Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-13 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE • • SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, April 13, 2000 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSD 00-7.00 Indian Springs, phase II, pp 372 Approved rat &rd '4o PC Approved LS 00-9.00 Ayecock, pp 368 Approved LSD 00-8.00 McDonald's, pp 401 Approvod r. r Wo -r PG MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Bob Estes Lorel Hoffman Lee Ward None STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Sara Edwards Tim Conklin Ron Petrie Kim Hesse Kim Rogers Chuck Rutherford Perry Franklin • Subdivision Committee April 13,2000 Page 2 LSD 00-7.000: Large Scale Development P.U.D. (Indian Springs, Phase II, pp 372) This was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sweetser Properties for property located south of Hwy 45 and west of Madison Drive. The property is zoned R -I, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 3.20 acres, with 18 units proposed. Tom Henley and Mike Sweetser were present on behalf of Sweetser Properties. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Hoffman: Thank you for coming to the April 13, 2000 meeting of the Subdivision Committee. We have three items on our agenda. The first is Indian Springs, the second is a lot split, and the third is a large scale development for McDonald's on Wedington. Tim, would you introduce our new secretary? • Conklin: Sure. This is Tezra Eubanks. She is from Staffmark and she will be taking the Subdivision Committee minutes this morning. I would ask that, because she is unfamiliar with everybody in this room, if you could please state your name for the record. When you do speak, if you could come up to the table and make sure we can hear what you are saying. It just happens to be Tezra's birthday, so, happy birthday. • Hoffman: Thank you very much for helping us today. Okay, we will start with item one, which is the large scale development and P.U.D., for Indian Springs phase II. Conklin: Yes, this is a large scale development / P.U.D. for Indian Springs, phase II, submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates, on behalf on behalf of Sweetser Properties for property located south of Hwy 45 and west of Madison Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 3.20 acres, with 18 units proposed. I would like to go over some history, with regard to this planned unit Development. It is part of a larger P.U.D. that originally was approved in the preliminary plat stage. It included two single family residential phases and two multi -family phases and was approved in 1973. The first single family residential was built and the final plat was approved on November 12, 1974 and included a Tract C, which was multi -family. Tract C is what you see on your plat, up to the south of this project, which includes multi- family housing. • • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 3 Hoffman: Conklin: This is Tract C? That is Tract C. Phase II and Tract A multi -family were never built; however on September 26, 1977, a multi -family development by Jerry Sweetser was approved as Sequoyah Woods on Tract C. That's with the pond that you see at the south. Mr. Sweetser later presented an amended plat to request that street not to be constructed to city standards and that it not connect to Starr Drive. At the April 10, 1978 Planning Commission meeting, the amended plat was approved. Mr. Sweetser also made his intention known at that time, to later expand the development to the north, which is what you see before you today. He presented a preliminary drawing to illustrate this. This development is known as Indian Springs, Phase II and is the same tract that was presented as future expansion in 1978. This P.U.D. will provide an additional access drive to Starr Drive, directly across from Madison Drive and Madison Avenue Subdivision, R-1, developed with single family homes. The private drive in Phase I will continue in Phase II and the addition will bring overall density of both phases to 4.24 units per acre. The density of Phase II alone is 5.63 units per acre. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Conklin: Staff is recommending that this project be forwarded to the Planning Commission. There are several conditions to address, that include that the curb and gutter will need to be removed at the side of the driveway approach. There will need to be two access ramps at the corner of Starr Drive and Hwy 45, parallel with the direction of the sidewalk. Hoffman: Is that shown? Edwards: No. Conklin: No. They will need to show that. That is not shown on this plat. The Planning Commission will also need to make a determination of the requested density bonus for this Planned Unit Development. Several years ago, this planned unit development ordinance was revised and it is at the option of the Planning Commission to increase density over four units per acre. It is not by right, so the Planning Commission will have to make that determination to allow density higher than the four units per acre. The developer is proposing 5.63 units per acre and providing 36% open space. Our UDO does allow the Planning Commission this option of improving a density bonus with up to 7.5 units per acre, with a dedication of 35% open space per planned unit development. This development, Phase II and Phase I together, is providing 36% open space. • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 4 Hoffman: Is it the 5.36 units per acre? Conklin: The 5.36 is in Phase II, but the overall density combined both phases together is at 4.24 units per acre. What you see before you this morning is a proposal for three triplexes, for a total on nine units, in Phase II. Condition number four that we need to address is a setback variance. Anytime you have a P.U.D. in an R-1 zoning district and you have a common perimeter with an R-1 district, there should be a 250 ft setback from the common perimeter. The common perimeter and R-1 that I am referring to is Madison Avenue to the east. Hoffman. What is this zoned? Conklin: That is zoned A-1 currently. That is R-1 Madison Avenue. The width of this property is 200 ft wide on the south side and 223 ft wide on the north side. Therefore, it is impossible to meet this requirement if you were trying to meet it to allow something other than a single family home. There is an attached letter from Mr. Jorgensen requesting this variance. We did approve a similar variance for The Cliffs development on Hwy 265 so we have granted variances in the past to allow other land uses other than single family homes within this 250 ft. Condition number 5 is the Planning Commission determination on the assessment to go towards offside improvements to Starr Drive. Staff recommends an assessment of $2774.00, based on a projected traffic impact and there is an attached memo from our Engineer on number six. All drainage outside the street, waterway, including pipes, ditches, etc. are to be privately maintained. The two issues that probably need to be addressed are the request for density bonus with the increased open space and combining Phase I and Phase II of Indian Springs and the 250 ft setback requirement from Madison Ave. Subdivision. Hoffman: What is the actual setback: Conklin: The setback is approximately 130 feet. Hoffman: Thanks, Tim. Is there anything else at this point? Conklin: That's all that Planning has at this point. Hoffman: Ron? Petrie: This is a two part comment. We will need written approval from SWEPCO. We will need to get Don Osborne's approval for them to relocate and pull back to the • • • Subdivision Committee April 13,2000 Page 5 street and driveway. That's all Hoffman: Thanks very much. Conklin: Let me just make one correction on the 250 foot setback. It is zoned R-1 to the north, across Hwy 45, so we do need to address that also. Hoffman: What is the actual setback? Conklin: The actual setback is 25 feet. Hoffman: Okay. Any other staff members that need to discuss? Rogers: They went before the parks board and have been approved to contribute money in lieu, in the amount of $6,750.00 (18 units at $375.00 per unit). Conklin: Commissioner Hoffman, it's 18 units, sixplexes, not triplexes. Hoffman: Okay. Do they have garages? Sweetser: They do have garages. Hoffman: Are these islands or what are these? Sweetser: This is the green grass or whatever, this is the driveway and they will be double garages. Hoffman: Okay. Great. Thank you. Is that it for Staff comments? I will take public comment at this time. Is there anybody here wishing to address the Indian Springs project? PUBLIC COMMENT None Hoffman: Seeing none, I will bring it back to the applicant, if you could say your name please. Sweetser: I am Mike Sweetser, here representing Sweetser Properties. Henley: Tom Henley from Jorgensen and Associates. Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 6 Hoffman: Do you have a presentation to make or would you rather just answer questions as we go along? Henley: I can address any questions. Estes: My name is Bob Estes, Commissioner. Tom, where are the fire hydrants off of Starr Dnve. Henley: There is an existing hydrant just south of Madison Avenue. It's on the corner and then we have added an additional fire hydrant just south of the entrance off of Starr Drive, adjacent to the sidewalk. Estes: Do you have a hydrant on the curb cut to the west on Starr Drive? Henley: No, the curb cut, basically all that is, that's an access drive for a telephone utility building that's existing. Estes: Okay, I see that. And then on the west side, that's an access drive also? Henley: Right. That will be removed. That's an existing curb cut that will be removed. Estes: Mickey Jackson required a fire hydrant at each entrance drive, off of Joe Fred Starr Road. Is there only one entrance? Henley: Right, there's only the one entrance. I called the Fire Department and verified, clarified that he understood there was only one entrance. Estes: What about solid waste disposal? Will this be a pink bag pick up? Henley: It will not. I talked with Cheryl Zotti at Solid Waste and what we have come up with are these pads that will be built and I imagine they will be screened or fenced and will carry the carts on wheels. Estes: And that is on the west perimeter? Henley: Right, each building will have one. Estes: How do you propose to screen or fence those? Henley: I guess they can be just a four foot privacy fence that can be put around them. • • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 7 Estes: Could we show that on the drawing? Henley: A detail of it? Estes: Well, just show that it's being done. I don't see that it's indicated, that there is any screen. Henley: Yes, sir. Conklin: Are the cans going to be permanently set there? Are we talking about the green carts? Are they going to be set there, permanently facing the street? Henley: That was my understanding. Estes: You can throw them out there for pickup. Sweetser: The way that we do it at St. James or Park Place is that we just have them, the green ones on wheels that we roll inside a privacy fence that is six feet high. Six foot high privacy fence. Conklin: Here is my concern is that we are going to have garbage cans facing the street, lined up permanently. Estes: At the minimum, they need to be screened. People have to have a way to get to them and if they are gated, it's not convenient. You go out there with a couple of trash bags out of your kitchen, you don't need to be setting them down. Sweetser: We could just designate these areas that they will be rolled out to and show a fenced area in between the buildings or somewhere in a similar location where they will be screened with a six foot fence. Estes: Where will they be sighted? Where will they put their trash in? Will they just roll them out there? Are these things going to be with each individual unit? Sweetser: As far as I have understood, there will be, it was my understanding the big green ones would be, like one would be designated for two units. Conklin: I guess I was just concerned seeing garbage cans just lined up along this drive. • Sweetser: We could build a screened area directly behind where those would be, where we • • • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 8 show the pads, where the cans would be kept during the week. On trash pickup day, they would be brought out to the pad for pickup. Hoffman: As long as they are screened. Conklin: That's my point. Hoffman: Any questions? I have just kind of a procedural question for staff. This is an R-1 zone and I like the idea of a P.U.D. because we can get other issues dealt with. In one site plan, is it better to look at rezoning a property than it is to do a P.U.D. on this particular site. I am sure that you have thought about it Conklin: We've discussed it. If this was not part of a past plan for Indian Springs and this whole area out there, I would be more inclined to ask that it be rezoned. But since they are trying to tie it in to their existing Phase I and going through these files and researching and seeing that this was discussed back in the 70's, I felt like they could combine it together because they are connecting the street together. It does appear to be one development. But, on its' own, just my experience with the Cliffs and other planning developments, sometimes I think it would just be better to rezone. Hoffman: Okay. Ward : But this one was part of an overall plan and they are connecting into this area. It is beautiful out there. They are preserving a lot of open space. Hoffman: That's why I like the idea of a P.U.D. , and the density bonus is based on that open space. I am going to interrupt and see if Kim Hesse has comments on this. Hesse: No. It looks like all screening vegetation has been addressed. Hoffman: I just wanted to talk about rezoning, just to make sure we weren't going down the wrong path. Conklin: We did require Atlas construction on Sycamore to rezone to R-1.5. I am trying to be consistent here, too with which direction we go, since this was currently zoned R-1 as part of a P.U.D. It is my opinion that they should proceed in this manner. With regard to the setback, they do have less than 250 feet next to this area zoned R-1, but it was part of their planned unit development when they brought it through at one time. As I researched this with regard to the setback, I was trying to figure out how these buildings got constructed next to single family homes. • • • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 9 The reason is that this area is designated for multi -family and single family next to it. That's how that occurred. Hoffman: Have we received any comment from other property owners? Have they been notified? No? Conklin: One other thing, Commissioner, is on the corner of Hwy 45 and Starr Drive, we did receive this week in our office, a building permit application for First State Bank of Huntsville and there will be a bank going into this R-0 zoned part. Hoffman: I don't think I have any more questions or any problems with the setbacks or anything. Estes: Petrie: Estes: Henley: Petrie: Estes: Hoffman: MOTION Ward: Madame Chair, I have a question of Mr. Petrie. Ron, in looking at the minutes from the Plat Review, and so you can reference what I'm talking about, do you have a copy of them there? It's over on the bottom of page 12. You had some concems about a public main to a line. It's at the bottom of page 12 in the Plat Review minutes. Your comment was the sewer line -you will have to get permission from the City Engineer without running a public line. It may require you to run a public main to that line. That was a different project. Was that a different project? The City of Fayetteville tapped the existing sewer line along Starr Drive for services. There are both water and sewer lines along Starr Drive. Okay. Thank you. Anybody have a motion? I would make a motion to approve. The same ownership still applies and I feel like personally that with the 36% open space still there and being a P.U.D., and the extra unit and a half per acre is no big deal. I would recommend approval of LSD 00-7.00 Indian Springs. • • • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 10 Estes: Hoffman: Madame Chair, I will second the motion, and let me say that the setbacks of the 25 feet on Hwy 45 and 130 feet, I am satisfied that the open space that's on the east side of the project takes care of any problems that I would have, cutting that setback back to 25 feet. That is quite a reduction, but we've got the open space and the green space and I am satisfied, I'm willing to grant that variance based upon the amount of open space and green space that is provided for. Thank you for that comment and I will concur. Motion passed 3-0. • • • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 11 LS 000-9.00 LOT SPLIT AYECOCK, PP 368 This was submitted by Bob Hopmann of Lindsay and Associates on behalf of Terry & Dinah Ayecock for property located at 1953 N. Green Acres Rd. The property is zoned R-0, Residential Office and contains approximately 1.06 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.45 acres and 0.62 acres. Bob Hopmann was present on behalf of Lindsay and Associates. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Conklin: This is a lot split, dividing approximately 1.06 acres into two tracts of 0.45 acres and 0.62 acres. Tract A currently has an existing building on it. Tract B is the overflow parking area for A.Q. Chicken House. This lot split is being proposed in order to sell. If the lot split is approved, the building on Tract A will be non- conforming with regard to setbacks. What that has to do with it is Poplar Street, shown as a collector street. They need to dedicate additional right of way and when they do dedicate that additional right of way, the setback will be non- conforming. Staff has recommended approval, subject to the Board of Adjustment granting that variance. Staff supports that variance, since it is the City of Fayetteville that is requiring the additional right of way. The sidewalk needs to be shown continuous to the driveway approaches. The curb and gutter need to be removed through the sidewalk at driveway approaches. Adjacent zoning will need to be added to the plat and will need to change the 15 foot utility easement along Green Acres Rd. to 25 feet, as requested by Southwestern Bell Telephone. On condition four, we will have to approve a reduced setback to the north and that will be 30 feet, which is required. The rest of the conditions of approval are standard. That is all that Planning Staff has at this time. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Hoffman: Okay, thank you very much. Ron, do you have any questions or comments? Petrie: None. Hoffman: Kim Hesse? Hesse: None. Hoffman: Mr. Hopmann? • Subdivision Committee Apnl13,2000 Page 12 Hopmann: My name is Bob Hopmann. Hoffman: Do you have a presentation for us or do you just want to answer questions? Hopmann: I have a question, but go ahead. Estes: Now I think I have a question for Mr. Petrie. Now I think I am on the right page. Petrie: That one was tabled. Estes: Okay, okay, so Just tear it out of the packet. Petrie: Yes, sir. Hoffman: I have a question. Is this, I will assume this is a common thing. Taking the right of way, so we are not really creating a problem that doesn't already exist at some point down the road. • Conklin: • That's correct. In our older historical areas, it's always difficult to get master street plan requirements. Sometimes they even go into the building footprint, which poses a problem. That is something I want to look at with our Land Use Plan update. With the Master Street Plan, if you don't get the right of way, the only way we can improve that is go to the City Council and that is time consuming. I would like to take a look at some of our collector streets and coming up with a different standard in some of the older areas in town. Hoffman: That's fine. And we've looked at Tract B with regard to its future development capacity, capability and it's going to be find to stand alone? Conklin: Yes. Hoffman: Size, proposed setbacks, things like that. What is the zoning of this? Conklin: This is zoned R-0. Hoffman: That answers my questions. Ward: Do they have to get a building permit to do anything like restructuring, remodeling? • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 13 Conklin: Yes, they would. At that time, that's another point why they need to get the variance because we are not allowed to issue building permits for remodeling or expansion. It's not meeting our setbacks. They do need to get that variance. Ward. If they weren't doing the lot split, they could come in and get the permits to remodel? Conklin: They are at 24 feet right now so they are not meeting the setback as it is currently in place, which is 30 feet, so they would need to get a variance. Ward: To remodel the building? Conklin: Yes. In a non -conforming section, I would have to look at the permit to determine what they are doing. The ordinance allows rewiring, non- bearing walls, replacement of utility equipment, that kind of thing. Hoffman: Cosmetic stuff. • Conklin: Typically, I have not seen a variance denied yet. Not a building that is far enough off of the right of way. Hoffman: Okay. Thanks. Public comments? PUBLIC COMMENT None Hoffman: No public comment. Estes: Madame Chair, I would move that we approve LS 00-9.00 Lot Split. Hoffman: Can we approve that at this level? Conklin: Yes, I think so. The setback issue has to be decided at the Board of Adjustment, not Planning Commission. Hoffman: Thank you very much. FURTHER COMMITTEE DISCUSSION • Hopmann: I talked to the sidewalk guy to look at this and both the people that I contacted Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 14 Hoffman: Hopmann: Hoffman: Conklin: Petrie: Hopmann: Conklin: Hopmann: Hoffmann: Conklin: Hopmann: Conklin: Hoffman: think that the ditch needs to be filled in before we put the sidewalk in. There's a culvert and it needs to be covered Otherwise, the sidewalk is going to stick out into the ditch. Out into the ditch? And it's just going to be, the ditch has eroded over the years and hasn't been maintained and it just kind of a cut out area so the sidewalk will come maybe this high. It will just stick up in the air so there's no way. If they put fill in there, they are going to be filling up the ditch. They said that they had talked to Chuck Rutherford and David, that they felt like the best thing to do is for the City to put a culvert in there to smooth that up so that the sidewalk would do right there. Do you have any information on that? I have not talked to Chuck Rutherford about the City putting a culvert in, have you, Ron? No. That's what they said, you know, that is the right way to do it. The City is paying for that or you are putting that in? They said that the City would pay for that sort of thing. I don't want to pass the buck, but I think I am going to because if there is a drainage problem or something like that, that would certainly need to be coordinated with the city, as far as payment. I am willing to work with you to try and figure out who is going to pay for what. If we can't decide, we'll have to come back and revise that condition with the Subdivision Committee. We could put the sidewalk in right now, that's no problem, it's dust what will it look like If that's alright with you all, we don't care. Well, the sidewalk coordinator is responsible for the inspection and construction of it and I will defer to him to make sure it gets put in correctly. There is not a separate contractor. I know there is on another part of it. Not on • • • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 15 this part? Conklin: Not at that segment of Poplar Street. Hopmann: Also, if you would clarify this to me where it says on condition number one—to be shown through the driveway and removed through the sidewalk. Does that mean we are supposed to cut through the pavement, the concrete that is there, then put more concrete there? Conklin: When you build this sidewalk along Green Acres, it's going to go all the way through the driveway, continuous through there. Mr. Rutherford is asking is that you remove that line right there. Yes, your sidewalks go through your driveways. You Just don't bring your sidewalk up to your asphalt. Hopmann: So if you Just go right up to the asphalt. Conklin: If you have a concrete approach, you have certain standards that require them to be certain grade and slope. Down the sides, to delineate that sidewalk through that drive or not, that is something that Chuck Rutherford will have to get to you. I am not sure how that is being constructed. Ward: With Woodland Junior High School, there are a lot of kids coming back and forth from school, there is a sidewalk issue. Conklin: Basically, your sidewalks, there is a standard that a sidewalk has to be continuous. Those driveways have to come up and have a certain amount of slope, so when you are walking on it with a stroller or in a wheelchair, that you are not on an angle anymore. The driveway comes up to that. Without knowing how that is constructed, I am not sure whether or not that works. Hopmann: We have looked at it and it would be flat. The sidewalk will be flat, the sides of the driveway will be flat. Is that okay that it's like that? Conklin: Chuck Rutherford is the individual that inspects that. Hoffman: Have your contractor contact Chuck when he's ready to do it. Conklin: Chuck will go out there when you are ready, to inspect it and make sure that it is constructed in accordance with the ordinances. Hopmann: Okay. Alright. • • • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 16 Hoffman: Okay. You are passed. I will assume that the sidewalks can be worked out. Thank you very much. Nice to meet you. • • • Subdivision Committee Apnl 13, 2000 Page 17 LSD 000-8.00 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (MCDONALD'S, 99 401) This was submitted by Ben Aguirre on behalf of McDonald's Corporation for property located on Lot 1R of Wedington Place Addition, Phase II. The property is zoned C-2 and contains approximately 1.996 acres. The request is to build a McDonald's Restaurant with a convenience store and Exxon gas station. Kris Fullerton and Ben Aguirre were present on behalf on McDonald's and Exxon. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Conklin: This McDonald's is located in Wedington Place Addition, Phase II. It contains a convenience store and gas station. It will be directly across from Steamboat Drive, the Bank of Fayetteville, 1-540 runs along the southeast corner of this project. A 5,225 sq ft McDonald's, convenience store, and car wash will be incorporated on this lot. The development is once again located in Wedington Place Addition. Staff is recommending forwarding this to the Planning Commission. Conditions to address and discuss: The plat must be amended to show the sidewalks and continuous driveway approaches. Parking space size need to be amended to include 9 by 20 feet at 60 degrees, and 9 by 19 at 90 degrees. Those are our parking lot dimension standards. Parking aisles need to be reduced to 24 feet. Flood plain reference must be added to the plat. Site coverage note designating the percentage of site coverage and open space should be added to this plat. Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Overlay District regulations, commercial design standards. The applicant is seeking a variance with regard to curb cut locations. The Design Overlay regulations restrict each development and do not allow any curb cut within 250 feet of any intersection. The Bank of Fayetteville was granted a similar variance, which is to the west of this property. The applicant has also requested a substitute block that is similar to that used in other developments in Wedington Place, and to have a cardinal red metal roof. There is an attached letter from the applicant on that. The applicant is requesting 20 parking spaces in excess of that allowed by code. Total square footage of the proposed building is 5,225. We allow one space for every 200 square feet. With the 40% overage that we allow by right, it ends up at 32 spaces. They have requested 52 spaces. They have provided information from other McDonald's in Fayetteville about how many spaces they have. I did include, to help us this morning with regard to Commercial Design Standards, the developments that have been approved in Wedington Place, behind you on the board. In the center are the elevations for McDonald's. They are showing a split face block and red parapet, double mansard roof system, with the • • • Subdivision Committee April 13,2000 Page 18 white E.F.I.S., the stucco product, is the same color that was to be used in the development; however, Staff does have some concerns with that color, based on the elevations for the grocery store, which are located on the bottom, sort of a beige color. Estes: Are you talking about the color or the split wall? Conklin: I am talking about, on the right side. I am concerned about the white E.F.I.S., over here, compared with what was shown to us on the grocery store. However, that is listed as a material that is used in that development. I don't recall that being used on other elevations or buildings in that development. I have talked to the applicant in regard to the mansard roof and the color of that also. Possibly trying to use a different color red to blend in more with the development. Over here on the very bottom, right hand side, is the Bank of Fayetteville. They are using a gray roof. There is red that is being used in the development. Sonic is using the red on the straws and some small areas of red on the building, but overall, Staff is trying to get closer to match what has been approved down in this area. That is probably one issue that I would like to discuss at this level. That is all that planning has at this time. Hoffman: Thanks, Tim. Ron? Petrie: I would like to ask the applicant how this 18 inch water line was located? Aguirre: It was imported from a survey that was provided to us from a surveyor. Petrie: Was it located out in the field? Aguirre: My understanding is yes, all of the information in the survey is accurate. Hoffman: Would you please state your names for the record? Aguirre: Ben Aguirre for McDonald's corporation. Fullerton: Kris Fullerton for McDonald's corporation. Petrie: The location of this water line does not match. If it is correct, the gas tanks will need to be moved at least 20 feet from the water line. And we would ask for an additional utility easement. Estes: Ron, are you saying that you don't believe that water line exists. Put it in plain • • • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 19 language what your concern is. Petrie: I believe it is located wrong on the plat. Estes: Okay. Do you think it is more into the development? Petrie: I think it is closer to the highway. Estes: You think it is closer to the highway. If it is where it's shown on the plat, you want those gas tanks moved Petrie: Yes. Estes: If it is where it's supposed to be, and the plat is in error, then you don't have a problem. Is that right? Petrie: That is correct. Estes: I understand. So we just need to be certain where that water line is and where it is not. Hoffman: Kim Hesse? Hesse: Have you resubmitted the landscape proposal to me because I don't seem to have a copy of it. Aguirre: There was a request to have the trees changed from Bradford pear to some other deciduous tree. To my knowledge, that is the only change. It should have been submitted in these documents here. I think there was one copy requested of that and several copies of everything. Maybe there was a mis-communication there. There should be one copy provided in the resubmittal. Should be labeled C-4. Hesse: Could I have a copy because I would like to look at that? Hoffman: Who is the engineer? Aguirre: Sand Creek Engineering out of Bentonville. Hoffman: Are they not here today? Aguirre: No. • • • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 20 Conklin: They have not been representing the project. Hoffman: Okay. Aguirre: The irrigation requirement, I might add, we had an alternative to show hose bid location vs. irrigation so we showed the hose bid locations. Hoffman: I will take public comments at this time. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Hoffman: Okay, so we have two main things to talk about. Estes: Madame Chair, may I ask the applicants some questions so I can determine if I need to recuse myself? Are you all from Northwest Illinois? Fullerton: No, we are from Oklahoma City. Estes: Is this going to be a company store or a franchise? Fullerton: Franchise. Estes: Who are the owners? Fullerton: Bill and Walter Matthews. They have all the stores in the area. Estes: I need to recuse. Hoffman: Okay, we will need to call somebody then because we did not know this. Estes: I have been involved in some litigation. I am a lawyer and I have had recent litigation involving the McDonald's corporation. The cases have been settled and money has been paid but I just don't feel like it would be appropnate. I looked at this and just could not tell what was involved. That litigation came to mind • • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 21 immediately and it would not be appropriate for me to continue. That litigation has been resolved. Ward: I need to abstain also. Conklin: So, Lorel what do you want to approve here? Hoffman: I have a company in Austin also that deals with McDonald's. I don't feel a conflict of interest, but that's okay. Taping stopped while attempts were made to contact other commission members Estes: Each of us has fully disclosed why we should recuse from the vote so you can do whatever you want to with us. Hoffman: We all cannot vote due to conflict of interest. Estes: You can either accept us or waive the conflict or reschedule and get three new substitutes. Fullerton: Could we just specify and get your input on the site? Can you explain your concems and give us an opinion? Hoffman: We cannot make a formal recommendation to the Planning Commission and cannot vote and recommend this project for approval. That is the down side. We canjust explain our concerns and speak more informally about the project. Estes: I am going to have to recuse and not vote with the Planning Commission so I will not vote anyway. Fullerton: How many members are on the Commission? Estes: Nine, which will be reduced to six. Hoffman: And you need five votes for approval Estes: It will be important to have a full Commission at the next meeting. Conklin: Yes • Hoffman: In terms of matter and substance, I think that the primary bright red roof could be • • • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 22 certainly mitigated very positively if you tone the color down and you can bring in some samples of what's been proposed before. Fullerton. We have several colors of red that we can choose from and what we want to be as compliant as possible on the roof. I think we have one that they are using. Hoffman: On the