Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-11-27 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on November 27, 2000 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN CU 00-24.00: Conditional Use (St. Paul's Episcopal Church, pp 484) Approved Page 3 LSD 00-30.00: Large Scale Development (St. Paul's Episcopal Church, pp 484) Approved Page 5 LSD 00-33.00: Large Scale Development (Lots 13-16 Millennium Place) Approved Page 12 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 • • • Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 2 Consent Agenda: Approval of minutes from the November 13, 2000 meeting. Odom: Welcome everyone to the November 27, 2000, meeting of the Planning Commission. The first item that we have on tonight's agenda is the approval of the minutes of the November 13, 2000, meeting. Do we have any comments or corrections? Seeing none, those will be approved as they are. • • • Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 3 CU 00-24.00: Conditional Use (St. Paul's Episcopal Church, pp 484) was submitted by Arnold D. Rankin of McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. on behalf of St. Paul's Episcopal Church for property located at 224 N. East Street. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial containing approximately 2 acres. The request is for a church (use unit 4) in a R -O and C- 2 districts. - Odom: The first item that we have on tonight's agenda is a Conditional Use 00-24.00 submitted by Amold D. Rankin of McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. on behalf of St. Paul's Episcopal Church for property located at 224 N. East Street. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial containing approximately 2 acres. The request is for a church (use unit 4) in a R -O and C-2 districts. Staff recommendation is for approval of the Conditional Use subject to the following conditions: number one, approval for the accompanying large scale development; number two, conditional use shall apply to the existing facility and to the proposed expansion only. Any further addition or change of uses within the facility will require a new conditional use application and review by the Planning Commission; number three, compliance with all conditions of approval for the previously for BA 00- 7.00 and the requested large scale development; number four the water shall be turned off immediately and the facility shall not operate if any of the conditions are not met; number five, this conditional use shall be automatically revoked if any condition is not met. Staff, do we have any further Conditions of Approval? Conklin: We do have signed Conditions of Approval. I would like to add one additional condition and that is compliance with Section 172(h)(2) which refers to parking and loading, non -conforming parking lot standards, for the applicant to provide additional landscaping as required by the Landscape Administrator. At this point in time it's difficult to determine whether or not additional landscaping will be required. Their existing parking lot is currently landscaped along College Avenue and they do have some landscaped islands within the parking lot but we do have a provision where if you do expand and that percentage of expansion, you do need to bring your parking lot into compliance so therefore, I am recommending that condition to be added. Odom: Is the applicant aware of that additional condition? Conklin: Yes. Odom: Would the applicant please come forward at this time? Estes: Mr. Chairman it will be necessary that I recuse on item number one Conditional Use • • • Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 4 00-24.00 and item number two Large Scale Development 00-30.00. Odom: Thank you Commissioner Estes. Does anyone else need to recuse on these items? Okay. Rankin: Tim called us and told us today that he wanted to add that. We have no problem with it. Odom: So you are in agreement with that condition number six as well. Do you have any presentation that you would like to make on this Conditional Use? Rankin: No. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Before we move on to questions, let me ask is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this Conditional Use request? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Seeing none I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant and the Planning Commission for questions and comments. MOTION: Hoover: At the Subdivision Committee meeting we discussed the parking lot landscaping, the connection, the locations of the buildings and such in great detail and found that they had done a good job with meeting all of our city ordinance requirements. I'll go ahead and move for approval of CU 00-24.00. Shackelford: I'll second. Odom. We have a motion and second to approve Conditional Use 00-24.00, do we have any further discussion? Hearing none, will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call CU 00-24.00 is approved upon a vote of 8-0-1 with Commissioner Estes abstaining. Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 5 LSD 00-30.00: Large Scale Development (St. Paul's Episcopal Church, pp 484) was submitted by Arnold D. s of McClelland consulting Engineers, Inc. on behalf of St. Paul's Episcopal Church for property located at 224 N. East Street. The property is zoned R -O/C -2, Residential Office/Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.0 acres The request is to add a 11,000 square foot addition. Odom: The next item concerns you as well that's Large Scale Development 00-30.00 submitted-byArnold D..:s ofMcClelland-consulting Engineers, Inc.. -on behalf of St. Paul's Episcopal Church for property located at 224 N. East Street. The property is zoned R -O/C -2, Residential Office/Thoroughfare Commercial and contains -approximately 2.0 acres. -The -request is to add an 11,000 square foot addition. Staff's recommendation is for approval subject to thirteen conditions of approval. Staff do we have any further conditions of approval besides those thirteen? Conklin: There are no additional conditions. - Odom: Do we have a signed conditions of approval? Conklin: Yes. Odom: Do you have any presentation you would like to make with regard to the Large Scale Development? Rankin: No. - - - Odom: Just here to answer questions? Rankin: Yes. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Okay. Let me ask first before we go to questions if there is any member of the audience that would like to address us on this large scale development? Foster: My name is Jim Foster, I'm an architect for the project and I was asked at the Subdivision Committee... COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 6 Odom: Let me, just for the record, close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant for your discussion since there is no one here to talk. Now go ahead. Foster: I was asked at the Subdivision Committee to bring in a material board of the exterior materials and I have that if you would like to see that at this time. Odom: Why don't you set that up underneath where that board is now. Foster: The predominant exterior materials are brick to match the existing as closely as we can with today's materials and asphalt shingles to match again the shingles on the church In both cases the brick and shingles on the church are varying types and colors and so forth. They are generally the blend that you see there for the brick and the dark shingles. We have some small areas of plate siding that are really not visible from any of the public streets. That was, in some cases to save money where we didn't have to put up a heavy brick wall. They too will be painted to blend with the brick color. We have some timber trim including some heavy timber brackets and those will be painted ---the dark brown which you see there in the lower quadrant of the panel and select the recommended color for that. There is an area of patterned concrete that looks like brick and there again, the color would be a brick color. One of area of painting is handrails on a couple of the walks down to the lawn area. We are also going to have plaid aluminum windows and they will be the manufacturer's standards colors, one of which we like in particular is the reddish brown that is very similar to the windows on the current church. We couldn't find an exact match. I have also