Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-11 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE • • SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, May 11, 2000 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LS 00-11.00 & 15.00: (Hahn, pp 651) LS 00-12.00: (Southerland, pp 520) LS 00-13.00: (Nelson, pp 173) LS 00-14.00: (Hooker Construction, pp 209) LSD 00-9.00: (Hooker Construction, pp 209) MEMBERS PRESENT Lorel Hoffman Lee Ward Conrad Odom Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT Sara Edwards Tim Conklin Ron Petrie Chuck Rutherford ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Tabled Tabled MEMBERS ABSENT Bob Estes STAFF ABSENT Kim Hesse Perry Franklin Kim Rogers • • • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 2 LS 00-11.00 & 15.00: Lot Split (Hahn, pp 651) Item submitted by Don Hahn for property located at 2350 Van Hoose DR. The property is in Fayetteville Planning area and contains approximately 36.55 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 32.10 acres, 3.29 acres and 1.16 acres. Hoffman: Good moming and welcome to the Subdivision Committee Meeting of May 11, 2000. We have five items of business this morning. Have any been deleted, Tim? Conklin: None have been deleted. Hoffman: The first is a LS 00-11 for Don Hahn. Staff, would you give us your report. Conklin: This is a LS 00-11 and LS 00-15. It is two lot splits. The property is located in our Fayetteville Planning area and contains 36.55 acres. The request is to split the tract into three tracts of 32.10 acres, 3 29 acres and 1.16 acres. It does have frontage on Van Hoose Road and Hondo Lane. Washington County has approved the splits. The applicant has complied with all staff requirements. Staff is recommending that the Subdivision Committee approve this at this level. There are no conditions to address at this time. We do have standard conditions of approval. Hoffman: Any other staff comments? I'm trying to locate myself. Where is this? Conklin: South of Huntsville Road. Hoffman: Got it. Can you tell us your name please? Hahn: Don Hahn. Hoffman: Do you have a presentation to make? Hahn: No. I think everything has been covered in the first meetings. This is a family split. Giving one piece to a daughter and one piece to a son. Hoffman: Well, aren't you nice. Hahn: It cost me a lot of money to give this away. • • • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 3 PUBLIC COMMENT: Hoffman: Is there any public comment about this item? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee for motions. MOTION: Ward: I make a motion for approval Odom: I'll second. Hoffman: I'll concur. Odom: If all of these tracts had been over five acres, doesn't staff have the authority to do that without coming to us? I thought I would say that for Nancy's benefit. Conklin: Yes. We do have administrative approval through the Planning Division, anytime we have, I believe, the first splits over three acres and the second and third are over five acres. We do have splits that are occurring that you don't see that we approve in our office. Hoffman: They go through the County Planning first and all the main approvals are handled there. Conklin: We recently switched that through the inter -governmental committee. Now they are coming through us first then going to county. Hoffman: And this is the first to come through? Conklin: Well, this has gone to the county. They are on the schedule. Next time we should have the first lot splits that have not gone through the county. • • • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 4 LS 00-12.00: Lot Split (Southerland, pp 520) Item submitted by Bob Hill of Nickle-Hill Group, Inc. on behalf of Faye Southerland for property located at 1740 W. 6th Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.86 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.13 acres and 0.70 acres. Hoffman: Our second item on the agenda is another lot split. It is LS 00-12 submitted by Mr. Hill for Faye Southerland for property located at 1740 West 6'h Street. The property is zoned C-2. Staff, can you give your report? Conklin: This property contains 1.86 acres. The request is to split it into two tracts of 1.13 and 0.70 acres. It is directly west of Burger King on 6'h Street. The applicant is requesting that this lot be split at the current zoning lines. Tract B is zoned R-2 and tract A is zoned C-2 up along Highway 180 or 6'h Street. Hoffman: So, Burger King is here? Conklin: Yes, no. Burger King is to the east. Hoffman: Didn't we do a development on this? Conklin: We did the development east of Burger King. Which was Schmeeding large scale development with the auto parts. We are still talking to them and going through large scale right now that they have put on the table trying to meet our standards. We'll see what happens. The lot B has frontage on Mitchell Street zoned R-2. There is an existing house on lot A that's planned to be removed. The applicant anticipates a large scale development for lot A will be submitted in the next few weeks. We do need to have the sidewalks shown correctly. The existing sidewalk currently is shown. The new sidewalk will need to be directly adjacent to the right-of-way and at least 10 feet of green space between the curb and the right-of- way. They need to make that one change. That's all we have from staff. Hoffman: Anybody else other than the sidewalk? No. Can the applicant come up. Edwards: I don't see him. Odom: I don't think he's here. We can go ahead and go on. Conklin: We are recommending approval at this level. • • • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 5 Hoffman: Okay. He's not opposed to the sidewalk issue? There's no problem there? Conklin: There is no problem there. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hoffman: Is there any public comment? Seeing none I'll bring it back to the Committee. MOTION: Odom: I'll move for approval. Ward: I'll second. Hoffman: I'll concur. Odom: One of the things I look at is making sure it's over an acre, when talking about commercial. If it's under an acre you are no longer subject to having a large scale development. Hoffman: Although they could conceivable put a 10,000 square foot building on it and it would be, but not likely. • • • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 6 LS 00-13.00: Lot Split (Nelson, pp 173) Item submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates, Inc. on behalf of Orena Nelson for property located at the NE corner of Joyce Blvd. And Mall Ave. