Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-16 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, March 16, 2000 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED FP00-1: Barrington Parke, Ph II, pp373 LSD00-3: City of Fayetteville Airport, pp795 LS00-2: Walker, pp256 PP00-1: Yorktowne, Ph III, pp214 LSD00-4: CMIS, pp214 LSD00-5: Steele Crossing, pp212 MEMBERS PRESENT Sharon Hoover Lorel Hoffman Phyllis Johnson STAFF PRESENT Sara Edwards Tim Conklin Ron Petrie Kim Hesse Chuck Rutherford Eric Schuldt ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Forward to PC Forward to PC MEMBERS ABSENT Conrad Odom Lee Ward STAFF ABSENT Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 2 FP00-1: FINAL PLAT BARRINGTON PARKE, PH II, PP373 This item was submitted by Jeff Staggs of Milholland Engineering on behalf of Ben Cason, Sr. for property located south of Fox Hunter Road, west of Barrington Parke, Ph I. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 27.4 acres with 49 lots proposed. Committee Discussion Hoffman: Thank you coming to the Thursday, March 16 meeting of the Subdivision Committee. We have many items on our agenda and we don't have a quorum. We're not taking votes until we can get our quorum. We will have a thorough discussion. Discussion of Walker Lot Split and the Airport T -hangers commenced. (See those sections for further information) *Votes were not taken until Commissioner Johnson arrived. Conklin: All improvements must be constructed prior to the filing of the final plat. Madison Drive which was a condition to provide additional access through this development is constructed to Starr Road. They are required to provide a 6 foot green space between the street and sidewalk and this needs to be shown on the plat. With regard to 51, 31, and 32, when we reviewed the final plat, we had a comment that the 70 foot width at the 25 foot building setback line was not being met. However, we have researched and have determined that when this came through as a preliminary plat that an interpretation was made that the setback has been increased to 50 feet and it does meet the 70 feet width requirement at that point. I will go along with that interpretation and not make them redesign their lots. The recreation center is immediately to the east. Petrie: The location of that easement in the vicinity of the structures is not ideal. Milholland: That is a POA park. Conklin: They have pulled the permit for the pool and their building. They will get it outside that easement. We're aware of that in our office. Commissioner Johnson arrived. • • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 3 Hoffman: We have gone ahead and had discussion on two items. We are now discussing Barrington Parke. The lot split and the T hangars at Drake Field could be voted on, and at the end of this meeting we will review those matters and make the necessary motions. Rutherford: At the time of sidewalk construction on lot 56 and 28, an access ramp will be required. Milholland: Rutherford: Washburn: Schuldt: Johnson: Milholland: Conklin: Hoffman: Milholland: Hoffman: Conklin: Those are shown on the plat. I'd like for the green space to be shown on the plat. We had our final walk through on this plat last week. Before I will sign this final plat, an action from the POA to connect the walk at Buckwheat Street will need to be taken. At the sidewalk connection at lot 124 and 123, I recommend that sidewalk be installed as soon as possible. What happened in phase I is that it was left until later on and houses were built and fences were built. There is a sidewalk on 97, 114, and a connection to Buckwheat. The park land dedication has been received and there is nature trail here. How do you access Huntington Drive? From Starr Road. There was a lot of discussion on connections and this has been built as indicated on the preliminary plat which was approved in August of 1998. Is there city property here? Yes. That provides a connection. Phase I had a connection proposed to Fox Hunter Road. That was appealed to City Council and they made some decisions on it and that access is not provided. There is a trail. Public Comment None • • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 4 Further Committee Discussion Johnson: I have a suggestion to include a condition to add the construction of the sidewalk at lots 123 and 124 to be designed on the plat and that construction is to be provided before a building permit is granted on these lots. MOTION Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve this final plat subject to conditions and comments. Commissioner Hoover seconded the motion. Commissioner Hoffman concurred. • • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 5 LSD00-3: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE-AIRPORT, PP795 This item was submitted by Charles Venable, Public Works Director on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located at the airport. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 525.4 acres. Dale Frederick was present on behalf of the request. Commission Discussion Conklin: The proposal is for three T hangars at Drake Field. Each hangar is approximately 12,960 square feet. One of the conditions that we need to address and discuss is that as these projects come forward at the airport, we are looking at setting up a fund for sidewalk improvements along 71 business. With this project, the Economic Development Director, Alett Little, has provided a recommendation of $500 to be added to the fund. There is a letter in the packet that shows how that figure was arrived at. This is an existing area that is completely paved. We're not changing the grading or storm water runoff. There are existing T hangars in this area. Hoffman: We have the sidewalk contribution and then we have the standard conditions of approval. There is nothing else unusual about this. Will the formula used to calculate the sidewalk contribution be the standard from here on out? Conklin: Hoffman: Frederick: Originally we looked at a $100 contribution. After meeting with Chuck Rutherford, we decided on the $500 contribution per project. This is similar to the Research and Technology Park where the City is required to build. We're not asking for the sidewalk to built. When the airport has the ability to build sidewalks, that is when we will construct them. Is there a public transportation stop at the airport? No. I appreciate your helping us get through this process and with planning our airport. We're in a transitional time at our airport. We're moving from a commercial airport to a general aviation airport. It's going to take all of us in the same think tank to develop the airport in a way it should be developed. I appreciate the Planning Department and the Planning Commission's time. We're looking forward to redirecting it. Public Comment • • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 6 None. Further Committee Discussion Hoffman: Since we're short handed, we cannot vote. I think if we can get another Commissioner present we can approve the project at this level. We will recommend that the Targe scale be approved with the condition that a $500 assessment for sidewalks be assessed and the standard conditions of approval and we entertain a motion and a vote later in this meeting. Later in meeting after a quorum had arrived a vote was taken. MOTION Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve LSD00-3. Commissioner Hoover seconded the motion. Commissioner Hoffman concurred. • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 7 LS00-2: LOT SPLIT WALKER, PP256 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Kirby and Cathy Walker for property located on Skillern Road at lot 40 of Brookbury Woods Subdivision. