Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-02-11 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on February 11, 1999 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED FP LSB99-1: Candlewood Subdivision LSD99-3: Allied Storage LSD99-4: Wedington Place LSD99-2: Town Center MEMBERS PRESENT John Forney Phyllis Johnson • Lee Ward • STAFF PRESENT Jim Beavers Kim Hesse Janet Johns Alett Little Chuck Rutherford Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Forwarded to PC Approved Forwarded to PC Forwarded to PC MEMBERS ABSENT Lorel Hoffman STAFF ABSENT • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 2 PP99-1: PRELIMINARY PLAT CANDLEWOOD SUBDIVISION This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of David Chapman for property located north of Township and east of Highway 265. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 45.60 Conditions to Address/Discuss 1. Street connections - the applicant has requested only one connection to the north and staff originally recommended connections to the north, west and east. The most reasonable option for a connection to the east would be between lots 39 and 40. 2. Planning Commission determination of appropriate contribution towards future improvements to Hwy 265 (Crossover Road.) • 3. Prior to the submittal of construction plans, a retaining wall shall be designed along Candlewood Dr. on Lot 10 for the preservation of the double oak tree that is existing. (Not Applicable) The short street between lots 24 and 25 needs to be named. Contact Jim Johnson for approval of street name. 5. Plat Review and Subdivision comments . 6. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted to plat review was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 7. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $22,500 (60 lots @ $375 each.) 8. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 4 feet sidewalk with a minimum 6 feet sidewalk on both sides of Candlewood Dr., Silverton Dr., and Waxwood Dr. and 6 feet sidewalk with a minimum 10 feet green space along Township Rd. and Crossover Rd. 9. Easement to be vacated must be processed as a separate application prior to the approval of a final plat for this development. • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 3 10. Dedication of right of way along Highway 265 (Crossover Rd.) shall be by warranty deed. 11. Preliminary Plat approval to be valid for one calendar year Dave Jorgensen was present on behalf of the applicant. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the project be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with recommendation of approval contingent upon conditions. Little: There are four items that we will need to discuss this morning. Staff had originally talked to the applicant about connections to the north, west, and east. At this time, the applicant is proposing a connection to the north only and they do request that no other connection be required. They have a letter in the packet on page 4 (a copy of which is on file in the Planning Division.) Also relating to streets, there is frontage on Highway 265 and our • engineering staff had said that the applicant needed to get with the Highway Department to determine how much the contribution should be or what AHTD would have in mind for that. We don't have any information for you on that at this time. We need to discuss the retaining wall on Lot 10. Normally that would be an engineering item but in this case, the retaining wall was to protect a double oak tree that already exists. We need another street name between Lots 24 and 25 adding the name to the stub out street. Those are the major items. The rest of the items are fairly standard. We are waiting for a representative from engineering. • Public Discussion None. Committee Discussion Johnson: We have no other staff comments except for engineering. We will discuss the four items which Planning has laid out for us. The first is the street connections. Jorgensen: I am representing Dave Chapman, the owner. We have a resubmittal from our last meeting and if you will notice on the vicinity map, it shows the surrounding area better than what we had last time and hopefully we can tell where the other streets are at with respect to our project. You'll notice our project is the shaded area. Immediately to the northeast is Brookbury Woods Subdivision. You'll notice that the street, well, it's not labeled, but the street that extends through Brookbury running north and south is Brookbury Crossing. It ends at the south end of • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 4 Brookbury with the intention to extend it eventually to the south to Township Street which is the street that is the on the south end of our project. Township is presently under construction which will tie into what is known right now as Easton Park Subdivision. Warrick: The name of that has changed to Covington. Jorgensen: The intention was to extend Brookbury Crossing to the south to Township extension. Immediately to the east of Brookbury is Savannah Estates. You can see there are no streets that are stubbed out or extend to the south out of Savannah. However, on the northeast corner of Easton, you can see a stubbed out street to the north which, hopefully, will extend from there north up to Skillern when that property is developed. Johnson: This north south street that is stubbed out. What is the line on the map? Is that a stream or a street that it intersects? Little: A stream. • Jorgensen: That is a tributary of Mud Creek. • Johnson: Jorgensen: Johnson: The vicinity map depicts the stub out street crossing the tributary? That is correct except the tributary at that point is fairly small. What kind of crossing is that? Is it a bridge or a low water? Jorgensen: It would be just a culvert. It's not much. Johnson: Nothing to concern ourselves with? Jorgensen: Are you talking about what future crossing it might be? Johnson. I mean what exists now? Jorgensen: There is nothing there now. There is a private drive that goes through some property there. Little: I don't believe there are any structure there. It is two separate pieces of property. Johnson: This stub out street that stops in Easton Park -- it looks as if it's built just north of Easton Park. What happens from the north end of that? • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 5 Little: It is leading into vacant property but it is leading into vacant property with one owner on one side and one on the other in case either of them decide to develop, they would have access. Johnson: This looks like there is some kind of a road way. It doesn't presently get there. Little: It's a lot deep. Johnson: But it doesn't presently get to the street through there. Little: It's a stub out. It is one lot deep. It would require a crossing. Jorgensen: To the south of our project, Candlewood, naturally, that heavy lane that goes through Crossover Park, that leads over to Vandergriff School. It's not a designated city street but it does connect to Vandergriff and it goes out to Highway 45. Johnson: Is there any restriction on the public using that street at any time? Jorgensen: I have tried to go through there during the day and they have it blocked off at the school. Little: They do block it off during playtime. Other than that, I think you can go through there. Johnson: Did we know that when we allowed that it would be blocked off? Little: No. Forney: Is it a public street or a private street? Little: Private. Jorgensen: Immediately to the west of our project, is an area that is partially owned by Runnels and then our property abuts Highway 265 on the north end and then we have been asked to provide a connection to the north which we don't necessarily agree with but we understand the City's need for connectivity although in this situation, we're not sure that it is that beneficial because it only serves Ms. Tu's property and a small parcel immediately north of that for a total of 5 or 6 acres? Chapman: She has 6. I think the other property belongs to the church and it's 2 or 3 acres. • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 6 Jorgensen: Along our entire east boundary line is the tributary to the Mud Creek and as Alett mentioned, I have a letter in the packet that addresses connectivity and in this particular interest, we felt that the tributary to the Mud Creek represented such a geographic obstacle that we didn't feel it would be advantageous to go directly to the east right there. That is the reason we don't have a stub out. Concerning the Highway Department, I did contact them and they said that this stretch of Highway 265 was recently overlaid and they have no plans in the foreseeable future for any improvements there and they are not asking for any donation. The way he put it to me is they didn't want to get in the habit of writing a letter addressing this. The only thing I can do is to write a letter to the Planning Division and state that I had this conversation with them and that they didn't want any money. Little: They would rather have the general taxpayer pay for this improvement. Jorgensen: I guess that is what it was. That was all I could get out of them. Johnson: The State Highway Department says this part of 265 which is north of the 45 intersection which they have three lanes already that this section has no future plan at any time in their existing plan to do anymore improvement. Jorgensen: Right. Johnson: So, they would have no basis to request a contribution. Jorgensen: Right. Johnson: And they won't write a letter to that effect. Jorgensen: That is correct. Johnson: Are we in a position of that individual developers make this contact and then when the higher governmental level says they would rather not write a letter then that leaves us in the position of relying on the hear say report from the developer? Or since we've Teamed that the State won't provide any kind of letter on it, is there a reason that staff should follow up? Little: Engineering was the one that asked them to make that contact with the State in order to determine what improvements were planned in order that we could determine what their fair share of those improvements would be. We need to talk to Engineering about that particular issue. I don't think it's a good idea that if we know the Highway Department is not going to • respond to us with definitive information in writing that they probably have that responsibility to make that contact. • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 7 Johnson: I suggest that staff go ahead and check with the Highway Department and confirm that their policy is that they really don't have the willingness to write us a letter and once you've confirmed that then we're going to have to always ask that they follow up on that. Anything else that you have for us Dave? Jorgensen: I think this covers the issues that we got to at our last meeting. Little: Did you receive a copy of a letter from Dr. Runnels? Jorgensen: No. Chapman: I haven't. Little: Let me read: "I'm writing you to voice my objection to the Subdivision plan for the land adjacent to my property on two sides. As you know, some 60 lots are planned to be built on 40 acres. I was unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting due to having to see patients in my office at the time of the meeting but I think this density of housing is another example of what people are now calling `urban sprawl.' Mr. Terminella told us that when he was first developing this and talked to several of our neighbors that he was going to put 1 house on 4 acres which we feel would be quite a good idea and it would improve the property value of our land next to him. I think having this density of homes is just further taxing our already overburden sewer system and should be rejected and that they should come back with a plan that would have lot sizes of at least 3 to 4 acres. I think to do otherwise is just going to contribute to the urban sprawl that is becoming Fayetteville. Sincerely, Vincent B. Runnels, M.D." We'll put this in the file packet of information that everybody gets. Johnson: Kim, do you have anything on this? Do you want to postpone further discussion of this until we have Engineering with us since many of these issues are Engineering? Forney: We did have Engineering here last time. Hopefully, we would get Engineering involved before we have a motion. I think we can address street connections. • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 8 Little: Mr. Beavers was ill yesterday and I know that Mr. Petrie has been at a seminar. Conklin: Mr. Petrie is still at a seminar. Little: Are we likely to have anyone from Engineering today? Can you find that out for us? Johnson: The reason for my suggestion that we might wait, I thought all of these connections are very much driven by Engineering. Little: They are driven by grade. Forney: The one thing that the new vicinity map allows me to see a little bit better is the southerly connection of Brookbury Crossing to Township. It's going to have to happen in a fairly narrow condition between a tight curve and the existing creek. I just want to get some assurance that there can, in fact, be a connection made there. • Little: Here is Township. It would probably come down. Forney: We probably would have visibility problems there. • Little: Dave, you're the engineer on all of those so could you advise us on that a little bit? Johnson: Is this part of Township built? Jorgensen: It's under construction now. Johnson: You know exactly where it will be. Jorgensen: Right. Of course, this map is 1 inch equals 2,000. The scale is small but in reality when you get out there and go around that curve, there is a long stretch between the creek and where it starts to curve in there that the visibility is not going to be a problem. The