Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-06-19 - Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE JUNE 19, 1997 The Fayetteville Planning Commission Subcommittee met on Thursday, June 19, 1997 in a special session to review the Large Scale Development Plan for McDonald's at 2:45 p.m. in Room 1 1 1 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Reynolds, John Forney, Phyllis Johnson, and Conrad Odom, Planning Commissioner STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Dawn Warrick, and Jim Beavers LSD 97-10 Large Scale Development - (McDonald's as a part of Glennwood Shopping Center, pp 372) for property located south of Highway 45 and east of Highway 265. The property is zoned C-2 (thoroughfare commercial) and contains approximately 0.72 acres. Chair Bob Reynolds called the meeting to order, and Ms. Little opened the meeting by stating that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the design theme for Glennwood Shopping Center as it relates to McDonald's elevation drawings. She indicated that a McDonald's representative, Gary Brem, was present and that the design being offer was the same as was presented to the Subdivision Committee at their meeting of June 12, 1997. Ms. Johnson questioned the purpose of the meeting if the design being presented was the same as the one discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting, saying that she understood that the work of the committee (the discussions of towers, etc.) would be delivered to McDonald's and that they would prepare a response. Mr. Forney read from the SC minutes, "...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 subdivisions meeting on Thursday, June 19, at 2:45 p.m. prior to the agenda session." Ms. Little responded by saying that the developer did send the drawings reflecting the discussions from that meeting from the previous SC meeting to McDonald's. She also stated that the staff could not represent the developer and that the developer or his representative would have to present McDonald's reaction to the work of the committee. Mr. Cozart introduced Laleh Amirmoez, the architect for Glennwood, and Gary Brem, representing McDonald's. Mr. Brem stated he had received the faxed information from the last meeting and had also received sketched from Ms. Amirmoez. At McDonald's they had discussed the financial projection of sales at this location and decided that the additional cost already added to the building had put the corporation at the upper limit of what it could offer. Expansion of the roof • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 19, 1997 Page 2 • area as suggested is the most expensive option and puts a limit on what other changes could be made. The drawings as presented represent all that the corporation - that's all that we can do. Mr. Reynolds inquired as to whether McDonald's had been informed about the design theme for Glennwood and stated that he felt the drawing as offered was about 80% in compliance. Mr. Brem stated that Planning had provided the criteria that applied to the shopping center. He said that McDonald's felt that they had made a good faith effort to comply with the design theme in their first submittal. He questioned whether the McDonald's had to identically match every feature of Glenwood or whether McDonald's needed to accent the center with colors and materials. McDonald's felt that they had met the design criteria by accenting to be part of the center. Mr. Cozart said that McDonald's had made an effort to blend in with Glennwood, but that he had never told them that they could not build a McDonald's restaurant that looked like a McDonald's restaurant. He asked Mr. Brem to explain to the SC the cost difference between the Lowell McDonald's and the Fayetteville McDonald's planned. Mr. Johnson stated she was uncomfortable with cost data and that she felt it was inappropriate for the SC to hear such. She stated that in the last meeting, the design theme was discussed, the list of 8 items and the design board were walked through, and that she felt Mr. Reynolds was correct in saying that the building was 80% there with respect to design theme. Mr. Forney asked Gary Brem what was nonstandard in this building. Mr. Brem stated the building was a nonstandard prototype building, listing a bumped out drive thru booth to bread up the wall; a bumped out storage meant to screen the cooler box; and the concrete block was not natural block, but painted; the concrete block on this building did not go all the way to the top, but has another material to tie into the shopping center- with the bands, the building has a more horizontal look than vertical; also the freezer/cooler was proposed to be painted to match block and that was usually white or almond. An effort has been made to much less intrusive than typical. The metal standing seam roof is not typical and was place to blend with the center. After a question about the Playland from Mr. Forney, he responded that they Playland was being removed from the request and that they would not be adding that. Mr. Forney requested a plan and photo of a typical version of this series building so the SC can understand what is different about this building. He expressed concern that the building offered does not meet the design theme for the center. • Mr. Reynolds inquired about item 4 on the criteria list which stated that tower shapes