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 4.05 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.00 acres and 2.04 acres. Hoffman: Our third item is LS00-13 submitted by Mr. Jorgensen for Orena Nelson for property located at the NE corner of Joyce and Mall. Conklin: This is a request to split 4.05 acres into two tracts of 2.0 acres and 2.04 acres. The property is located south of the Northwest Arkansas Mall and directly across from Spring Creek Center. To the west is Service Merchandise and to the south you will have Spring Creek Center where Gateway computers recently went in. You have Simmons Bank to the east and lot 3B is in between. They are creating lot 3A that will see a large scale development in the next few weeks for a fast food restaurant. Hoffman: That was in the paper actually. Conklin: They have announced that. We are recommending approval at this level. We have no additional conditions to discuss. Hoffman: Okay. Any other staff comments? Petrie: Just a question. Will this sewer be constructed in conjunction with the McDonald's development or at separate times? Jorgensen: Probably not. McDonald's project is coming on real quick. I doubt if they are going to have time to get the plans done before the McDonald's gets done. I think they are going to be concurrent. Petrie: That's what I would prefer because we do have the street issues and drainage issues where that street is going to be widened. It would make it a lot easier to coordinate all of that together. Conklin: We are talking about Joyce Boulevard. If you recall, Simmons and Circuit City, we required them to add that additional lane. At the time this large scale comes through we are going to be looking at adding that lane light at lot 3A and then some type of city participation in that. • • • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 7 Petrie: Hoffman: Petrie: Hoffman: Rutherford: Hoffman: Jorgensen: Hoffman: Jorgensen: Conklin: Yes. We will want to go ahead and have that whole thing widened then. But there is not a turn lane proposed for this corner is there? It's just an extension of the other lane? There will be a through and a right turn lane. There won't be a separate turn lane. Okay. Any other staff comment? Sidewalks on this project will be required at time of development. I have a question, are these lots going to be big enough? Will the proposed development be on lot 3A or 3B? On 3A. And it's big enough to support the parking? Yes. Working within our ordinances and with the landscaping, there are some revisions that they are going to have to make after meeting with them, but I think they can work it out. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hoffman: I'll ask if there is any public comment at this time? Seeing none I'll bring it back to the Committee. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Odom: Conklin: How about the setback requirements from the intersection, how far is it that you have to be away before you can put an entrance into your property? Outside the overlay district it's 50 feet. Just meeting with McDonald's last week and looking at their preliminary plans they are asking for two curb cuts on Mall Avenue and one curb cut on Joyce. It did appear that they will need a waiver on that. I did advise them that we have in the past restricted the number of curb cuts. Their drive through lane is going to be coming out on this side. They are concerned about having a curb cut right here to let people get back out and to get their tractor trailer rigs into the site and drop off the supplies on this side. • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 8 Hoffman: There is a light at the intersection right? Conklin: Yes. I told them that is something Perry Franklin will look at and we can't guarantee them they will get two curb cuts on Mall Avenue. Hoffman: Those lots have been graded right? There is a hill between it and the mall? Will there be additional cutting? Jorgensen: This slopes from Joyce up towards the Mall. It's not really too steep. It's a fairly gentle slope. Then from the north side of this property is where that temporary parking lot is at if you recall. So there is a private street that boarders the north side of this property. Hoffman: But that's not part of this property? Jorgensen: No. Conklin: Now the Georgetown Square Road, 1 think it is private. When we worked with • Circuit City we had these discussions about connecting that parking lot up to that street. The other thing with regard to the curb cuts, Mall Lane does have the medians in there. That is something that will help encourage people from turning left. Just one other thing since we are looking at this and I have four Commissioners here today, Northwest Arkansas Mall has requested and we do have coming to the Planning Commission, a monument sign at this location on this island. I did inform McDonald's of this and McDonald's has agreed to put a monument sign on this corner instead of a pole sign. There is concern about visibility between that sign and the Northwest Arkansas Mall proposal. That is something we will have to look at when that comes to the Commission. • Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: MOTION: Odom: And we are leaving enough room, I know it doesn't really apply to the lot split, but it's an issue, to connect between the two tracts and possibly Circuit City. Yes. They are proposing that. This does connect and create a vehicle to facilitate traffic flow between businesses without having to get out on the street. So you can go buy your stereo and eat your cheeseburger at the same time. I make a motion for approval • • • Subdivision Committee May 1 I, 2000 Page 9 Ward: I'll second. Hoffman: I'll concur. • • • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 10 LS 00-14.00: Lot Split (Hooker Construction, pp 209) and LSD 00-9.00: Large Scale Development (Hooker Construction, pp 209) Item submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates, Inc. on behalf of Hooker Construction for property located at 1409 W. Van Asche. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.34 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.17 acres and 1.17 acres. The property is located within the Design Overlay District. Hoffman: Okay. Next we have two items that seem to be connected. A LS 00-14 for Hooker Construction and a large scale development for Hooker. How do you want to discuss this? Lot split first or all as one? Conklin: Probably all as one. I can go over the lot split and then the large scale development. This is a request to split 2.34 acres into 1.17 acres and 1.17 acres. The property is located on Van Asche Drive and is visible from Highway 71. You have the freeway up to the northeast. The applicant has applied for a Large Scale Development and a conditional use to allow this contracting, construction facility and warehouse shop at this location and another office space, warehouse, hydraulic repair shop over to the west. Back behind is an existing metal building. Hoffman: Where is 112? Conklin: 112 is going to be to the west. This is The Grill, Restaurant on the Corner, directly to the west. This is Tomlinson Asphalt, this is Beaver Lake Concrete across the street. This is in the city of Johnson. Our city limit line runs on Van Asche Drive. Staff is recommending approval of the lot split at this level. With regard to the Large Scale Development we do have some concerns with the Commercial Design Standards and we addressed that under condition number 2. Staff does not believe this meets Commercial Design Standards and we've included findings on page 3. Hoffman: Are we in the overlay district? Conklin: We are in the overlay district and I've included the Overlay District Standards and the Commercial Design Standards on page 3. Just to go through those. Under the Commercial Design Standards elements to avoid are unpainted concrete block walls, square block -like structures, metal siding which dominates the main facade, • • • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 11 large blank unarticulated wall surfaces, large out of scale signs and flashy colors. Staff believes that the square box -like structure, the metal siding dominates the main facade and the large blank unarticulated wall surfaces, that those provisions of this ordinance are not being met. With regard to the Overlay District Standards, exterior appearance under D-9, all structures shall be architecturally designed to have front facade face all three highway right-of-ways and elevation drawings shall be submitted for each side of the building that faces a street or