biggest problem is the fact that at this particular time, the people who own that property are not interested in that extension as you can imagine. It will be several years before that happens. The problem is overcoming the fact that the people don't want the street there. I think that might be taken care of over a period of time. Forney: If we can be assured that is a possible connection or if it's not a possible connection, that would lead me to wonder if we need a connection out of this subdivision to the • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 9 east. Johnson: And if you think that connection can't happen in the foreseeable future, then how does that affect your position on a connection here to the east? A much less reason to do it? Forney. I guess the question is whether this will be done anytime soon. It could be 20 years It could be 40 years So, I'm hard pressed to make a judgment about what kind of time frame we need. Johnson: My question is do you feel like a connection out of this property is more important to the east if Brookbury Crossing does get built in the future. Forney. I feel like an eastern connection is very important at Brookbury Crossing to the extent that if we are not able to connect to Township. If it is able to connect to Township in a reasonable time frame and in a safe way in conjunction with the curve and looks to me like grade associated with the stream bed. I would feel that we are not so hard pressed in need of that eastem connection because we would have access on Skillern and Township on the east side of the creek. I would hate to have that block of land developing further without two connections out. That is what I'm concerned about. Jorgensen: May I suggest that even if Engineering was here right now, they couldn't answer that question without -- Little: It is my understanding he is on a phone call and he is trying to get off and get up here. Jorgensen: What you might want to do is wait for their decision on this and let them report on it at Planning Commission stage. Little: I think the Planning Commission has to be able to look at it at Planning Commission stage what they are approving and if additional stuff is to be included then I think now is the time to get those so you can get them on the plat. Otherwise, we go to Planning Commission and you have to come back to Planning Commission. Jorgensen: X that suggestion, then. Johnson: What other comments? Little: Kim, would you go over the tree that's on Lot 10 for us? • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 10 Hesse: There is the tree that comes to the street and when they grade the street, it could affect it. It's a nice looking tree and they have agreed to build a retaining wall all the way around it. They have done a great job on saving a lot of the trees that are out there. Little: So you'll be looking for that retaining wall as the construction drawings are completed and as it's constructed. Forney. The other question I have is on Lot 30 through 27, the shape of the area will allow building area9 Jorgensen: Yes. It is there. Forney. What is that? Jorgensen: We are required to have a minimum of 6,000 square feet of building area on each lot if lots are affected by the 100 year flood plain. We put that on there as the visual so you could get an idea of what 6,000 square feet looks like. Forney: But on every one of those lots, you could build to the flood plain. Jorgensen. Yes. Forney: You have plenty of building area there. Little: In fact, some of those that steep are beside the road, it's going to be better to back it up a little bit more than likely. Forney. What is this range of acreages? Jorgensen: That is the range of the size of the lots. Forney: To the issue of density, they have 60 lots on 45 acres but there could be 220 lots in R-1. What is the smallest of your lots? Chapman: 4/10ths. Little: We might talk about what sprawl really is. Sprawl is large lots. It's the opposite of this. • Forney: These are not small lots. • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 11 Little: If they were 4 acre lots then that definitely would be sprawl. We would still be running the same amount of waterline to be repaired and the same number of garbage truck miles to go through. Jorgensen: How many lots can we put on R-1? Little: 4 per acre. Terminella• Almost 250. I'm sensitive to the issue of connectivity. Originally when we approached Dave to engineer this, we had one in and one out on Highway 265. We went to the expense of buying out a farm which basically encompassed Lot 1 through 5 which was a 4 acre tract from a lady in California. We paid substantially above market value to address the issue of multi access for subdivisions. We thought that we had the street to the south which was existing to service the school. That was a part of this original farm. Ward: My thoughts on connectivity for the street connecting to the north, I'm not sure that will do any good. It's connecting such a little bit of property. 2 acres at a maximum. If there's a better place to put connecting streets, that would be great. But, I'm not sure that does much either. I don't want to be in a situation like we have in Park Place or Brookbury Crossing or some of those where there is one way in and one way out and there is no connectivity right now. If those people like that and they may buy it because they like security and there are numerous reasons why they are there. Connectivity because it sounds good going to the north, I'm not sure we gain anything from that. Chapman: You're looking here at Ms. Tu's property from Crossover to the creek and she has 6 acres. Immediately north of Ms. Tu, is Lake Hills Baptist Church and that is 2 or 3 acres. These other places are residences other than the dance studio and whatever is next to it. I think along with what John was saying earlier, if there is only going to be 2 units and that is Ms. Tu's plan -- she is concerned that 20 to 30 years in the future, if she wants to develop -- from the last meeting she was lead to believe that she would not be able to develop if she only had this one way in and out. She thought you would not let her develop if there was no other way in or out. Johnson: What is the distance between your intersection with Crossover at Ferguson Avenue? What is the distance between Ferguson Avenue to the north to whatever that other east west streets? Little: That's Old Wire. It's 6,000 feet. Johnson: You could say 2/5th of a mile, give or take. I'm not very persuaded by arguments of what is on the land now. That is always a temptation to think that we know what the adjacent • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 12 land owners are going to do and that the dance studio will be there in perpetuity. Actually, we don't know what these folks will do in the future. The connectivity issues we have to deal with as if all the existing land could be developed to the maximum, I think, because it's so close in. The fact that we don't know whether that will happen in 2010 or 2090. We are not in the business of shutting connectivity doors. Chapman: We also need to look at what the possible zonings might be and when you get up closer to that intersection, this is more of a commercial type than residential and I don't know if you would want to connect the commercial to the residential. Little: We have already addressed that. Chapman: We do know that for at least a minimum of 10 years, there are going to be 2 new houses built on Ms. Tu's property. That's all. Maybe they might develop it in 30 years. I have to guess whether or not they are going to. Johnson: What is the zoning around the Old Wire and Crossover Road intersection? Little: I believe it's A-1 at most. It is Old Wire on 1 side and Skillern on the other. We have had a rezoning for C-1 and it was rejected; for C-2 it was rejected; for R -O it was rejected; and, for R-2 it was rejected. So, it's going to be R-1 more than likely. Terminella: The topography of this ground that lies north as you can tell by the lines on the map it is severe at best. As far as the portion of the ground that would be able to be developed out of the flood plain is minimal out of what Ms. Tu owns. Maybe 60% of her property would even be useable. MOTION Ms. Johnson made a motion to postpone further discussion of this project until such time in the meeting when the Engineering staff is present so we can direct those engineering questions to them. Further Discussion Johnson. The primary issue we are talking about now is the issue of connectivity. We wanted to have Engineering and Traffic with us The applicant does not want to do the connection that he has shown to the north. We have been discussing potential connection to the east and really haven't yet discussed additional connection other than the one we have to the west. In the vicinity map, we have now been given the additional platted streets in 2 or 3 • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 13 subdivisions over to the east and northeast of this preliminary plat. We've talked about whether or not Brookbury Crossing in Brookbury Place, if there is any reason that we know of now that the street would never be extended south to Township. That's one thing we've looked at. We've also concerned ourselves with the wisdom and the possibility of some sort of connection out of this subdivision over to the east which means it would have to cross the tributary of Mud Creek. Now, we've had discussion as to whether the connection on the north end of this property is needed and sensible and whether there are any engineering problems with it. We understand that the one question that we asked was what the distance was between Ferguson Avenue which matches up with their connection with Skillern to the north We're told that is about 2,000 feet. Beavers: The extension of Brookbury to the south has no physical reason that can't occur but that will be solely dependent upon those property owners. Johnson: No physical barriers particularly. Beavers: Connecting to the east over the creek if required would be solely at the developer's expense and I don't know that is required because of the extension of Township which is now under construction. Township will act as the main street through there. I cannot recommend from the engineering perspective but there may be planning issues I am not aware of but I do not see the connection across Mud Creek being required. Johnson: Do you have any engineering considerations for us on this connection to the north that is drawn but that the applicant is really opposing. Lee has said that he is not persuaded that is needed either. Any engineering considerations for that or is that just connectivity considerations? Beavers: I'm not familiar enough with that property to say there are any barriers that you could or couldn't. I think that's a connectivity issue. I've heard that the topography falls off to the point that you could not build a street very far back into there. Dave could answer that question better than I could. Jorgensen: That's true By looking at the vicinity map, you can see the creeks where they diverge the two tributaries to go to Mud Creek converge right there at the northwest corner of Brookbury and you can imagine, it would be difficult to extend a street to the north to Old Wire and Skillern. The other things that could happen would be to loop back out to Highway 265 some how. Johnson: It's still the same issue. Do we feel like for a 2/5th of a mile stretch that the • property that could develop in the future will need a connection to this property. Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 14 Little: For planning considerations, for the 6 acres there and I do know that their plans are for 2 houses right now or that is what we have been told. That equals 6 acres. There are another 4 acres and it has 5 on it. There would be that many. We could eliminate possibly, depending on what our traffic situation is on Highway 265, we could eliminate another cut to 265 if there were only a few homes, they could just come out this way and not interrupt the traffic flow on a larger highway. That is one thing. The other thing is there is less land to the north. Johnson: You were implying that without this connection, the next development is probably looking at two connections to Highway 265. Little: Looking at lease at one and more than likely two. Johnson: Whereas, if we have this then they would just be looking at this as one of those connections that ultimately would get them to 265 and one other intersection with the main highway. Little: Right. Then if you are going to compare areas and amounts, there is less to the north than there is to the east. The connection to the east is much more difficult but if a connection was made to the east then there would be another way for these people to get to 265 as opposed to having to go down to Township. There is no specific plan for there. If in the future, one is needed, there could be a street through there. Then we also talked about one to the south of this area which is to the north of Dr. Runnel's property. Dr. Runnel's owns about 10 acres which could also develop and that would be another way out for his subdivision as opposed to have on exit to Township. Those are relatively long term considerations. None of those are tomorrow type considerations. Forney. I'm not sure what we could ask of this developer for that eastern connection. I certainly makes no sense to build half a bridge. Little: I disagree that it would have to be 100% at the developer's expense. We haven't done that in the past. We have Brook Haven where we stubbed out and we took money for Just the portions he didn't build and we didn't require any contribution for the bridge. In commercial subdivision, we're contributing to the bridge so I think it is not necessarily