Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-06-12 - Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on June 12, 1997, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building located at 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson, John Forney, Robert Reynolds, and Conrad Odom STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, Chuck Rutherford and Sharon Langley Old Business: PP97-4.00: Preliminary Plat (Bois d'Arc, pp 442) submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Engineering on behalf of Julian and Jane Archer for property located east of Sang Avenue and south of Cleveland Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 24.7 acres.. Findings: Phase I of this subdivision has changed substantially since its approval, specifically in regard to lot dimensions and street configuration. Waivers for street construction are requested as follows: 1) that Osage Bend be allowed to be classified as a "residential" street with a width of 26 feet, 5 feet of greenspace and one 4 -foot sidewalk; 2) that the one-way portions of Osage Bend adjacent to lots 5, 19, 11 and 12 be allowed to be 16 feet wide; and 3) to allow tangent length less than 100 feet for reverse curves as shown on plat. The Planning Commission previously reviewed Bois d'Arc subdivision. At that time, a decision was made to not require connection of Maple Street (from Gray Avenue to Sang Avenue). The Planning Commission will have to reaffirm their former decision or reopen these discussions. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. Preliminary Plats require action by the full Planning Commission Staff recommends the following conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval: 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - Arkansas Westem Gas, Southwestern Bell Telephone, Ozarks Electric, SWEPCO, and TCA Cable). • 2. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 12, 1997 Page 2 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. 4. Resolution of all waiver requests as detailed in the "Findings" above. 5. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $5,700.00 for 19 single family lots at $300.00 each. 6. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 4 -foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 -foot greenspace on both sides of Osage Bend, a 4 -foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 -foot greenspace along Sang Avenue and a 6 -foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 -foot greenspace along Cleveland Street. 7. Signed agreement concerning the installation and maintenance of street lights must be submitted to Traffic Superintendent prior to filing final plat. In response to a question from Mr. Rutherford regarding whether Osage Bend was a local or residential street, Ms. Little explained residential streets were 24 feet in width and local streets were 28 feet in width. She stated the applicants had asked for a residential street (24 feet in width) and had agreed to add two additional feet. She pointed out residential streets had sidewalk only on one side of the street while local streets had sidewalks on both sides of the street. Mr. Beavers explained the definition of a street was determined by the traffic volume. Mr. Forney stated he had thought the new standards required sidewalks on both sides of all streets. Ms. Little explained that was true with the exception of residential streets. She also noted residential streets were designed for a volume of 300 - 500 vehicles per day. She advised the applicant had requested to be able to move the sidewalk around some of the major trees. Mr. Rutherford stated he did not have a problem with that request. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little advised 4 -foot wide sidewalks were allowed on residential streets on just one side of the street. fl? Subdivision Committee Meeting June 12, 1997 Page 3 Mr. Beavers noted residential streets were not typical and very few streets would qualify for the residential classification. Ms. Little stated the street did meet the traffic volume; the Traffic Department figured 181 trips on an average work day. Mr. Forney stated that, if there were going to be sidewalks on both Cleveland and Sang, he would prefer the sidewalks went to the street rather than turning into the subdivision and then stopping. Ms. Johnson asked if there would be access ramps. Mr. Rutherford advised there were always access ramps at curb corners unless the terrain was over a 12:1 slope. Ms. Johnson also expressed preference that the sidewalk stop at the street intersection if the sidewalk were not going to be on both sides of the street. Mr. Forney stated it appeared the applicant was requesting three exceptions: (1) residential street width with a sidewalk on only one side; 2 16 -foot wide streets for the one-way areas; and (3) and the tangent length for the reverse curves. Mr. Reynolds noted there would be a sidewalk problem around the island area; that people would have to cross both streets in order to walk on a sidewalk. Mr. Beavers stated the minimum accepted for tangent length of curves was 150 feet. He explained the applicant wanted that reduced in order to save trees. He advised that was acceptable to the Engineering Department. Mr. Forney stated he had no objections to the second and third requests but he would argue