E.F.I.S., were we concemed about the use of that material, period? Conklin: I don't think so. I think I am more concerned about the color. Estes: Do you want more of a taupe? Conklin: Yes Ward: I think this drawing here looks fantastic. It's broken up, it's not all just one kind of material. It's brick and block and a little bit of E.F.I.S. here. Conklin: Could you go over the elevations again for us? Aguirre: The elevation you are seeing here is what we are going to call our drive through side of the building, looking easterly. This elevation standing on the north side looking south is what we call our rear elevation. That is also a similar material, split face buff block, to 8 foot high to screen the dumpsters and will also have gates on the front to enclose that. The rest of the main building elevation is what we call the south facing elevation. This would be what we would normally call our dining room side of the building In this particular instance, this is where our convenience store is located. That is that elevation, correct. Hoffman: Okay. I had a question about the signs. Is this sign on this face of the building? Aguirre: As indicated on these elevations, there will be two such. One per major elevation. The sign will be centered over these two doors, which is what we have just done recently in a similar building. And there will be one, just around this comer. That building is roughly divided like this. This half is McDonald's, this half is the Exxon. They will have a sign over each of the entryways. Conklin: Exxon will be facing the interstate, correct? Aguirre: Correct. Conklin: That was part of the reason to have the E.F.I.S. • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 23 Aguirre: The signs can be mounted easily to the E.F.I.S. Again, our content was to comply with the E.F.I.S. requirements It's just that there has been a miscommunication of what that actual color is. I understand it was a brighter white from the tradespeople in the field; however, our intent was to show a beige color. Estes: Does that sign go along the bypass? Aguirre: Yes and also have one on the side facing Steamboat Drive, or our drive through side of the building. Estes: So, the building will be signed on four sides? Is that okay in the overlay district? Conklin: Actually, three sides. Fullerton: What was the gentleman's name that we met with? Conklin: Bert Rakes, Inspections Director, after Plat Review and we went over the sign • issues. In the overlay district, one wall sign may be installed per business. Sign area shall not exceed 20% of that wall area. A second sign may be allowed if it is determined that the structure has more than one front facing a street or highway. In this situation, we have a structure that has frontage on Shiloh Drive, I-540 at this location, Steamboat Drive, and Wedington. So, it really doesn't address buildings with three sides. It talks about buildings with two sides. Staff is not against allowing a sign facing I-540 along Shiloh. If we need to put that in our report, we can do that just to clarify it. • Hoffman: Let's do that. Conklin: Okay. Hoffman: I want to try to get as much of this discussion out on these conditions. Conklin: With regard to Commercial Design Standards, I think, Mr. Estes, you asked this question about this sign up here, the tiger for the Exxon Family Shop. We would like to make the Subdivision Committee aware that one of the elements to avoid or minimize include large, out of scale signs with flashy colors. I bung that to your attention. I think their signage is bright. I think we need to make the determination whether it is large and out of scale, with flashy colors. I mean, it's brighter than anything I have seen permitted out there. • • • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 24 Hoffman: I keep going back to the Blockbuster sign and we had the one on 62 come through. The original sign proposal was white, quite much in the same vein and it was toned down some after some discussion. What concerns me at this point is that we are sort of having like a non discussion about this. I don't know. We've got six other people at the Planning Commission. When you go to present this, I want to try and minimize as much back and forth as we can. Are you willing to look reducing this sign? Estes: Are you suggesting substituting Exxon? Are you going to sell Kellogg's? Is that the Kellogg's tiger? The Exxon tiger? Aguirre: That is actually the Exxon tiger. Fullerton: That's part of Exxon. That's a requirement. Aguirre: The actual size of the sign may be misleading since it is on a separate exhibit, but it will, it has to meet the requirements of the ordinance of less than 200 square feet. Fullerton: And what we can do, we just opened a store in Van Buren yesterday and his signage is not in yet, but hopefully soon, and we could take pictures and have the actual pictures of what it looks like on the building. I think that would be helpful. Conklin: Typically, you would have it on your elevation drawing. If you could put it on your elevation so they could see where it's going to be installed, I think that would be helpful. Fullerton: Okay. Aguirre: Okay. Conklin: It would help also, because when I look at these white backgrounds, it really has the red and yellow. I don't like the white. I mean, I will tell you that right now. Fullerton: You just don't like that white. Why did you make us do that, Tim? Conklin: I know, I told you to go get those colors. Little did I know that amarillo white was white -white. The monument sign also, with that white background. Can we look at changing that color also? They are allowed to have more than one monument sign when you have more than one street frontage. • • • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 25 Hoffman: Oh, okay. Conklin: So they are meeting that requirement. Ward: Here again, I think that you could get rid of that, make that not quite so white, the monument sign would be fine. As long as it meets all the other standards. Fullerton: We have that picture, so do you want us to pick the color that's on top of that bank? Is that what you want? Would, that, I mean, on top of the grocery store? Conklin: The E.F.I.S. color on top of the, yes. Fullerton: Do want us to use that colored pencil? Conklin: I will contact that architect to see if I can get the actual color. And dust one last thing, I will bring up. That is, and I talked at Plat Review about this. The mansard roof, they have, what do you want to call those white things, those roof beams that come down. That was an issue that we dealt with on Hwy 45 and 265. I just want to be consistent. I think they wanted them in white and we required to have those the same color as the actual roof, which is the green. Hoffman: Those don't have to be there, do they? Fullerton: Yes, they are kind of our trademark, to put them up there. Conklin: And I was concerned about that at Plat Review and would encourage them to use the same color and do what we required them to do at the McDonald's on Hwy 45 and 265. Estes: I think that would be an issue for me. Fullerton: Is that a requirement? I thought that was a requirement of the actual restrictive convenant, and weren't necessarily a requirement of the city. Estes: Absolutely. Conklin: Yes, Glenwood Shopping Center was built prior to our Commercial Design Standards, but he offered to have a unified design with his development. As part of that, when we approved that, we required that the McDonald's not have lights in those roof beams or have just white. • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 26 Aguirre: I would like to make a comment that those are an integral piece to our image, to have the roof beams, like the straws of Sonic. But as far as in terms of having them, I guess our feeling is it's not really a McDonald's unless it has the double mansard roof with the light beams, which is our image. Estes: I think you could bring that dog out at the Planning Commission, but it won't hunt for me. We hear that all the time and then go to Austin or somewhere else, and guess what we see? Fullerton: So, if you were voting, could you let us know what you would be expecting? Estes: If I was voting, I would want to see, what do you call those things, roof beams, I would want to see the roof beams like the McDonald's we've been talking about. Not lighted. Just go look at the one that we are talking about. Fullerton: I know where it is. (Laughter) • (End of side one of tape one) • Estes: We've got an issue of when they come to the full Commission, that all nine members are there, with three of us recused, they are going to have to get five of the six. So, I would like, I would suggest that you can always waive a conflict. Once I disclose it to you, you can say "That's fine with us. We