Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-27 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE • • SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, April 27, 2000 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSD 00-2.10 Atlas Construction, pp 367 AD 00-11.00 Nelms, PP 248 Discussion of Drive -In Theater on Hwy 112 MEMBERS PRESENT Bob Estes Lorel Hoffman Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Sara Edwards Tim Conklin Ron Petrie Kim Hesse Chuck Rutherford ACTION TAKEN Forwarded to PC Approved Approved to submit LSD MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF ABSENT Perry Franklin • Subdivision Committee April 27, 2000 Page 2 LSD 00-2.10: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT P.U.D. (ATLAS CONSTRUCTION, PP 367) This was submitted by Chris Patton of Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of Dan Ferguson of Atlas construction for property located on Sycamore between Woodland and North College. The property is zoned R-1.5, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.95 acres with 5 units proposed. COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION Hoffman: This is the April 27, 2000 meeting of the Subdivision Committee. We have two items on our agenda this morning. The first is a LSD and P.U.D. for Atlas Construction which is located on Sycamore between Gregg and North College. Thank you. And the second item is an administrative item for Nelms. So, that being said, Tim. Conklin: This is a planned unit development containing five units. Each of the units contain • 3,200 square feet, 2,800 square feet of heated area and 400 square feet for the garages. Parking will be provided for the use of garages and driveways. Each unit will be separately owned. The property was rezoned on November 16, 1999 from RI to R1.5. This project was originally reviewed at the February 16, 2000 Technical Plat Review and Staff did request it be redesigned in order to meet the PUD ordinance requirements regarding open space and preservation of natural features. This project was resubmitted at the April 12, 2000 Technical Plat Review with one less unit and six additional trees preserved. All planned unit developments are required to preserve at least 30 percent open space. This development is preserving 34.1 percent open space. There is still an issue with regard to a building set back on the west property line. Our recommendation that the project be redesigned to meet the ordinance requirements. Kim Hesse will also give a report regarding tree preservation and compliance with that ordinance. Conditions to address, one the requested waiver to reduce the setback on the west side of this development. The applicant is requesting to reduce the setback from the required 20 feet to 11 feet. Our P.U.D. ordinance requires that any structure containing more than two units which exceed one story shall be setback an additional foot for every foot in height over ten feet when adjacent to single family development. The proposed buildings are 22 feet tall That's -the setback I was referring to. • Hoffman: So that would mean a 22 foot setback? • • Subdivision Committee April 27, 2000 Page 3 Conklin: Twenty two foot setback. Hoffman: Okay, because you are saying it requires... Conklin: Twenty foot. I'm sorry. You have an eight foot setback required and then you have to add twelve Hoffman: You add twelve Conklin: Twelve you add for the top of that. Hoffman: Okay. Conklin: Condition two, Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver to allow a private dead end street. Our P.U.D. ordinance requires private streets to be permitted only for a loop street or street ending in a cul-de-sac. Staff is supporting this request to the use of a dead end street. More open space and tree canopy are able to be preserved. Typically, this is a pioneer development and I'll go over the ordinance after I go thru these Staff conditions. Typically this isn't considered a private drive. You would have a cul-de-sac for cars to turn around. Number three is Planning Commission determination of compliance with compliance with tree preservation. The applicant is required to preserve 20 percent of existing tree canopy in an R -I.5 district. The Landscape Administrator will make a recommendation regarding tree protection and preservation this morning. Number four, restrictive covenants must be submitted that provide for the maintenance of open space and maintenance of the private drives. Number five, developer shall erect at the entrance of the private street a rectangular sign not exceeding 12"x24" designating the street as a private street and shall be clearly visible to motor vehicle traffic. And number six, a waste management plan must be approved by the Environmental Affairs Administrator. The rest are standard conditions of approval. I did make copies of the R-1.5 zoning district standards and I'll pass those out. I did want to go over why this is a planned unit development verses just a standard conventional multi -family development. This site was rezoned from R-1 to R-1.5. If someone brought a building permit into the Planning Division they would not be allowed to develop at this density. Hoffman: And that was a different, that was a different proposal in front of us as a part of that rezoning I remember. This is not the same, the same site, different buildings. • Parton We just had one additional building. • • • Subdivision Committee April 27, 2000 Page 4 Conklin: Hoffman: Conklin: One additional building which they removed because in my opinion it was not meeting our Planned Unit Development Ordinance. I'm still concerned with preservation of natural features. So, let me just go thru this ordinance really quick. If someone