Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-12-03 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, December 3, 1998, at 8:30 a.m. in room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSD98-32: Large Scale Development (Keystone Ctr) LSD98-33: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville Airport) LSD98-34: Large Scale Development (Tune Plaza) LSD98-35: Large Scale Development (The Cliffs, Ph II) LSD98-31: Large Scale Development (Lindsey -Green) MEMBERS PRESENT Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Phyllis Hall -Johnson Conrad Odom Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Jim Beavers Kim Hesse Janet Johns Alett Little Ron Petrie Chuck Rutherford Brent Vinson Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved w/conditions Forward to PC Forward to PC Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Robert Reynolds - resigned as Chairman and Commissioner due to election to City Council • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 2 LSD98-32: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT KEYSTONE CENTER PP 289 This large scale development was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates for property located at 124 West Sunbridge Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains 1.01 acres. Chris Brackett was present on behalf of the project. Committee Discussion Little: This is the engineering office for Jorgensen and Associates. They are working with the Landscape Administrator on the setback reduction option for parking. The standard requirement is a 15 feet setback area and they are reducing to 5 feet with installation of the required landscaping. This is an option rather than a waiver so it does not mean that it cannot be approved at this level. There are no other outstanding issues. Regarding sidewalks, at the time of approval in this area all sidewalks were 5 feet so the Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator has agreed for the sidewalk to be 5 feet with a 4 feet green space. Approval of this large scale development is valid for one year only and if construction has not begun in that time, it will have to come back through the process. Signage is shown on the elevation required by Commercial Design Standards including a free standing 4 square feet sign. Hesse: They are providing for a continuous hedge. Public Comment No one was present to comment on the project. Further Discussion Hoffman: Regarding the lot configurations, are they separate lots? Brackett: The east is lot 4 and the entire site. Lot 2 is the Ozark Literacy Council which will not be through large scale. There are actually three lots. Hoffman: This approval doesn't include any of these other proposed development. Warrick: The same engineer worked on all the developments and as a courtesy and since they were somewhat connected by an access drive, he provided the information on the other two • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 3 Tots to help us understand how they would all connect. Hoffman: The drives looks fine to me. I like the shared driveway. Hoover: Will you explain the landscape option? Little: Our current option provides for a reduction in the setback from 15 feet to 5 feet with landscaping. In the proposed changes, this option will be removed. The proposed changes have not been through City Council. Brackett: The development to the west is Keystone Crossing and we used the setback reduction by green space as well. Hoffman: What is the material of the building and the roof? Brackett: The roof is green shingle and the building is brick and drivet. Johnson: The signage on the building is limited to what is shown. Three signs on the fascia of the building. Little: One on the south and two on the west. Hoffman: So this is a multi tenant building? Brackett: Our office will be in the corner and we're planning two or three to the left and two on the other side of the ell. So, including us that would be four or five tenants? Hoffman: And this is a retail office zone? Little: Residential Office. Johnson: Your signage will be limited to the elevations we have in terms of size. Brackett: It is 16 square feet sign per business. Little: Those are 8 feet long by 2 feet. Brackett: Yes. Warrick: The allowable signage for residential office district is more restrictive than the • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 4 commercial districts. MOTION Mr. Ward made a motion to approve the large scale development at the subdivision level as presented. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson concurred. • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 5 LSD98-33: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FAYETTEVILLE AIRPORT This large scale development was submitted by Dale Frederick on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located at 4500 South School Avenue. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial, Light Industrial, and contains approximately 525.4 acres. Bob Bryant was present on behalf of the project. Committee Discussion Little: This is an addition of an 8 space "T" hanger. It's called a "T" hanger because the tail of the airplane goes into the bottom of the "T" and the wings go into the top of the "T". This is in an area where we already have some "T" hangers. It is zoned industrial so it is not subject to Commercial Design Standards. The only issue on this is the sidewalk issue. The airport has done a number of projects lately. One of them was building a new fire station. They also did some work on their underground storage tanks and now they are building an additional "T" hanger. The entire frontage of the airport does not have standard sidewalk. It needs to be replaced. We have asked that some methodology be derived so that as this incremental projects are built, that money be placed into a fund so that the airport can meet the same standards that we ask the rest of the developers in the City to meet. Rutherford: Mr. Venable talked to me twice this week about this project and he is in the process of setting up a meeting with Dale Fredrick. Little: So, that is not resolved at this time but it is in process. Is that significant enough that it should not be approved at this level? Rutherford: Hoffman: Little: Beavers: north side. Brackett: Beavers: It can go forward. This is on the far side of the runway. This is the easternmost boundary. We have talked about the fire hydrant location. I didn't understand about the Chief Jackson does not want the fire hydrant there so let's get together. We will locate it on what ever corner he requires. This is not something that should hold up this project. When we get down to the • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 6 final design we will locate it. Little: Please clarify that at plat review Chief Jackson requested that a hydrant be added 400 to 500 feet east of the existing hydrant located in such a way as to be usable for a proposed hanger and an existing hanger. Then Mr. Beavers stated that two hydrants were needed and suggested locations. Are we talking about one hydrant or two hydrants? Brackett: I'm not sure I know. We had one on the west side. Little: So to clarify the record, we are talking about one hydrant; however, if the Chief requires an additional hydrant it will be installed. Brackett: Okay. Public Comment No one was present to comment on the project. MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a motion to approve the project subject to the hydrant location and sidewalk issues being resolved. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Further Discussion Johnson: On the issue of the sidewalks, staff is doing what? Rutherford: A fund is going to be set up on a percentage basis for these projects and the fees will be put into a general fund to build the sidewalk as the airport moves forward with its different projects. It is quite expensive to do the whole thing at one time. Little: This is about 900 to 1000 feet of frontage that the airport has. There is existing asphalt sidewalk adjacent to the curb. This is not meeting the standard and it is not in good condition. What we need is for the airport to meet the same standard that we ask all developers to meet. What is occurring is that none of the projects have been of sufficient size to say you must redo your entire frontage. So rather than have each project without a sidewalk requirement, we want to have a fund set up and as each project is approved some proportion be assigned to that and escrowed. • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 7 Hoover: Is that from this project forward? Little: No. It goes back to the fire station, because we were asking for that at the same time as well and that was a more major project than this one. Johnson: I would like for us to know what the decision has been on that in conjunction with project. I really don't feel like this project should go forward