don't have a problem with that". I think you better talk with Mr. Matthews and Mr. Matthews about it. Fullerton: Yes. Aguirre: And tell them to waive the conflict of having you vote? Estes: Yes. And do the same thing with Commissioners Ward and Hoffman. Fullerton: Yes. Ward: It's hard if you only have seven people there. You won't have enough there to vote. Estes: Talk to Bill Matthews because he is the one that I dealt with. I've dealt with him in person, over the phone, by correspondence and just tell him that I've disclosed to you the clients that I have and the claims are resolved and over with. That I • • • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 27 Fullerton: Estes: Aguirre: Hoffman: Fullerton. Ward: Estes: Fullerton: Ward: Hoffman: Ward: Just feel like that number one, I needed to disclose that to you and number two, 1 would need to recuse, and you can waive that conflict if you want to. Okay. Just let you know? I really need to be on the record. I would need to recuse on the record in an open public meeting and then you would need to waive that conflict. And the same for you, Mr. Ward and Ms. Hoffman? I guess, um, I have a company in Austin called Austin Permit Service and we de development plans for McDonald's for individual developers in shopping centers in Austin. Some of those are franchises, but we have also dealt with McDonald's Corporate for architectural purposes. I would think that would be a conflict. I will be a little more lenient on this particular McDonald's and Exxon station because it is on the Interstate. Compared to Hwy 45 and 265, which is local traffic, they are going to be trying and needing to pull people going from Memphis to Joplin off that highway into their place. It's not going to be all local people eating there, like we have on 45 and 265. People don't make a spontaneous decision when they pass the exit. Yes, they do. We get probably 60% of our business in just 35 seconds. I don't think you will be quite as restricted to me, as being a local neighborhood, commercial compared to out on the Interstate. It might make you say that the dog might not hunt with you, but I think it hunts with me because I know that's real important for people traveling. I don't think the roofs will make a difference, I think it's the signage, you know. That's what I'm saying. I think that, I don't even know since they are on the other side over there, on the west side instead of the east side facing the Interstate. I'm Just saying that the signage and how it shows up and how the building sits, means a lot to those people coming in there. It might not mean that much to the Bank of Fayetteville or community, but it means a lot to McDonald's and Exxon. Compared to the McDonald's on 265 and 45, which is all local neighborhood commercial, at that particular McDonald's. They don't get people going from Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 28 Memphis to Joplin stopping there or going from Ft. Smith to somewhere. Estes: Well, Lee, our Overlay Distnct and our Commercial Design Standards are to, in my view, to prevent the kind of thing we are talking about. Ward: If you don't allow a certain amount of exposure. This is the only company on this comer. The other ones are too far off of the Interstate anyway. It doesn't make any difference. The IGA store or the Sonic or what else is down there. Hoffman: I want to change the subject because I think it's going to be like this at the full Commission, perhaps split ideas about the Commercial Design Standards. Could we almost get a Subdivision Committee meeting? Conklin: We could call a special one, that's what I was thinking we might want to do is have a special Subdivision Committee meeting. Hoffman: At that time? Conklin: Yes, we could do it before the agenda session. Hoffman: Yes, let's do that. Conklin: Well, it makes it difficult. We won't be able to have the minutes for the rest of the Commissioners. Hoffman: But we could have the ad hoc report. Conklin: Yes. Estes: And what you are thinking, is by that time, they could consult with Mr. and Mr. Matthews and waive the conflict? Hoffman: And have some more ideas about the signage and have things a little bit further along. You can have more opinions. Ward: We have decided you can't have your conflict. Estes: That's very well spoken. I think that is the benefit of us sitting here and talking. • Hoffman: Okay. I do think you are going to have some split ideas and I think that it's best to do as much talking as you can prior to the meeting. Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 29 Fullerton. Okay. Estes: I don't want to be lobbied in private. I don't like people coming in my office. Hoffman: No, that's not what I'm talking about. Estes: What are you talking about? Hoffman: We are going to call a special meeting. Obviously you are out of town. Fullerton. We just want to do whatever you tell me to do. Hoffman: I think you ought to call a special Subdivision Committee meeting with all of the alternates before agenda session and have it, then have the agenda session and then have a better idea of how things are going with regard to Design Standards. I would also like to get Perry Franklin's report on the driveway locations. Has he seen this and made one? Conklin: He has seen this. He hasn't addressed that issue. We did request that they show the driveway locations for the Bank of Fayetteville that were approved by the Commission. Hoffman: They have drive in traffic as well and we talked about that at length. This is drive in traffic. I think it is a good idea for driveways to line up but I don't know how many vehicle trips per day this is going to generate. Are people going to try and turn left and all that stuff? We haven't touched on that. Fullerton: On the table, on exhibit A, I've shown how many customers we have a year, broken down into a day, and then how many of those customers are inside customers and then broken down into our day part for breakfast. This was basically to support the parking, but I think you could take it as well as with the drive through. At this site, we project we are going to have 72 inside customers for breakfast. Total parking spaces, we have 52. Eight of those parking spaces out front are for the C store. We have 13 employees on staff per shift and the C store has 2. So that's fifteen of those 52 spots are taken up for staff and eight are taken up for the C store side of it. Typically, on a C store, you've got fifteen to twenty parks on your average C store. The eight that we have allocated is less than what they would normally have if they were standing there by themselves. Then that would leave 29 remaining for just our customers. Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 30 Hoffman: But you share business too? Fullerton: There is some crossover. Twenty-nine of the remaining would service those 72 people eating breakfast in that period. So you have average stay time is 25 minutes, is what they project at this site I've shown how long they stay at the other stores. So, 25 minutes per person. You've got overlay in there, while other people are coming and going. We did not feel like our parking was excessive. Estes: That was one thing I wanted to talk about. Are we talking about the parking variance now? The variance is substantial. You've got 20% overage with 32 spaces and you want 52 spaces. My thinking would be that because you are dual branding and because I really think somebody is, maybe I'm wrong, I think somebody has caught on to this issue of customer knockdown cases in the parking lot. You have done a good job of preventing that, but you need more concrete to do that. I would go with the variance that you have requested. I see it as a safety issue and it's because I have been involved in a couple of these knockdown cases. You know, your store, the matching store that's on Sunset in Springdale? Fullerton: Yes. Estes: It's terrible. You park your car over there on the east perimeter and you walk across all that traffic to get in the building. When you come out of the building and the drive through lane is right by the door. I mean, it's a terrible situation. Small children walk out of that door. I haven't represented any children. I've represented elderly people, you know, they walk out and there is that sidewalk and they step off and somebody comes around the corner and knocks them down. This prevents that but you need more concrete to be able to do that. So I would go with that. Aguirre: And to that I might add, of course, we have an entity within our organization that helps critique and create site layout standards and the most recent versions that have come down to us... Estes: Somebody has caught on to that. Aguirre: Has caught on to that, you're right. There was a comment made about