Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-11-13 Minutes• s. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on November 13, 2000 at 5:30 pan. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN AD 00-39.00: Administrative Item (Fayetteville Boys & Girls Club, pp 439) Approved Page RZ 00-26.00: Rezoning (Baker, pp 558) Forwarded Page RZ 00-27.00: Rezoning (La Pachanga, pp 601) Forwarded Page LSD 00-31.00: Large Scale Development (Dixie Development, pp 176) Approved Page 30 day extension for FP 00-4.00 Covington Park Phase IV Approved Page MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Nancy Allen Don Bunch Conrad Odom Lee Ward Lorel Hoffman Don Marr Bob Estes Sharon Hoover Loren Shackelford STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin Sara Edwards Sheri Metheney Ron Petrie Kim Hesse • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2000 Page 2 Consent Agenda: Approval of minutes from the October 23, 2000 meeting. AD 00-39.00: Administrative Item (Fayetteville Boys & Girls Club, pp 439) was submitted by Deborah Sexton for property located at the northeast corner of Rupple Road and Persimmon Street. The property is zoned A-1 and contains approximately 18.69 acres. The request is to dedicate land and receive credit for future development. Odom: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the November 13, 2000, meeting of the Planning Commission. The first action tonight is the approval of the minutes of the October 23, 2000, meeting and one item on the consent agenda. That item on the Consent Agenda will be approved without discussion unless a member of the audience or a member of the Planning Commission wishes to remove that item for discussion. That item on consent is Administrative Item AD 00-39.00 is was submitted by Deborah Sexton for property located at the northeast corner of Rupple Road and Persimmon Street. The property is zoned A -I and contains approximately 18.69 acres. The request is to dedicate land and receive credit for future development. Does any member of the audience or a member of the Planning Commission with to remove that item from the Consent Agenda? Seeing none, we will call the roll for the Consent Agenda. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call items on the Consent Agenda were approved on a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • Planning Commission November 13, 2000 Page 3 New Business: RZ 00-26.00: Rezoning (Baker, pp 558) was submitted by William Greenhaw, Attorney on behalf of Wilma Jean Baker for property located at 1391 & 1393 Farmer Ave. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 0 71 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Odom: The first item we have on tonight's agenda for discussion is a Rezoning RZ 00-26.00, submitted William Greenhaw, Attorney on behalf of Wilma Jean Baker for property located at 1391 & 1393 Farmer Ave. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 0.71 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Staffs recommendation is to amend the request to an R -S, Residential Small Lot. R -S zoning will allow the applicant to split the property into two lots with one existing single-family home on each lot. Staff do you have any further comment on your recommendation? Conklin: Staff is recommending the R -S designation. When they first came to our office we looked at the R-1.5 which would allow the single family duplex, triplex residential uses by right. Looking at our ordinances more closely, the R -S zoning allows a single-family home on a 60 foot wide lot with 6,000 square feet, that will allow them to split the property that's currently developed with two single-family homes and sell each house separately. I have talked with the applicant, he is in agreement with this recommendation and staff is recommending approval this evening. Odom. I'll ask the applicant to please come forward at this time for presentation. Greenhaw: As Mr. Conklin said, we certainly do have no objection to the amendment that Mr. Conklin has recommended or made to our proposed. As he quite accurately said, our intent is to split the lots on this particular lot there are two homes. The property when it was annexed into the City of Fayetteville came in as A-1 and it had two houses on it at the time, about forty years ago. There has been no need to rezone the property since then but now my client would like to sell one of the houses to the current tenant and that's why the application was made for rezoning and subsequently if rezoning is approved, to split the lot to allow one of the houses to be sold to the tenant. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Odom. Thank you Mr. Greenhaw. What I'll do now is ask if there is any member of the • audience that would like to address us on this rezoning request? Seeing none I will • Planning Commission November 13, 2000 Page 4 close the floor to public discussion. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom:_ _ I'll bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions, comments or motions. MOTION: Bunch: I move that we recommend RZ 00-26.00 to the City Council for approval. Allen: I second. Bunch: As amended. Odom: As I understand it we have a motion by Commissioner Bunch, second by Commissioner Allen to rezone RZ 00-26.00 from A-1 to R -S. Do we have any further discussion? Will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call RZ 00-26.00 is forwarded to City Council on a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • Planning Commission November 13, 2000 Page 5 RZ 00-27.00: Rezoning (La Pachanga, pp 601) was submitted by Hilda and Edward Hurtado on behalf of Dewitt C. Goff for property located at 1819 S. School. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 0.80 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Odom. The next item that we have on tonight's agenda is RZ 00-27.00 which is another rezoning, submitted by Hilda and Edward Hurtado on behalf of Dewitt C. Goff for property located at 1819 S. School. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 0.80 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Staff's recommendation is for approval of the request of rezoning based on the findings as included as a part of their report. Staff anything further with regard to your report? Conklin: Nothing further. Odom: I'll ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. Hurtado: Hi. I'm Edward Thomas Hurtado. Odom: Do you have any presentation that you would like to make or any comments? Hurtado: No. I ,lust hope you guys approve it. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Odom. What we will do is ask if there is any member of the audience and ask if there is questions of us for you. So, right now is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this rezoning request? Seeing none, I will close the floor to public discussion. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: I'll bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions and comments of the applicant. MOTION: Ward: I'll go ahead and since we have no one se ms to be against it here, I'll go ahead and • recommend approval of RZ 00-27.00 for rezoning of this property. This should have • Planning Commission November 13, 2000 Page 6 probably been zoned C-2 already. I guess this goes on to the City Council? Odom: Actually if it's approves here tonight it goes to the Florida Election Commission and good luck there. Hoffman: I will second. Regardless of who it goes to I would like to see redevelopment on the south side of town. Odom. We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and second by Commission Hoffman for this rezoning request. Marr: Maybe Tim wants to address this. Does it not require a Conditional Use if we are dancing? Conklin: That is correct, the applicant does plan to bring forward a Conditional Use request They have not brought that forward this evening because the property is zoned I-1. It requires C-2, C-3 or C-4 zoning for a dance hall Conditional Use permit. Once this goes to City Council and is approved, I will have them apply for the Conditional Use. I have been working with the applicant and the property owner to bring up their existing non -conforming parking lot closer into compliance with our current standards. The owner of the property also has been working with our Inspections Division to provide ADA accessible bathrooms and parking and access into the building, so they have been working on this building to bring it up to code. We'll see this again probably into December or the first of next year. Hoffman: With my second I want to make clear that the rezoning is just that and that when they come back with the Conditional Use that this zoning only require the approval of the dancing and not for a bar or alcohol sales. Conklin: Under C-2 zoning you can have a tavern or bar. They do plan on serving alcohol in this facility. This is for a dance hall. As far as I understand what they are proposing to do, it's not going to have anything to do with an adult oriented business or sexually oriented business so it will be strictly dancing, latino dancing is my understanding. Hoffman: Do the flamingo. Thank you very much Odom: Commissioner Marr, anything else? Marr: No. • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2000 Page 7 Odom. Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call RZ 00-27.00 is forwarded to City Council on a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • • Planning Commission November 13, 2000 Page 8 LSD 00-31.00: Large Scale Development (Dixie Development, pp 176) was submitted by Joe Rogers of The Benham Group on behalf Dixie Development for property located at the southwest corner of Joyce Blvd. and Old Missouri Road. The property is zoned R-0, Residential Office and contains approximately 6.65 acres. The request is for four professional office buildings. Odom: The next item we have on tonight's agenda is item number four, Large Scale Development, Dixie Development submitted by Joe Rogers of The Benham Group on behalf Dixie Development for property located at the southwest corner of Joyce Blvd. and Old Missouri Road. The property is zoned R-0, Residential Office and contains approximately 6.65 acres. The request is for four professional office buildings. Staff s recommendation is for approval subject to ten Conditions of Approval Staff do we have signed Conditions of Approval? Conklin: We do not have a signed Conditions of Approval. I do need to make one correction with the information that's on the staff report and that's on condition number six with regard to the tree preservation protection ordinance requirement. They are proposing to save none of the canopy. Originally when they came in through Plat Review we had those numbers of 3.8% existing and 1.3% removed. The Landscape Administrator is in support of removal of the canopy. That is a correction that I need to bring to your attention this evening. Odom: I'm sorry I don't understand the correction. You are saying what? Marr: Removing 1.3% to zero. Odom: 1.3 to zero? Conklin: Yes. Odom: That's just a correction in your report, there was never any intent to save those trees was there? Conklin: In the beginning, at the first Technical Plat Review meeting they did intend to save 1.3% of the tree canopy, after they met with the Landscape Administrator she did recommend that they be allowed to remove all the canopy. Kim Hesse is here this evening if you have any questions with regard to her recommendation on this project. Odom: She has a memo here that we have as part of the file which, I think, explains her • position. Planning Commission November 