until we have an answer to that question and a plan has been established. Is there a require that we can place at a particular time so that we know that the plan has been made and is not postponed. Little: Why don't we just carry this forward to Planning Commission and hope to have the answer by that meeting? Johnson: Is that a problem? Brackett: I don't think so. Mr. Venable and Mr. Frederick are aware of this and just need to set up a time to meet. Little: We need some decisions. Johnson: Well, the motion is to go ahead and approve at this level. Ward: What kind of cost would it be to put a sidewalk along the whole frontage there? Rutherford: Approximately $2.00 a square foot for whatever the frontage is. We require a six foot sidewalk. Little: $10,000 to $15,000. Hoffman: I think I would just like to have the airport just figure this out into their budget. Should we encourage a deadline for the entire project to be done? Are there other airport projects coming forward? Brackett: Not that I am aware of. We are doing a lighting project which more of a maintenance type thing. Little: The airport has a master plan and it is for industrial development in and around the airport as a transition mechanism in order to keep our Fayetteville Airport viable with the business moving to the Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport. There is anticipated additional development more on the industrial side but the timing of that has not been set out. It is mainly • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 8 this type of development. The "T" hangers or businesses associated with aviation such as the refurbishment of the a part of the motor. Another one is a package delivery business. Warrick. We could approve at this level and that we just wouldn't issue a building permit until that issue of how much is to go into the escrow account is worked out for this building. Hoffman: We should have an administrative item brought to the full Commission after this is ironed out so we know what to expect. AMENDED MOTION Ms. Hoffman amended her motion to approve the project subject to not issuing the building permit until the sidewalk escrow amount has been provided and at that time bring forth an administrative report on how the sidewalk is being funded. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 9 LSD98-34 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT TUNE PLAZA This large scale development was submitted by Jim Key, Architect and Stephen Jeffus of Garver Engineers on behalf of Tune & Tune Investments for property located at 2908 North College Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.97 acres. Stephen Jeffus and Jim Key were present representing the project. Committee Discussion Little: To get you oriented, this is the site which is where Coy's Restaurant was located. That building will be removed and this building will be replacing it. We do have some Commercial Design Standard issues related to this. We have water and sewer issues. Apparently, part of the services are going to have to come from across Highway 71 in order for adequate fire protection. We have issues regarding the grading plan. The Planning Office did ask for revised elevations for this building. We have serious concerns about what is proposed for the Sonic. The north elevation has metal siding. We don't feel that is appropriate. On the Sonic building which sits in the front of the other building, there is neon around the entire side of the building running north, south, and west. The east faces the hill and I don't know if they are putting it back there or not. The front of the building faces College and there is a long side that is very visible from both directions. On the front, and it is best seen on the lower elevation are two posts which support the canopy. They are mainly red. They have a white stripe that goes around them. They are lighted at night and there is an up light which emits lights into the atmosphere. That is typically known as light pollution which is a serious problem in large urban areas. These up lights resemble a straw which is a symbol for Sonic. We feel like the entire design has not been amended to reflect Fayetteville's Commercial Design Standards. The large sign that is proposed is excellent. We would only propose one change and that is that the space between the Tune Plaza and the other areas illustrated below be omitted. We need to reiterate that all the roof top mechanical units are supposed to be screened. Mr. Hooker stated that the mechanical would be roof top and you need to be aware that Commercial Design Standards requires that all of that be screened. Beavers: After plat review all the items have been addressed and I have nothing further except that this plan is subject to further review at the time of the final plans but all of the requested changes and setbacks and grading and water and sewer have been made. Johnson: Will you give us the information about the water line? • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 10 Little: There is an 8 inch dead end main coming from a 6 inch line on the west side of 71B and that's required to provide flows for a fire hydrant in this development. What we're saying is that has to come from the other side of Highway 71 so there will be a bore required to get it over there. Jeffus: Actually, there is a 6 inch existing water line coming from where Herman's restaurant is and it actually sits out on North College Avenue below the road grade. We will have to bore under. There will be a small open cut that will be coordinated with the City and Highway Department. We will run an 8 inch over and set a hydrant in the island and water service will be extended from that. Little: Mr. Beavers is expecting geotechnical information with the final plan. He also made the statement that Joe Shipman would need to approve the drainage system. Joe Shipman is with the Highway Department. Beavers: These are all final design issues and have nothing to do with today's approval Rutherford: The radius line needs to be removed. Hesse: There are trees from 15 feet to 5 feet and a 3 feet hedge. Key: We will clean up and leave as many trees as viable. They are valuable for screening purposes. There is a small utility easement to provide underground power back to an existing pole which services the adjacent properties. Currently, we are going to leave that power pole on the north side of the property and take power from it underground. SWEPCO will provide a feed through transformer in the 5 feet easement. On the south end of the lot there will be utility meters for gas and electric. Little: It is my understanding that everything new will be underground. Rutherford: On the southwest corner you are showing a juncture box and the sidewalk need to go around that. Public Comment No one was present to comment on the project. Committee Discussion Hoffman. I would share the concerns of staff and encourage that the elevations be revised Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 11 and toned down considerably in terms of the out of scale colors. Garish colors. I would encourage that and I would also actually take issue personally with an elevated sign for this. I feel it is out of scale. Signs add to visual clutter. I would be much more likely to support this project if it had a monument sign and not a pole sign. Johnson: Where is this sign going to be located? Jeffus: The center island. Hoffman: If this was brought down, I have used the highway overlay ordinance with the 75 square feet monument sign as kind of a bench mark. I would be much more likely to support something like that rather than another large sign on College. As we redevelop College Avenue, I think it is important to keep in mind that we do have a sign ordinance. Key: This does comply with the sign ordinance It allows a 30 feet free standing and we've tried to down size it enough that we weren't pushing the limit on square footage or height. Part of the reason for wanting to elevate it obviously is for visibility and its going to have some landscaping around it in conjunction with the shrubbery and the green requirements in the interior parking lot area. In fact, we have a tree located in front of the sign which is going to be basically taking up that void space that is under the Sonic. Hoffman: Another item that I've noticed about the basic layout is that you do not have a service drive in the rear? How have you decided to handle truck loading and unloading for the strip center and for the Sonic? Key: The service will be through the front. Hoffman: Is there a truck loading area or you going to pull up in front of the space? Jeffus: We don't have any parking proposed in the center area and it is fairly large and extensive and the trucks could load there. Hoffman: What size of trucks would be servicing the building? Jeffus: I imagine just bobcat type trucks. Hoffman: Not semi. • Key: They would