came in for a building permit on this lot and they asked planning staff what could be developed on this lot, we would require that each lot for a three family structure or triplex, have 90 feet of frontage. So, basically looking at this lot with public street frontage you would have one triplex. That is the reason they have applied for a planned unit development which is proposing what we classify as a duplex and a triplex, each of those would have to have the frontage requirement on the public street. They can't meet that on Sycamore Street. They are not proposing any additional public streets. So, therefore, we have a planned unit development. I also included, if you turn to your second page under Section 166.06 Planned Unit Development, and this is important for the Commission to consider, and the Subdivision Committee, A)Purpose: to be approved the plan must comply with the provision of this section and must achieve all the following purposes, more efficient use of land, more efficient use of public facilities, more useable open space through structure grouping and other design techniques and for preservation of appropriate natural and physical features. Approval B) a Planning Commissioner shall not approve a plat unless it finds that a satisfactory provision has been made concerning the following where applicable. I don't, I didn't have the list of that but I did want to make sure that as Staff, when they first came to us, I was concerned with six units because it's hard for me to look at this site and say they've grouped their structures together to preserve natural resources. This site has about 100 percent tree canopy over it. I think the tree canopy is probably a natural feature you want to try to preserve. Therefore, we have also haven't recommended the setback on the west side. We did meet with engineers, applicant's representatives and did suggest turning the buildings possibly this way, running east west and allowing possibly additional open space to be preserved and possibly some additional trees up here. I think the important thing to remember is the zoning allows how many units you can place on this property. They have chosen to request dwelling units that contain 2,800 square feet of heated space and 400 square feet of garage, unheated space. The size of the units, in my opinion is making it difficult to meet our ordinance requirements. And, essentially we have two more units based just on the configuration of the lot than would be normally permitted because of the street frontage? Yes. That's correct. • • Subdivision Committee April 27, 2000 Page 5 Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Rutherford: Hoffman: Petrie: Hoffman: Petrie: Hoffman: Petrie: Ward: Petrie: Hoffman: Peter: The 90 foot at street would give us three and since we don't have a public street back thru here then there is nothing to connect to. Yes. We are using the private street ordinance to get around that requirement. That is Staff's presentation. Planning Staff's. Thank you very much. Before we have questions and answers, I'd like to hear from the rest of the staff. Chuck. They have made the corrections on the sidewalks. Sidewalks. Okay. Engineering? On condition number four states restrictive covenants must be submitted that provide for maintenance of open space and private drives. I'd like to ask for detention ponds on that. Is that in the back there? That long skinny thing? Uh huh. Okay. Is that the approximate or is that the location that you feel pretty confident it would stay in, or would it get bigger? About the size, I feel comfortable with. I have a lot of concerns about how this discharges. We've got a situation where they are providing detention and they are going to make it pretty close on flows and that's on a grade that has a situation where everything is sheet flowing off this lot and now we are bringing it all to one point. I'm, that I can not accept. A method would have to be provided to bring this more in line with the existing conditions. What's the best way to do that? I don't have a good answer for you. There are several different ways but off the top of my head, I'm not sure. But that would be to get something from the pond out to the street right? Something to get something from the pond out toward the street, or no? Well, there are not streets down stream. • • • Subdivision Committee April 27, 2000 Page 6 Hoffman: I know that. Conklin: Everything flows away from Sycamore Street. Petrie: If the school doesn't have a problem with it, I shouldn't have a problem with it. But I don't know if they do or they don't. So, I'm going to err on the save side and say you need to spread this flow back out over this property somehow. Hoffman: Any other concerns? How long do you think it will take to find out, with you all working together, on a plan for the drainage? Contacting the school and working together on this? Parton We can contact the schools, you know as early as today probably. Hoffman: Okay. I'd like you, go ahead. Parton If we can get an answer that quick, who knows. But we can certainly contact them today. Hoffman: Let staff know when you submit another revision. Miss Kim. Hesse: I'm just going to basically read off my comments. Chris, I don't think we have 24 inch trees identified. I looked at the originals and it didn't have it on there. We need it on the new one, the size of the trees. When I just look at these plans it looks like to me you're saving more than 10 percent. So we are calculating just roughly and what I come up with is more like 15 percent or 16 percent. We require 20 percent so, I mean, we need another four to five percent tree preservation. Ward: You're talking about tree canopy? Hesse: Tree canopy. I'm, it's questionable on