13, 2000 Page 9 Conklin: That's correct. She has provided a memo with her Justification of her recommendation. That's in your packet. Odom: Bunch: Commissioner Bunch go ahead and ask that question. Since we have changed 1.3%, do we need to change the 20.97% and 22.25%. Is that a correction for that also? Conklin: There should be. I don't have those numbers in front of me Commissioner Bunch. Bunch: These are the replacement canopy. Conklin: The replacement canopy is over and beyond what the existing canopy is and my understanding of the ordinance is you start off with your existing percent canopy on site. It's currently under 20%, it's at 3.8%. They are over and beyond the canopy that they had existing on the site with the tree plantings. I'll have Kim address that. Odom. The Chair will recognize Kim Hesse to explain that. Hesse: They actually added additional trees after I recommended removal. That was because of the health of those trees. We have at a minimum 22%. I believe we have more than that in the end. Odom. I'll ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. Rogers: I'm Joe Rogers. We worked with the City at various stages through this and believe we have addressed the issues. As far as the Conditions of Approval, the only one I would bring your attention to is number three, Planning Commission determination of the request of two curb -cuts on Joyce Avenue. That is something that is very important to the client and we have been through various stages on that and you will find in your packet a recommendation from Perry Franklin supporting that second curb -cut. That's what we would ask the Planning Commission to approve that second curb -cut on Joyce Street. Odom: Staff Just for clarification, item number three, they are asking for two, you are recommending only one and the very last sentence says Perry Franklin, Traffic Superintendent disagrees. I understand he disagrees with staffs position? Conklin: That is correct. Anytime we can limit the number of curb -cuts on a principal arterial we • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2000 Page 10 typically try to recommend just one curb cut. The Subdivision Committee did request that Perry Franklin, our Traffic Superintendent take a look at this proposed curb -cut for a bank. He did take a look and his recommendation is that you have a enter only access to the bank off Joyce Boulevard. He felt that the second curb cut would actually provide more safety for people driving on Joyce Boulevard by getting them into the bank without having them potentially backing up in the one curb -cut on Joyce Boulevard out into the street. That is his recommendation. Odom: Is that the only Condition of Approval that you have any question about? Rogers: Yes. Odom: Any other presentation? Rogers: . No. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Odom: What I'll do now is ask if there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this Large Scale Development? Lowry: Good evening Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission. My name is Gary Lowry. I am a fairly new resident of the City of Fayetteville. I've been here approximately two years and watched with amazement the goings on in the City and the Planning Commission as well as the City Planner's Department. There is a lot of things that bother that I have seen that the City doesn't take care of and I was referred to Sara Edwards this afternoon and she clarified one matter for me but I have some other ones if I may please. I'm not privy to the standards and condition that Mr. Conklin or the Commission set upon on the developer but one of the things that I am really troubled about is all the freebies that you folks like to hand out to the developers, builders and people in the area coming in to put projects in the area. One of the things that troubles me greatly is some of the off -sites. I see that the City wants to pick up 85% of this because they want to put in an arterial road or a collector road over there on Old Missouri. Well, folks where I came from, you dedicated your land for street improvements, curbs and gutters and sidewalks, then they turned around later on when they got ready to improve that piece of ground in front of your home which was a street or a collector street or whatever, you also paid for that. You paid to put in the pavement, you paid to put in the curb and gutter and you paid to put in the sidewalk They graciously gave you ten years at an interest rate of 1% to 2% to pay for it but you • Planning Commission November 13, 2000 Page 11 paid for it. There is no freebies for developers or builders. Also, drainage studies, has there been drainage studies done on this site? Has there been traffic studies? According to Ms. Edwards, there has been some traffic studies does by the State. I don't know how many trips they count, if they count breakfast, lunch and dinner, that means the people coming there every morning, the people leaving there at lunch time and the people leaving there in the evening because there is two trips at lunch time, one leaving and one coming back. I don't know how your traffic studies have been, how your traffic flow studies have been done but my suggestion is if you take a look at that area around 5:00 in the evening, you are going to see a lot of traffic over there and I believe it's more than 15% that's going to be added to these buildings that are going in over there. Dedication of all rights -of -ways, haven't heard anything said about that. Those traffic lights at that intersection are going to have to be changed. Eventually you are going to need a left turn signal there, coming back and forth down Missouri or going back and forth on Joyce. So, has there been any dedication of funds for traffic light upgrade, pro -rated that the City doesn't have to bear all the