that... Estes: You know who the first one, you know, Taco Bell out here on 71 has got a real good pad layout to prevent pedestrian knockdowns. So, somebody at Oakbrook, somebody's attention has been grabbed. But it takes more concrete to do it. i • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 31 Aguirre: I was going to mention that there was a request made on the revised comment list to narrow the drive through and I was going to make a comment on that in regards to this parking issue because it's related. On our dining room side of the building, I think it's probably what they are targeting, because it would appear that there is an excessive amount on the site plan. If you look on the site plan, it shows the parking stripes. It would appear that there is an excessively wide drive through aisle; however, the same group that has addressed those issues has also addressed the fact that we've got several functions that happen on that side of the building. In addition to queuing parking, we have delivery of our product that happens on that side. At any given time, we could have possible four different functions going there; people queuing to park, the food product people dumping off the product, people trying to circulate the lot, and people trying to traverse across the lot. So, that's why our new design standards show a wider aisle on that side. If it needs to be requested, I would need to request a variance for that also. Estes: How does your product get to the store? Aguirre: Typically, they will come in on odd hours and park here. You will see that we have extended this concrete pad to handle the force of it. It will park like this, with the trailer here and off load to the side to protect the person unloading. At that brief time that it takes with our new delivery system, about 30 minutes or so to unload product, they will pylon this off with pylons so people will circulate around them. They will offload to this side and protect the person off loading with the actual truck. Estes: Okay. This one case I had was the eighteen wheeler pulled up out here. Somebody walked in back here and walked back out and got knocked down because the car was trying to whip into that driveway lane and they got knocked down. Aguirre: So they off load to the right side now and use similar to a fueling truck where the canopies go, use the truck to protect the person off loading. Again, they do pylon it off and mark it off as they are temporarily unloading. But for that reason, with so many functions stacked on that side of the building, we need to request a variance then for that wider aisle on that particular side. Estes: That is a nice idea of how to get your product and not leave that eighteen wheeler stuck right there. • Hoffman: I like that too. That is wider than our parking lot standard? • • • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 32 Conklin: Yes. Ward: It's supposed to be 25? Conklin: 24. Hoffman: If you could put some of this driveway location in perspective for us, that would be helpful. Estes: So you may want to kick me off, and you may not. Hoffman: What I look for when we have parking lot variances, is increased landscaping. When we have more pavement, I think it is a good idea to try and add some more landscaping. Did you have any opportunity to put any up by the building? Aguirre: Well, we could potentially turn these into landscape islands where you see the paint striping. We could also incorporate this area into the landscaping. Hoffman: This is Just a personal opinion. I think that might be a good idea if you could show additional landscaping, if you have other opportunities up closer to the street to help further screen the canopies for the gas pumps. I don't know if you could put some bigger trees in or something like that. Fullerton: We try not to put in trees that are too big because we want people to be able to see. Hoffman: Okay, increased landscaping near the building. Conklin: On the parking, it's always difficult, as Staff, to try to make a determination that they are having too much or not enough. They did show at the other stores in Fayetteville how much parking they have. At Crossover Road, they have 44 spaces. It is just my observation from going to that McDonald's, it seems to be pretty full most of the time. They are asking for 52 and this also has a convenience store and a car wash. Fullerton: I would ask that you keep in mind that even though these are per store, the sales volume dictates how many customers there are and those are different from store to store, so it's important to see how many, look at the customer breakdown. I would ask you to look at the customer breakdown versus the parking spaces, and not Just look at how many this one has and how many this one has. It's relative to the kind of business each store does. • • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 33 Conklin: One last comment before we leave on your curb cut. The City of Fayetteville does have design. We will allow 15 ft to go into the site, to leave the site needed, bring that down to 24 ft with a 10 ft island. That's our standard. We are going to have right and left out. Hoffman: Are you okay on this 18 ft? Conklin: Referring to your semi tractor trailer deliveries, is the 18 ft necessary? Are they coming around this building? Aguirre: They actually circulate the opposite direction of flow and they do come at odd hours. They do come that way and circulate that direction. They come when it's not crowded or in between rushes, when the parking lot is fairly vacant and go clockwise around the building and park on the pad there. Estes: But they do show up at unscheduled hours. Aguirre: I see your point, the turning radius. Conklin: I am not sure that you can get a truck around the building that way. Just be careful. Aguirre: I see your point. Fullerton: Is that radius okay back there, Ben? Aguirre: Well, yes, I mean we've got a bunch of stores with a 20 ft radius that they go into now. Fullerton: For fuel as well? Aguirre: Yes, fuel trucks will probably use that as well. So the only thing that we will have then as a circulation conflict is at that time. Of course, they will have somebody come out and make sure no one is coming in that entrance as they try to circulate through it, to drop delivery. Conklin; Our code is 12 feet, typically. I am not opposed to 18. • Hoffman: Are people going to try to pull in if it's 18? • • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 34 Conklin: Yes, 12 feet is typically all you need. I can have Perry Franklin look at it, also. Hoffman: Because the only thing that concerns me is that you may have people trying to pull in. Conklin: That's the purpose of a regulation is to define those aisles so you don't have multiple cars inside that driveway, trying to get in. Ward: I think it's important that they have that separate way out. Hoffman: Yes, I do too. Because you may want to get your hamburger and whatever and not have to deal with all the traffic out of here. Or it would be more convenient for a left turn. Aguirre: We have noticed from other developments similar to this that if there is a high amount of traffic circulating, you can get into some dangerous situations if you don't have a couple or at least one relief route out to get some of the people off the lot. If you try to get them all out of that one tri -cut at the front, that might be a little bit dangerous. Conklin: You are potentially are going to have big trucks, R.V.'s and other things. Ward: If they are coming off of the Interstate, you are going to have some bigger vehicles. One things about that oasis, which is now Pilot out there on 412 West, and their big problem is that there is no parking. If you stop to get fuel and try to go up to pay, there is no place to pull in. If you are trying to get a hamburger, there is not place to park. It's really a bad situation. Of course, all this back here is taken up by big trucks, but there is no place for regular customers with cars, R.V 's, or somebody with a boat, parking is awful. Estes: So what are you saying? Do you want to see 24 feet back there? Ward: I just know that this different than the one on 45 because you are going to have a lot more R.V.'s, big traffic coming in here too. There will be truckers coming off to go to McDonald's. I am lust saying that it needs to be at least that wide. Estes: Do you think it ought to be at least 18? Ward: Yes, and that's why I am not against having all that extra concrete for extra • parking because I think you will find out there is not enough parking. When I was driving down the Interstate and I pulled into McDonald's with my bass boat, I • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 35 ended taking up six or eight places. Conklin: They will end up parking