with me the early overall perspective drawing of the church, this was an earlier concept of it. You should look at the latest elevation for the exact appearance of this. This gives you an idea of how it relates to the church architecture. The existing church, the gazebo and the addition in the elevations have changed somewhat. Just because we didn't show all the trees in front doesn't mean we are cutting them all down. I would be pleased to respond to any of your questions. Odom: Any questions or comments from the Planning Commission? Hoover: Jim I can't tell on my plan one elevation is cut off. I'm just confused. In my east elevation. Could you pass that small one around. That's the one that is cut off. What elevation is that? Foster: That's from East Avenue looking towards the east. Hoover: Okay. What's this one that's labeled "East elevation"? • • Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 7 Foster: That is from the back side. Hoover: Okay. Could I see that? Odom. Are you going to ask some other questions? Hoover: No, thank you. Odom: There are a couple of items on the Conditions of Approval, one of them is item number three which is the Planning Commission determination of compliance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Currently 38% of the site has tree canopy and the applicant is proposing to preserve 16% of the site and provide 9.4% replacement canopy. The total canopy on the site will be 25.4% and our ordinance requires 20% tree canopy preservation in a an R-0 District. In page 2.6 of our report, we have a report from Kim Hesse the Landscape Administrator which is an outline where she recommends the approval of the tree preservation plan for the 16% preservation. Hoffman: This is one of the things that we discussed at length in Subdivision Committee and it looks like with the replacement canopy we will have the 25.4%. The reason that the Subdivision Committee was, I think I'm speaking for all three of us, willing to go with that because it would be impossible to build this building if the existing trees were saved on the site and we are aware that the addition is definitely needed for the church to grow. Odom: This plan does have the support of Kim Hesse. Hoffman: Right, it does have her support. I think that the replacement trees are going to be native species and proper size for optimum growth and so on. We were satisfied with that. I believe that the questions that we had with regard to Commercial Design Standards to relation to matching the existing building, we are also satisfied and he did a good job of re-creating the old church and making it blend well. There was also the parking lot, the connectivity from the old parking lot to the new site and I believe staff was in agreement with the configuration of that. Did you all have any other comments? Conklin: We did take a look at that and the existing alley is acceptable, the current pavement. With regard to access, they are going to continue using the access between College and East so that is acceptable. • Hoffman: That's across the alley? • • Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 8 Conklin: Hoover: Conklin: MOTION: Hoover: Odom: Hoover: Conklin: Hoover: Odom: Hoover: Conklin: Yes. That doesn't seem to pose any problems today and shouldn't with the new addition? As -far as we can tell, it will not. They actually share that parking with Northwest Arkansas Times and it's used every day including Sundays. With that said, I would like to move for approval of LSD 00-30.00 subject to all staff comments and with the finding-.- Wait a second, -we have -to address the sign variance. Was that in there? I don't think we can address the sign. Is that going on to Board of Adjustments? That will require approval from the Board of Sign Appeals to allow the monument sign as shown on their plans. They are requesting a larger sign than is allowed by code and if you do approve it, you will be approving what they are showing on their plans for the signage but that can't be approved. The variance has to be approved by the Board of Sign Appeals. Okay. I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve subject to staff comments with the finding that the sign is acceptable as shown. I don't think we can make that finding, can we staff? Well as shown on the site and then they have to get further approval. Typically, the Commission has restricted the size of signs. They have only allowed less than what the ordinance required and in this case they want more sign area than the ordinance requires. Either way, I typically try to make sure the Commission is aware of that and because we do have our Commercial Design Standards that talk about large out -of -scale signs. What you approve here I consider an approval for that sign and then the Board of Sign Appeals will have to approve that variance of the sign ordinance. • Odom. So it complies with Commercial Design Standards? • • • Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 9 Hoover: Allen: Odom: Conklin: Allen: What I'm trying to say is it's in context with the other church signs. If you drive around Dickson Street and look at the other signs, it's the same or similar size. I'm unclear about the sign. What kind of sign are they proposing? Commissioner Allen needs a sign. Sure. It's how tall? Shackelford: I'll go ahead and second the motion for approval Odom: Allen: Hoover: Shackelford: Odom: Bunch: Hoover: Commissioner Allen, do you have any other questions? No, I don't thank you. I just wanted to bring up the sign to say that was the only variance that I'm aware of that was needed. No we are not varying, I'm sorry, I do confuse us from time to time as much as I hate to. But I will just make the motion to approve this project subject to staff comments, leave it at that and let the Sign Appeals Board have it from there. I will second. A motion by Commissioner Hoffman, second by Commissioner Shackelford to approve LSD 00-30.00 subject to all staff comments. Is there any further discussion? -Commissioner Bunch? I would like to add condition number fourteen would be the same as the additional condition we added on the Conditional Use for the parking lot compliance because it's usually called out with the Large Scale Development and this is just for the record to —have -attached -with the Large Scale Development because that'swhere the square feet of the existing structure and the square feet of the additional structures are presented so as a clerical item to add that to the motion if it's acceptable. tis. Shackelford: Second also. • • Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 10 Odom: You understand the other condition? Rankin: Yes. Odom: Any further discussion? Commissioner Marr? Man: I had a question for those members on the Subdivision Committee. I'm just trying to understand how we apply our tree ordinance at times. The 16% not meeting the 20%, did we consider that 4% difference in additional tree replacement so we could actually get to the 29% it would have had had we met 20%? Hoover: You mean going up to the existing amount of cover? No. It's exceeding the required 20% by 5.4% but it does not meet what cover was originally there with this building. Am I right? Conklin: It started out with 38% of the site covered with tree canopy and we ended up with 16% of the site covered with tree canopy and then they planted trees required as part of our parking lot standards, design standards and we ended up with 25.4%. Marr: I guess my question is, have we met the 20% and done our parking lot standard we would have had 29.4%, is that right? We would have had the 20% plus this 9.4% from the parking lot requirement. Conklin: That's correct, the additional tree canopy that has been created on the site has come from additional ordinances that require landscaping in Fayetteville. They work together. Marr: So are we just concerned with meeting the 20% overall or do we try to look at what it would have been in addition to what is required by parking? I'm just trying to get some consistency for my own mind. Odom. I think it's kind of like green space as well. There is several green space and open space requirements and they all sort of combine to meet the totals, like the 75% and so forth. I think you use all of the standards to make sure, the parking lot standard which requires tree planting