expense by themselves or making the developer or the property owner's from that area come up with part of it. I think it's time that the citizens of Fayetteville quite getting short changed, quite paying for all the developers wants. I wouldn't want someone to develop my property for me without me having to pay for it because later on when that property appraises at a greater value than it did when I purchased it, I guarantee you, I'm not going to share the proceeds with the City. I'm going to keep it all for myself. So, why should the citizens of the City of Fayetteville have to pay for a developer's improvements and I'm talking about that street there. I'm talking about the curbs and the gutters. I'm talking about these curb -cuts that they are going to have to make. I'm talking about the infrastructure that's out there, that's going to need to be out there. All of these things has to come down to one thing, who's going to pay for it and when is it that the City of Fayetteville quits paying for the developers and builders improvements? I think it's time they paid for there own. Otherwise, you are going to wind up one of these days going to the City and the City says "Well, we don't have the funds to do this because we've been doing them for the developers and builders all along." The ordinances on the books, from what I understand, my suggestion is somebody get together and change it. Either that or you are going to have a lot of people with a cranial/anal inversion. Thank you. Odom: Thank you Mr. Lowry. Staff would you like to go over the improvements that are required to be made as a part of this project? Conklin: Sure. I'll start and then I will have Ron go over with regard to the cost share estimate on the street. When a project does go through our process they are required to dedicate right-of-way according to our Master Street Plan. They are dedicating for the • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2000 Page 12 principal arterial on Joyce Boulevard 55 feet from centerline, a total of 110 feet. With regard to Old Missouri Road, they are required to have 70 feet of right-of-way. They are dedicating 35 feet from centerline. A collector street with 70 feet of right-of-way should allow for a left turn lane in the future. The developer is required to build the sidewalks for this project, six foot sidewalks. They are required to provide the green space between the curb and sidewalk With regard to the right-of-way, the additional right-of-way allows green space between the curb and sidewalk. Beyond the sidewalk into the site they are required to have 15 feet of landscaping and one tree per 30 feet and a continuous row of shrubs in front of the parking stalls. With regard to the calculation of off-site improvements, our ordinances require us to use the rational nexus formula, their proportionate share. We can't charge the developer to upgrade a street that is serving existing population and future population that's not directly related to their project. They have been assessed based on the amount of traffic that will be generated from this development. That is required by ordinance. Typically on a development we require 14 feet from centerline, curb and gutter, storm drainage or the developer can bring forward a proposal to show that their proportionate share is something different. That is what has been brought forward with regard to this development. Once again, you can't charge the developer to upgrade a street for other citizens that are currently in this community With regard to changing our ordinances and what we need to do to manage our growth and development in Fayetteville, the City Council four weeks ago, did approve a contract with Duncan and Associates to take a look at how we do pay for growth and what's the best method for paying for that growth. It's an impact fee study that will be coming forward. With regard to that, they are going to look at how we do acquire right-of-way dedications per our Master Street Plan, just as we are doing this evening. They are going to look at how we do calculate off-site improvements, as what's currently allowed under ordinance. I do look forward for that consultant to address what we are currently doing and how we can improve that and how we can manage to pay for our development as it occurs in Fayetteville. Lowry: Mr. Odom, may I respond? Odom. Actually Mr. Lowry, this isn't really a debate. Lowry: It's not a debate. There was a point there that he made that I would like some clarification on. Odom: Okay. Yes, go ahead. Lowry: You said that you go according to the nexus study? Is that correct? • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2000 Page 13 Conklin: Yes. The ordinance states that "Any required off-site improvements shall be installed according to City standards The developer shall be required to bear that portion of the cost of off-site improvements which bears a rational nexus to the needs created by the large scale development." Lowry: Am I correct when I was told that the City of Fayetteville is picking up 85% of that bill, is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. Lowry: And the developer only has to pay 15%, is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. Lowry: Now is it also correct, Mr. Conklin, that if this developer comes in and builds that, in order for him to access his property with these dedications of right-of-way to the City, he would have to build that roadway in front of that property in order for him to access his property without going through dirt and debris, am I correct? He would have to widen that portion of the road that he gets up to his property, am I correct? Conklin: I'll let our Staff Engineer answer that question. Petrie: I'm not sure I understand your question. Lowry: Let me phrase it where you might, Mr. Petrie. The property owner has dedicated a certain amount of footage, in this case probably 70 feet? Conklin: 30 feet. Petrie: 30 feet from centerline. Lowry: I stand corrected. 