for sidewalks on both sides of the street. Mr. Milholland stated he did not believe, under the street standards, that the street width with the sidewalk on one side was a waiver. Ms Little agreed and stated the applicant met City standards for a minimum of a 24 -foot street. Mr. Beavers explained that, if the topography were different, he would argue there would be cut through traffic. He went on to say he did not believe there would be any cut -through traffic in the subdivision. '(3 • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 12, 1997 Page 4 Ms. Johnson noted there was connectivity all around the subdivision so the incentative to cut through was not present. Mr. Beavers advised he had received the drainage report but had only spent an hour reviewing it. He noted he had a high level of confidence in the report. He explained it was his understanding Milholland Engineering was designing a drainage system that would help the drainage in Waterman Woods. He stated the drainage system proposed would pick up the drainage before it got to Waterman Woods. He noted Mr. Milholland had also met with Charlie Venable regarding the city paying for a portion of the drainage system but that would be up to the City Council. He continued by saying that, if the applicant wanted the subdivision approved, it would be approved without knowing whether the City would share in the cost; that the Engineering Department would not obligate city funds. He advised the drainage system appeared to be very good. Ms. Little asked if they knew the cost of the City's share. Mr. Milholland advised the figure they were asking to the City to participate in was approximately $35,000. He stated he believed the City should contribute one-half of that amount. He further stated that figure would just cover the pipe and was not the total cost of the drainage project. Mr. Petrie explained the drawing of the drainage plan, pointing out a temporary pond and a permanent head wall. Mr. Beavers also noted the preliminary calculations showed that a detention pond might not be required. In response to a question from Mr. Beavers, Mr. Milholland advised he planned to request the funds from the City Council after the subdivision was approved. Mr. Petrie stated they would probably bid the work out so they would have real figures and not just estimates. Ms. Johnson suggested the Commission should deal with the drainage as presented. She stated it was not up to the Commission to decide if the City would participate in the cost. She advised she believed the drainage, as presented, should be a requirement in the approval of the subdivision. Mr. Beavers advised the only way he could recommend approval to the Commission was with • the presented drainage report, regardless of who paid for it. Subdivision Committee Meeting June 12, 1997 Page 5 Ms. Johnson asked Mr. Beavers if he was confident in saying the drainage, as presented would work. Mr. Beavers stated he had not had an opportunity to review the drainage plan in detail but had a high level of confidence in the plan. He advised they needed to rely on the engineer. He noted the engineer had also met with the neighbors regarding the drainage. Mr. Petrie stated they had invited all of the adjacent neighbors for a meeting and had explained the drainage plans to them. He noted everyone seemed relieved that something was being done. Mr. Beavers pointed out the major component of the drainage system would be a sodded swale which picked up the water between Bois d'Arc and Waterman Woods. He advised the City of Fayetteville would not maintain backyard swales; that the Property Owners' Association would have to maintain Mr. Petrie stated there was no problem with that. Ms. Johnson stated the one other issue which had been raised at the last meeting was the extension of Maple Street. Ms. Little advised that it was acceptable to let their former decision stand. She stated that, if they believed it would be beneficial, they could review it again. She noted there had been a member of the public at the last meeting who believed the connection should be made. Mr. Reynolds noted they toured the site; had walked the area and there had been numerous people against the connection. He stated the full Commission had made the decision to not connect the street and he did not believe they should discuss it at the present meeting. Public Comment: There was no public comment. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to forward the subdivision to the full Planning Commission, noting he had made his argument for sidewalks on both sides of the street. He also noted he believed the drainage report was encouraging. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. Ms. Nancy McCarthy advised she was opposed to the connection of Maple Street and knew of 42 others also opposed. jza • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 12, 1997 Page 6 PLA97.00 & LS 97-17.00: Property Line Adjustment & Lot Split (Henry Tuck, pp 258 & 259) submitted by George Faucette of Faucette Real Estate on behalf of Henry Tuck for property located north of Highway 45 and west of Gulley Road. The property is in the City Planning Area. The property line adjustment will reconfigure two tracts of land, one tract totaling approximately 20.43 acres, the other totaling approximately 41.64 acres after the adjustment. The lot split will create two tracts from the 41.64 acres, one tract containing approximately 17.04 acres and the other tract containing approximately 24.6 acres. Findings: The Master Street Plan shows a minor arterial bisecting this property in the approximate location of the requested property line adjustment (continuing on to Sagely Drive on the east). A minor arterial calls for a total of 90 feet of right-of-way according to current street standards adopted by City Council in September, 1996. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval: Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - Arkansas Western Gas, Southwestern Bell Telephone, Ozarks Electric, SWEPCO, and TCA Cable) 2. Dedication of right-of-way by warranty deed as shown on plat reflecting future Master Street Plan street. Ms. Warrick explained the Committee had two plats due to the site being affected by the Master Street Plan. She noted the applicant had submitted one plat showing the Master Street Plan connection and another without the connection. Ms. Little advised that was the only issue -- whether the applicant would comply with the Master Street Plan. She noted that, if the street were required by the Planning Commission, the applicant did intend to appeal the decision to City Council. Mr. Faucette asked if the Planning Commission could waive the Master Street Plan requirement. Mr. Odom stated they could vary from the Master Street Plan. Ms. Little advised the Commission could varying from the Master Street Plan but they could not • do away with the street. Izl • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 12, 1997 Page 7 Mr. Forney stated that would take an amendment to the Plan. Ms. Johnson advised that, once they had a development before them, they could make decisions regarding the street layout but, without a development plan, she believed it would be untimely to make any decisions. Mr. Faucette stated the applicant's only issue was the street. Ms. Little stated the Commission would work with applicants and would sometimes move the street but the street was still provided. Mr. Faucette explained it did not make sense to him to place a street at the proposed location; that there were other connections to Highway 45 nearby. Ms. Little explained they had planned the street for an urban environment; the streets shown were the major connecting streets. Ms. Johnson asked if there were terrain problems in the area. • Ms. Little stated the proposed street was going around a hill. She also pointed out that, if they • went to the south, a bridge would be required over Mud Creek. Mr. Reynolds noted he did not believe the street would be constructed in the near future. Mr. Faucette stated a prospective buyer wanted to build two homes on the 17 acres but would not be interested if there was a prospect of a 90 -foot arterial. Mr. Fomey pointed out the problem with amending the Master Street Plan was the street would go to someone else's property; the street did not go away, the connection had to be made. Mr. Faucette advised that, from his perspective, they did not need four connections within a 2 - mile area. Mr. Odom stated that today they did not need that many connections, but they were not just talking about today. Mr. Faucette stated there were numerous tracts of land in the area that would never be divided up into small lots. He noted there would be pockets of land that would be dense but much of the land would remain in large tracts. �LZ • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 12, 1997 Page 8 Ms. Johnson stated she believed it was short sighted to shut down potential streets. She further noted she did not think streets killed development of properties. Public Comment: Mr. Scott Jones advised he lived on the north side of the 17 acres and asked for a dedicated easement to his property. He noted the driveway had been there at least 80 years Mr. Faucette stated the intent was to leave the driveway open. Ms. Little noted there was an existing 60 -foot access easement north of the existing driveway which had not been cleared so the property would not be landlocked if the driveway were closed. Ms. Johnson advised that would be a matter for the Chancery Court. She contended the Planning Commission could not make that decision. Mr. Odom stated it might be that the Planning Commission would be more in support of the lot split if the easement was given but they could not require it. Mr. Faucette reiterated they had no problem with leaving the driveway open. Mr. Jones advised there was not a dispute. Ms. Little noted the Subdivision Committee could approve these items, they would not have to go to the full Planning Commission. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the lot split and make clear to the City Council that the Committee did not encourage abandoning the Master Street Plan. Ms. Johnson stated she would not second the motion because she believed it would be appropriate for the entire Commission to be able to speak to the Master Street Plan issue. Mr. Odom agreed. Mr. Forney withdrew his motion. Ms. Johnson stated she did believe the Planning Commission should receive the Committee's recommendation that the lot split be approved and the Master Street Plan right-of-way be required. She further stated she believed the existing driveway should not be considered. t23 • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 12, 1997 Page 9 Mr. Forney suggested adding that they expected the applicant and the owner to the north to come to an agreement regarding the gravel drive which they could explain at the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Johnson stated she did not believe the City had that power. She suggested Ms. Little contact Jerry Rose regarding the Commission's latitude. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to forward the property line adjustment and lot split to the full Planning Commission with staff and Subdivision Committee comments. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. OA • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 12, 1997 Page 10 FP97-2.00: Final Plat (Hunt Club Subdivision, pp 609) submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering on behalf of E Bradford and Vonda Wright for property located south of Huntsville Road and west of hunt Lane. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 9.98 acres with 29 lots proposed. Findings: Plat review comments included discussion about the designation and naming of streets, an additional fire hydrant and the location of sidewalks. Additional information was requested concerning the off-site drainage easement to the west. Additional information was requested concerning AHTD approval of drainage discharge onto Highway 16. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval: 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - Arkansas Westem Gas, Southwestern Bell Telephone, Ozarks Electric, SWEPCO, and TCA Cable). 2. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $6,525.00 (29 single family lots @ $225.00). 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 4 -foot sidewalk with a minimum 4 -foot greenspace along Hunt Lane the entire length of the subdivision. A 4 -foot sidewalk with a minimum 4 -foot greenspace along the west side of Tally Ho Drive and a 4 -foot sidewalk with a minimum 4 -foot greenspace along the south side of Steeplechase Drive. 6. Dedication of additional right-of-way along Huntsville Road in order to bring it into compliance with the Master Street Plan. Huntsville is classified as a principle arterial requiring a total of 110 feet of right-of-way - 55 feet from centerline. `LS Subdivision Committee Meeting June 12, 1997 Page 11 7. An additional fire hydrant is required between lots 1 and 29. Ms. Little advised the Subdivision Committee there were no major issues and the final plat could be approved at Subdivision level. In response to a comment from Mr. Beavers, Mr. Rutherford advised the applicant had met the sidewalk requirements. Ms. Little explained that, at plat review, it had been discussed to place the sidewalk along the western side of Tally Ho Drive in order that there would be not be a sidewalk on both sides of lots 26, 27, and 28. In response to a comment from Mr. Forney, Ms. Little explained the preliminary plat for the subdivision was approved in 1994 which pre -dated the current street and sidewalk standards. Mr. Reynolds recommended moving the sidewalk to the west side of Tally Ho. Ms. Johnson stated she believed it would be best to have a sidewalk along the entire length of Hunt Lane; a sidewalk on the north side of Tally Ho, the west side of Tally Ho and then dying at lot 10; and then a sidewalk on the south side of Steeplechase. Mr. Gabbard stated they could do that. Ms. Little advised the entire 55 feet of the requested dedicated right-of-way along Huntsville was all easement. Mr. Wright stated he had planned on the 55 feet. Mr. Beavers advised that, before the City Engineer would sign the Mylar, a bond or installation would be required for the following: a fire hydrant, the asphalt and the sidewalk. Mr. Dan Finley with Hutchinson advised he had run the densities on the asphalt and would be submitting a report. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to approve the subdivision subject to the sidewalk relocation and all staff conditions. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Mr. Forney asked the staff to put together a proposal for sidewalks on both sides of all streets. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 12, 1997 Page 12 PP97-3.00: Preliminary Plat (Sunrise Mountain Center, pp 717) submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter Engineering, on behalf of L.I.S., Inc., for property located west of Highway 71 and south of Sunrise Mountain Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and A- 1, Agricultural, and contains 15.77 acres with 5 proposed lots. Mr. Carter advised that, while the subdivision was not before the Committee at this meeting, he did have some questions. He reminded the Committee there had been a problem with sight distance. He advised he had met with Jim Beavers, Alett Little and Charles Venable earlier and they had answered the sight distance problem. He asked to go forward to the Planning Commission with the subdivision. Ms. Johnson stated she believed the motion had been for the subdivision to come back before the Subdivision Committee. She further stated she believed it was a Committee issue and there had been a number of the public present who had expressed concerns. She advised the public • believed it would come back before the Subdivision. Mr. Beavers requested a preliminary plan to show Mr. Carter's proposal. It