right -of way. I'll let the applicant kind of go over how they are addressing that issue. Then the building material is a real concern to staff. That is, building shall be constructed out of wood, masonry or natural looking materials. No structure shall be allowed to have metal side walls unless such metal siding is similar in appearance to wood, masonry or natural looking material. I put two findings in there. This development does not meet the Design Overlay District Regulations with regard to exterior appearance. The structure with frontage along Van Asche does not have a front facade. That goes with number D9. Finding two, this development is violating the building material standards. More than half the building is constructed of metal side walls that are not similar in appearance to wood. Those are the Commercial Design Standards. Kind of going backwards here, on condition number one, Kim Hesse has met with the applicant and looked at screening of the outdoor storage areas. She is recommending evergreen screening as defined by pine or cedar trees. This is required along the western and eastem most boundary of the entire property. Hoffman: Is that shown or not? Conklin: They are showing the screening on lot 2. I did talk to her on the phone and we talked about the possibility of on lot one up along Restaurant on the Corner, this vacant parcel to the west. Large canopy trees shall be planted along Van Asche at 30 foot intervals with four additional trees planted adjacent to the parking areas. So those are the major concerns with these two proposed buildings they are wanting to construct on the site. The metal side wall siding they plan to use and having the front of the building facing Van Asche. We did meet at Technical Plat Review and they were using a concrete masonry smooth face block unit. They have revised that to brick. I did ask that they look at using some other type of material other than the smooth face concrete block unit and at least have it up to the top of the doors and windows. They did not bring it up that far, and maybe some kind of siding other than the metal siding on the front. That's all that staff has with regard to Commercial Design Standards. I asked them at plat review which is reflected in the minutes, to look at the ordinances and explain how they feel they are meeting these ordinances. I think that would be beneficial for the committee this morning. • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 12 Hoffman: Here is what I'd like to do if it's okay with everybody. Let's go ahead, since we know what issues are on the table, and deal with the lot split and get it out of the way. Were there any other staff comments about the drainage or the sidewalks? Rutherford: I have one comment. Where you are showing your sidewalk with a driveway approach, can you remove your curb and gutter line through the sidewalk? In other words, make a start and stop on the sidewalk? Conklin: Make it continuous? Jorgensen: I think that was just the property line. That dark heavy line. Conklin: He wants you to remove this right here. Jorgensen: Oh, yeah. I got you. No problem. Hoffman: This is a proposed building? • Conklin: Yes. We have two buildings. One on lot 1 and one on lot 2. • Hoffman: Okay. We're waking up here. Conklin: This is an existing metal building. Key: This is the existing building here. Hoffman: I want us to get all oriented before we vote. And we may not be ready to vote on the lot split until we get the whole thing discussed. I'm sorry, I kind of missed some of that. There are no sidewalk issues? Rutherford: He is going to make the corrections. Hoffman: Okay. There are two buildings, one on each lot. One of them is going to be the main office with an attached warehouse and the other one will be primarily a warehouse and workshop. Conklin: And have an office also. There are actually two businesses going in. This is Hooker Construction on lot 2 with an office for a general contractor/construction business. They have a professional office up front and warehouse shop in the back with trucks and materials in this yard. Then we have this proposed hydraulic repair shop with office up front. • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 13 Hoffman. And that is not for his construction business, that is a separate business like a truck repair facility or what? Hooker: They do hydraulic repair. Hoffman: What type of industry? Hooker: Tyson. Poultry industry. It's not just hydraulic. They do motor riveting, electric repair. Hoffman: Okay. Conklin: With regard to this metal building here, that used to be Midwest Cable and they had lots of material and equipment out in this yard. I don't have a photograph of it but it was a mess. Key: This is a photograph prior to them vacating the property. • Hoffman: Would you walk us through this board of photographs? • Key: This shows several approaches to the site. This is a view looking at the site from the southwest off of Hwy 112. There are lots of other things also, but you can see the Restaurant on the Comer. Our lot is right in here with Tomlinson Asphalt beyond it. This is a view of our site from the 540 overpass looking down. Hoffman: And that is Van Asche? Key: That is Van Asche. It comes right undemeath the bypass here. This is Tomlinson Asphalt with the trees in front of it. Our property line is right here along this line and back. All you can really see is a view like this. Hoffman: Okay. Key: This is a view coming down Van Asche towards our site. You can see the edge of Beaver Lake Concrete here to the side and the end of the Restaurant on the Corner with Tomlinson Asphalt beyond. These real estate signs here indicate the entrance into this existing parcel which now has chain link fence all the way around the front of it. This is a view from the entrance looking at the existing building that was previously occupied by Midwest Cable. You can see the debris here. • • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 14 Hooker: That is actually after we cleaned it up. Key: It was probably comparable to Tomlinson's site. Hoffman: They just moved it over to Dean Solomon Road. It's all over there now. Hooker: It's just right down the road from this site. Key: This is a view from our site entrance looking over toward Beaver Lake Concrete. You have the concrete mix plant over to the side. Hoffman: Where is that? Key: It's directly across if you are standing here looking back slightly northwest. This is a view from our site looking due south. You have the existing fuel island that is on this site presently and the Hwy 112 drive in behind you with the back of the first screen and the back of Ozark Manufacturing and Hwy 112 Business Center. Hoffman: And that is right here? Key: No, it's looking straight to the back. This is Tomlinson Asphalt's lot and all of this is what you see in this photograph with all the trucks and tankers and debris. This is a view looking due west from our site at the back of the restaurant. You can see their debris storage and trash and service entrance. This is a view looking due east at Tomlinson Asphalt's lot. Ward: This is south? Key: No. This is east. This is south. 1-540 is right here. Between the back of our property line here and the Ozark Business Center and Hwy 112 property is where the Arkansas State Highway Department is going to build a road shelf. So right behind us here will be gravel, sand and yard storage. That is the site. I have other materials showing views of various businesses around the site. This is the access off Hwy 112 as you are coming over the overpass Hoffman: Let's save that for a minute. Key: I wanted to show the buildings around us. Primarily Beaver Lake Concrete, Tomlinson Asphalt, a manufacturing business slightly to the east and this is a compressor business directly to the north of us. Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 15 Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Conklin: Odom: Conklin: Hoffman: Key: Hoffman: Conklin: Key: Conklin: Odom: This is a question for staff. I'm still going back to the land use issues first before we get into the Commercial Design Standards. This would require conditional use because it's C-2 zoning? Both of them would. It's C-2 and this is classified as a general contractor industrial use. It is allowed to approve that type of C-2 but I believe that's the issue here. It's zoned C-2. And why are we putting an industrial use on a C-2 zone? Yes. And I think you can mitigate it by designing a building that looks like an office building up front. Let me ask you this, even if it's zoned industrial, Commercial Design Standards do not come into play but does the Design Overlay District come into play? The Design Overlay District does. So, either way we have these appearance issues to deal with? Correct. So is that the reason you are not recommending rezoning to industrial? Yes. I would not recommend rezoning to industrial because it would be difficult to meet our Design Overlay District Standards. As we are seeing today, it's difficult. Another thing I just want to point out is this is an existing site with this existing building as an existing outdoor storage yard that has been used. They are requesting to be allowed, and I don't think we have it in our report, but for the record, this already has chain link fence surrounding the property. They are requesting to be allowed to keep this chain link fencing along the back. Correct me if I'm wrong, it's going to come along to the front of the building this way. That's correct. It's going to be brought back this way. That would be a variance. We don't allow chain link fencing in the overlay district. That is something that will need to be addressed. It exists now? • • • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 16 Conklin: It exists now. Hoffman: But he will remove some of what is existing and not add new? Conklin: Well, basically the chain link comes across the front of the property and this would be new, but it would be back. Key: We will be removing all of this and this. Odom: And you wouldn't be willing to make that iron up front if we kept the chain link all the way around? Key: Well, all we have to do is tie back into the buildings. Hooker: We could definitely do something. Key: We could do decorative fencing at those locations. Hooker: And keep in mind on the back, if we take ours down, Arkansas Highway Department is going to put it up. Odom: I'm wondering if they aren't going to do it anyway because your's is only three or four feet high? Hooker: It's six feet. Odom: It is six feet high? Jorgensen: It's the real thing. Key: I have a picture right here, Conrad. You can see it's got three strands of barbed wire around it. Odom: Okay. For some reason I thought they would put up their own anyway. Key: They probably will. Of course the concem being if we take ours down the industrial property to our east will put it back up as well. We're hoping we can screen the yards as Kim mentioned. We agreed a better locations for these rows of pines would be here along the west property line of parcel one to screen the entire site. Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 17 Hooker: Conklin: Hoffman: Key: Hoffman: Key: Hoffman: Key: She didn't see any reason to put these there and they would be better over there. It's going to be difficult no matter what they do at this site. This is elevated right here. Here you are looking down at everything. You're never going to be able to screen it completely. Right. In speaking with the Landscape Administrator over this week, she looked at the site and agreed the view of the site from the northbound approach, you really don't see it from all the growth and greenery that is in this area here. As is shown in this one view, all you see is the front half. That's all going to remain there? You're not going to take those out? No. That's all on adjacent property. It's not ours. Okay. One thing we will be doing to improve this is that all this chain link fence that is here we removed, and then the landscaping. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hoffman: I'll take public comment now if anybody has anything to say. Seeing none we will bring it back to the Committee. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Conklin: As I see it we have two primary pieces to discuss. On one, I'm getting from the staff that the land use issue has been thought through and addressed to your satisfaction? I'm sorry, say that one more time. Since we have two issues in front of us, I would like to get through the C-2 versus I-1 issue. The conditional use, you will have to approve that at the Planning Commission level. • • • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 18 Hoffman: Conklin: Hooker: Conklin: Hoffman: Ward: Hoffman: Odom: Hoffman: Odom: Key: Hoffman: So that tells me we probably shouldn't approve the lot split either at this level. You could bring all three forward if you would like. I believe if you don't approve that they really don't want the lot split. Is that right? Yes. So we can bring all three forward to the Commission. That makes sense. Can you make a motion to recommend approval of the lot split? I think so. I think we should deal with the land use issue and decide if we are comfortable with putting an industrial user in a C-2 zone. I'll go on record right now as saying due to the nature of the surrounding area, I am comfortable in supporting staff's position that this conditional use is compatible and I don't have a problem with the conditional use. And I agree to that. Although tied to the fact that it is going to be visible and is part of the overlay district that you will be held to a higher standard than and industrial user would normally be held to. That's not true. An industrial site does have to comply with the Overlay District Requirements but not necessarily Commercial Design Standards. But the Overlay District Requirements basically kick in and we understand that. I actually questioned Tim early on if we should consider rezoning the site industrial. That is a degrading of the property to reverse it back to industrial use, but I don't think that's the intent of the city to encourage that on Van Asche and it's not our intent. But considering the nature of the neighborhood and the surroundings we felt this was appropriate and that's why Mr. Hooker and Mr. Massey with Hydraulic Solutions is considering this development and purchase of this property. We also have to consider what is put in place here, should the businesses change hands and be sold, then you have a C-2 user in an industrial looking building if we don't watch out. I want to go on record saying, the land use issue I understand. So it's time to get on with the Commercial Design Standards then. Any one else have anything else to say on the land usage? We are done with that then. And I • • • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 19 think we could, as a committee, if someone wants to make a motion on the last part of it, to recommend that we send forward to the Planning Commission. Ward: I thought Mr. Odom already did that. Odom. On