and other to make sure that it meets the 20%. Marr: So the benchmark is just as long as we get above 20% in this particular case? • Conklin: Yes. We consistently have worked with our ordinances to look at how each ordinance • • • Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 11 requirements can meet the overall requirements for all the ordinances. For example, you mentioned the site coverage calculation, if you are required to have 15% unpaved or not have a building on it, you may have a detention pond, you'll have your landscaped island where trees are going to be planted, you will have your landscaping in front and put all that together, you can get your 15% that's unpaved and at the same time meet your storm water ordinance and your parking lot ordinance. We've looked at that with the tree requirements when we do require trees to be planted in parking lots and trees to be planted along the front of the buildings, those trees can be planted. That's how the Landscape Administrator has looked at our landscaping ordinances and interpreted those ordinances with regard to meeting our tree ordinance. Odom: Commissioner Marr, does that answer your question? Marr: That answers my question. Odom: Anything else? Marr: Odom: No. I think you might want to use something other than Elmer's on your building Any further discussion? Will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call LSD 00-30.00 is approved by a vote of 8-0-1 with Commissioner Estes abstaining. Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 12 LSD 00-33.00: Large Scale Development (Lots 13-16 Millennium Place) was submitted by Steve DeNoon of Jordan and Associates on behalf of Kirk Elsass of L & E Investments, LLC for lots 13-16 of Millenium Place. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains 1.5 acres. The request is to build 2 office buildings. Odom: The next item that we have on tonight's agenda is a Large Scale Development 00- 33.00. Submitted by Steve DeNoon of Jordan and Associates on behalf of Kirk Elsass of L & E Investments, LLC for lots 13-16 of Millenium Place.— The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains 1.5 acres. The request is to build 2 office buildings. This is the third development in the Millenium Place Subdivision. The proposal is for 2 office buildings, 6,600 square feet each with 53 parking spaces. Staff's recommendation is for approval subject to eight conditions of approval. I'm going to run through those real quickly. The first one is, the Planning Commission determination of compliance with the Commercial Design Standards, including signage. Staff and the Subdivision Committee recommended that the vinyl siding along the southern side of the building be eliminated and replaced with materials that matched the remainder of the buildings; item number two, in accordance with Millenium Place final plat requirements, four inch caliper trees shall be planted along Millenium Drive at 30 foot intervals, item number three, Planning Commission determination of the requirement for cross accesses. The Subdivision Committee recommended that a 24 foot access easement be provided for a future driveway connecting to the south between the two proposed buildings. At the time lot 2 of Millenium Place Subdivision develops Mr. Elsass will be required to construct the cross access up to the property line if the access is needed. The applicant is requesting not to provide the access easement or cross access for reasons stated in their attached letter; item number four, Plat Review and Subdivision comments to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives; number five, 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 review for general concept use only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements; condition number six, sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include six foot sidewalks and six foot green space along Millenium Place; item number seven, Large Scale Development approval will be valid for one calendar year; item number eight, prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is require& grading and drainage permits, separate easement plat for this project, project disk with all final revisions and completion of all required improvements or the replacement of a surety with the City as required by • • • Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 13 § 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. Staff do we have any further Conditions of Approval? Conklin: There are no additional conditions. Odom. -Do we have -a -signed- ConditionsofApproval?— Conklin: We do not have a signed Conditions of Approval. There were some conditions that the applicant is in disagreement with, specifically the cross access condition and the condition with regard to the vinyl siding on the south elevation of the buildings. Odom: I would ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. Elsass: Kirk Elsass. Excuse me, I have a cold. To start off, I want to say, I think maybe I have, to give you a little background, I might have mislead myself a little bit because the first Large Scale Development we went through on the first two buildings we did, we went in and I proposed vinyl siding. I think our intent is all the same here and we intend this to be a very nice area and very nice development. When we came in with the vinyl siding on the backs of both of those buildings, I know that we ended up doing a compromise which was done basically for aesthetics so that from Joyce Street you would see the brick and the vinyl would be seen in the back. When I originally proposed the subdivision and brought the subdivision through, there were items that were allowed to be used in the subdivision, cut block, a certain color brick, the concrete brick which is a new material being used in the area, vinyl siding, the weather wood color rooftops and white windows and the things the we use to try to keep the theme and architectural control on this thing and it was something I was unfamiliar with this development but we put it all together. When we did this second set of buildings that we are discussing today, my intent was basically the same, to have something really nice. Something that was brought to my attention. I gave Steve DeNoon directions on how to design what I thought was something that was going to be similar to what we had and something that was very architecturally pleasing to the general public. When I did that, I had in my mind that on Joyce Street there would be the building Perfect Partners going along there and then the 1.3 acres that I have adjacent to that there would be an additional building built there which in turn, in my mind, when I designed these buildings or described how I wanted these designed, I put the vinyl siding on the back. I really didn't give it a whole lot of thought until we started putting the vinyl siding on the two buildings we have over there and as you will notice on these designs, the Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 14 color scheme is really not blending real well but you will notice that the cut block is on the back of this one versus the ones we did originally, we didn't put any cut block on the back. When I started thinking about that, I started looking at that so we added the additional cut block under those windows. After discussing with a couple of the Commissioners today and I spoke with Tim earlier today, I started trying to think through some of the things that were objectionable of what I had brought originally and one of the things was the vinyl in the back that I'm talking about and also the discussion ofthe access -easement -With -that, -I -started thinking -how -I can make this -work and compromise because like I said, I mislead myself, I believe, because I thought I was doing something to where I didn't even think there would be any objection when I -brought-it through. After Hooked at that, I thought there has got to be -a way to do this that makes sense. Some of the reasons for the vinyl siding. I know that the discussion I have had with different people is that down the road we would be better off with brick than you will with vinyl siding. I like vinyl siding, personally. I've had that in the scheme of the subdivision. Maybe there is too much vinyl siding. That's a good given point but I was