a given that it would have to be at this developer's expense. In fact, that is your decision. Beavers: That is the City Council's decision. Little: Whether it is at developer's expense is the Planning Commission decision. • Forney: We're getting a connection about a mile apart maybe a little less than a mile from • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 15 Township to Skillern. That is the spacing between connections across Mud Creek. If that is adequate? Do we need one within a half mile of another? The pattern that we are setting up there are relatively large lots They could be larger. I'm not sure we need that connection across that creek. Given the reality that we could get it, we're going to have to spend money to get that thing built it sounds like. Little: road. That is not exact true This developer down here is building Easton and the entire Forney. That is a terrific thing and I'm very pleased about that. Obviously that on one level makes this less pressing. Little: It made this possible. Jorgensen: One thing that came out in the last meeting that Planning brought up is the fact that the prevailing travel patterns are in a north south direction because it is obviously that the school is to the south and you have the people in Brookbury wanting to travel to the south and so it's a north south corridor that people will want to travel. I'm not saying they don't want to travel east west but people are going to and from the school. Johnson: You may also be aware that the people up there don't have much opportunity to travel east west. There are some other things that makes that difficult to go through unless you go to the two major highways. Forney: If you're trying to go west of 265, you're going to end up on Township or Old Wire which is Skillern or Township. I'm not convinced that we need that connection across the creek. The north south connections, however, I am convienced that we at least need the north and I'm not sure we don't need one at the south. I understand there are some grade problems with both directions. If we don't make those connections, we're saying we're going to pick up the garbage for the 2 or 3 or 5 lots to the north and go out to 265 and turn, then go 200 feet and make another turn. That to me is a bad idea. People tell me that 265 is a heavily traveled road and will be more so in the future. It will force people, through bad planning decisions, to go back out there for a short distance and this to me seems short sighted. Little: There is a connection to Ferguson. There is a loop street and this is the main street that goes to Township and comes out to 265. When Brookbury is extended it will come down and this is the only other thing that would make much sense to the east unless you want to utilize the low water crossings down there. Johnson: You haven't shown the connection to the north. • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 16 Little: Right. I didn't show the connection to the north. Forney: We have no belief that we can connect further to the east at all. Is that right? Little: Not through this subdivision. We don't have a stub there. Forney: Township is the only thing we can get through over there. So that property line condition between Easton and Savannah -- Little: I really thought we got a connection there but obviously we didn't. If we had gotten that connection there we could have access with this project but we missed that. Jorgensen: No. We've got the capability of going to the east. Forney. This connection is only going to serve a small amount of territory. Which to me is a limited amount of territory for a lot of badge. Johnson: My sense is that there is not a new subdivision really to think seriously about the connection to the east for all the reasons that we have discussed. We can put that to rest unless anybody wants to spend more time on it. Is there any more discussion on giving up the drawn connection to the north? Forney: I'm wondering whether we don't want to make a connection between 12 and 13 to the south. I understand there is a grade issue. I see about 16 feet of change in grade over about 160 feet of property. So, I would like for Mr. Beavers to give us some sense whether that's acceptably steep. Beavers: No. Physically you could put the street through there. Chapman: At the last meeting, we discussed that all the Runnel's property and all the other houses put together would have plenty of ins and outs if somebody put that property together without another street from ours. Johnson: If that property is developed and we don't yet know what connections would exist at all. Ward: The only thing I don't want to get involved in is taking property and giving stub outs that cost a lot of money, that are there forever and are not connected. That doesn't make sense. • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 17 Little: This is the extra piece that they got to add to their subdivision so they had access to Township. This is Runnels and then there are three other tracts that do already have frontage to Crossover. Johnson: Tell me again how much total property we are dealing with Little: This is about 10. Those are about 2 each, so, 18 acres. Ward: There are houses all through there already. Little: This one has a house and the other two don't, but I'm sure about that. Terminella: Jerry Jones and Mr. Murphy live there. Vincent lives on the larger tract. Mr. Jones owns the property to the north. Then there is the Brown's property and they own two small rental properties in that area That triangular shaped is the Ferguson's which is unusable. Little: So in terms of developing vacant land that is left to be developed, there is Ms. • Tu's 6 acres plus 2 acres from the church making 8 acres to the north. And there is 10 to the south. • Ward: To the north I see Mud Creek and it's not going to be developed. Forney: I don't see an enormous problem with having a connection to Township and then their own connection out here but, of course, if you're with sanitation -- Little: They don't have a way to get there necessarily. You presume he will go through one of those or this one. Forney. In the best case scenario, you could get a connection there but that means if you are with sanitation, you pull out on this street, you go up on 265 and you make a right back into that subdivision when we could have done it without that. In theory, this could be 40 homes. Little: We couldn't say no. Johnson- On the 10 acres. Forney. That's not to say they would get one of these other properties. Johnson: Runnels doesn't touch this subdivision? • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 18 Little: He does right here. Forney: To the north there are how many acres of land? Little: There is 6 in one ownership and 2 in another. This begins the R -O zoned property which is Williams Dance and Gymnastics. Forney. So that is 8 acres which could potentially be 30 lots. Chapman: We know what will happen immediately. We don't know what will happen 30 or 40 years from now. Johnson: Is either Commissioner going to try and persuade us to close the connection to the north? Ward: The only thing I would say if there is a better connection somewhere else to the south then I would give up the north one. But if there is not, then we want connectivity. There is no doubt about that. It's just I don't want connectivity that is not going to be connected to anything. It will just be there forever and ever at a lot of cost and taking of land for no reason. Johnson: Am I correct to read between the lines that you probably would favor either the existing connection to the north or a new connection to the south. But, you probably could not favor both. Ward: That's right. Forney: I'm not yet convinced that giving a connection to both the north and the south wouldn't be a good idea. I'm wondering if there might be some sense in just getting the easement and not doing the actual paving because I do think Lee is right. We aren't going to see this done soon and it looks a little strange to have a little piece of pavement like that. That would then burden the developer to the north or south to make that connection. At least we made it possible for them to do that. Ward: I can see doing that. I just don't think we ought to be taking the land and it never being used. That doesn't make sense. That's not good business. Little: The only thing it does and the example is Brookbury because it looks like a cul de sac, they think it is never going to be extended and we heard on Amber the realtors told them it would never be extended. So when it came time to use the right of way that had been granted to the City, there was a major neighborhood upheaval related to that. Perry has helped us out. He • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 19 is in the process of putting out signs at the end of streets that have right of way that say this is future street right of way. Then they know that and there are no mistakes about that. Ward: I don't think it's a bad idea to label it on the maps as well. Little: Another one that we had that wasn't paved was Megan Drive when we did Horseshoe. Those people really thought it was their property. Chapman: I wouldn't object too much if we just had the north exit out of there and it was an easement rather than a road. Johnson: If we just required the easements and we required no construction, then, John, I think, said that if the property to the north developed, then that developer would pay this cost? Little: Yes. Johnson: So that developer would pay the cost on his property for building this part of the street. Little: It becomes City property at that point. Ward: But the main thing it does is it doesn't pass something forever. We don't want to get into the situation we've had at Brookbury Crossing or Park Place where we have one way in and one way out. A lot of people like that but in this subdivision we have two distinct ways in and two ways out. I think we can go totally overboard. Johnson: I like the thought of having both the easements to allow for potential connections to the north and to the south. It looks like a way to have our cake and eat it, too. We save the developer the cost of building this little street that is one lot long on the north end and we've protected ourselves for the future if we have development to the south so we need this. It looks to me like the City comes out ahead and the developer may well save some money. Now, he has to do some work down here at 12 and 13 but that may affect 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 and the way they are configured. But that really seems like a win win situation to me for the City. Now what problems other than the developer doesn't want to give the two easements. What other problems are there with that? Little: Nothing I'm aware of. Terminella: Is there not a grade issue to the south of there due to the tremendous amount of fall in that area? • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 20 Jorgensen: It makes it more difficult to do. As Jim said, there are other places that are worse. We may have to request a waiver for the intersection grade but it's a problem in dedicating a right of way for future use in that that causes your houses to have to be built and you have to abide by setbacks as if the street was actually going to be constructed. So you have a house that is really kind of a corner lot that you have to plan for. I was dust thinking about the problem that poses for future construction and potential buyers are going to be posed with the problem of building a house on a corner lot that might be not really a corner lot for 10 to 15 years. How do you situate your house? We've dealt with that in the past. That has happened a lot in the City in the past. Johnson: Do you prefer to have that problem at two spots to the north and south or do you prefer to build the street to the north? Jorgensen: My preference would be as the plat is presented before you. Right here what we're looking at. I know the developer may not agree with me but I think that I like this layout better than I would if there was an easement or right of way dedicated through lot 12 and 13 and a right of way dedicated to the north without the street being built in either situation. I have to • agree that there is merit to having the right of way north and south that gives you the capability of making that connection. I'm dust saying it is a little bit of a draw back in the fact that if you don't build that street, you have somebody that has to build a house on a corner lot that may not be a corner lot for 10 years I have to defer to the developer. • Chapmen: I have to prefer the easement. Jorgensen: What they are talking about is two easements An easement to the north and an easement to the south and a rearrangement of lots. Chapmen: You're trying to get them to make me pave it. We're trying to do something that may or may not happen for 20 or 30 years down the road or never. I have to get back to the money part of it but there is aesthetics involved in the situation, too. It's not totally money, but it is. Forney: That's why I prefer the easement. Chapmen: That's why I prefer the easement to the road. Jorgensen: He prefers the easement and that's fine with me. Chapman: I prefer one easement to the north and nothing to the south referring to the last comments made two weeks about ago but if we have changed our minds on that. • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 21 Forney: We're all in the business of trying to predict an uncertain future. I don't see how we can get away from that one. Johnson: The idea that we're looking 20 years in the future, we not looking 20 years in the future, we're looking as far in the future of the existence of the City of Fayetteville and as it has streets because it will never be easer to condemn houses and destroy houses. We don't have the luxury of thinking 20 years We must think 100 years Little: I have a question for engineering. We've heard about the problems it would cause for the home owner to have to deal with a right of way. I would be interested in hearing the problems that the City would deal with in trying to put the street in particularly in an area where there is a grade and the homes are already there. Johnson: You mean on either side. Little: How does that work and how does that happen? Beavers: With retaining walls usually. Little: So the cost has gone up by what factor? Beavers: 10% is a guess. Retaining walls would probably add $10,000 which would be more than 10%. Johnson: At each location? Beavers: If there were any cuts. If there were fill, we would probably grade it out into people's yards but if we cut, we would have to have a retaining wall. Little: that? If you graded into people's yards, you have to have a construction easement to do Beavers: Yes. You have to purchase an easement to reshape their yard. Ward: Let's say for instance, to the south if that area did develop and there really wasn't a need for a connection there, the owners of the homes could come back and petition to vacate that road right of way or easement or whatever it's going to be called? We do that quite often, too. Johnson: When the future gets here and it's apparent what we should do, then we can • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 22 vacate at that time. I certainly favor the idea of the two easements neither of which is built and that the right of way of the easement is dedicated and we would require a warranty deed. That make sense to me. MOTION Mr. Forney made a motion to forward this project to the full Commission with the plat revised to show those two easements without pavement on either one, also the City staff needs to confirm with the State Highway Department on what, if anything, will be required on Highway 265 and subject to applicable staff recommendations. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson concurred. • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 23 LSD99-3: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT ALLIED STORAGE, pp601 This items was submitted by Kurt Jones of Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of Allied Storage for property located at 15th Street across from Walker Park. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial, Light Industrial, and contains approximately 14.98 acres. Kurt Jones was present on behalf of the applicant. Conditions to Address/Discuss 1. Screening requirements for the original development need to be addressed. 2. All new utilities shall be located underground. 3. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. • 4. Location of new fire hydrant per Fire Chief's request. 5. Cooperation with Water & Sewer Maintenance Division to provide necessary access to manholes. 6. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lot(s), and tree preservations. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 7. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: • Little: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City. All improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. We only have two main areas that we feel like need to be addressed on this • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 24 particular item. The first of those is the screening along 15th Street. This is only an addition to an existing storage area but the screening that is up along 15th was an issue at the first mini storage hearing. It has not quite developed to the point that it needs to be. We want to call your attention to §160.118 or §166.19. It's attached as the third page in the report. It says: "All storage units and storage yards for mini storage created under Use Unit 21 shall be required to be screened by view obscuring vegetation when the storage yards or the storage units have common property lines with any residential zone and when they have frontage on any public street." We are still needing that screening, so we are asking for that as a condition of this approval. The second condition is that all new utilities shall be located underground. We don't have a problem with that, do we? Jones: No. They are not proposing any above ground utilities. Little: If you choose to go out and look at this one, we have recently dealt with an • equipment cabinet for a cellular phone company which was not through large scale development. It is installed and it has not received it's screening. We have required screening on it as well. • Forney: That is on this property? Warrick: It's part of this property and it's just mini storage alone. Johnson: Looking at this drawing, I am having difficulty telling the boundary of the new area. Jones: There is a drive behind the buildings that comes back in this area but what we are proposing is just a drive that would connect right after this center drive that goes between the existing buildings. Johnson: On the west. You talked about a drive? Jones: There is an existing drive that comes through to the back of this parking area Basically, from the fence back is the only new area Johnson: Regarding screening, this is totally off the subject area so how can we require it now? Little: Because we required it as a condition of the first. They did install. But, when we • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 25 look at it, it is not to the amount that it needs to be so it doesn't seem reasonable to allow expansion without correction. Jones: The owner worked with the City and the Planning Commission to some extent and there was a lot of head butting on this screening originally. They felt like they had worked it out with the City. They are reluctant to screen the facility completely for security reasons. I understand that the ordinance requires it but they do ask that you consider taking that in to consideration. They are concerned about security and they lined their buildings up this way so that there would be a view down the buildings from the street to discourage people from breaking into the storage units. That is one of the reasons they have in fighting the screening issue. Johnson: Our ordinance appears to me that we are pretty well limited in what kind of options we have. Not only does it require screening but it requires one particular kind of screening and that is vegetative. Is there anything in the ordinance about screening that implies there needs to be some visibility through the screening? Little: Not that I am aware of. In one place we talk about and try to define view • obscuring a little bit and we say that it shouldn't have openings great than 1 foot. I do remember when this one was coming through, we had a picture of the storage yard and it was in Little Rock and it had all these pine trees in front of it. I don't know if we could find that picture again. • Jones: I don't remember that. You may have discussed it with the owner at some time. I didn't get too involved in his deals with the screening. He worked with the landscape administrator at that time. He wrote to the City. Little: I'm not sure we had a Landscape Administrator at that time. Jones: Beth was involved. Little: I really don't remember her being involved in the very front end. Jones: This is actually, the third phase. This is the third large scale we have brought through. Little: You are right. Jones: That was when all of this came to a head was the second time around. I agree that it is an ordinance requirement. The owner is concerned about security. Little: What is the amount there currently? • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 26 Jones: There are some trees that are spaced maybe every 6 feet. I don't know to be honest with you, Alen. He had Country Heritage come and do a landscape plan and he ran that by Beth and there were some shrubs in between the trees. Little: The shrubs are about 4 feet apart and they are pretty small. There are some trees and I would say they are 20 to 25 feet apart. They are pretty far apart. Forney: When was the original large scale done that required the view obscuring screen? Jones: '94, I believe. Johnson: Wasn't the ordinance in affect? Little: We don't remember any changes to it, so I would think so. Jones: The ordinance did require view obscuring screening and my understanding was it was due to the fact that there was residentially zoned property across the street from this. Little: That's one of the things. It says: 6 ...and when they have frontage on any public street. I think that is what is triggering this. Jones: I just remember from that first meeting that what the concern was and what really seemed to trigger it was that the part across the street was actually zoned R-2. Little: That may have been as far as we got. This has been in existence since 1991 according to the ordinance. Johnson: It seems to me our threshold question for Subdivision is are we going to agree with staff's recommendation that we are to deal with screening here or are we going to disagree with that recommendation and say that we are not going to deal with that. That is what I would like for us to first look at. Forney: I have no interest in disagreeing with the ordinances. It seems crazy to start trying to interpret them on the fly. The other thing that I find relevant is that I understand how it makes the maintenance and security of this project easier for the owner to let someone do it along the right of way. That saves you money. That is putting a burden on the City and the public to make your life easier. There are video cameras, there are all kinds of way to secure the facility • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 27 adequately. If it was impossible to do with our ordinances, that would be one thing. It's simply a matter of where the burden lies. Ward: I think it sounds like they did the very minimum when they got approved by trying to keep the visibility high. My feeling is that for us to approve the addition, we need to get more screening put up to basically obscure the mini storage buildings. Johnson: I agree. This is not the first time we have heard complaints from people in the storage business that say they can never secure the place because of your ordinance. It's not our ordinance. It is the City's ordinance. We don't pass ordinances. We are Subdivision. We are Planning Commission. This isn't the first project, Kurt, that you've been involved in. Jones: It's not. Johnson: If changes are needed in the ordinance, the ordinances are changed all the time. You might want to be on notice and if you need to put your clients on notice and the people in the storage business can be on notice that if they find this ordinance which is §166.10 subparagraph C(6), if that is objectionable, the way to change the ordinance is not to try to get Planning Commission not to go along with the ordinance. We have to deal with the screening and I feel like it needs to be view obscuring as the ordinance says. Jones: Is there any provision in that ordinance for a variance to be granted by the Planning Commission. Little: This is zoning. No. Planning Commission can grant variances to Subdivisions but not Zonings. Ward: We've gone through this with the towing services and wrecker services. They feel they need to be able to look in and see that all those cars are secure. Jones: argument. If the Planning Commission can't make the decision, then I don't see any Johnson: I don't see any way to get you out of it This is one of those nice ordinances that is pretty easy to understand. How do we determine how much additional screening? Kim? Hesse: The one thing I think about that ordinance is that it is a little bit difficult to get any type of plant to grow to view obscuring height within 2 years without putting in full grown, large trees such as pine trees or cedar trees. We can certainly work with them. • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 28 Jones: Would that be something that the owner just needs to get with Kim9 Warrick: We can just add a condition that the Landscape Administrator will approve the final which will provide for the screening? Johnson: My only thought about that is this is corrected. It's one thing to say it must be this in 2 years Kim feels that is quick. The only way to look at it is they've had 4 years and they still haven't complied. It seems to be the idea of giving them additional lea way is not a good one. Hesse: The ordinance is difficult unless you're using full size plants. I'm not saying you shouldn't require them to do that. Johnson: I'm saying that if this was a brand new project and they were going in and having a bit more flexibility on your part I think would be appropriate. Instead, this is correcting what hasn't been done for 4 years and I think that they don't get very much lea way. Jones: When I first discussed this project with the owners and I talked to Planning, they alerted me to the screening issue and I relayed that information back to the owner. They were a little bit surprised. They thought they had met all the requirements. They had worked with the City and they had worked with the Landscape Administrator at that time and even a former Planning Commissioner that was serving at that time. They really thought they were in compliance. It was more a misunderstanding on their part of the ordinance. They haven't been intentionally violating the ordinance. I'm sure they will do whatever is required at this time. Johnson: What you're saying is we have to have the Landscape Administrator do these things? Forney: We have to. There is no way that I can come up with the right planning to make this happen. Little: Is it possible for us to have a plan that the Landscape Administrator has agreed to that the Commission could