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.86 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts of approximately 1.07 and 0.79 acres. Commission Discussion Hoffman: This is a lot split which can be approved at this level. Conklin: This does meet our zoning requirements for minimum lot width and lot area. The applicant has obtained approval for the lot split from the property owner's association. We have asked to have a letter from them for our file. We need to deal with the issue of amending the Master Street Plan. There is a collector street shown on the Master Street Plan that goes between Savannah and Brookbury and the lots back up to it. I do not believe this street can be built because these two subdivisions were constructed prior to the Master Street Plan street. You're dealing with numerous lot owners and it is physically in their back yard. It's my opinion that would not happen. We have Brookbury Crossing that have future stubouts that would connect over to Township. There is a proposed street that would connect Skillern Road to Highway 45 and Township. You would have to deal with 20 to 30 property owners, individually to acquire the right of way. Hoffman: Why was this put in after this was platted? Conklin: At the time, when these subdivisions were going, we had 26 public meetings to adopt the Master Street Plan and think it was a timing issue. Hoffman: Since this is not needed, we can make a recommendation to abandon this. Conklin: The City Council will have to amend the Master Street Plan. In my opinion, it would be difficult now to take that right of way from the backyards of the residents of Savannah and Brookbury Woods. The houses have been built. The question on this lot split was whether to require the right of way. My opinion is that we look at amending our Master Street Plan. Hoffman: Can we show the potential right of way to be removed pending the Master Street 1111 Plan amendment? That would cover us either way. • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 8 Conklin: I would include the right of way to be deleted pending the City Council's amendment to the Master Street Plan. I will take that forward. Petrie: They need to add a note to the plat requiring the sewer line easement to be shared with SWEPCO and that easement should be returned to a natural state. Jorgensen: Okay. Conklin: We do own that property as park land area immediately to the west of this lot split. That is why they are concerned about the sewer easement being returned to a natural state. Rutherford: Skillem Road is a minor arterial. The requirement is a minimum 10 foot green space with a 6 foot sidewalk. The sidewalk will be required at the time of development. Hoffman: Is the applicant in agreement with these things? Jorgensen: Yes. Hoffman: I would like for the minutes to reflect that we are in concurrence with amending the street plan. Public Comment None Hoover: Let's read the conditions into the record: the lot split shall be approved subject to a letter from the POA approving the lot split; an amendment to the Master Street Plan to be approved by the City Council; that for SWEPCO's exclusive use of the easement it will be returned to a natural state for the park land; and, that the sidewalk be developed at the time of construction. MOTION Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve LS00-2 subject to the conditions. Commissioner Hoover seconded the motion. Commissioner Hoffman concurred. • • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 9 PP00-1: PRELIMINARY PLAT YORKTOWNE, PHASE III, PP214 This item was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Engineering on behalf of Wade Bishop Trust for property located north of Yorktowne Square, Phase, east of Summerhill Addition, west and south of Brookhaven. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 11.86 acres with 29 acres proposed. Commission Discussion Conklin: There is a total of 116 lots in phases I and II. Breckenridge Drive was completed with phase I and it will provide access to Stubblefield Road BellShire will connect to Brookhaven Subdivision which will access Old Missouri Road. Staff is recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. We need to discuss green space between the street and sidewalk needs to shown on the plat. I would also like discussion of whether or not Stratford Drive should be extended to the north to tie in with phase III of Yorktowne Square. If you decide not to require that connection, Devonshire Place does meet our street standards for a dead end not longer than 500 feet. Staff would ask that a culdesac be constructed on the north end of Devonshire. Currently, there is a private drive but we would require curb and gutter and completion of the radius. This is the Bishop's home and they own the land this project is sitting on. You're looking at an out parcel where the existing house is located. Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Hoffman: Petrie: Milholland: Petrie: That is the Bishop's daughter's home. The land is owned by the Miller Family Trust and Peggy is a trustee of that. It was my understanding this was all one tract of land. No, this parcel was split separately some time ago. I would like to see the Master Street Plan included on the vicinity map. Other than connectivity, do we have any other issues to address? We are in agreement with the fill for lot 86, 87, and 88. If so, we will need a revised grading plan. We'll revise that grading plan before we start. The storm water discharge must be reduced to that of pre -development discharge. • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 10 Rutherford: They have shown all the requirements that I asked for. Schuldt: In November of '94, the Parks Advisory Board voted for money in lieu. They have paid, phase two totaling $9,195.00. Phase III with a total of 29 units at $470 per unit, brings the amount due to #13,630. Hesse: They have complied with all my requests. All of the trees are designated on this plan. Petrie: I'm trying to make sure there is buildable area. Hoffman: Part of this is going to be left in a natural state. Petrie: If we don't do it now, then this guy is going to fill in for his lot and it's just going to back it all up and make a big pond. We'd like to have the grading done now. Milholland: What we can do is put down in the minutes stating the first three lot pads must be graded prior to final plat acceptance. Petrie: I want to see the finished floor elevations. Conklin: Put that in the plat notes regarding the fill on 86, 87, and 88. Petrie: I'll have the minutes when I go into to look at the construction plans. Hoffman: I don't think the out lot is clearly shown as such. If this is presently the same owners, how many lots could be developed on the out lot. They will only have one way out on Devonshire Place and that would make me support a connection with Stratford. Conklin: You would be looking at four or five Tots. Hoffman: Devonshire already serves how many? Conklin: 14 including the existing house. Milholland: We did all three phases in the seventies. Originally, I had a preliminary plat with a curve to go back and criss cross. I like curves. When I did phase II, we took the curve out and realigned it with future phase III. That's how we got the stub out there. That was in 1970. As far as restricting this, if you want a written restriction on the number of lots, I could work something out with the Bishop's. • • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 11 Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Is this R-1 zoning? Yes. How many acres is the outlot? Milholland: I don't really know. Hoffman: If it's over an acre, it can have four to five lots under R-1. Milholland: There is no way to put a street in there. It's not wide enough on the east side. Conklin: Milholland: Hoffman: Conklin: It's about two acres. You would do good to get one more lot on the east part. It's difficult to make a decision on this without knowing how this could layout. Could you include the outlot? This is something we discussed during technical plat review. It's not uncommon for us to see a lot with a house on it. We saw it at Appleby Estates. Mr. Bishop has a garden that he wants to preserve. During Technical Plat Review, the eyebrow or half culdesac was not originally planned in there. Public Comment None Further Commission Discussion Hoffman: Milholland: Johnson: Conklin: It would be a good idea to show stubouts. It wouldn't be profitable to build the street and only have lots on one side of it. I don't think the lots would be deep enough. If it were to develop, I see one long lot. The sewer is going through the middle of it. I could talk to the Bishops and see if they want to restrict the number of houses up there. What is happening south of the Breckenridge Drive? It's all existing. • • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 12 Johnson: We have the easement for Breckenridge to come south and intersect with Devonshire. Milholland: That's all constructed. Phase I accesses Stubblefield. Phase 1I was built three or four years ago. Conklin: Mr. Bishop informed he has a plans for a playground. Hoffman: So, he doesn't want to develop it. Conklin: He doesn't want to develop it and that is why he is opposed to a street. He was concerned about children playing. Hoffman: How would a Bill of Assurance affect this? Conklin: I'm not sure if a Bill of Assurance is the way to go. Milholland: Several years ago, he split off a tract for his daughter. Johnson: And he did develop phase I? Milholland: Yes, in the late seventies and early eighties. Johnson: I think before we decide to approve this sort of cut out sort of deal we have to be sure we aren't tying our hands. I think it is hard to make a sensible decision at this time. Hoffman: Before this reaches the Planning Commission, one of two things needs to happen. Either the stub out is shown in the vicinity of lot 88 and 89 and then we don't need to deal with that area. Or having a compelling presentation from the owner regarding the development. Johnson: 1 don't see how the owner can persuade us about future development. I know this owner won't live forever and somebody else will own this someday. I don't think this owner's present wishes tell us very much for long term development of the streets in Fayetteville. Milholland: If it ever comes in for development, they will have to go through due process. Johnson: So you're telling us there is no desire to extend Stratford to the south if it is not done now. • • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 13 Conklin: That is a issue because our street standards state that dead end streets shall not be over 500 feet. If you start stubbing it out, it will require a waiver from the Planning Commission. MOTION Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to forward Preliminary Plat 00-1 to the Planning Commission with the provision that a stub out be shown for future connection in the lot 88/89 vicinity and subject to the remaining staff comments including reduction of discharge velocity, locating the sewer easement at lot 86/87/88. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. Commissioner Hoover concurred. Hoffman: If you don't show it stubbed out, we'll be going to Planning Commission and having the same discussion that we have had here today. I'm not sure there is any kind of a way to tie up his land indefinitely. If the area back there is developed and any kind of street is extended it's going to be longer than the 500 foot requirement for a dead end street. I'm not sure if the owner could give any kind of compelling argument. • • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 14 LSD00-4: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT COMPUTER MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, PP214 This item was submitted by Chris Rogers of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Computer Management Information Systems for property located at Moore Lane and Internet Dr. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 2.84 acres. Brad Crawford was present on behalf of the request. Committee Discussion Hoffman: Conklin: Petrie: Crawford: Hoffman: Crawford: Petrie: Conklin: This is located in the city's Research and Technology Park. This is our second large scale development for our Research and Technology Park. A lot split for this was approved on December 2, 1999. We approved a large scale development for Interface Computer on February 28, 2000. Staff recommends forwarding this to the full Planning Commission. Internet Avenue needs to be changed to Internet Drive. The Planning Commission will have to make a determination with regard to the Design Overlay District and Commercial Design Standards. The applicant will need to demonstrate what aspects are common with the Interface Computer building that was previously approved. We have those elevations here this morning for you. You need to explain a common, unifying theme. We also need clarification on building materials. We have the elevations they have submitted. All utility equipment and dumpsters will need to be screened and screening must be designed on the site plan. We have the standard conditions of approval. On the plan, please clarify the limits of where curb & gutter will be installed. Actually curb and gutter Is that where Hackberry is shown? That's the line. At this time, they are not planning on installing at this phase. I want him to clarify where curb & gutter will be installed. Is Interface Computer going to curb and gutter their parking lot area? Our ordinance requires that all landscape area be protected from vehicles by either concrete curb or some type of wheel barrier. It doesn't require that entire parking • • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 15 lots be curb. I think it looks nicer when you have a curb and gutter parking lot. We're trying to develop a Research and Technology Park. If it's being used to control storm water it could be required by Engineering. Interface has come back to the city and we are talking with them about theirs. Petrie: It needs to be shown on the plan. Conklin: The ordinance doesn't state that. The places where you have to provide curb and gutter is to protect the required landscaping. Johnson: Any time we aren't going to have curb and gutter in the parking lot design, I think the Planning Commission needs to be made specifically