was agreed Sunrise Mountain Center would be heard at the July 3 Subdivision Committee meeting. �2� Subdivision Committee Meeting June 12, 1997 Page 13 LSD97-10.00: Large Scale Development (McDonald's, pp 372) submitted by Rick Rogers of CEI Engineering on behalf of McDonald's for property located south of Highway 45 and east of Highway 265 (Glennwood Shopping Center). The property is zoned C-2 (Thoroughfare Commercial) and contains approximately 0.72 acres. Ms. Little stated they needed to discuss the design standards. She pointed out they had been provided two additional elevations -- the Highway 45 elevation and the Highway 265 elevation. She noted McDonald's had gone back to the hip roof configuration with the double mansard. She stated she believed McDonald's wanted to start from the original design and have the Conunission enumerate what they wanted. She directed the Committee's attention to the original Glennwood design as approved by the Planning Commission and gave the Committee a listing of the 8 elements of design standards for the shopping center as approved by the Planning Commission. Ms. Little also pointed out a rendering of a video store which would not go before the Planning Commission. She stated the video store would be located in front of Harp's at the south end of the center. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Ms. Little advised the video store had been approved through the original large scale development. She explained that, if there were no changes to the footprint of the building, the structure would not go before the Planning Commission. She stated staff would review the video store for design standards. Mr. Cozart contended McDonald's was not going through large scale process because they changed their footprint but because the engineers had not noted a 10 degree slope in the parking area. Mr. Beavers stated he did not know of any changes in grading which needed to be approved by the Planning Commission; that such changes were approved by the City Engineer's office. Mr. Cozart stated the footprint of the McDonald's building had not changed; that it had been placed on the original large scale development so McDonald's would not have to go through large scale. He advised the design standards had not been presented at that time. He explained to the Committee that he would be representing McDonald's for the subject meeting since all McDonald's representatives had been unable to attend. He stated they were trying to comply with the Commission's wishes. He further stated he would be happy to withdraw the design for the entire center and make all of the buildings in the center look like the Harp's building. He pointed out there were 25 different looks in the shopping center. He explained it was his intent from the very beginning to make the shopping center unique; to make it look different. He pointed out there were 18 fronts facing 12$ Subdivision Committee Meeting June 12. 1997 Page 14 west and 6 different fronts on the three buildings at the top. He stated all of the buildings would meet the criteria approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Odom stated the rendering of the shopping center looked great and did not need to be changed. In response to a question from Mr. Forney, Mr. Cozart stated Harp's was under construction in December but the design for the entire shopping center was not presented until January. Ms. Warrick stated she believed the staff had only allowed a footing permit for Harp's until the design had been approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Dennis Moore, the contractor for Harp's, stated he was denied the original building permit because of drainage and was then issued a footing permit which had been tied to letters of credit. Mr. Odom asked if they could not allow McDonald's a footing permit while the Commission worked out the design standards. Mr. Cozart stated he did not believe that would work for McDonald's. He explained his agreement with McDonald's did not require payment until they had a building permit. Ms. Johnson asked Mr. Cozart if he believed the McDonald's drawings made the center look unique and fit in with the shopping center. Mr. Cozart stated he believed the McDonald's building would fit in with the center. He contended this was a McDonald's restaurant and believed it would attract a large number of people into the center. He further stated the entire purpose of the shopping center was to bring to the east side of Fayetteville stores that people now had to drive all over town to get to. He further contended McDonald's had to have the right to market their product and that marketing was in the world-wide recognition of their logo, etc. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Cozart stated McDonald's, given the way they marketed their product and the way their stores looked, had given a major concession to the Planning Commission in the use of materials, colors, etc. for the subject building. He noted they would be addressing the same issues with Taco Bell when they came in for their building permit. Mr. Reynolds advised the "typical" McDonald's building did not meet the City's Commercial Design Standards. He noted he had seen McDonald's all over the United States and he did not believe the City of Fayetteville was receiving the best that McDonald's had to offer in design. Mr. Odom pointed out the design would not have to deviate very much from what they had submitted. 