never given a scale of how much I could and could not use. So, after all that;1 started thinking, maybe if first -of all I don't want to do an access easement and the two main reasons are I don't want a dumpster out in front. We specifically designed this because this is four lots laid out, not two lots, I've laid it out as four lots but I laid it out and put two buildings on four lots. I'm only requiring two entrances coming in instead of having four entrances, four signs. I'm trying to make this all look like it all blends in together. Not only did I have the two entrances, I really didn't want the access. I spoke with Doctor Robinson, I spoke with Harvey Smith, the dentist next door, I spoke with the Latta's-up above there and one of the first questions that came to that residential subdivision, "Is this going to be lit up like a Christmas tree like the mall at night because we live right here?" I said "No. You are next to an R-0, this is a -C-1, which is neighborhood commercial and I said we don't have any plans other than the street lights and very few parking lot lights through there." If we have to bring an easement through there with buildings backing up to each other, I feel like we've got a safety issue and we are going to have to put additional lighting back there that I really don't think we need. The other thing was is that I just don't really like dumpsters next to the road. I don't -think they -look good. I think that's the reason Perfect Partners put their dumpster back as far, they wanted to get as far back as they could, it's trash. For that reason, I'm really opposed to the easement. As far as the brick, I've discussed with Steve DeNoon an alternative and my visual aid is not Elmer's Glue but it's even worse; it's -a sketch that we did-a±ew minutes ago -I thought maybe if a compromise of some sort because I like the vinyl siding. I could see how it would be offensive to some people as just solid vinyl siding but with block coming up put two row of becks across the bottom of these two buildings. I know that Tim and I have visited where possibly • • • Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 15 the building on the east side could be vinyl and the other one can be brick. I wouldn't _ have that much of a problem with that. I'm trying to look at the overall picture of what's going to look the best and I think if we went with block across the bottom and brick above the block and then the windows and do that scheme all the way around the building and then in the back from there up allow me to put the vinyl. I personally would like to see most of the buildings in this subdivision with some of the rear with vinyl because there again, it's a uniform deal. The reason that I like the vinyl other than the fact it gives a break=up of the -architecture is that in doing rental property, the first few years you go in and you lay out an interior, I say rental property whether it be commercial or office space, people come in and lay out their design and the biggest --problem with development iscapitalimprovements-because-the-next-party that comes along, it's not a matter of the cost because a door doesn't cost that much but if I put doors in the back of these buildings and if I brick those doors in then next person may want a door over here. It's Just a convenience thing and hopefully something that would be easier to do than when you go in and start knocking out brick walls and tearing out the side of a building to put a double door or whatever. It's a lot easier to cut that vinyl and -frame at that point.- That's one of the main reason that I did that and wanted to do it on the backs of these buildings. My intent from the very beginning was to make it similar and try to follow the lead. Tim has told me that if I bring the first few of these through and everything goes like we wanted it to then hopefully we can take it from there. I'm looking for a cookie cutter and that's the reason I'm developing most of these myself. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Odom: Before we take questions Kirk let me make sure that there is not any member of the audience that would like to -address us on this large scale development. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission.-- — Hoffman: In Subdivision Committee, you weren't there but we had talked about the access easement, I'll just cover that. The possibility that the front property, fronting on Joyce Street, -would-be retail -and -the -Planning Commission encourages connectivity -when at all possible to keep people from having to go out into the street and coming back and around. I realize and it's a good point that these are going to be medical professional type office buildings and not retail? • • • Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 16 Elsass: Yes ma'am. I'm building these as office buildings and not retail. They are in a C-1 zoning. Hoffman: They could have it. Elsass: They could have some retail but the design of the building is the intent of a office and that's the reason that I'm building on these particular lots myself because I felt like the uniform that whole area would look -better even though this was allowed to be a C-1 and historically you can get more money for a C-1 zoning than you can an R-0. My intent was to try to make that more of an office park and to have lots 1 and 2 which are the -ones where Perfect Partners and then lot -2 -it would be a C-1 zoning, there may be some type of retail. It could be a restaurant. It could be another Perfect Partners type business type business and the same thing with the two lots that are on 265 which are zoned C-1. Hoffman: Right, so it's more likely the ones on 265 are going to go in with that kind of use and if that's -the -case and I know we don't have a crystal ball and can't see what that parking lot is going to look like and how they would probably line up with these but I wanted to offer a suggestion or compromise that would leave your plan as -is for now with the option of dashing in, where the two dumpsters are, a future stub -out only if needed for the other large scale developments as they come in with the optional location of moving the dumpsters not up by the street but just to the right or left of where that little location is of them now. In other words to be able for you have it how you have it shown now but with an adjoining stub -out like they do with subdivisions. It would only be built if, because we don't know what the other development is going to look like. It would only be built then if on the other large scale development we decide, for whatever reason, that it_would.bea-good idea to come back through there. Elsass: I don't have a problem with that. The only thing is we have looked at this enough that I don't know where you are going to put those dumpsters. There is no other place to put them unless you come out towards the front because my understanding with the drivers, they_don't want to make a turn -and then angle around over to the side, they can't make that turn if you put it back there. So the dumpster is going to end up somewhere out here on the front and that was my only concern with that but if that's what they decide down the road, I'm not opposed to that. I don't have a problem with giving that easement through -there that way. I -know that Dr. Bradley on lot one that's doing - Perfect Partners is very objectionable to us bringing through traffic and retail. I didn't sell him that lot with any ideas. When we did Millenium Subdivision, there was never any discussion with there being internal connections. This was never brought up to me • Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 17 and if we had that, I would have had that in there on the front end and I would have told him that. He was opposed to it. I don't know what the next party is going to be. They may like it and they may not. Hoffman: -They may not need it. We don't know right now. I personally would like to leave the option in there. As far as accessing the dumpsters, they can be angled one on each side of that where you can get a truck in and not lose a parking space or doing anything. Elsass: If that can be done, that's fine with me. Hoffman: That was my only comment about that. --- Elsass: For what you are saying, you are saying, in other words have it prepared