aware of that so we can make a decision on that. Hoover: Does that affect the drainage? Petrie: Not on this site. The street is wrapped the whole site whether it sheet flows off or what. We haven't set the exact location of our drainage so we can work with it. Hoffman: I'm not wanting to spend extra money but I feel like in the case of a high profile area that we should make effort to ensure that the Commercial Design Standards are met. One of those is compatibility with surround developments. Johnson: This is an unusual site. Do I understand that everything east and north of this project are a permanent natural reserve? Conklin: That is what is shown on the plat. There is a woodland preserve. The City is developing this park and we have approved it and this is what we're showing as a woodland preserve. Johnson: That makes a difference. It backs up into a preserve and I think the balancing point should be to provide as little concrete as we can have. Hoffman: Are they showing a phase line? Conklin: This issue is going to come up again on the last item on the agenda today. It's a coincidence. We've never dealt with phased large scale development. Normally, they would bring both in and they have a year time frame to start construction. They have shown on their landscape plan this area for future planning and how to put a building there. We have not reviewed that as staff to determine if it is meeting the requirements. We're just looking at this one. • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 16 Hoffman: There's no parking shown for it. Have we reviewed the number of parking space for the first phase? Conklin: Yes. Hoffman: Is it ample for the proposed phase two? Conklin: Yes. Johnson: What is the down side to establishing a line for this phase and limiting our decision making to what's in this phase? What do we lose if we do it that way? Conklin: I'm not sure we lose anything. I think it's helpful to look at it that way because we won't talk about curb and gutter and future improvements until this one comes through. So, I don't have a problem with that. Johnson: I think it needs to be done that way. Otherwise, we're asked to make decisions now that we have no reason to think will be sensible when this other part develops. Petrie: We do have all the improvements and I don't see how you can just draw a line. Hoffman: Is the parking going to take a variance based on the one building? Conklin: If you want that shown, they can draw that on there in a half tone and show it as phase two. Crawford: I don't have a problem with that. Hoffman: That part of the parking lot won't have to be dealt with. You obviously have utilities that are going to be in place for the second building and you aren't constructing those now. Add a condition that a phase line must be shown to delineate all improvements between phase one and phase two. Johnson: Aren't we assuming that the northernmost part of this property is not going to be in phase one and we're not going to be making decisions on that. Conklin: We'll shown a phase line and what the future improvements would likely be on this property. Hoffman: Are we limiting the number of ingress and egress to the property based on distances to intersections and site lines around the Internet curve? • • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 17 Conklin: We are approving the curb cuts on this property. As staff, we didn't look at future development but based on what the representative has stated, these will be the only two curb cuts. Hoffman: Make a statement on the plan that the approaches are going to be limited to the ones shown even for the future development. Johnson: I keep looking but I think the Master Street Plan streets have been omitted from that vicinity map. I observe that the vicinity map is too big. This doesn't help me at all. Hoffman: I think the subdivision plat should be the vicinity map. I think that would be easier. Petrie. Johnson: Crawford: Hesse: Hoffman: Hesse: Conklin: Hoffman: We need to coordinate the driveway elevations and the drainage with the City Engineering Department. Contact Wayne Ledbetter. There will be no grading until we have information back from the archeologist. This is a possible historical site. We also have to have the 404 permit. We're determining whether there will be a phase two testing. Until that is cleared by the archeologist, no disturbance will be allowed. No soil and no site disturbance period. We've talked to Wayne Ledbetter and he has us up to speed. We have informed our client. I haven't looked at this as a phase project. Phase one shouldn't be a problem. If it stands alone, we have to look at tree replacement for both. This canopy is made up of wetland trees and they are very dense. They'll be removing a lot of trees. Without looking at the grading of the future area, it will affect the replacement numbers. Your final approval does not need to happen at this point. If there aren't any landmark trees and they will be phasing the project, you can work on it. They're showing detention on the grading plan. They put it in the ground to control runoff and erosion. Let's talk about Commercial Design Standards. • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 18 Crawford: This is what the architect has given us. Hoffman: We'll need additional elevations because this will be visible from Moore Lane, Internet Avenue, and over this curve. Conklin: They are showing it. It's stays the same. Crawford: There is a glass entrance. Hoffman: On the front, what looks like glass is shown as aluminum store front. Conklin: We wanted clarification on that. Our Design Overlay District standards requires avoiding metal side walls. Johnson: Change the designation so that it is clear that what looks like glass is glass. Crawford: Okay. Hoover: Do we have sample boards? Conklin: We don't have them. Hoover: What are the materials? Conklin: This is a glazed brick. They're using a metallic color. It's going to be a concrete type board or EFIS and split face block. They have a split face block that is glazed brick with a blackish metallic color to it with a concrete EFIS on the top. Hoffman: I thought we were going to have a unified design theme for this park and these two buildings are very different. Johnson: We were going to have a unified design theme. Hoffman: We have a unified design theme with the medical park. Johnson: We were told that some of the key features is the rectangular glass panels. There were three elements. Conklin: Alett Little did talk about the design theme. • Johnson: We were concerned about making the first guy in set the standard. On the other • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 19 hand, the first guy in under our requirements is suppose to set the standard. It's the City's park and they should do a development plan. Hoffman: This is black and this is red. We have the same size windows. Johnson: I think we could get a bunch of box buildings. Hoffman: If we could maybe unify some of the color schemes like the green roofs of the medical park. Johnson: I would hate to take too much from Interface and require it of CMIS. Hoover: There are some developments that have to be separate somewhere. They could select a couple of materials and some configurations of the buildings. Conklin: Like a brick. Hoover: Yes. I don't know what they want with a glazed brick. Johnson: That doesn't to