some of these trees as to how they will be preserved. If the plan was to go through, we would need some special conditions for aeration to the roots that are under pavement, things like that. I'm recommending 20 percent but I don't know if there are ways to move the buildings or if there is one percent we don't know about. There are a lot of trees on here that are small and they don't show up. Hoffman: So, the ones that they are showing are how large? Hesse: Those are 24". They are pretty good sized including the ones shown that are • • • Subdivision Committee April 27, 2000 Page 7 Targe, Targe trees. Hoffman: So, you are saying in any case, they have met the minimum 15 percent? Hesse: Well, it's 20 percent. We're at 15 to 16 percent right now. The calculations show 10 percent. So, I mean it's going to be questionable. Conklin: And the trees that are shown are rare landmark. Parton: I was just counting the larger trees and I'll have to go back out and look. I don't remember seeing any other trees but I'll go back and look. Ward: So you want him to number each tree and put how big it is? Size of the tree? Hesse: Yes, the size and number. And what is questionable is this tree right here. I don't, I'm not even counting that. Parton: If we were to do some type of special type of system underneath the paving, you know, to allow those roots to get things it needs, which would be air and water, would we be able to count that? Hesse: I'm kind of a little worried about this. This has to be trenched in, your sewer, it has to be deep enough to flow so you're cutting all of that off. You're cutting that off with the foundation probably five feet down the wall if not more. So, if we are not cutting at all here, that's one thing. Hoffman: Can these be moved back? Parton: They're about as close as they can be to that detention pond. Conklin: To that detention pond. Parton: I don't remember the requirement, Ron, but there's a pretty good requirement for that detention pond for setback. I don't remember exactly what it is, but we are right at it right now. Hoffman: But we can waive it. We could take, I remember that because.. Ward: I'd leave the setback alone at the pond. Conklin: What is that Ron? • • • Subdivision Committee April 27, 2000 Page 8 Petrie: It's 30 feet from the building. Conklin: Thirty feet from the building. Hoffman: Plus I'm sure they don't want to step out their back door into the ditch. So this gives you, and I think, good reason for concern about these trees in-between the two structures that causes the sewer, can the sewer be resolved or can we do anything else. Parton: We didn't see a different way to get sewer up there to those three units along the street up the hill. Hoffman: It's coming from behind? Parton: Yes. With the possibility of finishing up the basement, what we looked at was bringing the sewer further up the hill and running it in front of the units actually between the street and the, with the potential of finishing out that basement if we can get the sewer deep enough for the lower floor to be able to get into the sewer. So, we felt like that wasn't an option. Hesse: At this point I'm not counting that tree. If we were able to save that tree he might be at the 20 percent, but I 'd have to look closely at the conditions. Hoffman: Is there a way, Chris, we can move this up and bring all these lines side by side in one trench? Parton: If engineering has no problem with that I see no problem with that. Petrie: As long as they are separate lines. Parton: Right. Hoffman: I like that, or something better than fanning out thru those root lines. I think if you all can work on that and come up with a way to not impact these trees by either running it to the front, because I think you can just bury it. It may cost a little more but, just bury it or come up with a way to get it closer to the back of these buildings and maybe shift this back a little bit, I don't know if that would be something that would help. Kim, what kind of trees are these? Hesse: A lot of big ones are oaks. • Subdivision Committee April 27, 2000 Page 9 Parton: They are, I think all the big ones are oak. Hoffman: Okay, at this point we will bring the discussion to the applicant. Do you have a presentation to make or do you just want to answer question? Parton: I think we have really hashed out everything that I was going to present all ready. You know, Tim did mention that the developer has agreed to drop one unit in order to try to preserve the nice open space and the rare trees in the area that were there and the developer has gone a long way in making that gesture. Ward: What about, Chris, what about, Tim had mentioned kind of a flip-flopping those first three units. Would that help at all? Parton: We looked at that, Lee, and never wanted to see this, this drive was such that, that drive is something about a 12 to 13 percent slope and from one end of the garage to the other end, you're going to have quite a bit of slope. • Ward: A pretty good slope, about 35 feet? Parton: There's about 20, about 30 to 35 feet from one corner to the other. So, it's a very steep side. Ward: Is there any old buildings or anything on this now? Parton: No. There was a house on it at one time, several years ago but there's nothing there now. PUBLIC COMMENT Hoffman: Okay. I'll take public comment at this time. If you would please stand and, sir, would you please let us know your name. Gill: Earl Gill. This is my wife Kay. We own the property at 1716 Woodland Avenue which, the back yard buts up against that property. We are mainly interested in the drainage off there that it doesn't come off into our lot that we are on. Hoffman: Which one, are you towards the back of this property? • Gill: Our two lot back