but we don't have to do anything. Hoffman: Have it shown for future connection and leave it like it is now. Staff can that be handled? Can you deal with a note like that on the plat? — • Conklin: Yes. With regard to who is going to pay to construct it, that's my only concern. Typically, if we have an improvement that's delayed we get the money in escrow so that can be completed. If we connect it together, are we going to require the developer to the south to complete it on this person's property? • Hoffman: -- I'm making it a condition of this development so if it ever has to be done, like if the other developer comes in, he doesn't have to pay for something on this property but he would be responsible for it. Elsass: First of all, I own the other lot too. So when I sell that other lot, if I'm going to have to pay for what you are talking about, I wouldn't worry about it because I'm going to put that into the contract. I have an ethical obligation to a buyer that buys from me to disclose that so what I'll have to do is I will tell him that this is something that could come up and that he is going to be required to pay that. I'm not worried about it. However you want to do it. I would rather not do another bond, if you don't mind. Conklin: We take cash. Elsass: I know. Unfortunately, I put too many things in that have either had to come out or lust sat there. • • • Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 18 Conklin: Just so I'm clear, we are talking about showing an easement and then at a later date, with another Large Scale Development, if it's determined that it's needed that we contact the owner of this property and they would build a connection to their property line and connect the two together. I can work with that. It's a lot easier to have money here at the City in an escrow account. We don't end up arguing too much when you have the money in hand, that's my only concern about it. Hoffman:—I-don't-know-how to -assess -a -fee fora -parking lot. Elsass: I have another thought on that. If we just leave it the way it is now and the large scale -comes through and you propose that you want that access done that way and someone is going to put this large scale through, they are not going to buy this property from me and try to put it through until they have gotten it approved through the large scale development. My point is, they got to get an easement from me to come through there anyway to make it work. Hoffman: I think it just needs to be shown.-- Elsass: I could sell that lot to someone else but then the Planning Commission has the right to say "We want that access through here." Hoffman: What about if we get papers that initiate a joint access easement on this large scale but not activate them until if and when we know we need one. Conklin: Once again, you are talking about having as a Condition of Approval that this applicant, this developer will be required to build it and it will be showing on this plat and we will - —have a note on -the -plat -stating that and when this lot to the south develops and we make that connection, we will call for that to be built which will require them to relocate the dumpsters, pour a new pad for the dumpsters, do some grading and drainage work and connect that. Hoffman: But I don't -think we have -a-real-steep -deal there, do we have a ditch? Conklin: There is a concrete pipe. Hoffman: —But -it's -a -small one? Elsass: A drainage ditch. • • • Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 19 Hoffman: You may not agree with me. Conklin: That's why I keep on bringing that up, it's easy on paper to draw the lines to show the easement but when it comes to reality and trying to put it in there, sometimes it's more -difficult. You are talking about the storm drainage, re -doing the curb and re -doing the concrete dumpster pad. We are probably talking about thousands of dollars of work that will have to be done to make this connection in the future. Hoffman: Based on our conversation at the Subdivision Committee and the perceived need for connectivity between parking lots, it was my understanding from your engineer that it —was not a-great-big–deal-to put -this in. It's not like we have to build bridges and do things like that. I'm trying to leave it where whatever it goes in on Joyce Street is not an intense use or there is not a requirement or some compelling need to connect this that it won't happen but we have an avenue to do it with if we need to. I'm not trying to get into a bunch of drainage issues and complications, just to say this is an access easement and then you can take it off your plat after whatever is developed there if it's not needed: You can come back to Subdivision Committee or back administratively and remove the note from the plat unless you need to connect the two. I'm just trying to be accommodating to both sides. Elsass: I appreciate that. One thing that everybody has a difference of opinion on different items. One of the things that is Dr. Bradley's concern was about us opening this up like that is that I am going to be dealing with the liability factor that people are going to be cutting through, if a child is on my property and people from another property come over. Everybody had an opinion. On the other side if it's commercial, you want as much traffic as you can. The thing about it is, I was looking at if from the safety standpoint and aesthetic. That's the reason that I didn't want it to begin with and then the beauty of the fact of it not having the dumpster out in front. That's the reasons we came to that conclusion that we did not want this in here but as far as how you want to work it, how you want to handle it. Like I said, I would rather not have to put up a bond again if I don't have to. I really don't think that the next party that comes along there is going to want that office traffic combined with possibly retail traffic. We've got an access. If a Perfect Partner customer wants to go because the original agreement with Millenium Subdivision the first thing I did I sat down with Tim and we visited and he said "I'll give you one access for lots 1 and 2." Well I have a joint access which gives common use right there which brings up the liability factor but if I have one access there and an additional access on Millenium so if a party is on Joyce Street, they pull into Perfect Partners and they want to cut across this other property, they never have to get back on Joyce Street, they can cut across over to Millenium Drive from lot 2 and • • • Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 20 they can make that circle. Unless Millenium Drive becomes 265 or Joyce, which I highly don't think that's going to happen. If it does, those people can actually get back there without creating all the turmoil of cutting through by going across those two lots and going out onto Millenium Drive. Hoffman: That's my point, so they can get to Millenium Drive so they can have a choice about which way they go on either Joyce or 265. Elsass: They've got that now with those two lots. Hoffman: —With -those two-butnot-with-these-others. - Elsass: That's the only two there. Hoffman: -The ones facing Joyce. I'm Just trying to give more options for traffic flow. Elsass: -That's what I'm -saying. The two buildings on lots one and two have access from lot one across lot two because they have a shared entrance on Joyce. They also will be open to driving across the whole parking lot. Odom: For clarification lot 1 and lot 2 can access Millenium? Elsass: Yes. Hoffman: Okay, well that makes a big difference. Odom: —That -makes a huge difference. Bunch: What about a sidewalk through there? Hoffman: I don't think you are going to have that much pedestrian traffic over there. With that in mind, -because I was not at all -aware -of that, I -would say we are okay. Elsass: That was the intent when Tim and I originally laid this out was that the access could be entered across. We did an easement agreement between lots one and two which allowed them to co-own that entrance, half apiece which means that the parking lots have to be opened or you won't have the two entrances and that's a selling point for me on lot two. • • Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 21 Odom: We have 4 lots here but only two accesses and there is a cross access between all 4 lots