me back them into a corner. Hoffman: We would like for the next development to use a couple of these materials from this project to tie in however. Johnson: We want a specific color of brick and the rectangular window panels. I don't think the rectangular windows would have to lay flat which this building has. Some of the windows on this project are square. We need the unifying materials. Hoffman: We need a sample board and a new proposal at agenda session. We will be forwarding this to Planning Commission and we could further discuss it at that time. Johnson: If you're comfortable with part of your unifying design theme being the two elements that we've picked out you might want to be prepared to state what the unifying elements are. If you don't like that, then don't go there. Hoover: On the glazed windows, is that a particular color? Is it aluminum? Conklin: I'm not sure about that. • Public Comment • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 20 Fran Alexander was present. Alexander: I would like to ask about the 8% preservation and why they aren't meeting the 15% which is required for tree preservation. Preservation is once again being compromised. Hoffman: They will be required to meet all the standards. We'll have to work this out. Correct me if I'm wrong but by phasing the project, we're assuming that phase two is never going to be built. Phase one is going to have to meet all of the requirements. Conklin: At technical plat review it came up again. Wedington Place for financing purposes where the grocery store is, they have applied for a lot split to take one of the buildings out. That's almost impossible. What I've done is looked at the entire site and applied the standards. Phil Bronson's buildings has the same situation. They want to split out three of those buildings and it's difficult to meet all the regulations when we do those lot splits. Hoffman: So, you plan for those access easements so when this phase two comes in it will have the easements. Conklin: We look at it as a whole. Hoover: Phase two would have to come back to us. Conklin: Yes. Alexander: Are you allowing the nature center in the tree preservation? Hoffman: No. We're not allowing any variance. Hesse: Phase one will meet the requirement. Hoffman: When phase two comes in they will have to meet the 15% preservation. Conklin: In phase one, they are not removing any trees. When phase two comes in, the Landscape Administrator will have to make a recommendation on what tree preservation requirements must be met. Alexander: People change jobs. Things get grandfathered in. Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 21 Hoffman: It's going to be shown on here and it will be written down. Further Commission Discussion Hoover: Conklin: Hoffman: MOTION The applicant might talk to Kim ahead of time on the tree preservation to make sure they have the placement of their building where it will work with the trees. They might want to modify their wood pier and they wouldn't be able to do that later. Show the phase line on the site plan. Show future improvements. Show the curb cuts being limited to the two shown on the site plan. Show the vicinity map with Master Street Plans and the location of Interface Computer. No soil or site disturbance shall be allowed until after the archeologist clears that site. They need to coordinate the driveway locations with the grading and clarify the building materials. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to forward the large scale development to the full Planning Commission with the above comments. Commissioner Hoover seconded the motion. Commissioner Hoffman concurred. • • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 22 LSD00-5: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT STEELE CROSSING, PP212 This item was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Engineering on behalf of Argus Properties for property located on lot 15 of CMN Business Park. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 18.48 acres. Mel Milholland, Kurt Bracken, Jim Irwin, and Guy Washburn were present on behalf of the request. Commission Discussion Conklin: This project is adjacent to Shiloh and Van Asche Drives which are currently under construction. We are anticipating those to be complete late next fall. The development includes nine tenant spaces for a total of 128,384 square feet. 617 parking spaces are shown. The developer proposed future development of spaces on lot seven to the west. Staff is recommending this to be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. Conditions to address include Commercial Design Standards and the Overlay District standards. This development will have frontage on Van Asche and Shiloh. The parking is located to the south. This development is not meeting our tree preservation ordinance requirement. The developer is also proposing to meet the 25% green space requirement for this development and for future development to the west as part of this large scale development. There is a letter that I wrote to Mr. Milholland on December 2, 1999 which is included as part of this packet. When you have an overall shopping center and try to meet the requirements, I would look at this as one development to meet our standards. At technical plat review, there was only one building on lot 15 and they have now revised their plans to show a future retail space containing 122,250 square feet. That is an issue I want the Subdivision Committee to review and how the phasing affects the 25% green space requirement. It originally came in with one development and now we're talking about phasing. The developer is requesting variance for the width of the rear entrance to allow a wider rear entrance and to allow two ground mounted signs along Shiloh Drive that would be for Kohl's and a future tenant on lot 15. As well as the standard conditions of approval. Petrie: Are you showing fire protection lines? You need to determine the exact location. I want to make sure you understand that the fire hydrant needs to 100 feet from that fire department connection. You may have to add some fire hydrants in the rear Also, I need a note that all the drainage outside of the street right of way is privately owned and maintained. Also, all infrastructure will have to be in place • • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 23 and accepted by the City before the Engineering Department will sign off on an occupancy permit. That has to do with the infrastructure of the entire CMN Business Park as well. We discussed at plat review that the water quality for the stormwater discharge into the wetland area will need to be addressed in the final drainage report. Hoffman: Is there a problem with that? Petrie: Beavers: Milholland: Hoffman: Milholland. Hoffman: Conklin: Rutherford: Hoffman: Rutherford: Conklin: Rutherford: Milholland. I don't have a problem at this time. If something needs to be installed we can address that. We'll be looking for something from the Corps regarding these wetlands and the drainage plan regarding the parking lot at the time of construction plans. We have hired Egis to handle that and we're in very close contact with them and the Corps. Who is Egis? They are a firm in Rogers that are professionals in mitigation. They are an environmental firm? The City of Fayetteville hired them for the Research Park to do our wetlands mitigation. Sidewalk