look at? Forney: That would be good for me. It does seem that the materials they are using are not working. We have the owners that think they are in compliance and we don't think they are in compliance. I guess would it make sense to hold this or move it forward to Planning Commission with the condition that the applicant and Landscape Administrator come up with an acceptable plan which will meet the intention of the ordinance? • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 29 Little: I think the best way to get rid of misunderstandings, is to see what you are expecting. That is the only reason I recommend a plan. I want to leave it up to Kim. If she feels like a plan would be helpful then you would know what has been agreed to. Forney. That is in the ordinance to be met which is "view obscuring in 2 years." Johnson: I agree. I feel that we are safer on this one where we feel like for whatever reasons, we don't feel like we have the screening in place now I think because of that it is a good idea that it come to the full Commission and at that time, we do have the screening plan specified in coordination with the Landscape Administrator. Then we can see the specific planting and it will be view obscuring in 2 years Jones: I understand that prior to the Planning Commission meeting we need to have some kind of planting specification or plan that Kim has agreed to and present that at the Planning Commission meeting. Johnson: We need to have the species of plant and probably the size and I guess see the locations or should we not? Little: You should see the locations. Ward: That's pretty detailed. Forney: That way we will have that on file and in the future if there is some question, we know what was done and if that plan doesn't work then at least we're learning about what does and doesn't work. Johnson: Are there any problems with the utilities going underground? Jones: No. Johnson: Are you going in with underground utilities? Jones: There will just be services to the building. I think they have electricity and it will be all underground and that will be their only utility for the buildings. They won't have any gas or tv or telephone. MOTION Mr. Forney made a motion that this project go forward to the Planning Commission where it will • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 30 be presented with a detailed landscaping plan agreed to by the applicant and Landscape Administrator to address full view obscuring screening. Mr. Ward seconded the motion Ms. Johnson concurred. Further Discussion Jones: Can we have that plan by agenda session? Warrick: Thursday is agenda session and we're off on Monday. Jones: We're working Monday but I'm not going to be doing the landscape plan. Little: If you will have it to us Thursday morning. • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 31 LSD 99-4: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT WEDINGTON PLACE, pp401 This item was submitted by Bruce Adams for property located on lot 4 of the Wedington Place addition. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains approximately 7.733 acres. Issues to Address/Discuss 1. A final plat for the Wedington Place subdivision must be processed and filed prior to the issuance of any permits for this development. 2. The applicant has request three variances as stated on the plat: a. Allow a parking ratio of 0.78 spaces per bedroom; 1 space per bedroom is the requirement. Staff can only support this reduction in parking if the project develops as a senior housing complex. b. Allow reduced rear yard setback of 15 feet; the requirement is 25 feet in this zoning district. This request must be heard by the Board of Adjustments as it concerns bulk and area requirements. Staff supports this variance. c. Allow a project identification sign on each lot with a maximum size of 4 feet x 8 feet. This request must be considered by the Board of Sign Appeals as the request exceeds the allowable size of signage for this zoning district. 3. Assessment of $67 per unit for improvements to the sewer lift station to the Hamstring Basin (144 units @ $67 = $9,648.00) 4. Discussion of the City's sewer capacity situation in regard to additional residential units. 5. The private drive through this development needs to be named for addressing purposes - contact Jim Johnson for approval of a street name. 6. All necessary improvements for the entire development (both lots) will be required to be installed with the first phase. 7. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 32 8. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications, and calculation for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, 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. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 9. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $300 per unit (144 units @ $300 = $43,200.) 10. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards. The sidewalks for the public streets that provide frontage for these lots are required as a part of the Wedington Place subdivision. 11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits. b. Separate easement plat for this project. c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 12. Engineering will work with the applicant further on drainage. The maintenance of the drainage is to be private. 13. Cross access may be approximately and guaranteed until the development to the south occurs. Robert Brown and Bruce Adams were present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends forwarding this project to the full Planning Commission for consideration and for determination of the requested parking variance. Little: We have six issues This is on that particular piece of land that is west of the bypass and north of Wedington and we've seen it as a plat several times. The streets are being built and so the final plat for Wedington Place hasn't been processed and hasn't been filed yet. We need that final plat in order to create this lot. There is another way to do it with a lot split but • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 33 the easiest way to do it and the least paperwork in the future is to go ahead and have that final plat. We would like to talk about the progress of the final plat on the rest of the subdivision. What we have is a large scale on a lot that hasn't been created yet. The applicant has requested 3 variances. They want to have less parking that what is required. The want a ratio of .78 spaces per bedroom and 1 space per bedroom is the requirement. We would like to be assured we can support the request but we would like to be assured that the project is for senior housing. We did support a variance in the past. The number of units has increased from the last submittal. We are at 144 units and there were 132 last time. They also want to ask for a reduced rear yard setback of 15 feet and the requirement is 25 feet in this zone. This has to go to the Board of Adjustments. That is not a decision you would make. We wanted to make you aware that your approval isn't going to preclude the building depending on the action of that board. The third one is they would like to allow project identification sign on each lot with a maximum size of 4 x 8. So, that is 32 square feet and that request would have to do to the Board of Sign Appeals. We have an assessment needed for $67 per unit for improvement to the Hamstring Basin and that is a total of $9,648. Forney: That is for drainage improvements? Little: No. That is for sewer. Beavers: Everything in the basin, basically, flows through a lift station and we are currently increasing the capacity of that. We have a contract with a determined amount of over $100,000. All developers have been charged that fee. Little: We also need to talk about whether there is sewer capacity for the additional 144 units. This is supposed to be phased. I believe phase one is the phase that is proposed to be built first so we would be looking at 72 units presently and they are going to ask approval for the additional 72 units but they may not build those within the year. They understand they would have to come back if they do not build them within the year. We do need a name for the private drive which is connecting 2 public streets that are within this development and that will have to be addressed to Jim Johnson. We are needing assurance regarding the fire plan improvements. The street will have to be constructed all the way through in order for us to recommend approval of phase one. We did ask them to provide stub outs to the south and to the west because there are probably 20 or more acres to the south. Most of that is zoned C-2. In the future, we hope to have things like grocery stores and service stations in there and this would provide for restaurants. This would provide a way for the residents of this develop to go to those facilities without having to get out onto the streets. Beavers: We would like to work with the developer and engineer on the drainage. The drainage report they sent in was very good. We still have questions on the detention pond that • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 34 we want to work out prior to the final construction. Basically, our manual which was adopted by ordinance says that the limit in ponding will be 20 feet horizontally from any of the building and the ponding is closer that 20 feet here so they need to make some slight adjustments in the detention pond. The utility easement and pond are in conflict and these can be worked out at the construction plans if DCI is willing to do that. Brown: Are you referring to the right in the middle? Beavers: Yes. Brown: I can take the utility off. Nobody actually asked for an easement. I, just thought it might be convenient and really wouldn't be a big issue. Beavers: If the other utilities want to run their lines through the detention pond that is fine. We don't want the city's utilities in there. Brown: We didn't have any needs for water or sewer. I don't think anybody asked for one. Beavers: Also, since this is a private development, the maintenance of the drainage will also be private and we need to discuss the easement plat or the final plat having private drainage easement to be shown. Shultz: Do we charge parks fees for a lot split? Little: No. Only per unit. The reason we charge for lot splits is normally that it creates one single family home and they get charged for that. Those fees are due at final plat or when they pull their building permit. When they pull their phase one building permit for 72 units, we'll collect for 72 units at that time. Johnson: Go over for me again in a nutshell the fact that they first are going to only build 72 of the 144 units. Is that right? Little: I might let Bruce talk to you about that. Bruce Adams is the developer and I believe we wants the option to construct them in phases. Adams: One of the driving factors there is the subject property is currently under review by Arkansas Development Allocation for tax credit assistance and there are some economic barriers that they are limited to on allocation of tax credits and that has driven the request to do this in two phases. They have just adopted the build in full rule that is established by RDA for • • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 35 limitation on the number of units they are supporting so when we made the application they required us to break this project into two phases Build and construct, then lease them, and then proceed into the second phase once we have made a determination of the demands for the units. Little: Do they have this rule state wide or is this regional? Adams: This is a brand new rule which was adopted state wide Little: If the second phase was not begun within one year, we will see this again. Adams: We have options other than the 90% tax credit pool for the finance and equity structure here that if we need to make a change it could be made within the next six months. So it could be under construction within this year. Ward: Who qualifies to live in these units? Adams: This is senior qualified. They must be 62 and older Under HUD is it 55 and older. We would be restricted to 62 and order and we have a rent restriction agreement that ties in with Sec. 42 and HUD limitations on rents based on medium income level. There is an ongoing rent restriction agreement that has a 15 year compliance period which we agree to extend with the consideration of the tax credit application. Ward: Is this one story or two story? Adams: Two story with elevator service. Forney: What other assurance do we need other than this is senior housing and how do we get that assurance. Little: It is a little bit of a problem for us. We are willing to work with it. On the senior housing issue, the first phase we are relatively sure that it is going to be senior housing. On the second phase, when it comes to the building permit, we would Just have to required documentation on however it is being financed and whatever the requirements of that it. If it is not senior housing then we don't support the .78 parking space per unit and so it would have to be revised and that would necessarily bring it back to you. Adams: That senior restriction will be in the rent restriction agreement prior to pulling a building permit. We will have a recorded document. Public Discussion • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 36 None Further Discussion Ward: What is the status of the streets? Little: Colorado is pretty much finished. Brown: Steamboat is done. The sidewalks are not in and that is something I wanted to change from what I told you last time. I told you I was thinking Clary Company was going to build them and I asked them that and they tell me that they will probably bond for them. Warrick: They have that option. Brown: Obviously