up together. • Subdivision Committee April 27, 2000 Page 10 Hoffman: Okay. I see where you are. Gill: We already get a good bit of drainage right straight north off of the yard with the house on the corner and I want to be sure that the drainage from that lot doesn't rush into our yard. Hoffman: Ron, can you talk about that or whoever. Petrie: With the drainage that is proposed would not effect your property with the trench to the north along with the contours would be picked up in the parking lot to this detention ponds. So you have, you would see no effect. Hoffman: So it already does drain, are they going to be doing some regrading to make sure that it all goes to the back here? Petrie: That's what it's doing. Gill: Are these going to be individual buildings or one apartment building? • Conklin: Do you want to come up here and I'll show you what they are proposing. Gill: Just out of curiosity, I'd like to see Conklin: These three units are attached and you have two units attached back here. Hoffman: And your property is there as shown. Kay: This is to the west and this is on the east? Conklin: Here's your property. Here's Woodland and here's Sycamore Street. Gill: I see. Ferguson: This is what each unit looks like and it will just be three of those side by side. Gill: I guess it would be nice to know exactly what was going to be built there, but the main thing I'm interested in is the drainage. • Hoffman: Will, it sounds like the problem, from what I'm hearing is not going to be for your property because they would have to, they are adding all the concrete, they are going to have direct it in a way that's going to be directed back towards that • • • Subdivision Committee April 27, 2000 Page 11 school and we're concerned about that. Gill: Our son lives there. We live in Bentonville and I thought we'd come down and see exactly what was going to be placed there. Hoffman: Well, thank you for coming and if you have any, as things progress and the process moves on, if you have questions, the Planning Office is always happy to answer them. Estes: Does Engineering have an opinion as to whether the proposed grading and drainage with the detention pond to the rear would improve what Mr. and Mrs. Gill are now experiencing? Petrie: That would have no effect one way or the other. Hoffman: I guess that brings up the question, is there screening that's going to be put up? Parton: Six foot wood fence. Hoffman: Wood privacy fence? Parton: Yes around the three sides. Then along the front we are proposing a wrought iron fence with posts every 10 feet. 18 inch, 19 inch posts every 10 feet. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Hoffman: Is there anyone else from the public that would like to comment on this project? With that I'll bring it back to Staff, applicant and the committee for more discussion. I guess the first thing to discuss would be the setbacks. Yes, let's talk about the setbacks first, of this unit one. Conklin: Once again it's a planned unit development, because it's a planned unit development the Planning Commission has to look at those purposes of in order to approve this that they are clustering the units together, preserving natural features and it's hard for me to support a variance of that setback with, I guess I've heard today they may or may not be meeting the tree preservation ordinance. This is, I think it's different from looking at other developments because they are asking, in my opinion, for consideration to be allowed as a PUD and I think the nature] features on the site are the rare trees. It's not just your conventional apartment subdivision or large scale development so, that's the reason why I'm not going to support that. I believe they could redesign this site, cluster the units • • • Subdivision Committee April 27, 2000 Page 12 together and actually preserve more natural features. Hoffman: And save more trees on the site? Conklin: I'm not sure they could save more trees. Hesse: There are two of these trees that are questionable. You're cutting most the roots off. One of them, you're cutting two thirds of the roots off. But one for sure not preserved and the other is questionable. Conklin: Also, what I looked at just trying to group these structures closer together, you wouldn't have your private drive, your concrete private drive up along Sycamore Street. Now, as staff, all these years, I know it's difficult. We try not to design someone's project, I'm just looking at alternatives to group these buildings closer together to meet the ordinance requirements. They have specific requirements on the buildings they have chosen to build here. They want people to be able to walk out the bottom basement out onto grade, the back yards. Ferguson: It's also designed so that, like the lower part was designed so that it would also serve as, you know, tornado shelter type thing. Put a bedroom back under there, it's easy to get to. The land is designed already the way it's sloped, it's ideal for this type of planning. And that's the reason why we selected it. Hoffman: Well, if you can't meet the setback and I think setbacks are important, because you have a single family zoned property right next door to you, it appears to me that you may even have one more too many units. I understand it's a heavy economic impact to make a statement about, but the recent current events have taught us that not only do we have to meet many ordinances on these sites, the tree preservation is important. If you're not going to be able to viably preserve trees that you've counted in these numbers, you've got that issue then you've got the setback issue. Ferguson: We had talked that we could possibly go this way another, maybe five feet to pull this way so that we get