1'6 Subdivision Committee Meeting June 12, 1997 Page 15 Mr. Cozart asked what the Committee saw in the rendering for the shopping center that they did not see in the McDonald's rendering. Mr. Odom pointed out the McDonald's had a flat facade, there was no towering features, the roof line was different. there was a lot more glass in the McDonald building. He continued there were numerous items that were different. Ms. Johnson stated the McDonald's storefront did not relate to the overall concept of the center. Mr. Odom noted none of the things he had just mentioned couldn't be taken care of with a few minor details. Mr. Forney pointed out that, when the original design was approved, the drawing had also been specified as a part of the commercial design standards. He pointed out the predominate material in the drawing was brick but there was no brick shown on the McDonald's building. Mr. Odom stated he did not have a problem with the textured concrete block as long as it met the color schemes of the shopping center. Mr. Forney stated McDonald's was painting to match the correct color and someday someone would repaint in a different color or the paint would fade. Ms. Johnson asked if any of the Committee or staff believed the McDonald's rendering related to the overall concept of the shopping center. Ms. Little stated the only common element she found was the standing seam metal roof in a common color. Ms. Johnson stated she did not believe that was enough to even remind them of the theme. Mr. Forney stated he believed there were some material similarities but not enough of those to satisfy the theme. Mr. Cozart asked if the Committee could approve the design if McDonald's changed the materials to textured concrete block, colored to match the shopping center, Mr. Forney stated that was what was being shown. Mr. Cozart pointed out Item No. 6 on the criteria stated the primary materials would be brick, colored brick, stucco, textured concrete block. He stated they could get textured concrete block in colors so it would not have to be painted. 1'0 Subdivision Committee Meeting June 12, 1997 Page 16 Mr. Forney asked where the concrete block was being used in the center. Mr. Cozart stated it was being used at the back and sides. He contended McDonald's believed they had met the design criteria. Ms. Little pointed out McDonald's had matched the colors and had specifically related to those colors. Mr. Cozart reiterated McDonald's did believe they had met all of the design criteria. He contended McDonald's had to have the right to look like a McDonald's restaurant. Ms. Johnson stated all McDonald's restaurants did not look alike. She advised they all had seen McDonald's in other cities and countries. She further stated the proposed building was not what was seen in other places. Ms. Little suggested they started with the 8 design items as approved by the Planning Commission. 1 All the sidewalks adjacent to the building will be covered - Not Applicable. 2. There will be spaces for outdoor seating along and in conjunction with the covered walk - Not Applicable. 3. All the walks will be made of a similar material. Mr. Forney pointed out the standards approved by the Planning Commission would be patterned differently from regular concrete walks. He stated that, if the walks at the center were regular concrete, that was a deviation from the design standards. Mark Crandall, engineer for Glennwood, advised that item related to the main walkways in the interior of the center which connected the hillside building across the parking lot to the main strip. He stated it had been colored differently on the plans. Ms. Little agreed, stating that was what she remembered. She asked if the Commission would accept regular concrete sidewalks for the remainder of the center. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 12, 1997 Page 17 Ms. Johnson pointed out that, if they accepted regular concrete, then Item No. 1 and No. 3 would not be applied as written. She advised she did not believe those two items were key elements but, if they gave up those elements, then nothing had been done to comply with the 9 items. 4. Tower shapes will be utilized. There will be at least one clock tower. Ms. Little advised the shopping center was responsible for the clock tower. She asked if the Committee wanted tower shapes on the McDonald's building. Mr. Forney reminded the Committee they were also approving the playland structure. Mr. Odom advised he would not approve the addition. Mr. Cozart stated McDonald's did not plan to construct the playland at this time. He further stated McDonald's had been told that, if they ever wanted to build it, they should get it approved at this time. He advised he believed McDonald's would be willing to give up that portion of the building. Ms. Little explained staff had told McDonald's that, if they wanted to build the playland and if they did not want to come back to the Planning Commission in the future, they would need to get it approved at the present time. She stated she had talked to the person who was anticipating becoming the owner of the building and he had told her he did not plan to construct the playland area at this time since it cost approximately a quarter of a million dollars. She