that means these have to get built for this portion of this project which is not a problem. Otherwise, Colorado is getting the base set up right now. We have had a little problem and it would have already been paid if we could have gotten everything dried up and set up. They are moving that way. Clary is anxious to get it done so we ought to be able to get our final inspections. We have sent crews up and done the vast majority of as built location from curbs and utilities and drainage and stuff like that. So, we are gearing up. Little: All of that sounds fine. We will accept bonding for the sidewalk. Then behind that how much longer for the final plat? Adams: As soon as we get acceptance and the as builts done. Ward: What about the stub outs to the south? Adams: Those were requested one at each end of the central drive. Those were requested at the technical review meeting. Ward: Those are 24 feet? Little: 24 feet is correct. Forney. Sidewalks seem to be a problem. Adams: There will be other sidewalks. Those will have full access. Brown: There will be additional walkways. • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 37 Adams: We weren't sure exactly how we were going to get that all arranged. There is still a little bit of internal adjustments being made on room layout and where access points will be. There will be another doorway down in the corner where the handicap spaces are. We're not going to make them go to the far end. Brown: The elevator lobby is in that area so there will be access right adjacent to and leading from the handicap spaces. Adams: I didn't have a label there simply because we didn't know exactly where it was going to be just yet. Little: Chuck will not generally comment on the internal sidewalks but if he is asked he will come out and give advice on that. Adams: We did provide a connection all the way across the site on the north side of the drive. This runs in varying widths depending on where you're out because around in front of the building and where we have the van parking area, we have provided wider walks so there is more room for loading and unloading. Forney: I was wondering about the stub out for driving cross access with the elderly population here. I would like to see a pedestrian access to the commercial development to the south. Adams: Sure. Right down the sidewalks. Forney: We don't have much control over what will happen to the south. I just want to make sure we have the best possible connections for the population beyond just cars. Little: I almost think that the stub outs are a little bit too close to the side street. This one could be moved indust to where it is opposite the vans plus there is already going to be a curb cut in the sidewalk there and they could get across there fairly easy. Adams: Possibly there could no parking or driving on the side in some cases where you know you will always have parking up front. I thought it would be a safer place to be sure they would use it. Brown: Could we reserve a place until we actually see what is going to happen with that parcel on the second phase? Little: You can bond it. • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 38 Warrick: You can guarantee that. Forney: We will able to follow up on that? Warrick: Yes. Brown: How about I dash that in with a note stating the approximate location. Little: That's fine. I would like something on there to indicate that we have cross access just in case the project sells. Brown: That way it's on your plan and there's something to support it. Forney: The setback on that property line, we have no say in what so ever? We shouldn't make a recommendation whether it's good or bad? Little: It is a two story building and the area to the north of it is all R1.5 and most of • them are single story structures. • Brown: The 15 feet is between the two buildings. The reduced area is actually our internal line. Little: We recommend it. It's only affecting them at all because they choose to draw a lot line there. If they didn't have a lot line it wouldn't be a question. Warrick: This is not their frontage. That is a private drive. Their frontage is on Steamboat and Colorado. Little: That makes this the back. Adams: We had to create that for the recording of the financing documents. Brown: On the rear with the building heights, your requirement would be 23 feet setback plus additional height to the ridge line and I think we have about 27. Ward: Why do they have to go to the Board of Adjustments? Little: supports it. Because they created a lot line, it's not meeting a rear setback but the staff • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 39 Brown: The sign. Little: The sign which is also the Board of Sign Appeals which is the same group as the Board of Adjustments is greater than what is normally allowed but there are two public streets there. Warrick: If you want to be on the next agenda the 16th is the deadline. MOTION Mr. Forney made a motion to forward the project to the full Planning Commission subject to the conditions of the staff with the amendment that the drainage problems addressed by staff be added to those conditions and that the two stub outs shown to the south be shown dotted and indicated they are being bonded so that they will conform to the development when that becomes valid. Mr. Ward seconded the motion Ms. Johnson concurred. • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 40 LSD99-2• LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT TOWN CENTER, pp523 This item was submitted by Richard Alderman of WD&D Architects on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located south of Mountain Street, west of East Avenue, north of Rock Street and east of Block Street. The property is zoned C-4 Downtown Commercial, and contains approximately 1.11 acres. Issues to Address/Discuss Street widths and landscaping adjacent to streets as follows a. Green space strips will be added to the east and west sides of the project's boundaries along Block and East Streets. Parking will be eliminated from the southern half of the block (south of the alley) on Block and East Streets to provide space for the green space strips. Sidewalks should be a minimum of 6 feet and planting areas should occupy the remaining space. b. Plants in the exterior perimeter wall of the parking deck are not required due to maintenance and usability considerations In lieu of planters, trees should be added to the green space strips to soften the exterior of the parking deck from the street. c. Green space strips for the remaining portion of the block are to be shown on the plans for reference. Green space strips are required for this project south of the alley only. Green space strips for the remainder of the block will be provided by the City of Fayetteville as a separate project either in conjunction with this construction or as a separate construction project. 2. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. 3. Parking spaces will be provided for the project as per negotiations with Perry Franklin, Traffic Superintendent. 4. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, 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 • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 41 approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 6. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include all new sidewalks required for the town center. Completion of additional sidewalk replacement shall be the responsibility of the City through other projects. 7. Large scale development approval is to be valid for one calendar year. 8. Prior to issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits. b. Separate easement plat for this project. c. Completion of all required improvements of the placement of a surety with the City. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. David Norman and Richard Alderman were present on behalf of the project. Staff Discussion Little: There are three major conditions that we feel like need to be addressed and then we also have a letter from the applicant which is the last page of the packet and contains limits that we will talk about. One of the first items are the street widths and the landscaping adjacent to the streets. That has been addressed in the letter. What we are anticipating is that some planting will be added to the east and west sides of the project's boundaries. That's going to require that parking be removed from the southern half of the block south of the alley on Block and East Streets to provide an area for the green space. There will also be a sidewalk that is 6 feet wide. The planting area is just going to be what ever space is left there. The Planning Commission will need to make determinations on Commercial Design Standards. The staff has felt like several faces of the building need something. We have suggested hanging planters along the parking decks. The architects have addressed that and we don't quite understand the response so we will ask to talk about that later. Then the number of parking spaces that are provided for the project. You will remember that this has already come to the Planning Commission for a parking waiver and because of the amount of parking that is available around the square and in other public parking lots, the Planning Commission did allow a variance for parking. 220 spaces are to be provided in the proposed parking deck. Those were provided to us in a layout form and here is the working on that layout. Those are the main staff issues. We do • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 42 have the standard comments. Beavers. We have very few comments on the Town Center. One is after the architect and engineer have talked with Dave Jurgens about the sanitary sewer to see where it is which was talked about at technical review. Do you have any information? Alderman: He's done the work. He said he had trouble getting the information because they had an accident involving one of the people on that project. There will be a delay in actually getting that information. Beavers. We will work with the McClelland Engineers. Little: The object is to locate the sewer line. Is that what were doing? Beavers: To see if the sewer has to remain in place and from David has told me it sounds like it will. It was an easement issue. • Little: It's not only to physically locate it but it is to find out what all it is servicing. Beavers: We had asked for some information concerning the cuts along Mountain Street. Alderman. I think at the end didn't you decide that since it was right up to the edge of the property that no additional information was needed. If you want more information, we will get it to you. You asked if it was a structure, a building, that sort of thing. Beavers: Let's get with Ron tomorrow. I think it was depth of cut on Mountain Street. Alderman: I think the original comment related to having to have a setback relating to the cut. But that was the structure and didn't apply to this particular entrance because this is a building and I think that's why we said there was no need to have any further discussion about it at the time. I will be glad to get with you and work that out. Beavers. I think it is a stability issue and Mr. Norman will be addressing that. Franklin: I just wanted to report to you that I have been working with Richard Alderman on the parking and a few minor adjustments including some marked compact car spaces. I have a drawing now that shows both floors and all spaces. There are 176 typical 9 x 19 spaces. 6 handicap spaces and 38 compact car spaces which they are allowed 35% compact car which • would be 77 spaces actually allowable. That is a total of 220 parking spaces. I'm happy with the parking layout. All the ADA spaces are marked and dimensioned. The other issue in talking • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 43 about parking are the 31 spaces on the Bradford lot and the fact that there was no way to turn around and come out of there. I had a visit with Brian Boyd who is handling that parking lot. He informed me that those 31 spaces during the 8 hour day are all leased and he had a waiting list of about 40 people wanting them. After hours, they have no problem with me cross hatching and marking through one of those spaces to be used as a turn around. Forney. Those compact spaces look small. Franklin: They are 7.5 x 15. Alderman: They don't look right in this drawing and that will be one of the things we'll change. Hesse: We have discussed trying to get more trees on the perimeter and they have accommodated that. Rutherford: On your driveway approaches, what are you showing? Alderman: I'm showing the sidewalk to go through the approach. Rutherford: So in other words, we will have whatever the full 6 feet width is from this line to the building. The sidewalk will be the full width through there. Alderman: Yes. They are 4 feet. That is the driveway down into the parking deck. Norman: We have to come up then go back down. Rutherford: So you are showing that on every one of them. Norman: We called them out as through grade with sidewalk crossing. I just wanted to indicate to you that we do plan on doing our best to get those through grade. Now that we have extended the curb line out we have room to do that. Before we were having to do the curb cuts because there was no space but now that it has come out we can do the required through cut Alderman: We may not be to do that on one of them because of the finished floor level of the parking deck. That might required us to slope down into the street. Rutherford: That's fine and if we have to do that on each one of them that's fine. • Little: Would it help you any if the sidewalk was moved out so it wouldn't have to slope • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 44 down quite as much. Rutherford: They aren't going to slope the