30 feet. Normally that 30 foot dedication is for a residential street. But, he dedicated thirty feet for a collector street, is this correct? Conklin: 35. Petrie: 35. Lowry: 35. Okay. That 35 feet now belongs to the City, am I correct? Planning Commission November 13, 2000 Page 14 Conklin: Yes, it will belong to the City. Lowry: Alright. It will belong to the City. So, in order for him to access his development, he will have to pave that portion of the street in front of his property all along Old Missouri Road in order for him to access his property without going through dirt, debns, grass, the Netherlands, am I correct? That would have to be paved. Petrie: I don't believe so. He would just extend his driveway to the existing asphalt. Lowry: The City doesn't require him to pave it if he does a road cut there? The City doesn't require him to pave that portion of the roadway along his property? Petrie: That's part of this agreement here. Lowry: No, Mr. Petrie. You don't understand me. The City does not require a builder or developer to pave that portion of property adjacent to or abutting his property? Petrie: We have a paved street. Lowry: At the current time and it is not all the way back to where the developer is building. My point is does the City require the developer, and it is required through every city I have ever been in when you buy a piece of property you have to make certain dedications along a street, that dedication would be to the city, to the county, to the state or whomever, you have to dedicate a certain amount of right-of-way to that entity and that property then becomes the property of that entity, am I correct? Petrie: Yes. - - - Lowry: Bearing that in mind, the city, county or state says "If you are going to develop that property, you therefore now must pave that portion of the roadway that abuts your property." Does the City of Fayetteville have in it's ordinances, any ordinances that require that developer or builder to build that roadway adjacent or abutting to his piece of property? Hoffman: Mr. Chair? Petrie: If we wanted a local street he would have to do that. We don't want a local street, we want a collector street and that's why we have to work under a cost share agreement. If we wanted a 28 foot wide street we would require him to put in curb and gutter • Planning Commission November 13, 2000 Page 15 fourteen feet from centerline and the drainage. That's not what we want. We want a 36 foot wide street with three lanes. Lowry: Let me make sure this is clear in my own mind. You are requiring the citizens of Fayetteville to pay for the 85% of that new roadway that goes in front of this developers property, is that correct? Yes or no. That's a simple question. You are requiring the citizens of Fayetteville, out of the general fund, to pay for that portion of a roadway that goes in front of this development? Petrie: No sir, we are recommending a cost share to the City Council for them to make that decision. Lowry: That's what I'm saying. You are requesting a requirement for the citizens to pay for that roadway. Petrie. This portion of Old Missouri Road is scheduled for widening. I don't understand your question. Lowry: Do you have street improvements districts in the City of Fayetteville? Petrie: No sir. Lowry: You don't. May I suggest you get your collective act together and get them started? Thank you. Odom. Commissioner Hoffman? Hoffman: Yes, I would dust like to clarify a couple of things in addition to staff comments. As the Chairman of the Subdivision Committee, we see these projects on a regular basis. This particular has come back through our Committee twice. It has also been to the Technical Plat Review which is the initial meeting with the City once. With regard to the cost sharing agreements that are worked out, they have been done in this particular matter based on there are some vehicle trips per day projections that have been provided to us. Our Traffic Superintendent has looked at those. Our Engineering staff has looked at those and concurred. I understand that you may not agree with ordinances that are currently in place but this project will be approximately 15% of the load carried by that street. We have been putting in street improvements and cost sharing agreements as properties developed along all of these roads and will continue to do so. That, in large part, is how the roads are paid and the rest, yes is paid for by the • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2000 Page 16 tax base. I'm merely trying to clarify that we are not arbitrarily just saying that we want this developer to pay just a small amount, we have actually required the developer to make major revisions to his plans which we will be getting into here in a couple of minutes, that he has done during our two Subdivision Committee meetings. Some of those revisions were not to his liking but they were intended to provide for a more aesthetically pleasing and safe project. So, I will leave it at that but to say that we are working within our existing ordinances, working with staff, working with the developers and there have been two public meetings that anybody is welcome to attend and make such comments at any time. Thank you for your comments, they were certainly listened to, we appreciate them but we also want you to know that all of these issues have been discussed. Odom. Also, I would like to point out that there is a Street and Sewer Committee that meets and I would encourage you to attend that and express your comments there because they seem to be more policy general wide than just this particular development and that might be a good place to voice your concern. At Ordinance Review Committee as well. Hoffman: Some of these ordinances are under review, the landscaping ordinance, as you know, has been being worked on since the CMN project and the City is in a dynamic mode, it's not a static mode, we are changing to meet the growth patterns and so on and so forth. On this particular project I would say that yes these items have been looked at and they are well within the standard of guidelines that we've been using. Odom: Let me ask now is there any other member of the audience that would like to address us on this particular large scale development? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Odom: I'll bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions and comments. Estes: I have several questions for Mr. Rogers. With regard to condition number three, your request regarding two curb -cuts on Joyce and referring to Mr. Franklin's memo, he feels that to support your request that the entrance should be narrowed to twelve feet. Are you agreeable to that change? Rogers: Yes. We agreed to that at the Subdivision meeting. Planning Commission • November 13, 2000 Page 17 • Estes: If you are granted your request for two curb -cuts, you are agreeable to Mr. Franklin's recommendation that the entrance should be narrowed to twelve feet to eliminate that entrance being used for two-way traffic to exit onto Joyce Boulevard, is that correct? Rogers: Yes. Estes: With regard to condition number four, have you had an opportunity to complete the additional drainage computations? Rogers. It is not complete at this time. We have done the initial drainage study for the area directly in front where we have that data, in front of the site, it runs from the site west on Joyce Street to Kitty Creek which is just past Community Bank and the first section we have the data on, you could check that and that's going to be the critical and we knew if it didn't work there it wouldn't work anywhere. It does work there. We are in the process of getting a surveyor out to check the heights, flow lines and so forth of the pipes from there on down. That should not -be a problem but it's something we do have to verify but that will have to be field verified and calculations done. Estes: Let me ask this, condition number four says that you will submit the additional drainage computations to prove that detention is not required On the plans that we have, I believe there is one detention pond remaining, is that correct? Rogers: Estes: Rogers: Yes, on the south side Is that a constant? Will that be there regardless? That will be there regardless because the land crests in the middle. There is drainage north and drainage south. The drainage north to Joyce Street we had originally detention across the front we have taken that out per this drainage study down to Kitty Creek. The one on the south we have widened the slopes to a one to three as opposed to one to two per recommendation of the staff but that would need to stay there. Estes: You've removed the two detention ponds on Joyce Street, is that correct? Rogers: Yes. Estes: Condition number four states that if this cannot be proved, that is the detention is not required, then a revised Large Scale Development plan with detention ponds must be approved by the Planning Commission. Are you agreeable to that condition? • Planning Commission November 13, 2000 Page 18 Rogers: Yes. Estes: I have no other questions Mr. Chairman. Hoffman: Let me just interject at this point. The issue with the ponds on Joyce Street was definitely one of the aesthetics that in order to completely meet the ordinance, they had put some rather deep ponds immediately adjacent to the street that would require 54 inch high guardrails directly in front of the project and when it was determined at the second Subdivision Committee meeting that there would be an alternative of using the existing infrastructure to drain if that's possible that is preferable to the Subdivision Committee. I along with Commissioner Estes just want to get a feeling of certainty from you that you are feeling that the front drainage, the north side range will be able to go through that existing storm sewer drain down to Kitty Creek. Rogers: Yes. We did the study on the initial two sections of pipe which we have the information on. We've done visual surveys of how many inlets and so forth come in there and the size of the pipe coming out of Kitty. So, we believe we know what's in between but we have to field verify it. Hoffman: I understand that and the reason I'm in approval of this method of working out this plan is because of the topography of the site, we will not have these problems further on down stream and I think that we will be able to detain the water in the rear of the project on the other parts of Joyce Boulevard but this site did present some topographical challenges. I just want to clarify that about the detention ponds. The tree preservation, I understand and have gone out and looked at the trees. Kim I had a quick question, have we agreed on replacement species. Will we be using native Arkansan species? Hesse: Yes. Hoffman: Thank you. That's all I had. Ward: I would like the applicant to go over the Commercial Design Standards and for the public record kind of go over the type of materials and what you are going to use on each of the elevations and kind of what the building is going to look like, if you could do that. Rogers: If you look at item one on Conditions of Approval, the elements to avoid or minimize, • unpainted concrete precision block walls, box like structures and so forth, if you will • • Planning Commission November 13, 2000 Page 19 look at some of the elevations and this is a set here, here is a sample board showing the basic materials we are proposing. What you are seeing is primarily a brick