pointed out that, if the Planning Commission's approval did not cover the playland, McDonald's would be forced to come back later. Ms. Johnson pointed out that, if McDonald's used tower shapes, it would be one more way the building would relate to the overall theme. She further stated she did not believe McDonald's had to do it, but it was an opportunity to show something in the nature of a theme. Ms. Little submitted a rendering of the Highway 265 elevation completed by staff, showing the roof extended with an opportunity for signage and a tower attached to the building. Mr. Forney noted the staff rendering also got away from the standard flat roof. Ms. Little advised she was not saying they had to construct the rendering, she was just pointing out there were some ways to meet the standards. She also noted McDonald's had purposely placed colored dryvit in the soffit area to try and match the theme. She stated she had asked Ray Jones which would be easier for him to maintain -- the dryvit or roofing material. She advised he stated the roofing material was easiest. 132 • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 12, 1997 Page 18 Mr. Forney asked if the Planning Commission would see the playland area if it were ever constructed in the future. Ms. Little assured him they would because it would cause the addition of parking and, anything requiring 25 additional parking spaces, would go before the Planning Commission. Mr. Cozart stated he would agree to that. He further stated he liked the staff's rendering and would fax it to McDonald's. He further stated he would commit to the rendering and, if McDonald's did not add the tower on to their building, he would do so. Ms. Little pointed out the double -hip roof was a very important trademark feature to McDonald's. She advised she believed the Planning Commission could live with the roof as long as it was the right color. Ms. Johnson and Mr. Odom agreed. Mr. Odom stated he would concede on the roof if McDonald's would add a tower shape. Ms. Little noted the lighting was also important to McDonald's. She expressed her belief the lighting would be an issue for McDonald's. She asked how the Committee felt about the lights. Ms. Johnson stated she could live with the roof lighting on the interior side of the shopping center but not on the Highway 265 side. Mr. Odom pointed out McDonald's would rather have the lighting reversed, with the lighting on the Highway 265 side. Ms. Johnson stated the Highway 265 side was the key for the appearance of the shopping center. Ms. Little advised the Committee needed to give McDonald's elements they could work with. Mr. Fomey noted there were the 8 criteria plus the rendering of the shopping center. He stated he did not believe the Commission should negotiate but on those items. He advised he did not believe the Committee should do the design work for McDonald's. Ms. Little asked if the McDonald's submittal included the roof lighting, if they would tum the building down. Mr. Forney contended it was not that simple; that it was not a formula. He added he believed the chances of approval were greater without the lights, but the building could get approved with them. 133 • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 12, 1997 Page 19 Mr. Conklin pointed out there were 25 different items to choose from. He advised the same problem would come up on every building. He stated it seemed McDonald's should be able to look at the building and ask which portions of the 25 items they could use in their building. Mr. Forney stated that would be very wise for all of the owners of the outlots it the subdivision. He pointed out there were a wide variety of options which had been approved which offered a set of keys. 5. Small store fronts. Ms. Little pointed out that, while the subject building was larger, they could put a small store front on the building. Mr. Forney pointed out the out lots had more fronts than the shopping center since they were exposed from four sides and all four sides should be treated as fronts. Ms. Little agreed with Mr. Forney and noted McDonald's needed to understand how the Commission felt about what was seen from the street. • Ms Johnson agreed and stated they needed to understand the Commission would not accept a front that looked like a back. • 6. The primary building materials would be brick, colored brick, stucco, textured concrete block. Ms Little stated that, if they were going to use concrete block, it would need to have color within rather than painted block. Dennis Moore advised there were only 3 or 4 colors and he would not recommend the colored block since sometimes the color bled. He recommended using a regular, split -face block with a colored stain sealer which impregnated into the block. Mr. Cozart pointed out that, even though the colors were listed, there could be numerous different tones of the same color, depending upon the material used. Ms. Johnson advised she did not believe they had specified everything be the same color but it was a way to continue the theme. Ms. Little asked if she had heard a preference for brick. Mr. Forney stated it was not a preference for brick but an interpretation of the rendering given by the applicant. He pointed out he did not see any textured concrete on the drawing. He advised 131 • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 12, 1997 Page 20 he was trying to follow the rules; Mr. Cozart made a theme which had been approved by the Planning Conunission. Ms. Little asked if painted concrete block would be acceptable or did they think the requirement should be brick or colored concrete block. Ms. Johnson stated she did not believe flat concrete block would be approved; brick would be approved; stucco would be approved; and approval of textured concrete block could be a problem. Mr. Forney stated that, if the applicant constructed the building of Acme 101 brick in cinnamon brown there would be no problem with approval He further stated that it was his opinion (one he did not believe the other Commissioners shared) that the CMU was not a front material. 