another five feet onto this setback. Hoffman: The thirteen feet? Ferguson: Yes. Hoffman: What does that do to this width of this grass? How wide is this drive? • • Subdivision Committee April 27, 2000 Page 13 Parton: It's 22 feet right now from face to face. Ferguson: It won't change the size of the drive it just, we just have to reconfigure the way we do the retaining wall so that it's closer to the corner. Hoffman: Did the fire department have anything to say about the length of the driveway? Conklin: No they haven't. Edwards: They didn't make any comment. Hoffman: I believe that there are some fire codes about how deep is the lot. Parton: It's 297. Hoffman: In order to move you over and decrease maybe even the width of the drive, the fire department, I think, wants to be able to pull a fire truck in for 150 feet straight in and be able to back out and they can have a turn around. I don't know if that's the particular expression of this fire chief, but you might want to check with him and see if that would be acceptable to them and you could have a tum around along here and make this to meet their requirements. Conklin: I could get with Mickey Jackson. Ferguson: As far as my understanding as far as the width of the drive being 22' we wouldn't be changing that we would just be changing, getting closer to the retaining wall with the drive. Hoffman: I understand that but thirteen feet is not twenty feet. Ferguson: Well, I understand. We are trying to, you know pull it over as far as we can to work with everybody. Hoffman: And I appreciate that. Ward: Do you think you can sell these units? These are pretty big units. Ferguson: We actually have three of them already sold. • Ward: Some things that I have concerns with for sure, will be on residential 20 percent canopy. There is not going to be a change on that, okay. I mean, on commercial Subdivision Committee April 27, 2000 Page 14 I'm more lenient in my case personally on commercial developments. Ferguson: You talking about the tree canopy? Ward: Yes, and the same way on setbacks. I would like to see the full area developed more, personally, because I think it's been mainly rental units right through there and I'd like, these are really expensive, nice looking units as afar as for that area, so it's kind of one thing I was worried about. You put that kind of expensive unit on there, who are you going to sell them to because you are over building the area to the lower value Everything else along here is, that I know of is all pretty much rental property Ferguson: I understand. Hoffman: More modest. Ward: But, anyway those are my only concerns. I'm ready to push this on. Ferguson: I think we can get the tree canopy part but as far as being able to make that setback I don't see how we are going to be able to clear the 20 feet. Estes: My concerns would be the same as Lee's. I need to see 20 percent tree canopy and I need to see those setbacks. Hoffman: I think we have made just a few suggestions that you all can maybe go back to the drawing board with and try to work with staff. I'm also concerned about the drainage. I would think that addressing, for agenda session, I wouldn't be able to do any kind of approvals at this level. Conklin: So you want to forward this on but with the recommendation that they revise it but go directly to Planning Commission? Hoffman: With specific goals to achieve. And I guess if you all want to craft a motion that would include those four things, or I can do it. Ferguson: So we need to meet the tree canopy and the set back. The drainage I don't think that's, I don't think we have a problem getting that worked out and I think we can meet the tree canopy. Hoffman: But have a definite answer for us by that next Thursday. • Subdivision Committee April 27, 2000 Page 15 Ward: I think on the setback that, you know, if you get real close, I don't think it has to be set in stone, but if you get closer than what you are now, it would be a lot better. Ferguson: Well, we've been working. We will try to pull this over as far as we possibly can. Ward: If we miss by a few feet that's one thing, but if we miss by this, where you are at, that's another. Ferguson: I understand. We're twelve feet right now. I understand that. Hoffman: A private drive ought to be able to go down to 15 feet I think. Conklin: The private drive, actually, it says in the plat ordinance, 22 feet. The fire chief by state law is 20 feet. Hoffman: But he doesn't have that hundred and fifty foot turn around. • Conklin: I'll check with him, but I'd say minimum would be 20 because Mickey Jackson tells me 20 feet every couple of weeks. • Hoffman: Okay, and then I guess we had forgotten to ask how your waste disposal was going to be handled. Would, how would it be screened? Parton: I talked with Ms. Zotti last week and all she asked right now is that we Just allocate some space somewhere on this site where a future trash closure, if it is necessary. What they are planning right now is for each individual tenant to place their bins in purple bags out front for solid waste. Hoffman: Out front at the street? Parton: Either out front at that street or in front of the, she said if, they haven't really determined yet if they are going to pull down in and then back out or if they want them to place it on the street. Hoffman: Okay, if it's on the street, we'll be looking for a screen enclosure. Parton: Right. Hoffman: And if it's for each unit, then we'll go with that. o • • Subdivision Committee April 27, 2000 Page 16 Ward: Conklin: Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman. MOTION Estes: Hoffman: Parton: Hoffman: Ward: Hoffman: Parton: Ferguson: Tim, does he need to show where he is going to show where he's going to put this 12"x24" private