sidewalk. They are keeping 4 feet there that will be less than 2% is what they are showing. Norman: Actually, the reason I installed this inlet is because it's too close to catch all this water because there is a good chance all we will be able to have here is a roll curb and it will be grade from the street edge from the top of the roll curb down to the finished floor out of the parking deck because the finished floor of the parking deck is so low and the street is higher and in order to get an easy grade on that ramp, we may not be able to come up. Little: What if you moved the sidewalk closer to the curb? Norman: We would have 3 inches. We would have a roll curb with a 3 inch drop which we can smooth out a little easier. It still would be a conventional type of a handicap situation where it comes down and back up. • Franklin: Will the floor to the parking deck have a higher clearance than 7 feet? Norman: The clearance will vary but the lowest point will be 7 feet which is typical parking deck. There will be a bar built into the structure across here that will have a sign on it that will give you a place to hit that and not the building going in. Beavers. Are these going to be gated parking? What if you come in a 4 wheel drive and you want to park on the bottom floor and they are all futt9 Are you going to have to pay a ticket to get out then? Or how will this work? Alderman: It's going to be gated. There has been quite a bit of discussion about how they will handle that. It will either be gated or they would use a system called a Park Master System. You don't have to go through a gate to go in and the spaces are assigned numbers and you will pay a slot by either a credit card or put money in it. It is mounted on the wall It is the same system that they are using at the University. Little: Has that been costed out as part of the project? Alderman: The project will include all of the conduit and everything for that. Little: Conduit has been included in the cost -- • Alderman: The final equipment will have to be decided on. • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 45 Little: So it hasn't been estimated. Franklin: Which ever way we get folks in there and there is a board hanging there and they pull forward and they hit that board then they need the opportunity to get away without having to go in there. That's one of the reasons they are thinking about the Park Master System. Johnson: Is this an honor system? Alderman: It will be controlled by the downtown parking enforcement if it is on the Park Master System. If it is on the gated system, then you won't be able to get out without paying. Franklin: At anytime, an officer can go in there and get a print out which will tell him every space with legally parked cars. Little: We need to make you aware that there is a requirement for large scale development that for this meeting and Planning Commission meeting there needs to be public notification by the applicant. That has not been done by the applicant. The staff mailed out notification on the 3rd of February. Technically, there is a requirement for the applicant to notify. Alderman: I thought it was for the Planning Commission. Little: We did give him that comment in writing. It was just an over sight. It is a technical non compliance. Johnson: This is a requirement that all projects face? Warrick: Only large scales and preliminary plats require the representative or the applicant to give public notice to the adjoining property owners prior to Subdivision Committee making them aware of that meeting as well as the Planning Commission meeting. Johnson: And that notice wasn't given prior to this meeting by the applicant. Little: What if the City is the applicant and the City did send? We sent our notice. The City is the applicant and we did notify. Johnson: The public at large? Little: The adjacent property owners. • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 46 Warrick. Both the public at large and the adjoining property owners that is our standard process. It just so happens in this case we are the applicant. Johnson: Are you implying that usually they would get two notices? One from the city and the other from the applicant? Ltttle: Right. Warrick: The City's notice is a courtesy. We are required to give notice to the newspapers and as a courtesy we send to all adjoining property owners. It is a duplication. Little: I believe we have successfully navigated that problem. Johnson: Do we have anything on Commercial Design Standards? Alderman: You have copies of all four of the elevations. These were done before the requirement for the landscaping. The only difference will be the addition of landscaping along • the parking deck side. On the back side of the parking deck the landscaping was already there to help screen the parking deck area. The dotted areas are the existing building. The front that you will see from the square is setback with a main entrance with letters on top of the canopy saying "Fayetteville." That will be our main entrance piece which will be a tower which will work with the idea of having a tower at the end of this entrance. There will be wings. From block street you will see the parking deck. There will be a plaza area and our building actually sits at the back of the lot. • Johnson: There will be a patio and brick paving in the front. Alderman: It will come back half a block before you get to the entrance. We have landscaping and a planted area. Ward: That top elevation, what colors will that be or is that going to be brick? Alderman: It is part brick then we are going to use a material that will look like stone. Most likely it will be a synthetic material an EIFS or something like that but we will detail it so it gives a precast type look. We have stone details and we are using precast around the front of the building. We are giving it the same look all the way around. What you will see on the building mostly about the first 10 feet or so will be brick and then brick on the tower part. Ward: I have trouble with that upper level. That will be the most visible of all. • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 47 Alderman: You are seeing the top of the two story space which is the exhibition hall and there is a roof area that wraps, setting it back. Basically the heavy lines demarks that it will be set back about 30 feet. Ward: Little: That second story is going to be visible from all directions. Those are not windows on the back side. Alderman: We're going to have windows on three sides. Because of the screening for the mechanical equipment that will be down in this well, we will not have windows on that side. Johnson: On the east elevation, everything that has the appearance of a window is in fact a window. Alderman: Yes. Johnson: And that is true on all three elevations? Alderman: Right. Ward: Is there anyway to do any columns or something? Alderman: We were set with a budget early on. Ward: What color will it be? Alderman: It will be a stone type color. Ward: This is looking like an institution or a hospital. Little: How much less expensive is the EIFS than this. Alderman: We think that there is a significant thousands of dollars difference doing this as a precast. Little: You're changing the structure of the internal space as well. Alderman: It will be the same back up as the brick. We will build metal studs behind the brick. It's a brick veneer. That is the standard. We'll have stub construction behind everything. This will have brick veneer in from of it. There will be an EIFS material to simulate the look of • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 48 precast. There will be detailing lines running through it. We have some eyebrow sun shades that are going to help the detailing and break it up giving it less of an institutional affect. Johnson: What kind of stone are you trying to mimic? Alderman: Limestone. Forney: Talking about the stairs at the back, is that going to be open 24 hour a day for access? Alderman: It is an open air stair. If a person was coming up from Block Street or Archibald Yell, if they wanted to get up to the square, they can come up the stairs, walk through on the terrace to the plaza, and connect to the square. Little: I want to go back to the look of the stone, the cost of the EIFS versus the brick. I first understood you to say that there would be cost savings using the EIFS because of the internal structure. But then I learned that the internal structure would be the same. What I'm interested to find out is the use of EIFS a cost saving measure over the use of cut stone or is the use of EIFS a cost saving measure over the use of brick? The other question is what is the long term maintenance cost of EIFS versus brick or stone? I'm aware that a great number of insurance companies are no longer insuring buildings built with EIFS. Alderman: There are a tremendous number of projects that have EIFS on them. I have not had a problem with insurance. The EIFS is the least costly. The next step down is brick and then cut stone. Little: What about precast concrete? Alderman: Precast concrete is between brick and cut stone In terms of cost, if you were to do precast we estimated earlier there was at least $500,000 difference in cost. That is why we are putting the detailing of the stone. Little: It seems to me that if the brick could go up a little farther, it would be a much more attractive building. This building looks top heavy with the light over the dark. Beavers: What is EIFS? Alderman: Exterior insulation and finish system or drivet. That is the generic name. Drivet is a brand name. • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 49 Forney: I'm not clear on the design standards. They tend to be appearance driven. The other aspect is the City is the client. Life cycle kinds of questions are relevant to the process. Should we act as the client in this regard or is A & P the client and are we strictly doing our job as a Planning Commission. Little: You do your normal job. Alderman. With the offsets we have and the tower and all of those issues we tried to avoid making it be what your commercial design standards talks about as a box structure. The type of materials that you want to put on there, we could spend a significant amount of money and put precast or other type materials up there but that will not change the overall basic character of the shape of the building. I would have to say this that I'm not sure from a distance of more than 10 to 15 feet you're going to be able to tell the difference in the two materials when they are up high on the building like that, too. Little: What is the color of the brick? Alderman: The blend of the EIFS and the brick color are so close together that I'm not sure I could tell you the color. It's a light bronze. We're trying to have a traditional red brick that is what we think is the proper thing for being on the square in Fayetteville. Then we want to detail and have this look like it is stone like the top of the Post Office which a stone or terra cotta type banding around the top. Little: Are the bands the same width? Alderman: We want to have those same types of details. We may be a little bit thicker. Johnson: Could you bring us a materials board showing the EIFS and the exact coloring and the exact finish? Alderman: Sure. I have a piece of precast and a piece of EIFS. The texture of the EIFS is going to be slightly more grainy but they are very close together. From a distance, detailed properly, you won't tell a difference. Johnson: Is it too much to ask for the material board to show the accent materials that you are talking about Alderman: I will be more successful finding pictures of other buildings than to provide you with samples. • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 50 Johnson: Why can you not provide us with sample of material? Alderman: I can provide a generic sample of that but the specific detail of that is not simply purchased, you select the reveals and they build it for you. I don't have a contractor. I don't have a supplier of that material. I have an 11 x 17 card from the manufacturer depicting the color and then I can bring you different pictures of other buildings that have been handled in a similar type way. Until we have a contractor, it's very hard for me to give you that material. Johnson: Bring us something as close as what is going to go up. Alderman: The sample here is similar to it except this has a quartz putt finish on it and we're intending to use one with less "worm holes" in it. Ward: The entry and everything looks fantastic. We have a commercial design standard and we're not suppose to pick out colors or anything like that we're Just suppose to say we're not suppose to have box like buildings. This looks like a box like building on top. I don't know if by colors or materials that you could use on your columns between the windows with different colors of materials or different types of materials that you can use to put more articulation into it. That's all I'm saying. Alderman: I will bring a palette of materials and bring you examples. I think that is the best way to try to be able to show that. Ward: From south of town, I don't want to look up and see a big white box. Alderman: You will have windows recessed in and out and you will have lines and there will be the eyebrows that stick out. There will be an interplay back and forth of all these planes. It won't be just a flat piece. Forney: Do you have a physical model? Alderman: I have a model of it. You have seen the model before. Little: It hasn't been to Planning Commission. Alderman: We haven't made changes from the original to what we are proposing now. Obviously the model is very large. It will have a different roof structure. I will be glad to bring it unless you feel it is misleading to see it with a different roof