make deliveries during non peak hours. Either early morning or mid afternoon. We considered an access drive around the building At one point this building was • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 12 located along the south property line, parallel with the Panda and having a mutual drive between the buildings but it was not feasible to do that and achieve the development standards. We thought the nature of the site and the shape and the frontage and drainage concerns were greatly complicated by doing that. Hoffman: So if the trucks going to service the southernmost tenant, will he be able to pull in and back out without creating a traffic jam? Key: We think that he would come around this one way drive and pull into the actual drive and we would be blocking a couple of parking spaces. That would be the same route the trash trucks would come and empty the dumpsters. Hoffman: Is this the dumpster location? Key: That is a dumpster location between the site and the retail facility at the south property line. We also discussed that at plat review in terms of it being concrete slab with conduit provided for utility service under it as necessary. We did contact the solid waste department about the size and we are making provisions to make that large enough. Little: Did they end up saying 18 x 12 as their size? Jeffus: If we do three it will be 36 x 12. Little: They are doing new recycling dumpsters and we need the sizes on those. Key: That's two large dumpsters and a third smaller one. We will do what we need to and provide the facility as necessary. Johnson. This sign - Key: It's shown the wrong way. It doesn't face the road, it's parallel to the Sonic Building on a north south axis. Johnson: So it is not facing Highway 71. It is facing to the north. Is that to catch the traffic on 71? Key: Yes. Primarily that is for visibility for the traffic and to identify the center upon approach and being able to make planned decisions in a timely enough manner to pull into the tum lane to enter into this facility. We also at one time had considered the two curb cuts on the site which are two 40 feet curb cuts that exist. Upon recommendation from the staff and we've • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 14 Key: I think it may have neon but there the acrylic pediments that's mounted on the front of the actual canopy. We will use round acrylic indirect lights to illuminate the side. Hoffman: Does the soda straw up light? Key: They don't project light. They glow. Johnson: The one in Springdale just off the bypass has both the pylon straws and neon. Is the signage the same? Key: I think the sign is comparable as well. The pole sign will not be that large. We have downsized. The freestanding sign we proposed was going to be the same size. If I'm not mistaken, that was 4 x 8 for the Sonic sign itself. It is the same size as the one that sits on the front of the building. The pole mounted sign they typically use when they can, I think it is a larger sign 6 x 12. We won't be using a sign that large on our freestanding sign. I'm not sure what the one in Springdale has. Johnson: I want to ask the Commissioners to go and look at the Sonic in Springdale at night. Key: It makes a big difference being able to see what the actual intent is. One thing I noticed from observing the Springdale store, their facia band has more red on it than what we're proposing. The canopy facia have a band of gray prefinished vinyl material that forms the basis of the canopy facia. Above it there is a six inch strip of red and a four inch strip of yellow. The one in Springdale, the entire lower portion of that was red. Ltttle: I've seen them mainly with two strips of neon. Key: They are showing one strip of red and a strip of yellow. The metal is prefinished with a metal powder coat finish that gives a yellow reflection in that light. Little: We will be happy to take the Planning Commissioners on a tour next Thursday. Johnson: We need to see the pictures as well as the drawings so be sure and get those to the planning office Key: This sample board with the mounted rendered elevations show the actual samples of materials we have proposed here. There is a gray, a wolverine clay siding that forms the facia base and the red and the yellow finish. In regard to the end finishes on the retail sign, we have proposed to wrap the end of the building with brick and a brick wainscot along the buildings' • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 13 agreed because of the lot frontage being 273 feet that one curb cut was appropriate. Little: The curb cut is a much improved situation. The actual exits from Coy's had not been safe accesses. They have located the exit at the crest of the hill. It's much more channelized and should help traffic know where to go. Key: It's also shown on landscape plan. There are several nice trees growing that existing frontage about in the location of our proposed drive and we are intending to relocate those to the north property line. Hoffman: Is there a photograph of a type of Sonic building that is going in there? Key: I have a copy of a rendering and a photograph that Sonic has provided. We were told that the Committee typically prefers to see drawings. There is one in Springdale that has just been completed on 412. I spoke with Patsy Christy the Planning Director in Springdale yesterday about that facility to see what kind of concerns or comments came about through that process. She said it was pretty much a non issue. Obviously, I realize they don't have the same standards They don't have the same aesthetic concems or design standard In fact, she told me that Sonic has renovated the Sonic that is located on 71 Business and also installed the soda straw pylons Those pylons are up lighted but not real high intensity but it is intended for visual appeal. I feel that after physically seeing the pylon, that it was not nearly as distracting to me as seeing the photos. They are not that large out of scale I think the top of them is under 18 feet about the parking grade. Hoffman: It acts like a spotlight up into the sky Key: It has a lip on it. Johnson: How is Sonic about veering away from this element? Key: I have not been in direct communication with Sonic. This is a prototype they have developed through marketing and research. I personally feel that it is an improvement of the pediment they have on the front of their canopy. They do have a ring of neon along the entire perimeter of the canopy. The building faces west. Obviously the canopies are oriented east west axis and the neon does go along both sides and curves around the front of both canopies. There is a canopy on each side of the building and they also have a separate canopy to the north with additional service similar to the Sonic that you see here. The Sonic that's already on Highway 71 doesn't have the additional canopy but the large one on Sixth Street does. Johnson: Does it have the neon? • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 15 store front. We've got design elements such as towers replicating the same type of projection of the restaurant. The brick will wrap the corner and it was our intent on the north side and on the south to provide a metal drop panel finish. There is concern about the appearance of that. Finished it will be gray to match the brick and exterior insulation finish system that we're using for the facia. If it's desired or recommended by the Commission, we've discussed utilizing a drivet type exterior insulation finish material. Ward: That's what I would do. Anything on the sides of either or these buildings that can be view at all by the public needs to meet the standard. Key: It's very limited visibility. One is behind the service area of the Panda so it isn't visible and the same to the north. Ward: In contrast, I personally like the freestanding location sign. It sits back from the road and will have very low visibility so this would give you an indication of what was there. Key: That was the intent of the sign to give identification to the other businesses • because the only other indication is a panel sign. • Hoffman: 1 still think the sign is too tall. Maybe there could be some kind of compromise. Key: The total height of the sign columns are 28 feet above the roadway surface and the sign will be slightly 16 inches below that. We will either shorten it slightly and pull those signs together. There will be some structural members tying those column together to make that a ridged frame that the signs are then attached to. Little: I thought that we could shorten it about a foot by bringing the Tune Plaza together with the other signs. I had two things in mind there. One was to make it as compact as possible. The other that I've noticed in trying to read signs is that if there is light coming from behind it, sometimes I have difficulty reading the sign. Hoffman: I want to drive by the site and