facade, two color brick facade, you see a paint on the mixed level. This on the lower part, brick above and then on the higher part up here a dry-vit type material. Again it will be a couple of different colors. The roofing, it will be a metal roof. We have a revised drawing. These were showing a green roof. Since then we have talked to the client and some other people and the feeling was we need to go with something less identifiable. We are looking at a dark gray for a roof material. This was the pallet that we used throughout. This being the other large building on the site. Ward: What you might do first is kind of take where each building is going to be located as far as the site plan. Rogers: This is Joyce Street with the curb -cut. The bank building here. This is a small what we call an independent office building located here. This building takes advantage of the site in that the ridge of the site goes right through here sloping forward this way. This building is this building. You enter the upper floor, at floor level in the back and the lower floor level in the front. The building that actually sits on top of the site, this being the high point right through here, and then it's one story here and two story here. Estes: Mr. Rogers, the material board is labeled Home Town Bank. Is that the material board just for the bank tenant or is that the material board for Commerce Park project. Rogers: That was the entire project. That was done by a separate architect where this building was developed and we have been working with them. They are the ones that actually put together a final color selections. Estes: That will be the material board for the entire Commerce Park project? Rogers: Yes. Estes: I compliment you on meeting the Commercial Design Standards. It's a very attractive project. Allen: Back to condition number four, about the additional draining, how far along might you get in the project before you would know if there are other problems? Rogers: We should know whether we can complete that drainage within two weeks. It's a • matter of getting a surveyor to go out on the site, those drain inlets and the size of pipes • • Planning Commission November 13, 2000 Page 20 and so forth and then running the calculations for the water that we are adding to the system. Allen: Okay. Thank you. MOTION: Shackelford: I would like to go ahead and make a motion to approve LSD 00-31.00 based on staff findings. As Commissioner Hoffman stated earlier, this has been through Subdivision a couple of times where modifications and revisions have been done. It's got the approval of the Subdivision Committee, it's got staff recommendation, Landscape Commissioner is comfortable with the landscape design. On number three, the two curb -cuts on Joyce, I would like to go ahead and make a motion that we approve it with two curb -cuts on Joyce with the one being limited to twelve feet and everything else based on staff comments. Marr: Second. Odom: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford second by Commissioner Marr for approval of LSD 00-31.00 which includes the determination of allowing two curb -cuts on Joyce Avenue with one of them being limited to twelve feet. Is there any further discussion? Estes: To follow up on Commissioner Allen's comment, condition number four, it is my clear understanding that approval of this Large Scale Development is dependent upon these additional drainage computations and that Mr. Petrie will superintend those additional drainage computations and that if for any reason detention is required then we will see this large scale development again. Rogers: Yes. Estes: No work is to be done, no work is to be started, nothing is to happen until those additional drainage computations are done and Mr. Petrie superintends those computations and approves them. Rogers: Yes. Estes: If detention is required, then we will see this again. • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2000 Page 21 Rogers: Yes. Odom. Commissioner Estes, is that it? Estes: Yes. Odom: Commissioner Bunch. Bunch: This is a question for Kim Hesse the Landscape Director, on our landscape drawing and landscape plan, there is a considerable disparity between the trees that are showing in the drawing and the trees that are showing in the table. I imagine this is just a clerical error but can we make sure that it gets corrected? The one that shows the most trees is the drawing itself rather than a table and I would assume that we would need to have the table concur with the drawing just for the record so we can dot the i's and cross the t's. Will that be done? Rogers: Yes. Hesse: Yes. Odom. Is there any further discussion? Will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call LSD 00-31.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2000 Page 22 30 day Extension for LSD 00-4.00 Covington Park Phase IV Odom: That was the last item on tonight's agenda but I understand there is another item, is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. I do have Gary Atha here this evening representing Covington Park Subdivision. Today was the deadline to build the street connection from 45 to Township through Covington Park. They are requesting a 30 day extension. The condition that was approved on January 10, 2000, was that no additional building permits would be issued for any of the lots that have been final platted in Covington Park. Mr. Atha is here to explain why there is an additional 30 day request for this development. Atha: Very purely and simply due to weather. That's the only reason. We've got curb down, gravel down, we are ready for asphalt, we have had asphalt scheduled since October 25, 2000 and the weather has delayed us That's the only reason. I've looked at the weather forecast for this week and it doesn't sound like it's going to be