the lot split I already did that. Ward: I'll second that. Hoffman: Thanks. Okay, on the Commercial Design Standards, could you, Tim, give them these. I want to make sure what we are looking at. Can you go back through them? Key: This was the original submittal. Conklin: That was the original submittal at Technical Plat Review. They have revised those elevations. Hoffman: Do we not have these in our packets? Key: They were originally submitted, the ones with the gray block face. Conklin: Now you have the new one. Hoffman: Okay. We'll get rid of these. We only have one building? Key: You have two. This is two different buildings. They look very similar. We are trying to incorporate recurring identifiable elements and building buildings that are similar in appearance. Conklin: Okay. We have this elevation facing Van Asche. This is the concern we have on the overlay district talking about the front facing the street. Their entrance is on the side of the building, not facing the street. That would be the north elevation. Then we have this elevation facing to the west. Staff is concerned with the Commercial Design Standards and Overlay District Standards. On Commercial Design Standards, unarticulated wall surfaces, box -like structures, metal siding that dominates the main facade. Hoffman: Is this corrugated siding? Key: It's actually an H -panel. We had originally considered using a corrugated. We Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 20 looked at a wide trench corrugated similar to what has been used on the Nadine Baum educational building. We opted for a more architectural panel with a flat rib for a little bit more on the shadow line. Something that Morgan had seen being used in the town of Seattle. We've got some samples of it. It's a little bit more expensive than a corrugated panel. This is what we would prefer to use over a colored pre -finished type of panel or another type of product. We have a lot of concrete dust in the neighborhood. We've looked at the options of various types of materials, whether it's concrete siding that can be painted, simulated wood siding or a wood material. I have actually seen some wood materials that look very similar to this metal siding here in town. I've got a photograph of that. As I understand from the Overlay District Standards that metal is not to be used unless it looks like wood or some other natural occurring material. Stone, masonry, wood were about the only thing we could really look at in that respect. The client prefers not to put exposed wood siding on this building due to the nature of the use and the neighborhood and what we have around us. So, this is what we have proposed and obviously, Tim recommended when we went through Technical Plat Review to reconsider our material selection. We had a discussion about brick masonry versus concrete block and decided to look at this option of the red brick masonry as is show here. It's an Acme brick, Heritage brick that has a nice character to it. All the bricks are slightly off in character and not totally true and square. We still feel this would be a more desirable solution, with the scored concrete block left natural. But I realize we have the issue of unpainted, bare precision block. Conklin: That was staff's recommendation. Can you go get the other board to see the original materials. Hooker: Let me say this, This brick and siding materials is the exact brick that is on Roller Wilson's house. It's the same exact brick. Key: We realize this is not overlay district developments but it's to show you the type of aesthetics we would prefer to have knowing we have some issues with the Overlay District Standards and Commercial Design Standards. This is our original material pallet. Hooker: We went with that block because they are using that same block, although it is painted, at Nelms. Key: That was preferable to us over a split faced block that you see quite a bit of. Obviously we can get any type of material in a charcoal or a red or beige or natural concrete. That pallet is what we had originally selected. Not unlike the Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 21 Nadine Baum Center or Mr. Wilson's house. The Pauline Whitaker Arena is another structure we looked at. Hoffman: I want to point out one thing. None of these examples you have brought to us would have come before the Planning Commission. They are all governmental and outside out jurisdiction. Conklin: I find it interesting with the Tyson Track Center that they bricked most of that building up all the way to the top. Key: We discussed taking the brick up to the height of the windows but it doesn't give you the end result that I think would be desirable. You've got a base that's half the height of the building. We tried to articulate the facade by creating affitures, window openings and create a face with the masonry material. We've got a projecting canopy that is slightly pitched on the hydraulic solution building. Hoffman: What is this black stuff? Key: It's going to be bare metal. It's finished with a black finish. Maintenance free. This is a suspended steel arch that will come off the building six feet with cable and steel strut supports back up to that steel plate material. It will be finished to match this metal with a galvanized sheet metal material on it. It will be similar to the roofing material planned for the building but without ribs. As I started to say, we looked at various things around the community and this is what we would like to see out there. Obviously we have issues with Commercial Design Standards and the Overlay District Standards specifically. This is the Nadine Baum Center. Hoffman: On the Baum center, isn't the bottom part glazed tile? Key: This is all scored concrete block exactly like what we have on this board. Hoffman: It's painted then. Key: It's not painted what -so -ever. Odom. Wait a minute. That's not the same color as that? Hooker: Right. But it's the same material. Key: That is. • • • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 22 Odom: Key: Hooker: Key: Hooker: Key: Conklin: Key: Hoffman: Key: That's the same color? The base itself is a beige split -faced block and it is the exact same block. That block hasn't been exposed to the whether. It's going to turn more of a toupe color. This is the concrete colored block. The base is a beige split -faced block. At the front they brought it up around the windows, but this is just bare concrete block scored. Keep in mind this building is twice as tall as the one we are looking at and they brought it up this high. But this is the type of look we were hoping to achieve. This is White River Hardwoods down on Happy Hollow Road. All their buildings use an accent of bleached vertical tongue and groove siding which what we are proposing with the galvanized steel siding with the vertical flutes is not unlike the finished appearance of this. Now whether you can argue that, that simulates the wood or not, again this is from a maintenance stand point, an aesthetics standpoint, that is the look we are hoping to achieve. We were willing to introduce some color. The trim colors are not set in stone. We have debated whether to use red, black, green. We considered leaving the steel natural This is a building with a fluted cast masonry that is not dis-similar to a galvanized metal panel in terms of it's appearance. Where is this building at? This is Clark Forklift of Springdale. I have worked on quite a few facilities, not unlike the character of this one, obviously, where we're dealing with an Overlay District