visualize In general, the signs that I have to look up at are more offensive for visual clutter. If I can have something at eye level or below as I'm driving, it seems to be effective. Key: I have a question about the sign that was installed at KFC. Does anyone recall what the height is on it? Little: It's under 30 feet. We will check that. • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 16 Jeffus: One thing to keep in mind that when you're coming up the hill toward the site, you are looking up. A sign closer to the ground could cause you to drop your eyes. Hoover: I understand why they need a big pole sign there. Key: The pylons provide some identity to Sonic, similar to what KFC with the red canopies and the pedament on top of the building. Hoover: I don't mind the pylons themselves but I don't like the light. Johnson: The one thing I think it has going for it is that there is a relative amount of red. We aren't seeing 20% bright red. Regarding the elevations you have given us, why didn't you include the south elevation? Is it your position that the south elevation will not be seen from 71. Key: That's the Panda building side. That building is projecting quite a bit further to the west than what our property is. You can see the outline on the site plan. It's going to block the majority view of the Sonic and almost all of the shopping center. Johnson: I certainly saw the south side of Coy's. Jeffus: It sits in the middle of the site. This will be quite a bit further to the east. Key: The Panda is a one story structure. They maybe a foot to 2 feet below the floor elevation of what the Sonic is. The crest of the hill does not drop drastically to the south. Johnson: Are you saying that you can't see the western most wall from the Highway? Key: middle. I don't believe so. The reason you see Coy's is because it sits right in the Ward: The reason you see Coy's is because it sits up on an elevation. Key: It was originally a freight terminal and sits up pretty high. There isn't any vegetation between the sites. It looks like a field of pavement except for a little dirt space in a concrete curb. Johnson: Let's move on to other issues. • Little: The other issue was the grading and I believe you've done a good job on getting that resolved for Mr. Beavers and also the water. We are down to just commercial design • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 17 standards. Johnson: You don't have a problem with boring under the highway. That's your problem with the highway and the sidewalks will be continuous through the drive and there is a lot of green space which we really like. We are reducing the 15 feet setback to 5 feet and that is your option at this time until that is changed. We like what you're doing with the underground utility. The only issues is commercial design. Little: Your large scale approval will be valid for one year and if you don't get started within one year, we will need to see you again. We understand you're anxious. Johnson: Do we want to send this on to the full Commission? Hoffman: My concern about forwarding this to the Commission before we are really done here is that we do Committee work at the Commission which is a waste of time. If this project came to the Commission I would not vote for it for commercial design standard reasons, for the two elevations on the building, and the sign. Key: What about the two elevations. Hoffman: I think you ought to go ahead and match the other sides. Key: We will do that to the north and south. Hoffman: We need revised elevations. Johnson: So on the north elevation you would do what kind of finishing on that? Key: An exterior insulation system to match the facia on both the south and the north ends. Johnson: Are you going to have window treatment? Key: No. With windows, you would be looking into the junk yard. We're going to do a field of drivet. Hoffman: I thought you were going to bring some brick further around to wake up the expanse of the wall. Key: We would do a field of drivet unless you felt it would be more desirable to do • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 18 something different. Again, those sides are not that visible. From the street, I don't think you can see either of them. Ward: On that north side, you know something is going to develop there. I would like to see more detail. I don't think they'll ever see the south. Johnson: With regard to the other Commissioners present, what are your concerns about sending this on. Ward: Everything looks good to me except the Sonic. I don't know what you could do about those pylons to make them meet our standards. Warrick: At plat review, staff suggested that the pylons might be more appropriate is they matched the pylons on the sign that they are proposing. Ward: It doesn't appear to me that any attempt was made by Sonic to meet our commercial design standards. Key: What we had done was to take the surrounding structure and looked at homogenous materials. Such as the brick material. They use a king size gray brick and we're doing the same. Odom. They're using brick? Key: It's all brick. Odom: The picture that I saw was all metal. Key: The pictures that we were looking at were for the pylons only. The materials on the Sonic are gray brick and that's what we rendered on the elevations. The only color that they have is on their signage and the yellow and red accent stripe. Odom. It's narrow and there's not all that much of it. Key: We've even looked at making part of our facia a rust or red to play with the line created. We are using a gray brick with a drivet and accent drivet. We introduced a little red brick for accent in the gray brick columns of the free standing sign. All those materials work together with the Sonic and the retail center and the signage as well. Hoffman: How about capping off the top of the pylons for the light. That would be better. • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 19 Key: If that was something that was recommended as a condition of approval, we will work to achieve whatever we need to do. It's unfortunate that we couldn't get a response back from Sonic. They had been contacted several times since we had plat review. We tried to get some input on where these facilities have been built. What type of modifications are possible. One thing that we discussed was a commercial area in Little Rock called Chenal Heights and they have one these prototypes there. They specify a standard section of prefinished vinyl material that has a double accent stripe in it. They don't have it dimensioned. Little: When you say the gray is a prefinished panel -- Key: It's actually a vinyl siding material. Little: What about the red and the yellow? Key: The red and yellow are a custom bent metal channel that is prefinished with an enamel. It's glossy and it does have neon and the neon is colored. • Odom. These poles or straws are they the support of the facade? • Key: No they are not. I believe they are 18 feet from grade up to the top of these and they are cut at an angle. The top of the facia on the retail center is 18 feet and its floor level actually set up 2 feet higher. We have the parapet height to screen the roof top equipment on the retail center. On the Sonic, we discussed the necessity to get our parapet slightly higher to provide the adequate screening for the roof top mounted exhaust and HVAC. Johnson: Those changes that you already anticipate would need to be on the drawing that the Commission sees. Key: Those can be modified. Do we make those modifications before coming here or do we take your comments and incorporate them into the plan before the Commission? I wanted to see what concerns and desires would be in terms of these issues. We have agreed that we would do whatever is necessary whether it be drivet. We prefer not to have a 20 feet wall of brick there because of the cost and the excessive height. We can provide a more textured finish to that surface as opposed to a single plain of drivet. We could provide some banding to work with the fascia. Johnson: Part of the problem is the huge, blank wall. Any material is not going to get you out of that particular trap. Key: We're looking at a depth of 52 feet on the length of that wall. We could provide a Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 20 base and an accent with the brick as a base for that wall and filled with drivet above it with an accent band working with the fascia on the building and give it a tiered effect. Ward: That's all I'm looking for. Johnson: Could this be seen from Rolling Hills? Key: If the trees are cleared out to that extent, it is possible that due to the change in grade it would be. It would take quite a development of a structure directly to the north to block that view. McGoodwin, Williams, and Yates blocks part of your view up to this hill side. Hoover: I think this could probably go on to the Commission. I do have a problem with the sign but I will go and look at the site and check the height. They need to make the changes to the drawings and make some modifications to the pylons according to what you've heard today. Johnson: The trees that you've drawn in are placed where the trees will be placed? • Key: They are in place per the landscaping plan and the intent is that we have several in the islands between the parking and shrubbery accenting that and several tree in front of the building and the green space. Sonic will have a little more landscaping than what we've shown in the small island. They usually do a decorative thing with some stone and perhaps a fountain. They will be above and beyond what we are proposing. Little: I think it would be helpful for each of the Planning Commissioners to have the landscape plan so I have requested twelve copies of that with revisions so you will have that landscape plan. Please provide twelve copies of everything. MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a motion to forward the large scale development for Tune Plaza to the full Planning Commission. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson concurred. • • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 21 PP98-11: PRELIMINARY PLAT THE CLIFFS, PHASE II, PP 488 The Cliffs, Phase II was submitted by Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of William G. Underwood for property located at Cliffs Boulevard and Highway 265. The property is zoned R- 1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 34.54 acres. Jerry Kelso, Bill Underwood, and Tom Hopper were present on behalf of this preliminary plat. Committee Discussion Little: This is a preliminary plat and it will require final plat approval in accordance with our PUD regulations. There are some minor issues associated with this project. The first issue is the planned unit development and this is a second phase. They are proposing to give additional green space under our PUD ordinance so that they may achieve a density of 6.25 units per acre. That does require your approval. That is consistent with what was approved for the first phase of this as well. Kelso: We have included those numbers in the legend to the side. Little: Parks fees have been decided that it will be money instead of dedication of public park land. That is $64,800. That is based on 260 units at $300 each. We are looking for sidewalk construction. There is one deviation from our standards and that is along Cliffs Boulevard. The sidewalks will be the standard 6 feet wide which is consistent with our ordinance but what will not be consistent is that they will be adjacent to the curb. That is due to grading and cross slope in the area. This has been discussed with Chuck Rutherford. Rutherford: This is basically because of the right of way and to make it consistent with what is already there. Little: That is a deviation from standards but staff is in agreement with that. There is a minor issue with regard to the placement of sidewalks along Happy Hollow Road. If we stay with our standard which is a 6 feet sidewalk and a 10 feet green space, additional right of way will have to be acquired for the extension of Happy Hollow to the south and that will require work with Mt. Sequoyah United Methodist Assembly. The applicant has done a good job on working on street names. However, the 911 coordinator tells us that additional work will be necessary so we need you to contact Jim Johnson and resolve that. Kelso: I have talked to him. • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 22 Little: During phase one we received a bill of assurance for the cost of the sidewalks along Highway 265. The Highway Department is now in the process of doing those plans. So, there will have to be a contribution for sidewalks and we feel like it would be appropriate to go ahead and have that estimated and have that contribution to be made at this time. We noticed with this phase that Happy Hollow Road which is a different name but will be called Happy Hollow Road is not planned to be constructed so we felt like it would be important to have one- half of the cost of that for them to escrow and then when the other phases are done that money will be used to help construct that part of Happy Hollow Road That is the part north of Cliffs Boulevard. Hoffman: Will it be constructed to the south? Little: It will be constructed to the south and we have those to address. This is adjacent to Highway 265 which the Highway Department is working on getting right of way. The City agreed about 15 years ago to be responsible for the acquisition of right of way in order to speed that project up. We do.need a dedication of right of way and we will not specify what that is but we will just say in accordance with the final plans from the Highway Department. Kelso: Little: You'll get the property. It's not going to be that much. It's written down from the Highway Department. Hopper: We have been in contact with the Highway Department and we have shown that on the plan. It's not a straight, uniform dedication. Little: The extension of Happy Hollow to the south is a collector street. Both Cliffs Boulevard and Happy Hollows are classified as collectors. We are expecting that the City will pay a portion of that but the cost share for that will have to be approved by the City Council. The developer's engineer needs to prepare an estimate for that and furnish that to our Engineering Department and we will take that forward to the City Council in order to resolve those funding issues. Hopper: We have done that. Little: The preliminary plat approved is valid for one year. Street lights are to be installed every 300 feet and we did receive a comment this morning from Perry Franklin that he needs them on both sides and when we reviewed the plans he saw them only on one side. The discussion that I remember is that along the boulevard we had discussed actually putting them in the middle with two arms. • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 23 Underwood: That's where they are now. Little: It is required for street lights on both sides. It is also required for them to be every 300 feet. You may one, put them on both sides at 300 feet or you may two, put them in the center at 300 feet and have the double arms that come out and light the street. It's a little less clutter if you use the center. Kelso: What we've shown on the plan was on one side at 300 feet. We will duplicate what we did in phase I so if it's on both sides we'll continue if it's in the center that what we'll do. Little: That will be fine. Hoffman: Could you go over again the density issue and tell me how it relates to phase one? Little: This is R-1 zoned property. Under the PUD and under the previous submittal, they gave us in excess of the 35% green space. There is a chart under PUD and it says if you give 35% green space you are entitled to 7.5 units per acre. That was the law in effect when this was brought through in 1994. Since then you have dealt with Charleston Place and you had issues about that and you wanted to make sure that you gave the approval on that. So, you have to make that decision. They are giving in excess of the 35% open space. They are giving 37.35% open space and they are not asking for the maximum density which was 7.5 they are asking for 6.25 units per acre. Hoffman: In R-1 is it normally four? Little: Yes. Hoover: In 1994, they were allowed how many per acre? Little: In 1994 the ordinance read if you give 35% green space you get a density bonus of 7.5 units per acre. We used that more in one of the things that came up particularly in regard to Charleston Place. Planning Commission felt they should make that decision, so that was proposed by Ms. Johnson and was approved by Planning Commission and then approved by Council and so now you make the decision whether or not to allow the density bonus for green space dedication in excess of 35%. This development was consistent with what was approved in Phase I in 1994. Hoover: It's not an automatic. Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 24 Little: It is no longer an automatic. That is the change in the interim time. Hoffman: But it is consistent with Phase I's density. Little: Yes. In fact, it is less dense than Phase I and that is spelled out in the chart. We have engineering issues related to the grading plan that some of these units are proposed to be located within 100 feet of the water features and that does require a waiver. I believe Mr. Beaver's supports that waiver but he may want to address that. Beavers. I'd like to start with the fire hydrant locations. Chief Jackson could not attend this meeting and he requested that you add a fire hydrant at building 24 southeast of building 23. On the proposed waivers, there are two waivers required. Warrick: The request reads first for a variance from street standards for the following items. First, the grade of street at intersection of Sapphire Drive and proposed drive. The allowable maximum grade coming into the intersection is 4%. The proposed grade of the drive intersecting with Sapphire Drive is 10%. The second one was discussed concerning the distance of a structure from a water feature. Beaver: Engineering supports both of those. 