were to be utilized. f3 I • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 19, 1997 Page 3 • • Mr. Cozart said he thought the tower shapes were meant to apply to the shopper center and that it was not his intent to include towers on outlots. He said the design is governed by cost and revenues and that he never intended for the shopping center to have a conglomeration of towers or tower themes all over the place. He said there were tower shapes within 60' of the building. Mr. Reynolds asked if the LSD met the City's commercial design standards. Ms. Little stated that the issue was not commercial design standards, that the landscaping had been met, the 85% coverage had been met; but the issue had been the elevation from Highway 265 and the design theme. - whether the LSD for McDonald's was meeting the Glennwood design theme. Ms. Amirmoez distributed a memorandum which outlined three issues. The first, a site element - relating to outdoor seating. She said that outdoor seating would not be needed at every place such as a drive through bank. Two other elements, roof forms and towers were discussed. The center has a variety of roof forms, parapet with flat roof, hipped rood, gabled roof, mansard roof and canopies. She said towers were incorporated into the center for three reasons - to serve as identifiable elements for the center, to provide focal points on the two separate parts of the center, and to serve as connecting elements between the two separate parts of the center marking the points of the connecting pedestrian path. She said to have every building with a tower would be distracting and was not the intention of the original presentation on the Glennwood center. Ms. Johnson stated that it seem like we were still where we were last week and that there were only 12 minutes left in the meeting time. Ms. Little agreed saying that she had understood from McDonald's that what we see is what we're going to get - that is all that they are willing to offer. She asked the representatives to correct here if she was wrong. Mr. Brem answered that, yes, that was all they were willing to offer. Mr. Odom stated he heard that stated at the beginning of the meeting. Ms Amirmoez stated that she had heard the statement that the design is 80% there and asked what else the PC was looking for. Mr. Reynolds said that he agreed with the adding of the sidewalk and having the monument sign, however it seemed like McDonald's was still lacking a theme. Mr. Forney pointed out that his primary concerns were the materials - CMU for the sidewalls and the materials for the roof. He said there were about 25 presented elevations in the design board 40 • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 19, 1997 Page 4 • • for the center and any one of them would have been a good starting point. He expressed concern that all CMU would set an undesirable precedent for the center, that if it was not brick then much of the center will not be of brick. Mr. Brem stated that when McDonald's lost the form of their building, they lost their recognition as McDonald's. Ms. Little asked Mr. Brem to enumerate the essential elements that were McDonald's trademark items. Mr. Brem stated that a double mansard roof, the white trademark roof beams, and the sign were the essential items. Discussion about the sign was held. Mr Brem stated that their plan was for a sign about 12' -13' feet high. Mr. Forney said that there was a definition of a monument sign. Ms. Little said that a monument sign was defined in Fayetteville as a 6' high sign with no more than 75 square feet of surface area. Mr. Cozart said the sign would not be higher than the railing on the retaining wall on the site and that the M would be no taller than 5'. He said that he would work sign issues out with his buyer at a later date. Ms. Johnson observed that McDonald's has a problem in that the site is four sided. Ms. Little inquired that since the site is four sided, and the double mansard roof is a McDonald's trademark, why couldn't the roof go on all four sides? Mr. Brem replied that it was too costly. Ms. Johnson stated that the PC nor the SC created the problems associated with the site, but that the item before them did not seem ready for the PC and that she would vote to deny the item if it was before the full PC. Mr. Odom stated he preferred to send the LSD back to Commission, that the applicants have made it clear, that this is what they want to present. Mr. Cozart stated that McDonald's has presented what they can build. He said that if McDonald's cannot be approved as presented, that he would come back to the PC with a new design theme for Glennwood. Ms. Johnson said that it seemed like they had before them what they were going to have on Monday. 14k • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 19, 1997 Page 5 • • MOTION Mr. Forney stated a lesson had been learned in that referring the item to SC again in an attempt to work together had almost delayed the process. He moved that the item be forwarded to PC with no recommendation. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. Mr. Reynolds said if it is going to Planning Commission, I want to see a drawing of the sign and wanted the plans amended to remove the Playland from the front of the building. By consensus, the project was forwarded to Planning Commission. The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m. `�2