being placed on the Wood Hill side of the building.  Mr. Hurlbutt stated that staff recommends that that item not be required.  Commissioner Hill suggested that Item 4 describes what the parking lot approval describes.  Mr. Hurlbutt stated that Item 4 may be authorized by the Planning Commission.  The requirement would state “by approval of the application that the lot will be there”. 
Commissioner Hill moved, seconded by Commissioner Wiener to approve Comprehensive Planned Development Detailed Application CPD2006-004AB, SG Office Associates, LLC   per findings outlined by staff in the staff report and with the following changes to conditions.  1) agreeing to include Item 1 and that should be added as an additional condition and renumbered with rest of the conditions.  The Commission is not agreeing to Items 2 and 3.  The Commission is agreeing to Item 4 as a requirement on approval and also should be an additional condition and renumbered.  Commissioner Hill said he would like to take Condition 23 and put it after that last item he just mentioned.  The Condition that is now Condition 23 would read, “Design and construction of a parking structure needs to structurally allow vehicular access from a second street driveway, although no operational opening of said driveway is approved or required at this time.”  Conditions 24 and 25 should be renumbered.  Commissioner Hill added one more condition, which says, “Pervious paving for the small lot off Wood Hill Road is required if engineering proves feasible.”   Ms. Block asked for clarification with changes to Item 3, the Commission does accept Item 2.  Commissioner Johnson explained that they are not requiring the access now, but they are not prohibiting the access to Wood Hill Road.  Commission Ostell suggested adding specific language to Condition 23.  Commissioner Hill accepted and added additional language to Condition 23 that says, “For access to be provided, a future amendment of application is deemed necessary.”  The motion passed on a vote of 5-0.  Commissioner Medearis was absent. 

Commissioner Hill stated that he believes there is a standing procedure in the City to petition for a permit-parking district and it requires a certain percentage of the property owners who have the interest on the street to sign the petition and submit that to the City.   

Final Record Plat PLT2007-00468, Jonathan Russell – to create a single record lot of 3.25 acres in the Fallsgrove development, associated with Detailed Application CPD2006-004AB.

Mr. Hurlbutt presented the staff report.  He noted that the Plat be revised per modifications Exhibit A. 

Commissioner Hill questioned the modifications.  Mr. Hurlbutt explained the modification is the approval of a ten-foot PUE along Shady Grove Road showing the three property corner coordinates and releasing and distinguishing a private storm drain easement on the property showing water meter and stormwater management easements and correcting language in the ownership dedication. 

Commissioner Wiener moved, seconded by Commissioner Britton to approve Final Record Plat PLT2007-00468, Jonathan Russell per staff recommendations.  The motion passed on a vote of 5-0.  Commissioner Medearis was absent.

COMMISSION ITEMS

Old Business
Mr. Wasilak reported that he sent out an email to the Planning Commission for detail application approval (CPD2003-002C2, King Farm Associates) from the Commission’s last meeting and there is additional information for the Commission’s perusal.     

Commissioner Wiener inquired about the Final Record Plat at the last meeting regarding the dead tree.  Mr. Wasilak explained that the Forest and Tree Preservation Ordinance was introduced on Monday for modifications.  He said he believes that one of the exceptions would be that single-family lots would be exempt.  Ms. Block explained that the change was that any single record lot was exempt from aforestation requirements.  It will not affect the retention of a tree.    

Commissioner Hill inquired about the approval letter for the firehouse.  Mr. Wasilak replied that the letter has not been issued.   

New Business

Commissioner Ostell asked about the code violations on parking that came up this evening.  She said that last fall, she was contacted by one of the citizens and she was wondering what the City is doing about it.  Mr. Wasilak explained that staff had a couple of meetings on site with Buzzuto and they had reached a tentative agreement on what they were going to do, while most people seemed to support it, not all residents agreed.  The issue still needs to be discussed.

In response to Commissioner Hill, Mr. Wasilak discussed staff reports regarding the standard detailed requirements.         

Chief of Planning Report

Mr. Wasilak reported that the next meeting is April 25 and he listed upcoming applications.   

Commissioner Johnson inquired about the Archstone project on Veirs Mill Road and First Street.  Mr. Wasilak explained that he would look into that.  Mr. Hurlbutt noted that the last communication from them was when they came to the City for an extension to the use permit, which expires on September 28, 2007. 

Commissioner Wiener said that she may not be at April 25, 2007 meeting. 

Commissioner Hill said he would have to recuse himself from the recent Citibank application. 

After further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 10:23 p.m.