10% street grade is very steep but with the topography it just can't be done. So we support these. Little: By the time we get to Planning Commission could you have an example of another street that is 10% so we can have a visual. Johnson: You've done quite a bit of work on that and got us some slopes on some steep streets. Do you remember what some of the steepest were? Beavers: The steepest is Arlington Terrace which is about 25%. Cleveland is steep. All those in Park Place and Boardwalk is in the 15% range. I can find those lists. Johnson: I would like that information to be narrowed down to just 10% grades. Beavers: We mentioned the right of way for Highway 265 and I would like to bring up for discussion the fact that the ordinance that says since this development is adjacent to a state highway the Planning Commission may require off site improvements to the State Highway. I have not recommended that we do this. I not recommending that we don't. I'm willing to discuss it. The ordinance says it is to be based on a rationale nexus and we have to weigh whether or not this development has that much impact to the traffic already on Highway 265. We need to determine whether additional contributions beyond the sidewalk and driveway would Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 25 be necessary. Hoffman: Do you know if the Highway Department has slated this area to be widen any time soon? Beavers: It is. Hoffman: How soon? Little: It varies from January of `99 to the year 2003. Johnson: The best estimate that I've heard from Mr. Venable that if we were lucky we might be driving on it in 2001. Beavers: The problem is from Kantz Drive south to Highway 16. Hopper: We're furnishing sidewalks and right of way and the funding for the road is coming from the State so there are not any City funds involved. Little: We have a 5% share on that. Beavers: We're paying for utility relocation and most of the right of way. Hopper: Mr. Underwood furnished the right of way across the frontage of the property. Little: Yes. Beavers: When developing Glenwood Plaza, Clary Development was asked to propose a number and they never would. So we fell back on tradition which was half of a city street which I personally think was too much. I would ask Mr. Hopper to prepare the traffic generated by this development to the total traffic projected to be on Highway 265. I think if he does that with the donation of the right of itself, it will be equal to or more than his fair share. Johnson: There's one thing about this location, it seems to me that anything that goes in on 265 or 16 east of 265 or 45 east of 265 is going to unduly impact the transportation infrastructure because we have now boxed ourselves in so that there are only two ways in. It appears that you have to go 265 or 16 on 45 and that's a long stretch not to have any east west and we've pretty much created that now. The traffic problem becomes more difficult. We think we have problems now but it will only get worse as time goes on. • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 26 Hopper: At this location, Happy Hollow is designed and the City's participation to try and help that traffic situation. Hoffman: Can we have the calculations that Mr. Beavers is talking about fairly soon? Hopper: We'll just get with the Highway Department. Little: Perry Franklin has provided them with traffic generation for their development. Hopper: It's dust a matter of putting that together with proportionate shares. Beavers: Initially at plat review, I had mentioned water and sewer easements for these locations but we don't know what we need at this time. Highway Department has put us on hold. We've been on hold probably close to 10 weeks. At that point, we will determine where we need to locate the water line and will request easement to do so. Hopper: We've got adequate room to do that. Beavers: I have a question on Happy Hollow. This is something that we can probably work out with Mr. Bunn and Mr. Venable and I'm not aware of, but if Happy Hollow is a collector, why are building a four lane street? Hopper: It's my understanding that was what we were asked to do. Beavers: Before we take a cost share to the Council, I'd like to visit with Mr. Venable on that issue. I don't think this in any way will affect your approval but before you move forward with the construction drawings on Happy Hollow I'd like to get that worked out. Johnson: As opposed to what? Beavers: A collector is generally a two lane with a center turn lane and a width of 36 feet versus the 52 feet they have shown. Hopper: I thought that was a part of the approval in '94. Beavers: If that's already been agreed to in 1994 to make that a four lane. Hopper: That was our understanding and I thought we had that discussion with City Staff a • couple of months ago that it would be four lane. • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 27 Beavers: It was. The discussion was on the cost share but I'll will ask Mr. Venable now why we're doing it. This could obligate the City to build a four lane the rest of the way and we don't have the money to do that. Hopper: We were just doing what we thought the City wanted as opposed to something we were proposing. Beavers: Right. You always do a great job. Drainage. I want to mention that I went over it briefly, and I will require more detail later. Hopper: I'm expecting to submit a final report. Beavers: Alett has previously asked me about easement and right of way dedication for Phase I. Hopper: I've got a copy for you. Beavers: Do you have as -built? I don't have that. Hopper: There were as-builts with water and sewer. Beavers: We need street and drainage. Hopper: Okay. We can put those together. Little: Two informational items that does not make a difference as far as the approval but I think it would help you to understand the project. Part of this project is in both the SWEPCO and Ozarks Electric service area. The majority of this project is in the Ozarks service area. This project came through as concept and they did an excellent job on working around easement. There is that very high pressure gas line that passes through this project so they have been working with Arkansas Western Gas to make sure that their units are off of those easements and a safe distance from them. It doesn't make any difference in terms of your approval but I thought you should know that for informational purposes. Hesse: The tree preservation plan is kind of indicated on the plan but it is very challenging to locate all the 24 inch trees and larger. I've been on the site once. Portions of it have large trees. We have discussed dealing with individual tree preservation as construction continues. We need to be flexible. Maybe you could find the largest trees and then contact me in the construction phase. • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 28 Hopper: I understand that once the streets and buildings are stacked, then we would go through and take the areas that we show for tree preservation and get those blocked off. These are the areas we will save and then any additional trees will be flagged individually and marked in the field and added to the plan at the time we do it. Rutherford: The radius lines are showing the curb through the driveways and I would like for them to be removed in the sidewalk area. Hopper: Okay. Rutherford: If possible I would like to get with the Highway Department and determine the location of the sidewalks and whether or not there is green space. Hopper: I think the sidewalks are against the curb on the Highway Department plans. Conklin: With regard to Cliff Boulevard and the strip of land between Dr. Sedden's, is he getting access to that street? Little: During Phase I, he was promised access. I don't know that those access points have been delineated. Underwood: I provided a letter giving access. We didn't specify where it is. Conklin: Is he purchasing access? Underwood: He will pay for construction of the access. Beavers: If there is ever a public street that goes to the south if in 50 years from now that land develops, will right of ways be dedicated or some kind of agreement that the City doesn't have to come in and purchase that right of way. Conklin: That's always my concern when you have a public street and a strip of land in between another property that's undeveloped and the ability for that property owner to cross that access to the public street. Underwood: So what you would like to see if it's ever a dedicated public street -- Conklin: If it's ever a dedicated public street that you have an agreement between another property owner