Standard, using fluted masonry or vertical wood. I think, personal opinion, I think this kind of material can look attractive if it's done properly. But our ordinance says that we have to watch these unarticulated wall surfaces and this one does not meet that standard. I don't know if this one does either. One thing in terms of the interest of the front, because I realize that's an issue that the building is not facing the street as the ordinance states, we could very simply based on the layout of the office, take these doors and move them around to this side and put the canopy on this front and in effect, even though the parking is to • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 23 the side, the sidewalk could lead right around to that front door and be on the front of the building facing Van Asche. Hoffman: Have you talked about putting some type of vertical element that could be of wood, like cedar, mixed with this to look very attractive. Key: We looked at vertical elements early on. I'll let Mr. Hooker address that. Hooker: I think you are right. I think we could do cypress or something with it maybe. Hoffman: Like around the windows and highlight the windows. Now this is my personal opinion and I want the other Commissioners to talk also. Odom: All I'm going to say is that I think it's an attractive looking project that doesn't pass our standards. It has unarticulated walls. I like the concept of using the metal but that is not allowed under our regulations. It's not a, "do you think it looks good," regulation. • Key: In terms of articulation, Conrad, what could be suggested? • Odom: I think one of the suggestions that you just had, turning the door to the front. You are going to leave a completely large unarticulated wall. I think there are certain elements you have done to help that. I don't like to give suggestions like everybody else does, so, you are the architect. You tell me what helps articulate it and all I can tell you now is that I don't think this does to my satisfaction. Key: Is a change is material such as a vertical siding? Odom. I don't think a simple change in material helps articulate a wall. I think we are talking not only about giving things shadows, which I agree that using that type of thing helps articulate a wall and makes it not flat, but I don't think it does enough. I think you also take that into conjunction with avoiding a square box -like structure. You may need more awnings or more windows along this or something. These alone don't do it but they certainly help. With other design features like the awnings helps articulate. Hooker: What if we moved the front entrance and maybe over the windows duplicated that same arch? Ward: That would help a lot. Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 24 Hoffman: Key: Odom: Hoffman: Key: Hoffman: Key: • Hoffman: Key: Odom: Key: Odom: Hooker: Odom. Conklin: I do agree with you that it's hard to make specific recommendations. We've had this ordinance long enough and heard enough about different buildings. The first one that went through was Tom January's on Township and I've had many, many negative comments about it. I realize the majority of these did not come before the Commission. I think Hanna's Candles did. Tom January's did. Tom January's was the first one. Tom January's did. I'm not sure if this High Performance was in the overlay district. Hanna's Candle was exempt. Why was it exempt? Industrial. Is that lot next to the church zoned industrial? Yes. You know, this is an example of what we used in the past when we did the Liquor -to -Go project we had before you. Pre -finished metal siding with split faced base. You see that metal siding? You have wood panels that are like that. That is how it mirrors with panels. It's colored and it's not corrugated look which I don't have an objection to, but that right there, I don't care, maybe if you are ten miles away it looks like wood, but it looks like metal. My point is, and you can almost abuse what you are trying to do, we could do the whole thing in pink concrete block and articulate the walls and it looks bad but it meets the standard. You have to remember, Morgan, the standard is not whether it looks good. And staff too, I'm not saying your building is looking bad. As staff, I'm looking • • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 25 at the ordinance that says we should not have metal sidewalls. And driving down the street looking at the Baum learning center, that looks like metal to me. I can't say this meets the ordinance. Key: I don't think metal is bad Odom. Well, it's not the time or place to discuss that. Key: I agree. Hooker: You know, this may not really be a factor, but part of the reason we first started looking at the site was because of the surrounding area We thought it would be a good fit and match what is around there. Odom. Well, you are going to improve what's around there. Ward: And that's one of the problems I have. You are going into an area and we are putting all of these standards on you and you don't want to build a monument out there compared to what else is out there. You've got quonset huts and concrete facilities. Key: We can't justify building a building like this on that site. It's not feasible. Hooker: I can't justify building a building like that and pay for it so I have to find a place to build something. I want to be in Fayetteville. The only other place to do it is in the industrial park which is in the wrong place. I can't build down there and be feasible to run a business. So, my next option is to locate beside a concrete plant and an asphalt company. With ten metal buildings around you, you think, okay, that will work. The other option is to go to Springdale. And I don't want to be in Springdale. Conklin: This is Liquor -to -Go you designed with split face block. Key: It has dry-vit on the front and metal on all the .... Odom: That was a square box -like structure but it's minimized because of the articulation. Key: The drive thru on the side helps that as well. • Odom. The roof on it helps. • • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 26 Key: Odom: Key: Odom: Ward: Odom: Hooker: Odom: Hooker: Key: Hoffman: Hooker: Hoffman: • Conklin: Our intent here is the same. We want to improve this and be an asset and improvement to the neighborhood. Obviously we have some issues to deal with in doing that. We felt it was better to propose a building that has a base of masonry all around it with siding as opposed to coming in and putting a front on a building and have metal on three sides. We discussed that at Technical Plat Review, that several sides of both these building are visible. A lot of people complain about that Tom January building but I personally think it's a prime example of how the Commercial Design Standards make things work. Without the standards we would have had a very simple metal building with no trim or accents. That's right. Some of the things that I think help that building is that the brick goes up higher, that the brick columns go up and help articulate the walls. But it's a painted metal that makes it look like wood. I know that's not the look you are looking for but the fact is it helps it meet the Commercial Design Standards. What if we did something to the Van Asche front like an awning to make that more articulated there and do more masonry and do like some cypress or something that would make it look good and then on the very south side and the east side, try to do something like columns here and then the south side will have trees and storage, what if we just did hard panel all the way down to help us save some money? Our main thing is to build an affordable building. How does that is apply? Just use a panel. On the sides that are exposed. On the sides that are exposed. That would allow us to do a lot more to the front where you actually can see it. I meant to ask is this five foot set back okay? Yes. Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 27 Hoffman: I want to say I think that is probably a good idea except I don't know how much you can see. And would it apply to the other building? Conklin: We need to go over the other building too. Hoffman: I don't have a problem, I don't like the look of this painted siding. Odom: I don't either. Hoffman: I'm sorry that is how our ordinance is written. I think when people can use innovative building materials that it is a better shot and I'd like to use this opportunity to get that. I am one of nine opinions. That flies in the face of the ordinance and I hate to do that because usually I say you have to do everything. However, if you could, do you want to bring them back to Subdivision Committee? Odom: Yes. You just about have to or we will just be rehashing this and it's going to go forward with out any kind of recommendation and that's not good. Hoffman: That's not good. You're right. Odom: I'm sorry, the recommendation would be for denial which is what is currently before us. • Conklin: I'm concerned that rather than the Planning Commission having to discuss this all over again, I'd like to get some kind of agreement from Subdivision Committee before we go to Planning Commission. Hoffman: Do you all have time for that? That would be better. Key: 1 think that is appropriate. Hooker: I think we have an extension that if we get tabled we can do that. Conklin: That's my recommendation. Hooker: What do you think, Conrad, If we do more masonry and do some other materials? Key: Move the entry, add this, add canopies, add accents of those materials? Odom: Here is the problem. I've always said that the five requirements are to minimize • • • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 28 Key: those features. That is why I have voted for box -like structures because that has been minimized by the other requirements. 1 have to be honest with you, if you can make Staff happy you will make me happy. Short of changing the metal to a tan pre -finished panel and I know there is an objection to the metal panel, If we could minimize it and add other materials, I would still like to see that material used and I realize Tim may not be happy with that. Conklin: I would like this panel to at least give him some guidance on this metal panel. The overlay district states you shall not have metal unless it has the appearance of wood, masonry or other naturally occurring material. Hoffman: That is why I'm suggesting the wood accents. Odom. It does potentially have the appearance of masonry. Hoffman: If you have enough masonry and if you have texture and such. Key: It looks a lot like that but by definition it's masonry. Conklin: If I drive down the road, I can tell metal from masonry. Odom: The metal is going to be shinier than masonry. Maybe if you are eight miles away it looks like masonry or concrete. Hoffman: Is there a duller finish you can get in that? Hooker: Over time it will dull but when it first comes out, it's just like concrete block. I'm not trying to convince you all that looks like wood and I'm not trying to push anything over on anyone. I'm just trying to build something that John and I can afford to make the payments on and make it look better than some other things I've seen. Odom: I'll just come out and say it. I can't approve that. Hoffman: Even with using that? Odom: Even with using the other stuff because that provision does say shall not use metal unless it looks like wood. And I don't think it looks like wood or mason. • • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 29 Hooker: Odom: Hooker: Odom: Conklin: Odom: Ward: Odom. Conklin: Odom: Hooker: Key: Conklin: Key: Ward: What if we do something different on the two sides? Can we use that in areas that are not showing? I'm sorry, Morgan. You'll have to elaborate on that. If we did something that are visible, would you be opposed to using that on these sides here? Can we do that? Does it mean you can't use it anywhere? It says buildings shall be constructed out of wood, masonry or natural looking materials. No structure shall be allowed to have metal side walls unless such metal is similar in appearance to wood, masonry or natural looking materials. So under the ordinance, Morgan, we can't unless you color it. You are going to have to color it or make it look like masonry. There is no way around it. And staff realizes it's a challenge. I've been talking to Central Freight and they want to do an addition also. This is C-2 and they are 1-1 and that's maybe a little different because they are industrial. But on these commercial projects, it's difficult. That goes back to the land use in the overlay district and what we are trying to accomplish here along our bypass. I really don't know what else there is out there. I can only tell you what the ordinance doesn't want. That stuff doesn't work with the Design Overlay Standards. Well, with price, there is nothing out there. This is a good sampling of what is out there in the overlay district. Could you do something more like you did at Liquor -to -Go? We could put a pre -finished R panel on there that has been determined to look like board and batten. How much more expensive is that? • • • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 30 Hooker: Key: Hoffman: Hooker: Hoffman: Key: Hooker: Ward: Odom: Brittenum: Key: Brittenum: Key: Conklin: Hooker: Hoffman: Hooker: It's not but gosh. It does not look as good. If you put a larger percentage of masonry and other materials that make the metal not the predominant factor on these two sides that you are going to see. Could we think of it as more of a trim and do just a little of it? That's what I'm saying. Is there is some creative way to do this? No structure shall be allowed to have metal side walls unless...What constitutes a metal side wall? A full metal sheeting? Let me ask you this, if we get into a different, so basically it has to be a painted R panel siding painted to make it look like wood? Yes. And if you could get wood or mason and make it look just like that, we could approve it. We could approve that. There is gray R panels that look exactly like that. Pre -finished? Pre -finished. That's what you have on the Pauline Whitaker Arena. Those are a gray pre - finished panel. We can get a pre -finished pane that is this color but with an R design. Then they are going to have to be convinced that it looks similar to wood, masonry or other natural materials. What makes it look like wood? I think it's the pattern they stamp in the vinyl. What do you think about that, Conrad? That is the R panel with the same thing we used on Liquor -to -Go it's just a different color? • • • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 31 Odom: I'd say if it looks like wood then okay. Conklin: Our ordinances are trying to basically, like Commercial Design Standards, when we passed that ordinance, they don't want metal buildings built in commercial areas now. So, when you drive by if it looks like a metal building it's not going to, in my opinion, meet the standards. You have to have other materials. Hoffman: You have to have articulation. Conklin: You have to do something so some citizen