and if in fact lots 1 and 2 can access Millenium then, they don't have to get back on Joyce to get up to this site and I think that pretty much takes care of the access problem. Hoffman: I don't mean to be dense but they access it through lot 13? Elsass: They can access through 13 or they can access through 16. Hoffman: That's not shown on this plan. Elsass: If you come through here, you got access all the way across to here. This is 13, 14, 15 and 16. Hoffman: I'm saying from lot 1. Elsass: From lot 1, there is an entrance -right here; a joint entrance right here. Then there is an entrance that is going to be allowed one cut wherever they decide to put it back here. Hoffman: One and two will go to there? Elsass: Right. Then there will be a cut here and then here which what I did I eliminated two cuts here for the looks and then allowed these cars to drive through. They will have to enter onto Millenium Drive to get on here. Hoffman: That's not that big a deal. I was trying to keep everybody from here from having to go -outto Joyce to get back to-Millenium. Elsass: The don't have to. They have a common use entrance here between these two right here. Hoffman: —Do you want to goshowthe rest of the people what you -are talking about? Conklin: We limited it to one curb cut for lots 1 and 2 on Joyce Boulevard and then one curb cut for lot 2 on Millenium. With regard to will there be cross access between lots 1 and 2, I don'tknow at this time. I -don't believe we required that as part of the final plat. Elsass: How could you have a joint and pay for half an entrance? You have to allow the • parking to cross over. Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 22 Conklin: Yes, between lots 1 and 2. The question I have for you then, were you insinuating that _they are going to be able to cross lot 2 over to Millenium? Elsass: Yes. From lot 1 to 2, sure. Conklin: If the parking lot is developed that way. Elsass: It has to be. You've got joint entrances. Shackelford: You only got one entrance. Hoffman: Can we show this on our area site plan, the schematic joint access easement from Joyce and through lot 2? Elsass: The only thing I can't show you on paper is where the cut is going to be on lot 2 because that's not been laid out yet but there will be a cut on lot 2. Hoffman: The one on Millenium? Elsass: It could be anywhere on that area there. Hoffman: It's got to be 150 feet away from the intersection and all that but if that could be shown, that would've been helpful at Subdivision Committee because we had a lot of discussion about that and if we had known that we had another way through the back then I think we could have just saved ourselves a half an hour. --Elsass: I -had it in -my -mind -all -the time. I never made any comments to Steve about it because my understanding is that it was brought up the last meetings and at that point when it was brought up, I wasn't there to tell him that. It's always been that way. Hoffman: My request then, I guess it would add a Condition of Approval would be that the joint -access easement -between lots 1 -and 2 and a commitment to a single drive on Millenium be shown on this area plat with the location to be determined upon large scale development of lot two. Will that work for you? Elsass: -I'm-not-sure I got all that but I think we are -heading in the right direction: Single road? What did you say? Hoffman: Okay, we got a Joint access between lot 1 and 2 that be shown and that access • • • Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 23 easement be continued through lot 2 to a driveway the location is to be determined on large scale development of lot 2. Elsass: An entryway on Millenium? Hoffman: Right. Elsass: That was my intent to begin with Hoffman: That way it will show that we addressed this. Somebody else will know when we are no longer here. Elsass: It also prevents one other item that I was concerned, someone going through there, cutting between those two buildings. I've got doctors, one lady that is a pediatrician dentist that's looking over there, just looking. If you've got children and someone cutting through and then the other buildings on the north side, they may be cutting through parking lots. That was a safety factor that I had a concern about. Hoffman: Thank you, that's all the question I have Odom. Commission Ward? Ward: Somewhere back when the first time Millenium came through, this was something that had been discussed at Subdivision about the access from lot 2 into Millenium itself so I guess I had already kind of knew that. The other thing is, these are basically going to be specialty office buildings, single purpose, single visit type of things in these two buildings that are being put up. I don't really feel like there will be much need for cross access on those kind as there would be retail if any. I like connectivity but on these particular single use buildings where it's very special uses, it's not needed as much. Bunch: The drawing I have shows tree placement but it doesn't show what kind they are. Just out of curiosity, what kind of trees are you -going to plant? . -- Elsass: Maples, red maples and oaks and some river birch. Some of the areas next to the buildings smaller type, oriental type dog woods or redbuds. I don't have a specific type there, whatever the landscape designer says will grow best in that area. As far as along the road there, I've been able to acquire a really good inventory of some really nice, larger than the 4 inch caliper that's required, I've got pin oaks some of them 15 to 18 feet tall and some of the maples are that size too. We plan on staggering maples and • • • Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 24 Marr: pin oaks. I'm hoping to do that through the whole subdivision. I would like to put at _least one tree,. somewhere between now and spring, my hope was to put at least one of these type trees of that size on each lot prior to even selling so that we have some trees growing up and close to the same size, was my hope. I guess my questions are, I would like to talk about the rear elevation and whoever was at Subdivision, Laurel I want to direct this to you. You did the Subdivision on this --development? - - - Hoffman: Yes, I was there. Marr: Was there discussion on this rear elevation other than just the vinyl siding and whether this is considered a large unarticulated wall or if this design constitutes a break-up of that. I would like to hear what the Subdivision said on it. I'm interested because I do believe this is viewable from Joyce that I would be interested in the proposal you recommended than what is before me tonight. Elsass: I'm going to do that anyway. I've already decided we are going for your decision. Estes: In response to Commissioner Marr's questions, at Subdivision the Subdivision Committee unanimously was opposed to the vinyl siding on the south elevation. The south elevation is going to be seen from Joyce Street. We discussed the topo of the lot and that this building will sit a little bit above Joyce Street. Not knowing what is going to come in to the south for right now we certainly know that unarticulated solid vinyl wall will be visible from Joyce Street and the Subdivision Committee meeting attended by myself, Commissioner Ward and Commissioner Hoffman was unanimously opposed to the vinyl siding. - - - Hoffman: I believe that they have made a revision because it was 100% vinyl siding when we saw it. Elsass: - It's never -been 100%. Hoffman: Did you revise it since that Subdivision meeting? —Elsass: That's what -I said -If -you -would -look -at -that, -the -one -we -did- originally -was -all -vinyl all the way down to the block, this is a cut block up at the bottom with a cap down below it. What I'm going to do, my intention in changing this, of course I don't know how we would work this but what I would like to do is continue with this and maybe I can show • • • Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 25 you what I wanted to do. After I got to thinking, I went over and looked at it. The building furthest east, that building is not going to be visible. If there is any visibility there, it's going to be very limited. Only to people that are going to be parking back there. There is going to be some visibility there, because of that my proposal is to come in with the cut