street sign on the plat? I don't think it's that serious at this time. Overall, I think it's, you know, it's going to be real attractive design, I just want the details worked out. I just want to make one more statement too, that it was, when it was zoned RI that would allow four units per acre. This is an acre lot so we are really close to overall density that would be allowed even in R-1. With R-1.5 the issue is trying to, with the streets, the private drives. Okay. Madam Chair, I would move that we forward LSD 00-2.1 to the full Commission with the condition that there be a 20 percent tree canopy provided, that the setback be provided as approved and as described in staff comment, 20 foot. Uh, what else? That the detention pond drainage issues be known, I can't say resolved, but they need to be looked at. We need to contact the school basically. Yes, concerning that run off. Tree canopy, I think there was one more, I can't remember it. We have to approve the dead ending of the cul-de-sac. I'd recommend that. Second I'll concur. Thanks gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you. Subdivision Committee April 27, 2000 Page 17 AD 00-11.00 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM NELMS, pp 248 A revision to the approved landscaping plan of the Large Scale Development. Conklin: Kim, would you like to talk about Nelms and what they are requesting? Hoffman: Item two on our agenda is an administrative item for a revision to the approved plan for the Nelms development. Hesse: What we had talked about is leaving, and the reason why I wanted to bring this back is because during the Subdivision and also the Planning Commission meeting this had been discussed as being, you guys actually specifically mentioned this planting and this planting at the entrance. Mr Nelms would like to move and spread some of this planting into other portions of the site. Part of that reason is and I have to agree with him, when you are, especially when you are traveling this way, it really, any direction you travel you really don't see this corner. It's hidden by the bank which is where your overpass is. So, this way he can kind of spread some of that greenery out to this quarter. I think he's kept everything in the front here and some of the other plants have gone in other locations like right in here. Nelms: In every comer, we've put plantings in every comer where you turn. Hoffman: What is the status of your planting? Have you really started any? Nelms. It's probably, I'd say 75 percent complete. All the irrigation is just about in. It hasn't been fired up. It's over such a big area, for instance, in this area we've got some areas that are still being used for construction so we haven't put anything in there. But all the irrigation along in here and all this is finished. In fact all the plantings in these areas are beginning, I think these are all finished and these are finished along here. These are finished and these are beginning to get underway. The irrigation is to it. So it will be done, when we are finished with this thing, it will be done. It won't be lagging behind 1 don't think at all. In fact I think it will be done before the whole thing is finished. Estes: Are we going to have more or less when we are done? Nelms: The current plan that we had in here had 129 trees. This new one will have 130. And shrubbery had 1039 and will go to 1089. We've added some additional • • • Subdivision Committee April 27, 2000 Page 18 planting in the internal parts of the project. Hoffman: So you've moved what? Nelms: The main things that we have moved are some landscaping in here. We left the trees there it was just the landscaping we've moved out into here because if you come down the road and see this side, as you're coming on the road on this side it's so high and so you can't see any of this. So we've just moved it here. Also on the entrances we had to round things out here and we brought those into the corners. We feel like these are more appropriate places for them. We've moved some shrubbery on this side of the street to this side of the street because this is just inventory collection and this is the frontage of the dealerships. But all of the canopy and all the plantings here were screening purposes, all this remains pretty much the same. Hoffman: So this is, you're just clumping them in this area right here, pretty much. Nelms: No, that's trees that is there now. Hesse: Here, here and here I think takes up what used to be here. Nelms: We just redistributed it to where people will actually see it. Where we think it will have an impact on the ascetics of the project. Hesse: Most of this goes above and beyond what was required. But since it was mentioned at the meeting, I felt we should discuss it. Hoffman: I think it was a good idea to clump it, I understand you couldn't have islands in your lot areas and it was a good idea to clump it towards the road. I would be inclined to go along with this because I just figure things weren't really done, but it is seemly quite bare in this area, so if you haven't planted this yet I understand that but if there isn't going to anything planted here, I think I'd like to see that... Ward: It would look better to have more planting down in here. Nelms: Well, we have done this just by looking at after we've done it. It's so hard to visualize something so complicated as this. Hoffman: You have really made good time, I'd say, in your construction schedule. I'm amazed at how quickly it has seemed to have gone. Nelms: We needed it to happen pretty quick. I tell you the reason, a couple of reasons it • • • Subdivision Committee April 27, 2000 Page 19 Ward: Conklin: MOTION Ward: Nelms: Hesse: Nelms. Hoffman: Nelms. Ward: Nelms. Hesse: Nelms: did is we spent so much time planning this thing and when we came to you I told you, they were questioning all this and we told you we thought of that, we thought of that. I mean we really worked on the planning. A lot of these things were thought through so it was a matter of just building it. Are we going to just approve this at this level? Yes. I recommend we approve it and we have Kim's approval and if Don want's to plant some more shrubs and trees out in this, especially shrubs and stuff out in this area here where it's kind of wide open, that would be great. Well, this isn't wide open. We've got a pretty good tree canopy here so we've got to be kind of careful about what we do to those. In fact one of those, part of one of those trees, one of them is almost like two trees and it's going to have to have some work done on it at some point. And those things are, tell me again what those are? Hackberry. They are hackberry. They are not the longest lived trees in the world. Aren't you glad you didn't have a heavily treed site? No comment. With rare and landmark trees. Well, actually we had some rare. This right here we didn't save quite a few, we saved them all. We saved all of them. These right here are old fence line trees and if we ever built something in here, those are probably going to have to go, but these are really pretty monumental sort of trees and we had no intension of ever doing anything to them. And we have a little pond in here. Yes, we built a pond in the middle of them and we have a sidewalk going down to them. When you come out and get your car serviced you'll be able to walk on the • • • Subdivision Committee April 27, 2000 Page 20 sidewalk all the way down to here down thru those trees. Hoffman: Wonderful. Ward: When you get your free oil change. Nelms. No I didn't say that now. Hoffman: I had a motion, I don't know if I had a second? Estes: I second. I agree with Lee's comments. Hoffman: And I will concur. Thank you for continuing to take regard to the appearance because you are in a prominent spot, believe me. Nelms. We thank you all and you all have been very cooperative. Kim has and everybody has and Tim and we appreciate it a great deal. • • Subdivision Committee April 27, 2000 Page 21 PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF DRIVE IN THEATER ON WHY 112 Conklin: If you have a couple of minutes, I have Chris Parton coming in to talk about the drive in theater. I was concerned about the dust issue. I don't know if Chris had talked to you about this at all. Chris since you happened to be here, that is my biggest concern about dust. Ward: Do we need to hear this too? Conklin: Yes. I'm trying to get some advise. Chris Parton called with a request this week. They have a proposal to expand the existing drive in theater in this area. Hoffman: Orient us please Conklin: Existing drive in is here. 112 is here. The is the existing drive. Parton: Nelms Auto Plaza is over here. • Conklin: This is the existing screen right here. • Hoffman: And they are proposing this? Conklin: Yes. Hoffman: Well, that answers my question about the light. If they are going to expand the theater I was worried you couldn't see the movie theater for the lights from your parking lot. Nelms: The candle power in this area is very low and we intentionally did that knowing this was a drive in. All of our lights that are brighter are up this way. We got this down into the, probably by the time you get to this tree line we are probably in the two candle power area. Pretty low light. Parton: What they want to do also, they want to see the outline of tree canopy out through there and they want to save as much of that as possible to screen that light from coming over into their property. They actually, they're going to have to do some work on their projection house sounds like, put in some digital projectors and to beef up their system to offset what little additional light there is right now, sounds like. Conklin: The main issue, what they met with us earlier this week on was they want, this has • • Subdivision Committee April 27, 2000 Page 22 already been graded, this entry was built to serve two screens. That's their, the screen house is there. They want to add the screen. They want to take the top soil off and put SB2 gravel like they have over here. I don't have any problem with that. My concern was dust with your cars sitting at Nelms. We drove out there earlier this week, drove around on it and it doesn't seem to be too dusty, but before, I guess, this project will not go forward if they have to pave the area where you park the cars to watch the show. Nelms. Tim, you know, under all cost and from my standpoint, of course, those are not the most sensitive cars as far as dirt is concerned. I will be extremely opposed to paving that from a drainage stand point. Hoffman: So the SB2 would be fine with you? Nelms: We'll work that out with them. I mean, if we've got to, if it gets so bad we have to wash cars, I'll go over there and raise cane, but under no circumstances do I want to see that paved. Hoffman: I imagine in the summer when it's pretty dry, do they wet it down? Parton: No Conklin: No Hoffman: They don't? Nelms: If you, I mean, the first year you'll get some but probably after that, I doubt seriously it would be a problem. Of course we won't be there most of the time any way. Hoffman: Midnight madness sales. Conklin: I kind of wanted to get your three opinions on that before they hired a Crafton, Tull and spent thousands of dollars. Ward: The main thing we are worried about is wether the SB2 is acceptable? Hoffman: Is some quirky ordinance going to come out of the brook and bite us? • Conklin: I'm not calling it a parking lot. I don't think it's a