at the Bank of Fayetteville, I guess. Hoffman: Okay. It will help to hear from Perry. Conklin: I will get with him and we will schedule a special Subdivision Committee meeting prior to agenda session next Thursday. We will put it on the agenda for Planning Commission so it won't delay you at all. Fullerton: Will they be on the same day? Conklin: Same day, Planning Commission agenda session is at 3:30. I will probably schedule the special meeting for 2:30. Fullerton: So the Subdivision Committee will be at 2:30 and the Planning Commission at 3:30. Okay. • Conklin: There is another meeting that sets the agenda. The applicants are not invited to that meeting. Fullerton. So we have another meeting a week from today, at 2:30. Hoffman: That is just so that the rest of the Planning Commission there will be more opportunity to get things clear. Otherwise, you will just go in circles. Fullerton: Good, we don't want to do that. Estes: Is there going to be any transition between the comments made today and the special meeting? Will you be there or are you going to turn everybody loose and start from scratch again? It seems to me that Tim or you sort of need to summarize what we have talked about. Hoffman: I am not sure what my schedule is, to be honest, but I will be happy to come in. Fullerton: Madame Chairperson, I would like to see you there. Sounds like a tough crowd. Hoffman: There is a chance I will be out of town, I will let you know as soon as I can. • Conklin: Well, we have the minutes of today's meeting, which will be distributed to the Planning Commissioner's at the agenda session. • • • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 36 Aguirre: If we can waive prior to that meeting, we will probably know shortly after this meeting. Fullerton: I am pretty confident that we are going to waive you guys. Aguirre: It's a phone call away. Conklin: With regard to revisions, typically you will revise your drawings and submit those to us, Monday at 10:00. It's either Monday or Wednesday. Hoffman: Unchartered territory. I am not completely sure what I am doing at this moment. What I'm trying to accomplish is that we give them as good of a feeling as we can for the full Planning Commission's thoughts. What I want to avoid is sending something to the Commission in a haphazard way. Estes: Pragmatically, I don't know if this would work or not, but I know what my thoughts are. You said, this is Just a phone call away? Fullerton: Yes, if I could Just step out, I could call. Aguirre: If we could just take a break real quick, we could call. Estes: Let me tell you one other thing. I am a lawyer, have been for about 25 years. About 10 years ago, I represented a McDonald's franchise. Mr. Matthews will know all of this. I have been to Oakbrook many times Fullerton: Let me just step out and make a phone call. Estes: Bill Matthews will know all that. Conklin: Sure. ( Off the record conversation before taping stops while Ms. Fullerton makes a phone call outside) Conklin: Mr. Robert Schmidt has requested Subdivision Committee approval to rebuild a single family house on an existing platted lot that was platted prior to rezoning ordinance. It's 50 ft wide. Based on our non -conforming uses and structures Section 164.07, anytime you have an existing lot in a previously developed subdivision platted prior to June 29, 1970, that the approval of the Subdivision • • • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 37 Committee, any single family dwelling addition or repair of existing single family dwelling may be constructed, in all residential zones in keeping with the existing standards in the neighborhood, so long as the setback is no less than five feet. That is what we are here for today. It is kind of unique. We don't have too many of these. There are some photographs, surrounding structures and what he is proposing and trying to make sure we are compliant with our ordinances and our non -conforming use. He is going to demolish. He has talked about getting a building permit to rehabilitate or restore the structure. We have also talked about demolishing the structure and starting over. This is on Leighton trail. Staff is recommending approval and has brought this forward to you today. Hoffman: Pretty view. Ward: It's rough. Conklin: It should be an improvement to the neighborhood. Ward: It will be. Hoffman: It takes this Committee's approval because it's non -conforming? Conklin: Yes, our land lot requirement is 70 feet in width, 8000 square ft. Estes: Has somebody been living in that thing? Ward: It's been a rental property for a long time. Hoffman: It's not Board of Adjustment, it's Subdivision? Conklin: It states the Subdivision Committee. Hoffman: Okay, has notifaction been sent out? Conklin: It's silent on the issue. It just states that the approval of the Subdivision Committee. Hoffman: Okay. If there are no public notification problems, I am for it. It seems to me that just on face value, that it's an improvement. • • • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 38 Ward: It's a tremendous improvement. I have seen this structure and it's really bad. I would make a recommendation that we approve it today. Estes: I'll second. Hoffman: I'll concur. Conklin: Thank you. I think that it's important when you have an existing platted lot that's in separate ownership, you do have to allow them to have reasonable use of the land zoned R-1 single family. You should be allowed to have a single family home. Ninety-nine percent of the time, we are going to approve. Hoffman: We encourage good re -development. That's important. (Taping stops) Estes: We need to disclose on the record. Fullerton: This is Kris Fullerton with McDonald's and we are waiving the conflicts of interest and recusing. Hoffman: With that being said, we are going to go ahead and call for a motion on the McDonald's. The items to be considered are the commercial design standards and various items regarding the driveways and parking. Our previous informal discussion was centered around those items. I would think that those positions stated would still stand. Staff will have a report for us by agenda session, I assume for Perry Franklin, from our Traffic Superintendent, who can bring the full Commission up to speed on the recommendations or other requirements regarding the location of the driveways. Personally, I don't have a problem with the location of the driveways. I think that the one closest to Wedington might be a bit wide, 30 ft versus 24 ft. and I don't know if I would have an opinion about the 18 ft wide driveway. I will formally say that I would like to see the red roof toned down. I would be against the light bars because of other, similar. We are try to make continuity between projects. Would the canopy match the roof? Would the color match the roof? Aguirre: They are actually two different colors but they are very similar. We just developed our first one with the same partner in Van Buren and the two reds are almost identical. They are actually called Exxon red, so technically, no they are • Subdivision Committee April 13, 2000 Page 39 not the same color. Hoffman. Can you bring pictures? Fullerton: Yes, we can. Aguirre: Yes. Hoffman: So, that's my piece. Do you have anything to add? Estes: I don't have any problem with the variance on parking. I don't have any problem with the width of the drives because the circulation issues, safety issues. I do concur with your comments regarding the lighted roof beams and toning down the red. That's it. Hoffinan: Okay. Lee? Ward: Yes, I think probably all the same things hold with me. I don't think we would • allow the bright colors that we talked about, even though I probably would allow it personally, I don't think the Planning Commission would allow it. I think we'll go ahead and this will have to be moved on. I think it's time to go ahead and I make a motion that we approve LSD 00-8.00 Large Scale Development for McDonald's and Exxon, and moved on the full Planning Commission for the next April meeting. I think you kind of got the three of us, but that doesn't mean the whole Planning Commission. • Hoffman: We will try to do a good job at our agenda session relaying all these comments and I think you will have submitted some revised drawings that we can discuss. Estes: Madame Chair, I second Commissioner Ward's motion but I have a question. I think I went out to get some coffee when we were talking about the landscape plan. Do we have a landscape plan? What's going to happen about that? Hoffman: There is one and they are going to revise it to put a little bit more landscaping up by the building. Any questions? Thank you. I am sorry about the confusion. I really did not know that this was going to be the case today. Aguirre: That's okay. Hoffinan: We are adjourned.