warm enough for asphalt so a 45 day extension would be better than a 30 day extension. With next week being a holiday week, I doubt that we are going to have weather. Next week, if the weather is permissible for asphalt then we are going to lay the asphalt next week. I'm a little bit afraid of the 30 days because of losing this week and possibly next week. Odom. I got to be honest with you, I wouldn't be in favor of doing anything more than 30 days because we gave an extension of six months already. Atha: I realize that.. Odom: To ask for more than thirty days, I think, is too much. You can come back if you have to. If it rains from now until then we can all start building an arc. Atha: At the six month you asked me for a time back in January and I didn't make the six month. That was a time frame that you asked me for. I wish I would have said the end of the year at that time but we have no reason to delay. Odom. I don't think we would have agreed to the end of the year. I may be the minority here but I think asking for more than 30 days after a six month extension is just not going to work with me. Again I will be completely sympathetic with you if you come back 30 days from now and it's raining every day between now and then, for some additional • • Planning Commission November 13, 2000 Page 23 time. Allen: What temperature range do you have to have in order to have the asphalt? Atha: Above 45 degrees and rising is what I've been told. Allen: For what period of time? Just when you lay the asphalt or for a long period after that? Atha: For the entire time you are laying the asphalt. A 45 degree minimum temperature. Maybe Mr. Petrie could say? Petrie: That sounds correct. I would probably have to check to be 100% but that does sound correct. Odom: How long will it take you to lay it once you start laying it? Atha: About two days. Hoffman: Has any resident complained due to lack of access? Conklin: I have not received any complaints from any of the residents within the subdivision. In talking with Mr. Atha this afternoon, it's my understanding there are twenty-five homes that are occupied? Atha: MOTION: Back in January, when we last addressed this, we had anticipated fifty to sixty residents. At this time we have approximately twenty-five or twenty-six at this time. The reason being, the houses are larger than we had anticipated and they are taking longer to build. Hoffman: So we haven't had traffic problems is what I'm asking. I'll go for 30 days. I'll make a motion that we approve an extension for 30 days and then we are willing to re -hear this if we have inclement weather. Shackelford: I'll second. Odom: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman, second by Commissioner Shackelford • to approve the 30 day extension. Is there any further discussion? • Planning Commission November 13, 2000 Page 24 Bunch: On the forty-five degree temperature while you are laying, that does not say that is have to be exactly two days in a row, it could be one lane during one time period, temperature drops, you stop work for a couple of days and you come back and lay the other side? I would like to have a clarification on that. Can work be done in increments or does it all have to be done at once? Atha: I believe that's up to our City inspectors. Petrie: It can be done in increments to some degree. You don't want to go out and do a hundred foot strip and then quite, of course. Like you said if they can do half of it one day, I'm sure that's something we can do. I don't know a problem that we have had with that. Bunch: It will be coordinated by our Engineering and Inspection Division? Petrie: Yes.- Every time they are paving we are out on the site with our inspectors. • Atha: We want to get this in as soon as possible. We need the lots. We are out of lots. We need the lots to sell. We have noreason to delay. It's dust been a matter of weather. Odom: Anything further? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call a 30 day extension was approved for FP 00-4.00 by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. Odom: Staff is there anything further? Conklin: There is nothing further. I would like to remind the Commissioners that will be attending the training on Friday, the Planning Commission training at the extension office. I will have the exact location on how to get there and I will contact you. Odom. Where is it? Conklin: The Fairgrounds. Extension office. With regard to our General Plan 2020, that will be going to City Council December 5, 2000, and that will be the first time at City Council. I will be forwarding it to them next week. That's all I have. • Bunch: Do we need to be present to answer any questions, any of us from this Commission or • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2000 Page 25 that were on the Committee? Will you be handling that? Conklin: I'll be handling answering the questions. If those Committee members would like to attend, I would appreciate your attendance at those meetings. I think that will help if there are any questions with regard to revisions that we made to those documents. Odom: Anything further? Conklin: Nothing further. Odom: We are adjourned. • • • Planning Comm. Mtg. 11/13/00 RZ 00-26.00 Baker, pp 558 AD 00-39.00 Fayetteville Boys & Girls Club, pp 439 RZ 00-27.00 La Pachanga, pp 601 MOTION SECOND D. Bunch / Y B. Estes Y L. Hoffman Y S. Hoover Y N. Allen � ,i Y D. Marr 1 / Y C. Odom l V Shackelford ab`,,'UM � Y ,. -�-. L. Ward 1 ACTION u tOCi 4/!#1.-OVe [(T Or Pd VOTE 8. 6'0 8- Q- O Q-0-0 • • • Planning Comm. l'l 11/43/00 U • LSD 00-31.00 Dixie Development 42.40rt.S cm) -j0 cAa, COV i no D10-2 +-r-- PAI11ldA-es 3 -00 - MOTION SECOND D. Bunch f B. Estes y L. Hoffman S. Hoover N. Allen f D. Marr Y . ii C. Odom y Shackelford y L. Ward ACTION Approved % pprbved Approved VOTE 9'0'0 9"0so