needs to be added to the legend and on the driveway approaches, the gutter line needs to be removed. Do we need any sidewalks in the development between lots? 1 just deal with sidewalks in the street right of way. The Design Overlay District does encourage sidewalks to be brought up to the buildings. The driveway approaches must be Portland Cement Concrete and not asphalt. Item seven talks about sidewalks on Shiloh and Van Asche. As part of the CMN Development, those sidewalks will be constructed by CMN personnel rather than this developer. We'll coordinate between the two and the developer will be • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 24 Hesse: responsible for the driveway. The sidewalks around the perimeter are part of the street construction project. I have been in contact with the developer. Basically, as Administrator of the Tree Protection Ordinance, I recommend that the developer be required to redesign the development. The intent of the ordinance is to require the design of developments in such a way as to preserve tree canopy In the event that preservation cannot be possible then and only then is tree replacement an option. It is clear to me that tree preservation has not seriously been considered in this design. I have personally redesigned another plan for this development to determine the feasibility of preserving the existing trees. I feel it is possible to preserve a portion of the existing canopy while maintaining the same number of parking spaces. The existing trees on site consist of oaks that are larger than 24 inches in diameter. Most of the trees are healthy and provide a pristine example of the natural resources that we benefit from on a daily basis. Please keep in mind the original intent of the tree protection ordinance is to require developments to be built in harmony with our natural resources. Also keep in mind that the purpose of the Overlay District is to protect and enhance the quality of the highway corridor by providing a nonresidential development which will maximize preservation and maintain the character of the terrain. You could move the building closer to the bypass and move the parking around to the side. In the original design, you have 450 feet to the front of the site for parking. Milholland: We have a green belt all the way from here to lot 16 and it is several hundred feet wide. Hoffman: What are the implication of moving the parking lot into the tributary stream area in terms of any pre-existing Corps of Engineers approval or mandates or stream bed issues? Hesse: Mel would have to answer that. I'm going by the plan that requires the buffer. That is the primary area where we want to save the trees. I would like to make the statement that this number of parking spaces if 20 percent above the minimum. Hoffman: We're 20 percent over the 1 to 200 retail ratio. Conklin: Yes. That is by right. Hoffman: I don't understand why we just don't change the ordinance. • Conklin: If you have a minimum you need to have a maximum. • • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 25 Hoffman: Hesse: Hoffman: Milholland: Hoffman: Milholland: Hoffman: Milholland: Washburn. Hoffman: Washburn. Milholland: I feel like we're taking this site and developing it to the maximum and we're not really preserving anything. The original preserves 20 trees. With regard to the phasing and the trees. I think there are two ways to handle it. You can show all of the development at one time and artificially phase it and comply with those standards or you can have each phase stand alone. I think the overriding issue here is the trees. I think we can put aside any bureaucratic discussions of phasing and just talk about the trees. When you look at this site, you have to look at 304 acres at the total Since 1992 when we submitted our concept plan and from that time forward in dealing with the Corps and through the rezoning in 1995, at that time, we worked with the City and the interested parties what we wanted out of this park. What we heard was leave wide green belts and leave as many trees as possible and minimize channelization if possible. We have gone every step of the way with that intent. We have tried to leave Mud Creek and its tributary channels alone and let the water sheet flow onto it or filter it but it would take the water in the areas of very lowest elevations. The Corps and other agencies have approved this. It's what they want to see. There is a lot of wetlands and a lot of trees. Over the whole 304 acres, there is over 1,000 trees in addition to what you see out there now. 1,000 new trees. There are over 40 to 50 trees on this lot alone. What is the average size of those trees? Existing? I don't know. At the time of planting they will be three to four inch tall trees. What is the diameter? Probably less than one inch. When we got into this with the rezoning, we took the public input and designed the project to preserve large green belts. These trees were never mentioned throughout all this. It was always discussed in terms of green belts. That is what we looked at. As a matter of fact, I don't think the tree preservation ordinance • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 26 Hesse: Conklin: Milholland: Hoffman: Milholland: Johnson: Milholland: Johnson: Hoover: was in effect at the time we rezoned this. Yes, it was. The tree ordinance and the parking lot ordinance were effective in 1992. Of the overall 304 acres, we have set aside green belt areas to cooperate with the wishes of public input and City input. That is by deed restriction and does not count the buffers. Had I been aware that these would be an issue, I would have designed these lots differently. I had no idea this would be an issue. We spent $1 million on the green belts. We did revise some lots because of the street location. Not because of trees but because the Master Street Plan was revised. I started this with a concept plat in 1992 for the south side. I don't remember that we've ever really considered the trees during the various processes. What I remember were big street issues. We had stream issues. Regarding stream issues, what I took from that discussion was don't channel. Save the trees. Until today, I don't remember having any serious conversations regarding tree preservation. We haven't had any trees to look at. In other developments that you have brought before us, we've always talked about the tree ordinance. It's not new to you. Milholland: It's not new but we haven't looked at a development this large. I don't think anyone else has. Hoover: Johnson: Milholland: You're doing it in pieces. It's predictable that you're not going to hear us talking about trees until we have trees before us to talk about. I feel like CMN went to great lengths to meet the criteria set forth from public and staff input to make green belts. That is what we have done. • Johnson: Green belts? Have you done something more than is really needed to protect the Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 27 integrity of the stream? Bracken: This 18 acres we are talking about today is a six percent piece of the overall CMN puzzle Number one, by filling over closer to this tributary and taking the fill right to the boundary designated by the Corps and to accomplish that plan, this is a very steep situation and building a retaining wall to fill to this depth you would create channelization