block underneath like we have proposed now, come along here with one row of bricks and then what they call a row lock brick on top of that with the red to match, do this same design all the way around the building except on the sides and the - front, this will be brick MI the way around. On the back, up to this window, we will come around with the decorative brick all the way up around here, come across in the middle of the building between the two windows in the middle with brick and then come -on the other end and do the sixth inch cap around there. That's totally going to break up look of that vinyl. It's going to give you an architectural feel and there again, like I said, I personally like vinyl. Some people may not but I know that most properties today that are at least five years old or newer, many of them have vinyl on them. I like the product. The reason that I would like to continue it on here would be that all I would have to do to rearrange the door arrangement in the back of that at some point would be to come down here and take the bottom section out and then cut this out. I don't have to go in and redesign and re -pour bricks and cut and break all that out. I've got that in the first two buildings. I would like to keep it in this building and to be honest with you, I would like to bring some vinyl and limited visibility because obviously some people don't like vinyl. Allen: Can I see the sketch that you drew? Odom: Commissioner Marr did you have a question? Marr: - That's exactly what -I-wanted. Shackelford: Are there current exits on this? Elsass: Right here. No we don't have any doors in that place now. There will be doors in it. --It's planned to have, this is six thousand square feet, three thousand unit or 4 fifteen hundred units and there will be in the center we are proposing to put, right in the center, to put brick in this area right here, brick right here, brick around to here, brick around to here and then below the windows all the way around the whole building such as this —but -there will be 8 inches of-britk-underneath-the-window-in the -front and -the back all the way around. Allen: -No brick around the sides of the windows? • • • Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 26 Elsass: No ma'am. This will have the vinyl look that I was wanting to get. Tim and I talked --about maybedoingthis building, maybe a compromise of doing the one that wasn't going to be visible. We kind of bounced this back and forth. Maybe we can look at doing the eastern building with all vinyl and brick the western building but that doesn't give me what I wanted. That sounded okay to me but after I got to thinking about it, that's kind of like your hodge podge and trying to cut some corners and I'm not trying to cut corners, that's just a look that I'm trying to get. Shackelford: I just had a quick question for staff. We have approved buildings in the subdivision already. We don't have those elevations in our packet here, could you give us a brief description of the use of the vinyl siding on the buildings that were already approved out there? Conklin: Sure. On lots 5 and 6, when we talked about using vinyl on those, there was concern about seeing those buildings from Crossover and Joyce Boulevard. When we are talking about this building, this is the concern that I have when we keep on referring to this as the back of the building, it really is a side. Here is your street , here is a front, here is a front and here is a side. With regard to these buildings, we required them to use the same materialsas the front. We did allow vinyl on the back of these buildings but the back clearly was a back and that's my concern with this building. With the conversation that we had today regarding my position on this, I did indicate that with this eastern building being back behind this building, Perfect Partners and that dumpster and the landscaping, that you probably wouldn't see this building from Joyce Boulevard as much as you would see this western building and therefore I talked about if we compromise that I think this is the most important building that we need to deal with this evening. I really think that we need to continue the same building materials that we —have on -these two fronts along this side of this building. Shackelford: We're concerned about visibility from Joyce Boulevard. There's lots 1 and 2 between this building and Joyce Boulevard. Is your concern that those buildings will still be visible even after lot 1 and lot 2 is developed? Conklin: Once again, that's why earlier this afternoon I did talk with Mr. Elsass about my primary concern was this western building. I can not predict what's going to happen on lot 2. I think you are always going to be able to see that south side of the building even When you develop lot 2 because you are going to be -able to -come down-Millenium and look at the south side of that building. Basically, my recommendation is, let's make sure we have a building that is going to be attractive and meet our Commercial Design Standards for the western building. With this eastern building, I'm not as concerned • Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 27 about the material that's being used. Hoffman: At Subdivision we also talked about the use of landscaping as a mitigation, we always do, for site lines and so forth. Have you added landscaping since we had our Subdivision meeting -at -the corner of the westernmost building because you have several trees and shrubs grouped together and you do have some trees behind the building facing Joyce. Elsass: We submitted additional drawings and also, I will tell you this, my intention are along that back back there is to go ahead not just for looks but for shade purposed too, I planned -on adding about -15 trees -along that back line back there. Hoffman: Okay. To me that makes a big difference no matter what material you are using. We've used landscape successfully in hiding or breaking up the facades. I'll just say that the Commercial Design Standards are really difficult to apply because they are so subjective. I never feel comfortable in making a suggestion that more brick be added here or less siding there or whatever and kind of leave it to the applicants to come up with an acceptable plan that is attractive and meets the aesthetic values of Fayetteville and hopefully exceeds the intent that went into the writing of the Commercial Design Standards subordinates that we do have more attractive buildings In my mind, with the additional landscaping which I would like to be shown on the plan and the additional brick that he's proposing, maybe it could be carried a little bit further along one edge. I don't really feel comfortable in suggesting that but I think that additional landscaping goes a long way to mitigate an unarticulated wall surface. I'll just say I think I'm personally satisfied with the Commercial Design Standards for the rear of this building or the side of this building as he stated. I would like to see the landscaping shown on --the final plan too.- Elsass: Sure. As far as landscaping, I didn't have any intent of putting shrubbery of that nature. My plans were to plant trees back there and to grow up as shade trees. That was my intent. Hoffman: You have utility easements and stuff like that you have to watch. Be aware of that. Elsass: Yes. I understand that. We've already placed those back trees where we wanted —them. I think"thei was 15 -trees and they are out of the easement:- I -placed them in the back and we will do that. 1111 Hoffman: Thank you. • • • Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 28 Hoover. I have to say, I'm more in favor of Tim's suggestion of bricking the back of that west -building. The -trees, -though- I_think_that's an excellent idea are not going to block the view of the siding, they are going to be taller than the siding. I think that Tim is correct, you are going to see those from Millenium, that's going to become a side view. We have had several of these in the past that later I've seen built and it's more visible than you can imagine when you are looking at them on the plans. I don't know how the applicant feels about doing the west building and not the east. Elsass: That's what I'm saying. Personally, I just have a different opinion about vinyl. I don't have that