7. All roofs will be standing seam metal. Ms. Little stated that was the primary reason she had recommended getting the fascia in standing seam metal which would get the building closer to the theme. • 8. There will be no one dimensional roof facades. • In response to questions from the Committee, Rick Rogers advised McDonald's did have a copy of all 8 items and a copy of the rendering of the shopping center. Mark Crandall stated it had always been the intent of McDonald's to use textured concrete block and had, also, be intended by the architect. Ms. Little stated a building constructed one hundred percent of textured concrete block would probably not be approved; but, if the building were constructed of mixed material, they would probably have a better chance of approval. Sidewalks: Mr. Rogers advised the Committee that at one time there had been a guard rail behind the 4 or 5 parking spaces which pointed toward the access drive. He explained the rail had been there due to a retaining wall. He stated that, due to some re -grading, they had eliminated some of the retaining wall and the guard rail was no longer necessary. He also pointed out that, if the guard rail remained, it would have to be pushed closer to the parking spaces for the sidewalk. He stated they were able to put the sidewalk in but, between the curb of the parking lot and the walking surface of the sidewalk, a small portion would be at a 2:1 slope. Mr. Forney asked why there would not be a retaining wall. j3� Subdivision Committee Meeting June 12, 1997 Page 21 Mr. Rogers stated he did not believe a retaining wall would be necessary since there would be only 30 feet at a 2:1 slope. He further noted they could not drop the corner of the parking lot because they would disrupt the drainage pattern that had been approved. In response to a question from Mr. Forney, Ms. Little stated the maximum by city standards was 3:1 and this would be a deviation. Mr. Cozart stated that, on the south side of the drive at the Taco Bell corner, there was very little slope. Mr. Rogers stated the plans for the shopping center showed sidewalk for the entirety of the south side of the access drive. He advised he believed they could make the connection of approximately 12 feet from the sidewalk along Highway 265 to the Taco Bell sidewalk Mr. Forney stated he preferred to have the sidewalk on both sides of the access drive. Mr. Cozart advised he would be putting in the sidewalk between McDonald's and the access drive. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Cozart stated McDonald's would be responsible for any sidewalk on the interior of their lot. Mr. Forney stated the sidewalk offered by Mr. Cozart was what they had asked for. He further stated his only concern was if they accepted the 2:1 slope or asked for a retaining wall. Ms. Little advised that, when putting in the sidewalk, it would either work or the contractor would put in a retaining wall. Ms. Johnson asked if the sidewalk on the Taco Bell side of the access drive would remain. Mr. Rogers stated originally there had been no sidewalk approved on the original large scale development. Mr. Cozart stated he would make the connection of sidewalks on both sides of the access drive. Mr. Reynolds requested the rendering marked "Future Playland" on the McDonald's plans be removed from all blueprints. Mr. Rogers requested the radius on the entry drive be broadened. Ms. Little stated they could not affect the parking spaces by broadening the radius. • • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 12, 1997 Page 22 Mr. Rogers assured her the parking would not be affected. Mr. Forney asked if they needed to discuss signage. Ms. Little stated the full Planning Commission would need to talk about signage. She advised McDonald's was still proposing a monument sign. Mr. Cozart advised the Committee he had never planned on the sign being more than a 2 -foot base with a 4 -foot sign. Ms. Little informed Mr. Cozart that he needed to make the decision as to what signage would be included for the entire shopping center prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Cozart stated he had planned two main signs -- one on Highway 45 and the other on Highway 265. He stated he would bring a picture of those signs to the next meeting. Ms. Johnson advised she believed the Subdivision Committee needed to see the new drawings prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. After discussion, it was determined there would be a special Subdivision meeting on Thursday, June 19 at 2:45 p.m. prior to the agenda session. The meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m.