that you are going to give access to the property and the public street. • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 29 Underwood: What normally happens when the City wants to bring a public street into a private piece of property? Beavers: At times it is purchased but I think in the past developers have asked the City to condemn because sometimes people purchase land to try and prevent streets. We could avoid a future condemnation if we had some kind of agreement to give or even sell right of way if the City ever needed it. Little: Since 1995 and the General Plan 2020, we have the circulation policy and we have every subdivision stub out to adjacent undeveloped pieces of land. So that is what we would normally do. Conklin: We did something similar like this for you. The land between 265 and your property was condemned by City Council for you to get access onto Highway 265. I would hate to have to see Dr. Sedden ask the City Council to condemn land to get access to his property. Underwood: We've already given him access. He wouldn't have to file suit to get to access. I • sent him a letter providing access. • Johnson- Probably what the Planning Commission has to do is to make some decision about where the access would be. Underwood: We wouldn't want to have ten accesses off of here. On the other hand, if the City builds a street, I think it would be reasonable for the City to have access to a boulevard that they helped pay for. I would certainly be cooperative with that thought. Hoffman: It needs to be reflected on the plat after you agree up the location as a dedicated access easement and then in the future when this other property develops, that will be available. Underwood: Dr. Sedden and I together agreed that we didn't want this to be a race track and there is a nice area to preserve for screening Dr. Sedden's property so it was purposely curved. Then we agreed that at each end of the curve he could, if he wanted, have access to his property. Johnson: The access looks more sensible at the western property line at a point where the grade looks tolerable although the street is about 150 feet. Underwood: I suggest, not at this meeting, but that my agreement with Dr. Sedden be delineated before it goes to the full Commission rather than discuss it here. Hoffman: Show that drawn on the plan. Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 30 Public Comment Dr. Dick Sedden was present and requested that following: that the drainage be controlled and that due to the grade of the drive he requested a merge lane at his access to Happy Hollow Road and he requested that the street lights be directed downward. Committee Discussion Johnson: I think drainage has been addressed. I trust that engineering will always address drainage issues and as this project advances you will check the detention pond so that heavy rainfall will not have a negative impact down below. Beavers: The preliminary design is acceptable. Johnson: Regarding the driveway, since we have a private drive intersecting a City street, I don't know whether the Commission feels that it is appropriate for us to make any requirement of the developer for connecting a private drive to a City street. Odom: We require access of other developers. We would actually require stub outs so in lieu of that made Dr. Sedden's request is not unreasonable. Little: We are going to require right of way in designated locations. We are not going to require actual construction of that stub out. Hoffman: Most of the work would be on your property so you would have to reconstruct your driveway at Happy Hollow, then I don't feel that it is necessary to have a pull in lane. Beavers: We would never approve that. We are cost sharing this street. Johnson: The situation where the City is participating in constructing the street will greatly enhance the value of your property and although it doesn't put money in your pocket it puts equity in your property and that is the reason that government can't really come in and pay more to do street work that benefits an individual. Regarding the lighting issue, we'll just require down lighting to handle the light pollution. Little: What is the current height of the lighting in Cliffs? If it's over 30 feet, it never needs to be higher than 30 feet. In this particular case, the best solution that I can see is that not only that it be shielded and directed down but it be shielded, directed downward, and angled • northward so that all of these are angled toward what they are designed to be lighting. The exception to that will be the street lighting which I think that if it's in the center of the boulevard, • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 31 it would be less offensive than having it on the south side of the street. If your current lighting is 30 feet, if there would be a way to lower it to say 25 feet. That helps a lot with light spread. Underwood: I think it's 24 feet. Little: Make sure that the shield that are on top of those lights are angled to the north. Those do help substantially. This may require a change in the type of lighting that has been used in the parking lot before and I would also look at that. You are using the open globe and they are not shielded or directed. Hoffman: Does he need parking lot lighting plans for the building permit? Little: No. We don't get those. I would request a copy of the type of lighting that you are planning on using in the parking area so we can look at that make an informed decision. Johnson. Is that administratively? • Little: I would like to bring it to Planning Commission. Hopper: As part of approval? Little: Yes. • Hopper: I was hoping we could work that out with staff and if they had problems we could get back to through the Commission. Hoffman: Also tell us how many lights you are going to have per square foot of parking area. That's very informative usually. Hopper: I don't mind doing that. I feel like it may take a while to get that done and if we could work that off through staff and get their satisfaction as opposed to bringing it through Commission, that might be the easiest way to do it. Underwood: I would have a problem with changing the lights from what we've put in for aesthetic purposes. We spent over $100,000 for cosmetic looks on the lights. We've tried to do the Cliffs and, I think you will agree, in a first class way. We've tried to make it a real asset the City can be proud of. If we have to mix the lights to a different type of light, we don't need to be putting in any fancy lights at all. We'll just go back to aluminum poles which wouldn't be very attractive. • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 32 Hopper: The lights that were used were the wrought iron type with Gothic type globe. Hoffman: I guess the issue of shielding the lights from the neighbor doesn't really address the type of light that you are putting in. The orientation of the light and adding hoods may not be feasible. Underwood: One of the things that we could do is maybe screen the panels of the light that faces south without changing the fixtures themselves. That's fine. Sure. Hopper: Can we work that out with staff? Little: We are willing to do that for you or either one. Johnson: I think the Commission needs to know what type of lights we are talking about. Obviously is can't be directed but it can be shielded so you need to tell us at the Commission. Underwood: How about if we do a picture of the existing lighting? Johnson: And then show us what kind of shielding. Little: And the number of lights proposed. Johnson: You need to make the sidewalk correction showing them continuous through the drives. Regarding the number of lanes for Happy Hollow, will we have that information before Planning Commission? Beavers: I can't say that you will. I will try. Johnson: Staff will have to follow through on that. Who is going to get the estimates for the sidewalk in consultation with the Highway Department. Little: We have the street estimate. We need to furnish it to our Engineering division. We need the sidewalk estimate. Johnson: The street names have some work to be done. Little: When those revisions are made we will need those to come back before the Planning Commission. Johnson: On Happy Hollow Road, you know the staff's request and you will escrow half Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 33 the cost of the road. Who will provide the estimate? Little: Engineering. That's for north of the access and won't be constructed. There is an issue for the south section of Happy Hollow and that has to do with the proposed four lane and the fact that the City had planned for a three lane. Beavers: We need to check the agreement made in '93 or '94 and I will research that. Hoffman: That is to be constructed with Phase II. Hopper: Yes. Johnson: Will there be cost issues? Little: It will when it goes to Council and that's what we have received. These estimates