feeling that I don't think anybody should ever see vinyl. I think if you do vinyl right, -if I go -down some of the subdivisions -and -see these -small -houses -that have vinyl, vinyl, vinyl and they are all wrapped in vinyl, I get the same feeling. When you do vinyl and if you do it with a combination with brick and the block as we are doing and breaking it up, it gives it a look. Some houses, you'll notice, they'll brick them up so far and if they use certain materials they can cut cost to go from there but if you use certain materials such as overlap hardboard that they use, it's more expensive. Some of those people use that for an aesthetic look and that's really what I don't want. I don't want to hide the body, that's part of what I'm trying to say. Hoover: Let me ask you, on your other buildings you just used the vinyl in the rear, is that because you didn't want to use it anywhere else? Elsass: No ma'am When we came through we had vinyl on the backs and the sides. Hoover: Then why didn't you put in on the front if you like so much? Elsass:-It-is-on-the front. -- - - - Hoover: It is? On the gable ends but what about on the walls? Elsass: Why not? I wanted that look. Bunch: Just for clarification on the trees on the west building, the drawing that we have Just shows trees on the west end of the west building and you are saying that you are going to put them all the way down? Elsass: Yes. We are going to put the trees that are allowed. I think I've got 12 from the west corner all the way around the front. I believe that's the number. • • • Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 29 Bunch: Yes. Our drawing is just showing four trees on the west end of the south side. Elsass: That's on the west end. What I'm talking about is on Millenium Drive I have proposed, I believe, 12 trees along there all the way from the southwestern corner of the building -all the way around Millenium Drive and then across-theback 15 trees along the back. Bunch: On the south side? Elsass: South side of where the vinyl is. Odom: —Kirk -the vinyl -is -going to -be -the -color -that -you -have in -this -drawing, it's not going to be white, right? Elsass: Estes: It's not going to be white. It's going to be the same color vinyl and that's as close as the colors we had I guess but it's going to be the same -vinyl as what is out there right now, the one that has been approved for Millenium. At times we have required in approving large scale developments for there to be brick or block on the back of a building that faced a major thoroughfare, the Kohl's Department Store comes to mind immediately but that's much different then what we have before us this evening. We have a developer who's telling us that he wants this particular look and we are asked to apply the Commercial Design Standards. They are subjective. If the developer is allowed to do what he is proposing we are not going to —have unarticulated wall space. It's going to be the look that he desires. I think in applying the Commercial Design Standards, we need to give some consideration and some difference to what the developer would like to have be his overall design theme -and-for that reason I would not be opposed to what has been suggested here this evening. MOTION: Odom: Is that a motion? Estes: I would move that we approve LSD 00-33.00 subject to all staff comments with the additional_condition of joint access easements on lots 1 and 2. In lot 1 a shared curb cut with -lot 2 from Joyce -Boulevard -and a -access easement -off -of lot-2-onto-Millenium Drive. With reference to the Commercial Design Standards, the back of the building facing Joyce Street would be constructed in a way described by the applicant this evening and to be presented to staff for final approval consistent with the markings and • • Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 30 drawings that have been made by Kirk this evening is his presentation the brick corners, brick center, vinyl, split face block on the foundation._ Ward: I'll second that. Estes: Commissioner Hoffman reminded me of a third condition is the additional landscaping that has been discussed and that would be on the south side of the development. Hoffman: I'll second that. Conklin: -I-would like to -have -that clarified.—This-applies to -both -buildings, -is that -correct? - Estes: Yes. Odom: We -have. a. motion.. by Commissioner Estes, second by Commissioner Hoffman. Is there any further discussion? Hoover: I never got to see that drawing that was done. Marr: I guess if I can just ask a question of the applicant. Right now there would be 3 spaces on the back side of this building that would have brick, each end and one space in the middle. Elsass: That's correct and there will be a one brick plus a row lot brick cap which will be 8 inches of brick that will continue on from the sides all the way on top of the block to here and then the window will sit on top of that and then vinyl along this area right here. Marr: How far off the ground before the windows? Elsass: 2 foot 8. Allen: How about bricking around the sides of the window? Elsass: There is not enough support unless we go all the way up. There wouldn't be enough support to hold them. There would be nothing to hold the block in place and I really don't want to do that. My concern is back to when we have to change door spaces and that. I would really like to leave everything around the windows the same. • Allen. Could you break it up more frequently with the brick than what you have now? • • • Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 31 Elsass: I'm not really sure there is going to be not more windows in there or less windows in there depending on where the office spaces come on the build -out is the only thing, I don't want to promise something that will put a window there. Some of those window placings are actually going to be door placings. Marr: Elsass: I guess what we were looking at was right now you've got this one and there's a long string and another long string, we were looking at if you did here, here, here and here so every third window three, three, three, three. I'm dust trying to visualize what that would look like. I don't have a problem with that. —It almost looks -like -a -roof -sitting -on -stilts -instead -of -giving -it -a -designed look. This one is not as wide as this. Now you are going to have this one and this one and this one and then these two little ones. It's almost like we ought to come over here. He's the architect. He's the one that suggested that. Odom. Let's all come back together and get back on the same track. Kirk, you have a question? Elsass: I have one question for Tim as far as the plans and the changes, how soon do we need them? Steve is actually on vacation this week. Would that be before we start construction or do you need those like next week? Conklin: Prior to building permit. Elsass: Okay. Odom. We have a motion and second, do we have any further discussion? Will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call LSD 00-33.00 is approved on a vote of 7-2-0 with Commissioner Allen and Commissioner Marr voting no. Odom: Thank you very much. Staff do we have anything else? Conklin. There is no this evening. The General Plan 2020 Future Land Use Plan and Master Street Plan will be at City Council next Tuesday night for those who are interested, Planning Commissioners, interested citizens. December 5, 2000. Planning Commission November 27, 2000 Page 32 Hoffman: Just before we adjourn have there been any amendments to the Master Plan or requests for amendments since we saw it in terms of future zonings and stuff? Conklin: I have forwarded the plan as recommended by the Planning Commission. I have not made any additional changes to that. Odom: There being nothing further, we are adjourned. PC Mtg 11-27-00 CU 00-24.00 St Paul's Episcopal Church, pp 484 LSD 00-30.00 St. Paul's Episcopal Church, pp 484 LSD 00-33.00 Lots 13-16 Millenium Place MOTION I100v i QVer t iS SECOND Sha I Arc, Wericrran J -1. D. Bunch \/ v 1 B. Estes rQA � r - Y L. Hoffman S. Hoover ‘/Y 1 Y N. Allen ti7 i \K.) D. Marr x it C. Odom Y VShackelford yy Y L. Ward Y ACTION A pproverd fppro vest ppvat VOTE �.0_I 5?- O/ 1-z-0 Appro 1-3W Q MOTION SECOND D. Bunch B. Estes L. Hoffman S. Hoover N. Allen D. Marr C. Odom Shackelford L. Ward ACTION pc/7 PrQvd VOTE