structure. Forney: Part of our Job is just public information and the more we can get in front of • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 51 people so they know what's coming the more comfortable they are and the less consternation we hear. I don't know whether Lee and Phyllis think that would help or not. It sounds to me the suggestion of photography of projects with similar kinds of installations of materials would also give people a quick reference they could understand. Both might help explain. The part of the exterior design that I'm more concerned with is the parking deck. At grade, I think when you're down on Rock Street or at the back of the project, you're not going to see a whole lot of that because of the setbacks. I think that the parking deck is going to a significant thing. I noticed in the staff report there is discussion about greenery. Alderman: We looked into the feasibility after the last meeting of the planters built into the top of that. My comment has to do with long term usability of that. I have a 2 feet wide wall that is a dumper barrier for the cars and to build a planter into the top of that in our climate -- now if you're in California, San Diego, somewhere like that then you can make plants live in soil maybe 8 inches deep and 8 inches wide along there but to require that here what you will have is dirt boxes within 6 weeks because things will freeze. You can't get enough water in those. Personally, our suggestion and in talking with the City was to provide the trees instead of that. This follows some of the considerations given to the Dickson Street improvements that have been discussed as part of the downtown enhancement is to take parking out and add green space and install trees and soften things along the sides. That we can irrigate. We can put low landscaping with and that is a much more successful way of providing the break up of the parking deck. The other things we're going to do which is subtle and hard to see, we are -- Little: Let's look at the east and west elevations Alderman: We have widened the columns out to create a recess affect where this portion of it will be pushed back. We will change the color slightly between these two materials so you will create a series of portals with that. This is not just a flat facade. We're also going to be using some shapes and details with the barriers so they will have more detail. This is more of a framework with panels that sit back. If in the future, retail could be added along there, through the panelization of that we would be able to fill in on the Rock Street level. I think it is highly unlikely that those would be converted into store front but that is something we were asked to include in our design. Johnson: On the information we have on commercial design standards, we don't have the trees on the east elevation. Alderman: They were added this last time. Johnson: We probably need those for the whole Commission. We need to see that major landscaping. Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 52 Ward: It's hard for us to visualize unless you actually come in with the colors and shades that you're going to do. I know it's a lot of extra work. If you can do that we can better visualize. Alderman: If we revise these two elevations, do they need to be ready by Tuesday to get in the packet? Little: That is how Planning Commission gets them. Alderman: That is why we did this board today to start showing how we are adding the material when the suggestions were made at the meetings. Johnson. If you have all of the facades on the board -- we must be able to see the major landscaping features that are going to exist. I can live with you showing the changes on the board. Forney. I agree. We don't need any more copies. Alderman: This was about $250 in copies. What I intended to do at the meeting was to take this plan and to color in the landscaping on a plan version so that you could see that come up relating to looking at the plan and then have the elevations to go with that. If we want to have a materials board in addition to that. Little: I have penciled in some additional arches. Does the Committee feels that this adds more interest? Alderman: I think that takes away from our attempt to create a different with the entrance. Little: Let's let the Committee respond to this. Forney: It may not be a bad idea but then you realize that they have a rhythm set that is not the same. It might looked a little tacked on. Little: It looks very square. Forney: I am concerned about the overall impact of that lower part on the east and Block. Johnson. My limited personal experience with planter boxes has been horrendous. There may be people in Fayetteville who have been able to pull it off. • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 53 Alderman: It may encourage kids to pull up plants and throw at people. I'm not against it from a looks stand point. Little: We only made one suggestion and that was that these elevations are not what Fayetteville is looking for under Commercial Design Standards. We wouldn't allow a commercial builder to be able to build something like this. So what could be we do? We didn't get any help so one of our other staff members said that you could put planter boxes. That was one suggestion. I think what we do need is a response. The trees are a response and that is a change from when we last talked about it. That's a good change. I think it was something that the City Council was also expecting. We see the tree and they only come up so high even at maturity so I don't know that trees are going to really address those edges of the building. Ward: Do the Commercial Design Standards apply to parking structures? Little: Commercial buildings. When we first talked about Town Center, we talked about something that looked like retail at the bottom. We migrated from the City's concept to what we can afford to get. I think there is work that could be done here and I think we sell ourselves and • the City short if we don't do a little more. Johnson: My sense is it might be helpful to see the model if there is only one feature that will be changed, I think we can accommodate that in our minds. I have an idea that given the fact that you gotten a couple of strong reservations about this top feature. Is it too large to move around? • Alderman: I've had it here before. It's about the size of this table. Johnson: We could do that at tour and this might help. Little: Could you bring to agenda session and have us tour it downstairs? Alderman: I would be willing to do that. This project has had a series of about 15 meetings that this model has been through. Forney. How will the landscaping be maintained? Will it be maintained in the same fashion as the Old Post Office? Alderman: Yes. Susan Ferrall is going to be involved in handling that. It is an extension of the square garden. Little: Do we have that in writing? Because at the plat review meeting, I remember • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 54 Kevin expressing reservations that Susan would be maintaining it. Kim made the comment that Susan would maintain it. Kevin Crosson said wait a minute. Alderman: I have contacted her but I didn't realize there was a requirement for a formal written letter. Little: I heard the Administrative Services Director say wait a minute. He's in charge of the money. If he's not sure that Susan Ferrall is maintaining this then we need to find out for sure that she's going to maintain it. That's all I'm saying. Alderman: You're saying there a difference between the departments? Little: This is a budget item for the City. The Administrative Services Director said wait a minute. We need to wait a minute and find out what that is before we answer the question. Alderman: It's going to be landscaped as part of this project and it's going to be irrigated and it's going to be there. Does it matter who maintains it? It's not going to be unmaintained being a • City project and A & P Commission. Little: Mr. Forney asked who and I'm trying to get him an answer. • Forney: The reason I think it does matter is I think that we can say to the public and the Commission that the kind of landscaping example we are looking at and the fact that the City is going to maintain is that like around the Old Post Office then that leads me to believe that will be maintained at a high level. Whereas if you say you put in the irrigation and then we don't do anything with that then a red flag goes up. We've promised people landscaping and then it might not be there. Alderman: Let me talk to Commercial Design Standards. This whole project in setting it up and having it back here has added a significant amount of detail to the City. Yes. This is one big open room back here. It is hard to make that not what it is in terms of a building but realize now that landscaping wise and adding this to the fabric of the City and bringing a tower here This project goes way beyond what any other of your Commercial Design Standards come close to requiring a private person to put a project down there. Little: No it doesn't. Alderman: Somebody could come here and put this building up here and they could do it without any of those things. • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 55 Little: That's not true. Ozark Brewing building is a recent example. Alderman: It wasn't required to have a plaza. Little: There wouldn't be a requirement for a plaza. A building yes. There are lots of things that can be done to detail buildings and we even detail metal buildings. Alderman: I'm asking for you to realize that we are doing a lot of things that are good. We have used significant factors for the improvement of our City and not just look at us and say you guys aren't doing anything. We are doing and spending millions of dollars on other factors that are very important to the quality. Little: I would ask that you realize that it hasn't been to Planning Commission. This is there first look at it. These are fresh eyes. These are reactions to it. We would just like consideration for the questions that we ask and the things that we ask for options on it. Forney. The question of how the landscaping will be maintained, I wonder if Susan Ferrall is involved whether she might have some suggestions about the east and west and south sides about what could be done there beyond the trees and the elevation. If she's not going to be involved we need to know that as well I think it might help the project if she's going to be involved to involve her now in planning for the treatment of those south, east, and west sides. You have done a lot of work on an important project for the City. Now is the time to start thinking how this development is going to be maintained over time. Alderman: We have $7,000,000. We're going to have some point in there and I know you can't control your comments related to what the budget is. There is a dimishing point of returns and it seems the City is involved in a tug of war. I would appreciate you understanding where I am with this situation. Forney: We expect this to be done to the highest level possible. Alderman: The last City Council very plainly told me that we would not get anymore money on three or four occasions. I'm working under the directions that I have been given. If those directions are different and if more money is available, I would be more than willing to do that. That is not the reality of the situation as I understand it. Johnson: This is one of the balancing acts that we face in Planning Commission and that is sometimes projects come before us from the City. The City is government. The government doesn't have as much money as it needs to build as nice a project as it would like. The City also has standards about what people must do at minimum levels. • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 56 Forney. If we were to say that we won't approve this without precast or even stone facing, the large scale development wouldn't go on to the Council would it? Little: Unless it was appealed. Forney: So, you could appeal to them and then they could say, no we don't want to spend the money on it and we will approve it as proposed. That's not a popular position to take but it may be the only way. Johnson: We feel like we are required to apply Commercial Design Standards and it is very difficult to be precise about Commercial Design Standards, but we never get the option of not applying them to any particular project. Alderman: I'm not asking you not to. I'm trying to point out all of the things that I'm doing to meet the Commercial Design Standards and 1 think there are a lot of them in there. Ward: What kind of time frame are you talking about before this goes under construction? Alderman: Barring any other differences, we are trying to be completely finished with the drawings by the April 1. Hopefully, we will be able to receive a bid close to where we want it to be and the construction would start as soon as the contract could be approved through the City Council which possibly we could have a contractor out there in June. Forney: Is this precast or poured in place. Regarding raising material standards, it seems to me that one option would be to actually use a stone. Alderman: Precast. Forney: Precast would be the next notch up for the parking garage -- Alderman: It would be brick, precast, and then stone. We have had this discussion at many public meetings that we have had about this project before. MOTION Mr. Forney made a motion to forward the large scale development to the Planning Commission subject to all conditions of approval, inclusion of a color board, materials samples, photos and presentation of the model. • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee February 11, 1999 Page 57 Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson concurred.