of this tributary which flows into Mud Creek. Part of our design consideration of the steep hillside give us a challenge. In trying to achieve the minimum requirements of the Corps our runoff will have minimum impact downstream. That is one reason for this design. You're talking about huge consequence in building a retaining wall 20 feet high adjacent to this and creating a channel as opposed to having a natural flow. The second issue we considered with Kohl's, they have reduced their standard parking requirements by 15 percent. According to their market research this is below what they would accept as minimum. They have agreed to do that. To chop the parking in half and put parking hundreds of feet away, from an operations standpoint, they would walk from the deal. That may not be your concern. I think there is Fifth Amendment constitutional issues by taking a piece of property that is zoned and running tenants off because the site is unused by their standards. The overall water quality issue of Mud Creek and its tributaries were critical. Milholland: 1 do not feel that the ordinance was intended for preservation of 15 percent of the canopy. It does have a provision for replacement. I don't understand or heard that it required 15 percent preservation. When this property was zoned C-2, I believe everybody understood that there would removal of trees. Public Comment Dan Coody was present. Coody: CMN has done a good job as far as channelization issues and the green belt. I hope there is room for improvement. When you drive down 540, that is the stand of trees that we see. There are some 32 inch diameter trees that are older than a lot of us put together and they are beautiful. I would think that the City could give incentives or trade offs to the developers which would be acceptable to the developers and meet the tree preservation ordinance. I can't imagine the only option is to put a store where those really fine oak trees are. Fran Alexander was present. Alexander. I would like to reiterate that this is a tree preservation ordinance. The definition • • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 28 of preservation does not mean replacement. There have been arguments about this from the get go. It should be understood. We've talked about the legal issues before. To place a building in the very center of these gigantic trees and claim that it is a surprise that there would be concern about the trees is ridiculous. I think the alternate that Kim has presented in very useable. The public has never had access to this pasture. It is also important to keep in mind that the public's concept of green ways and green space is not interpreted as grass. Green ways and green space are interpreted in the public mind as trees, connectivity of trees, connectivity of habitat, connectivity of cross waterways. The public outcry in this town when of the channelization on the east side of 71 was very loud that the entire east side of 71 was cleared. I urge you to understand this is a tree preservation ordinance. The percentage of preservation of tiny and to have a commercial development wipe out the last standing group of large trees in this area should not come as a surprise that there is an outcry about it. George Calhoun was present. Calhoun: I'm a member of the Tree and Landscape Committee. We have ordinances in place to handle these issues. Cracker Barrel threatened to leave and they did because we didn't cow tail to their sign requirements. Fayetteville still survived. I don't mean that we should keep everybody out but you must administer the ordinances. We'll be a better City for it. Coody: It could be a public relations coup if Kohl's could come in an say that they made every effort to save the trees. Further Committee Discussion Irwin: We started this five or six years ago and you were proud of this and we spent a lot of time working on it. We addressed the green areas. We talked about streets and the Master Street Plan. We tried to satisfy the staff and we worked with the Corps of Engineers. We appreciate your cooperation in working with us There has been a lot of give and take and a lot of time. Now we have this site to work with and he has been limited by the ordinance requirements and how he can work with the site and its boundary lines. Hoffman: There will have to compromises on both sides. I feel that there will need to be changes to this design before it is approved at the Planning Commission. It is going to take more discussion and more meetings. However, I don't want to delay this project. We want Kohl's here. We would have loved Cracker Barrel. I think it's going to take compromise. One of the site constraints that you are Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 29 working with is this triangle. If we dealt with the future phase where there is less tree cover what can be gained. Is there parking there that we're not looking at. I don't think we considered all the options. Hoover: Is this an architect's or engineer's layout? Bracken: Architects. Hoover: I strongly suggest that you talk to the Community Design Center about how to develop a large tract like this and make it attractive from the street and make it pedestrian friendly. You have the rear all along a major road. The whole view is of the rear elevation. I think it lacks a sensitivity to the whole site along with the tree issues. It difficult to look at in small pieces. Johnson: You need to determine whether you want to take this to the Planning Commission or whether you want to look at other options. You have strong, competing interests. I think you'll find that the Commission is interested in both saving the water quality and tree issues. These are real trees. There may not be a way to save them. If you go forward it will be a Committee meeting at the Commission and I'm not sure you want to go that way. Hoffman: It would be likely this would not get the Commission's approval. Johnson: You did the streets they want we approved them. You did the stream preservation the way we requested. You have been limited by those items, so if you can make the case that these two limitations mean you can't save those trees, then you could get approval from the full Commission. That's the political issue. Irwin: What we might do is sit down with Kim and explain to her we can't meet the 15 percent preservation and examine her input and ideas. These developers work in communities all over the nation and they have certain expertise. We understand the City's issues and we understand the Corp's issues. We want to keep something balance that works for everyone. Hoffman: We are interested in attracting good businesses to this area. At the same time, we want to keep the natural beauty which is one of the reasons people and businesses come here. You can reconfigure parking lots. It can be done at this stage. Bracken: We have not completely disregarded saving trees. We left trees in the expansion area which won't be developed for more than ten years That gives the replacement trees ten years of growth if the expansion takes place. We • • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 30 reconfigured the parking lot to save the large tree in front. Hoover: In working with staff, please don't look at it as their way or your way. I hope you're open. Irwin: Since the beginning of this project, we were asked not to bring in small tracts. We