of Fayetteville driving by can't say, look, that's a metal building. Odom: I don't think that was put in there with the specific intent of stopping something that looks like this but none the less, that's what we have. Conklin: It's trying to avoid buildings you order out of the catalogs. Brittenum: If you go back to the masonry block on the bottom with the gray R panel above that? Hooker: With some articulation. Hoffman: All I can do is suggest that there be more wood or other material if you are unwilling to change the siding to normal siding or what ever you want to call it. And I would add a lot more wood on both buildings that could be seen and hope it would fly. But I don't know if it will. Conklin: I've always advised applicants, I give them my recommendation. I tell them what I can support and what I can't support. They can always take their chances and see if the Commission wants to approve something else. But I can't recommend metal. Key: We understand that. On Liquor -to -Go that very thing occurred. You did not recommend approval on it, we had a discussion and I think it was a reasonable compromise. There had been a discussion at the Planning Commission that maybe we should replace all the metal with all dry -vit. That wasn't really desirable to us. We have looked at that consideration here because of the nature of the site and the dust, the dry-vit will look bad in six months. Besides the cost issue, and I know that's not an issue you have to consider, but that material is not a solution in this case. We will look at what we need to do to correct this. • • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 32 Hooker: If you all think the siding on the Pauline Whitaker building looks like wood, I can live with that. I like that building. Conklin: I can tell you I've driven by that building and I said, look, they built a metal horse arena. Hooker: But it's the same R panel. Key: It's not. It's actually a very expensive panel. Conklin: This is just my opinion now. Hooker. So if we do a R panel, does that look like wood? Odom: Show me what an R panel is. Hooker: Liquor -to -Go. Odom: We have already said that looks like wood. Key: That's been established. Odom: We also see color and that's another part. Hooker: Why? Not this color? Odom: Right. Hooker: But a color? Odom: A color. Something that looks like wood that has been painted. Ward: Black or green or something. Key: I think this gray could look like a stained cedar. Hoffman: We had this very conversation about this kind of metal siding when we were going through those Commercial Design Standards. The whole idea was to avoid the other kind and it knocked out this kind. • Odom: And the problem you have is if you allow this then the person who comes through • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 33 with the metal that we were trying to avoid then they will have pictures of your building all over the place. Hoffman: I'd just say the ball is in your court and good luck. Odom: Tim, do you think we have made it clear on the articulation and so forth or do we need to add anything? I agree the masonry needs to come up to the roof but I could be convinced otherwise if the mason did other things like on Tom January. Key: I think too, Conrad, Morgan is talking about adding other materials. We could come in here and do wood siding in line with these entries or elements. Hooker: We could work around the windows and carry it up. Key: I could see doing that and something on this side as well. We had avoided trying to put an overhead door here because it's visible so we stuck it around on the back. • Odom. Can an overhead door be articulating? Key: We could articulate that way. Conklin: Could you go over the other building elevations so we know exactly what is being proposed? • Key: Yes. We have the same issues here. The entry does face the street. We want these buildings to look the same because they are on the same lot. Conklin: You do plan on saving this building out front though? Key: The building up front is to remain. Conklin: I want to be sure of what we are getting with the revisions on the second building. Key: This building is going to stay where it is and we are building a new building sitting back here be behind it facing the street and the back of this building. And it's our intent to make the buildings match. Conklin: So whatever you do on your building you will do on the other building. Key: Yes. We'll change the material, add accents over the windows and those types of • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 34 Odom: things. Keep in mind that you are a square box -like structure and I don't have a problem with that as long as it's minimized by meeting all of the other criteria of the Commercial Design Standards. Hooker: Okay. Hoffman: This is the crux of the Commercial Design Standards. Key: Are those standards being reviewed right now by an ordinance review committee? Odom: No. Hooker: Can we start? Hoffman: Does anyone have anything else to say? • Conklin: So we are bringing this back to Subdivision Committee? Hoffman: Yes. 1 think we have pretty much dealt with the lot issues. I would like to see revised landscape drawings. • Odom: I do want to say, the chain link fence up front, I think that needs to iron or something. Ward: Wood? Odom: Not chain link. Hoffman: You can plant vines or something like that, but not on chain link. Odom: Staff, is there any other issues you are aware of that we need to cover? Conklin: The other thing we need to look at is the amount of asphalt you have, you can reduce that to 24 foot aisle in between and pull the parking away from the building. It would save you money. I'm not sure why you would want to pave all the way between each building. Hooker: The purpose of that was, and I don't have any problems with doing landscaping on the sides of the buildings, but I think we were trying to get the parking away Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 35 from the trucks that pulled into the other guy's place. He has bigger trucks that come in. Odom: Does he not have parking lot requirements that require internal landscaping? Key: We discussed that with Kim and at Plat Review I believe, but the parking is broken up to where there is no group of parking large enough to require interior landscaping. We have a few trees that are going to go towards that. Odom: If you landscape up against the building, I think that helped us on the Tom January building didn't it? Ward: Yes. It helped us a lot. If you did landscaping around the building it would help a lot. Conklin: I was trying to figure out why you would want to pour your asphalt all the way to the building. • Key: So if we cover up the siding we can use it? Ward: Probably. Key: We will look at that. We have a lot of extra room there. I don't know how wide that area is between back and parking, but we can look at narrowing that down and adding some landscaping. What is our schedule in terms of re submittal? Edwards: May 24'h. Hoffman: You need to let Bob know as he's not able to sit on this one. We need to get another alternate. Odom: I'll come back since I'm the one here now. Key: Is May 24th the re submittal? Edwards: That's the re submittal. The next meeting is June 1'. Odom: June 15t? Conklin: Yes. • • • Subdivision Committee May 11, 2000 Page 36 Hoffman: I'll do my best to be here. That's the day after the last day of school and we may be headed to Tulsa to put a kid on a plane. Conklin: That puts you at Planning Commission on June 12th. Hoffman: That's it. We are adjourned.