are for the four lane. Beavers: I would like a copy of that, please. If for some reason the City Council were to disagree with the cost share, are you going to require the developer to have a second access? Little: My recommendation to the Planning Commission would be that they be consistent with requiring second access but if the City Council does not participate to that extent that the developer would bear only their normal cost which would be two lanes. Johnson: Grading issues? Beavers: Just the one to allow a structure within 100 feet of a detention pond and staff does agree with that. Johnson: There is the density and cul de sac issue to discuss. Hoffman: Regarding the density, I would think that because you are increasing the green space requirements and not going up to the maximum, I don't have a problem with it. I'm concerned about the water and sewer issue that was raised at Council level. Planning Commission doesn't have a thing to do with that but I would like to make sure that this developer is made aware of the sewage capacity issues. Little: We are depending on the information that is given to us on the sewage capacity and our information is that the plant is treating to a level that is allowing us to absorb new development. • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 34 Odom. We are spending $1 million plus a year to rehabilitate sewage. Beavers: I don't know everything there is to know about this issue. Little: The information that I have is that there is a design capacity for the plant. We are exceeding the design capacity. EPA has allowed us to treat our waste water in such a manner that we are treating to a higher level than what is normally required; therefore, we are able to treat more and discharge more. That's what I understand and I'm not the expert. For Planning Commission purposes I know that you have asked for a briefing on that. Mr. Odom has talked to Mr. Venable. They are having a meeting on that this Friday with Mr. Beavers, Mr. Venable, and Mr. Murray Fleming who is the City's consultant. After that meeting, they will provide a briefing for the Planning Commission and the City Council. So the answer is, it is undetermined and we are not certain whether we can absorb additional development or not. Odom. This is a preliminary plat it is not a large scale development. Little: It is a little of both it is only a large scale development in the sense that it is one • piece of land. It is a preliminary because it is under our PUD ordinance and it requires the subdivision process. You question is, how can you approve that? You can approve this because your staff has no information to tell you not to do that. • Beavers: Also, the City Council has not placed a moratorium. Hoffman: Until the City Council places a moritorium it is the Planning Commission general stance that we proceed on approval until we hear that we have no more capacity. Everyone needs to proceed with caution. Little: It's risky business. Odom: This is coming up. They have said the developments we have already approved is before the Council now on a rezoning they put on hold. Beavers: We hope to know more by the Planning Commission meeting whether or not it is advisable. Johnson: It is my view that something short of a moratorium might give us direction. I don't think the City Council has to say there is a moratorium on new development before Planning Commission can slow down development on our own. But, it seems to me that we don't have any good information so a decision at this point would be totally arbitrary and capricious. I presume that a huge rainstorm still affects our sewage treatment so I can imagine • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 35 things that could happen that could affect this issue. Underwood: I gave the City a sewer easement which runs all the way through this property and I know that we can tap on to it. Little: Because of all the sewer rehab we have done, we can now handle the rain events, it is the very dry weather that we are unable to handle because we have insufficient water to combine with our out flows. Last year, we had to use water from Lake Sequoyah. The Planning Commission can always delay approval until they feel like they have sufficient information in which to make decisions. That is the typical remedy for traffic and this is a similar issue. Johnson: I'm reluctant to delaying development when the Council doesn't seem to think they have an emergency. Odom: I would like to have a copy of the minutes of the Council meeting where the expert testified to the City Council. It was clear to me in his presentation that we are exceeding capacity. We are.bringing this up to you know before you've spent all your money. Hoffman: This is a preliminary plat. We still have to see the final. Odom: I'm going to approve the preliminary plat regardless. MOTION Mr. Ward made a motion to forward the preliminary plat to the Planning Commission subject to the following conditions: 1. Resolution of the cul de sac issue. 2. Further information on the light shielding and the number of lights along the south property line. 3. Provision of information from the Highway Department on the sidewalk along Highway 265. Resolution of the right of way issue on Happy Hollow and whether that will be two lane or four lane which will also confirm greenspace requirements. • 5. Provision of estimate for the off site improvement to Crossover for the street. • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 36 6. Provision of estimate for the cost of sidewalk along Highway 265. 7. Addition of a fire hydrant. 8. Provision of traffic counts generated by subdivision and that generated on Highway 265. 9. Staff needs to furnish examples of 10% graded streets within the City. 10. Provision of right of way for the stub out to the south. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson concurred. • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 37 LSD98-31: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT LINDSEY-GREEN DEVELOPMENT This large scale development was submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of Lindsey -Green Property for property located on Lots 5 and 6 of CMN Business Park. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 3.77 acres. Chris Parton was present on behalf of the project. Committee Discussion Little: This has been at Subdivision before. We did not receive new elevations. These are the elevations which were submitted before. You will remember that one of our questions before was the sizes of the buildings. There are two buildings and one is smaller than the other. Our question was that the elevations that we had received were exactly the same even though one was smaller. They dimensioned to show a smaller building. What we now understand is they will look the same, but they will have different square footages. One is 2800 square feet and the other is 1600 square feet. They are two story buildings. We have checked the square footage and it does jive with the floor plan we received which is new information. Parking has been determined to be adequate on this site to accommodate this building. There will not be a free standing sign and the signage is as shown on the elevations on the buildings. We have no outstanding issues on commercial design. Odom: Is this going to be their office? Hopper: The office and lease space. They are building another office in Rogers and they are building some additional offices in Bentonville. Parton: Each building has it's own lot. Little: There is a right of way issue. Dedication of 35 feet from centerline is required. Because the street is not built exactly in the center, there is one place on this that we only have 34.5 feet of right of way. Staff goes along with that because of the alignment of the current street. Sidewalk construction will be in accordance with our current standards. Parton: The sidewalk width varies. There will be a minimum of 10 feet. It will be between 11 and 15 there about. Warrick: You have your label called out incorrectly. It calls out green space between the sidewalk and the curb line. That requirement is 15 feet and if it's less than that you have to • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee December 3, 1998 Page 38 provide additional landscaping. It scaled 15. It's mislabeled. Beavers. There will be additional review at construction due to the amount of fill that is required. Hesse: They are meeting all requirements. Anything that is removed must be replanted at the same caliper size. I'm not sure the proposed trees can be saved but we'll just wait and see. Little: They are providing cross access to the east. MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a motion to approve the large scale development at the Subdivision level. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. Mr. Ward concurred. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m.