want to develop something magnificent for the City. We selectively opted to bring a major development to start with. We hope to follow up with office developments to create a prestige place. Hoover: I am assuming this will set the design standard for this entire 304 acres. Conklin: It is difficult to look at this and require compliance with a theme. Hoover: I'm going to have a problem with this rear view along the public right of way. Hoffman: Were two fronts considered? Bracken: The operational problem with that is to stock in this phase, two major users with one being 86,000 square feet and the other being 30,000 square feet and the future planning of 100,000 square feet, somewhere you have to have trucks deliver good to put out on the floor. The problem with trying to do something with streets on three sides of the property which is both good and bad. You'll trucks that are pulling through areas that you want to maintain from a safety standpoint for pedestrians walking to the stores. In addition, stores need a place as they unload to store the goods as they move them out to the sales floor. Hoover: Could you create some kind of an alley access? The Spring Creek plaza has an alley for deliveries. An example you might want to consider is Utica Square in Tulsa. Irwin: We were asked to put Van Asche in there to satisfy Master Street Plan requirements. That is what is creating this situation. Utica Square does not have a collector street through it. Hoover: Yes it does. You would have to divide up your buildings into smaller groupings and have streets coming through the development with parking. Irwin: Please consider that these guys are professionals that have extensive experience with retail developments. • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 31 Johnson: . I'm seeing the partial front elevations with several planes. I see an arch which is a stand alone column. Bracken: It sits out in front of the brick wall structure and provides some canopy over the doorway. Johnson: This sort of thing with the construction elements would pass Planning Commission requirements for Commercial Design Standards. Conklin: I would agree with you. Johnson: Regarding the flat roof, if you could add some articulation. Bracken: We have revised these elevations and tried to provide more articulation. Kohl's is at one depth, the shops with the blue canopies over the doors are the second depth, and the third depth is major tenant A is different. Johnson: I see a problem with the Van Asche elevation. Conklin: With regard to building material, I looked at this last week. WalMart Supercenter that faces Joyce is split face block. National Home Center or Home Depot has smooth face except for a small band at the bottom which is split face concrete block. We also looked at Wedington Place and the grocery store and we asked them to put some columns in which you could see from Colorado and Steamboat Drives. That is how we have handled other developments. Bracken: We will look at providing additional articulation on the rear wall with piers or columns and add some color to break that up. The screening walls from the truck dock will come 40 to 50 feet out from the structure wall. It's hard to show in a flat elevation. Conklin: They have come a long way from Plat Review and I want the Committee to know that. Are there any feature on the front that you can put on the back? Bracken. We will take that into consideration. Hoffman: You're asking for a variance to provide two signs. Milholland: One for Kohl's and one for the rest of the shopping center and major tenant A. • Johnson: Didn't we require WalMart to comply with the sign ordinance? • • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 32 Conklin; Johnson: Bracken: Washburn: Bracken: I'll have to go back and look. 1 think we allowed a monument sign on the corner of Mall Avenue and Joyce. Nelm's Auto Plaza got a variance for monument signs for each dealership. They're asking for two monument signs. Yes. They are four feet tall and approximately 80 square feet. The actual signage area is 75 square feet and complies with the monument signs of the sign ordinance. Milholland: We need a variance on the entries to allow trucks to turn in. Conklin: Johnson: Washburn. Conklin: Hoffman: One is a truck entrance and staff would support that. 1 don't have a problem with that. There is no passenger vehicle safety issues. At some point, we might do a lot split showing the out parcels. Khol's is going to have a ground lease The other tenants will have a lot. This out parcel is also going to be a stand along lot. We felt like it wasn't just lot 15 but we would have several lots and we're only asking for two signs. You wouldn't need a variance if they are separate lots. You are allowed one per lot. Have you receive the Corps of Engineers approval and if so do you have landscaping over and above the Corps requirements for the stream beds or are you just meeting their minimum in terms of green space. Washburn. We've done a mitigation plan that the Corps has approved. This the first project that the Corps has issued a permit for. Bracken: Hoffman: Washburn: The Corps minimums are met within the deed restricted area. Our plan is to utilize the area adjacent to this tributary with additional planting. 1 would like the Corps plans included in our packet. We have created fish habitat, stream cobble, rock structures to add oxygen to the water to enhance the quality of the fish habitat for the stream. That is something • • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 33 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife pushed for. Hoffman: I don't know what to say about the signs. We have issues with Commercial Design, trees, and parking lot design. Conklin: Keep in mind you are required to have a recurring, unifying theme throughout the 300 acre development. The applicant recessed to determine how they wanted to proceed and the Committee took actions on the Walker lot split and City of Fayetteville -Airport. Bracken: Thank you for the recess. I would like for us to stay in the cycle. I would like to have the flexibility to resubmit modified elevations. This tenant will not accept less than half of their required parking. Conklin: If they are talking about redesign, typically those are brought back to this Committee or even Plat Review. Milholland: We want to make minor changes to try and preserve some of those trees. Major retailers have very specific building configurations and parking requirements We would not be redesigning the building but we want to look at doing something different with the parking. We want to work with Kim and see what we can come up with. Johnson: Okay. Hoffman: We should schedule a special Subdivision Committee meeting. Conklin: Revisions are due March 20. MOTION Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to forward LSD00-5 to the Planning Commission subject to staff determination of the necessity of a special Subdivision Committee meeting is plans are submitted with substantial redesign. If this does proceed, the Commission should be aware that we did not achieve consensus on tree preservation or commercial design standards. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. Commissioner Hoover concurred. • • • Subdivision Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 34 Meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m.