parking lot. It's a drive in theater. We haven't had one of those built in a number of years. • • • Subdivision Committee April 27, 2000 Page 23 Ward: I don't think there has been a new drive in theater built anywhere in the country. Hoffman: I think we need to go down and get us a world record. Conklin: We would ask that they pave this exit drive up to this point. We went out there and it's not paved right now. It's paved to this point right here. I think you're at higher speeds. Nelms: You know this land right here is ours. And it's not even zoned C-2. It's zoned A- 1 still. And I'm probably, to be honest with you, I'd be surprised if any of you all are still here when we come back to rezone. But it could happen next week but I have no intentions to rezone it now. Estes: Where is the flood plain lay on Mr. Nelms' property? Nelms: You talking about the drainage easement? The drainage easement is right down the center of this line. Estes: I thought some of this was in a flood way. Conklin: That's correct. There is a flood plain and flood way out in this area. Parton: I don't know exactly where it is but it will be along those south lines. Conklin: A lot of this that will be in the flood plain they can fill the flood plain. There is no problem with that. Hoffman: So does this cover as far as a large scale development? Conklin: Yes, I'm requiring it to go through large scale. Estes: Now if you fill a flood plain or flood way, what does that do to the drainage of Mr. Nelms property if you raise it, what effect? Does engineering have a comment? Parton: If I can step in for a minute, they are not wanting to do anything as far as grading is concemed. When they built the original drive in they did all the grading for that second screen. It' already been done. All they want to do is come in, strip the top soil and put down a little bit of red hill side, come back with six inches of gravel on top of that, packed in. There's no change in elevation whatsoever. • • • Subdivision Committee April 27, 2000 Page 24 Petrie: And you checked to see if that screen is in the flood way? Parton: Have not done that yet, Ron, but I'm pretty confident that it's not. Nelms: One thing that I will comment about it, just for whatever it's worth department, we have the drainage easement that the city required right down through here. And it's actually split on these folks land and our land. It just has a few feet on their land, most of it is on our land. We are incurring some elevation issues with this on the other side of the road over here, over there by the trucking company. But that thing down through the years has, settlement off of this when this was built thru the ditches and so forth, I don't really think it really is, I don't think we produced much settlement. I went over and looked at it and we haven't had much at all. There is an elevation issue there and we probably need to address that at some point on the other side of that road. This is a pretty flat area here and the reason I would not want pavement on it is simply for absorption purposes. We don't, we've got detention ponds and if you start putting more detention ponds, I guess you could put them in there and deal with it, but you're going to have a lot of area involved in it if you do. Hoffman: Does this need to be cleaned out? Nelms: No. This is done. This is fine. We redid that. It's on the other side of the road. We've got settlement probably about this high. It's probably not eight or nine inches, but it's an issue of making all, you know, leaving water in there as opposed to not leaving water in there. Of course, a lot of trees grow in these ditches and that has created a part of it too. Petrie: The problem is part of that was fenced off and there is no official drainage so the city does not have a right to clean that out. Nelms: There is no easement to continue on the other side. We have environmental issues down stream too, I think, that we have to be careful with. Ours has settlement ponds in it. Our drainage all has settlement ponds and all of our flooring on the internal part of our dealerships, there are drains in every part, in every shop we put drains in it that goes through separator and then goes into the city sewer. We are not releasing anything off of our shop floors into the surface water. Hoffman: It's more the parking lots and stuff. Nelms: But you have the same problem over here too and that's a consideration. I was • • • Subdivision Committee April 27, 2000 Page 25 just throwing some ideas out here to you to consider. Another thing too is this screen, these two screens, I'll say this to you all while your thinking about this city, when you come down the road this way into Fayetteville, this 28 acres that we have right down through here, that's really the beginning of Fayetteville. That's what you see on the right hand side and you are going to see those screens out there so, they are pretty big element. Hoffman: As long as they aren't showing x -rated movies we won't have wrecks. But I hear you. Nelms. Well, I heard that's....no, no... Hoffman: Now they used to have one, the reason I say that, they used to have one in Austin and they built it, it was kind of out in the country and they built, Lockeed or someone built a great big office building and the most popular side of the building was facing that screen until it was tom down. But they can be a traffic hazard if it's too close to a highway. Nelms: We are okay with the dirt issue. I think that's fine. I don't have any problem with it and I think if we, they are very good people, they are very nice people and I think we can work that out between us. That's not an issue. Conklin: Thank you for your time. Is that it? Hoffman: That's it. We are adjourned. 9:25am