Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-06-29 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, June 29, 2000 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSD 00-14.00: Large Scale Development (Trinity Temple, pp 252) LS 00-16.00: Lot Split (Gale, pp 60) LS 00-22.00: Lot Split (Martin, pp 609) LS 00-20.00 & 24.00: Lot Split (Eckels, pp 168) FP 00-2.00: Final Plat (Millennium Place, pp 177) LSD 00-16.00: Large Scale Development (Keating Enterprises, Inc., pp 289) MEMBERS PRESENT Lee Ward • Don Marr Don Bunch STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Jason Teague Kim Hesse Kim Rogers • ACTION TAKEN Forwarded Approved Forwarded Approved Approved Forwarded MEMBERS ABSENT Lorel Hoffman Bob Estes STAFF ABSENT Perry Franklin • • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 2 LSD 00-14.00: Large Scale Development (Trinity Temple, pp 252) was submitted by Carter & Hodges on behalf of Trinity Temple Assembly of God for property located at 1100 Rolling Hills Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 7.19 acres. The request is to build a multi use building. Ward: This is the meeting of the Subdivision Committee, Thursday June 29, 2000 at 8.30 am. One of our members is missing but we will get this started. We have 6 items on the agenda this morning as new business. First is LSD 00-14.00: Large Scale Development (Trinity Temple, pp 252) was submitted by Carter & Hodges on behalf of Trinity Temple Assembly of God for property located at 1100 Rolling Hills Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 7 19 acres. The request is to build a multi use building. • Conklin: This is a Large Scale Development (Trinity Temple, pp 252) submitted by Carter & Hodges on behalf of Trinity Temple Assembly of God for property located at 1100 Rolling Hills Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 7.19 acres. The request is to build a multi use building. It contains 13,200 square feet and 18 parking spaces are being added. Some of the conditions to address and discuss this morning include the site plan has to show the dimension of the right-of-way from the centerline which is on Rolling Hills Drive. Any right-of-way that is not existing the applicant will have to dedicate the necessary right-of-way to bring the total dimensions to 35 feet from centerline. The sidewalks should be located within the designated right-of-way. They do need to show this right-of-way on Rolling Hills Drive and make sure the sidewalk is within that right-of-way. Item 2 is a determination of compliance with the Commercial Design Standards. The applicant is proposing a building with metal side and rear walls. This building is going to be located back behind the existing church on Rolling Hills Drive. Their property also does extend or have access to Harold Street to the north. I went out and looked at this. You really aren't going to see the building from Harold or Rolling Hills Drive unless you physically slow down and turn your head and look down this private drive to the back of the building. That is something to consider. I'm really not opposed to seeing that metal sidewalls and rear wall of the building due to the fact that it's not sitting up along the street. It's 100 feet back off of the street. I think it will be okay. The rest of the conditions of approval are standard and that includes that they will have to provide a final detailed plan for grading, drainage, water, sewer and fire protection. Ward: Petrie: Thank you Tim. Ron, any comments? Yes. On the grading plan that was submitted, and Glenn, there are a few layers that got • • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 3 turned off, such as the adjacent property owners, erosion control. All of that is shown on large scale but it didn't make it to the grading plan. Carter: Okay. They are there, but you are right, we didn't turn the layers on. Petrie: In regards to drainage, they have submitted a final drainage report on this. This project got submitted to the engineering department before it was submitted to large scale. We have reviewed it as a final. I have received several calls from some of the adjacent property owners who currently have a drainage problem. A lot of the water has been ponding on this property: I appreciate that input. It makes my job a little easier From what I can see I think they will help the situation quite a bit. They are going to prevent this water from ponding on those properties. That's really all I have. Some of the adjacent property owners may be here. Ward: We will open that up to public comment in a minute. Anything on the sidewalks? Teague: Jason Teague. We do have the sidewalk going continuously through the drive but that line needs to be removed from inside the sidewalk as far as the driveway. Hodges: Okay. Ward: State that one more time. Teague: Where the sidewalk goes continuously through the driveway the line of the driveway needs to be removed out of the sidewalk. Hodges: Okay. Conklin: On your sidewalk when you are walking on it you are never going to leave the sidewalk and walk on the asphalt. It will be continuous. It's going to have a line so you will not get lost. Ward: Is that all Jason? Teague: Yes. Ward: Kim? Hesse: They have met my requirements. • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 4 Ward: Okay. And how about Kim Rogers? K. Rogers: Nothing. Ward: I will let the applicant present anything you may have questions on at this point. Hodges: I'd like to point out that there has been drainage problems out there. We were out there, twice yesterday after the storms and every major storm event we have had within the last month we have gone out there and looked. There is definitely a ponding problem behind Mrs. Ballard's and Mrs. Smith's property. What we are proposing on doing is excavating, basically, channelizing the flow back behind their homes. There is a low spot there and the water has no place to go. What we are proposing on doing is opening that up and drain it through the middle of our property and running the water through a detention pond. We are slowing the water down so the post development flow is actually less than our pre development flow. There is also some drainage problems down below us along Blockbuster. We called the street department and they cleaned out the pipes and got quite a bit of debris out of that. That helped that situation but there still is some ponding problems there as well. What we are doing is going to help the situation by relieving the water up above us and slowing it down as it goes through our property. That's basically the whole concept behind doing what we are doing up here. We have Mrs. Ballard and Mrs. Smith here as well. Ward: Sara, anything you want to talk about? Edwards: No. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: With that I will open the floor to public comment. If you would like to speak I would like you to give your name first and then give us your concern. Smith: I'm Maxine Smith and I live directly behind the play area next door to Mrs. Ballard. Every time it rains to any extent it's a lake back behind us between the play area and our land. It fills up and it overflows over into our back yard. It's rotting all of our grass and flowers. I'm hoping the shrubs will get through it but I don't know if they will. There is also a ditch back there that is causing mosquitos. We have a huge problem with that. • Ward: How long have you lived there Maxine? • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 5 Smith: We've lived there 11 years this fall. Ward: And this problem has existed most of the time you have lived there? Smith: Yes it has. It's been a nuisance. It can come clear up to the house but it usually, the main part is in the back. Ward: Would anyone else like to address us on this issue? Ballard: I'm Mrs. Ballard. I don't know why it's on that whole lot of mine because my husband used to make a garden there. Since then it's developed a pond. Smith: It is worse since they added the play area and built it up. It pushes the water over. Ballard: I guess that parking slab too has made a lot of water come down there. Ward: Anyone else from the public? Ballard: Not about the water. Ward: Okay. Go ahead with anything else. Smith: Well, we would like a privacy fence if they would put one up because there is always all of that playing back there and a lot of noise. We can't sit out on our patio with very much privacy. Hodges: There is a 6 foot high screen fence proposed all along that property line and the church. Ballard: All the way? Hodges: The whole way. The entire eastern property line. Smith: Okay. That would be great. Conklin: That's a 6 foot high wood board privacy fence? Hodges: Yes. • Ward: Any other concerns from the public? • • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 6 Ballard: What type of fence are you planning on having? Hodges: It's 6 foot high board fence. Ballard: Redwood? Hodges: Whatever the typical material. Smith: We don't want it to be an eyesore. Hodges: No. Conklin: It's probably not going to be redwood. Rogers: No it's not redwood. Treated yellow pine is what we had planned. Ballard: Okay. Will that be solid? Rogers: Yes ma'am. Ballard: I guess solid is okay. We have a little concern about people hiding back there because we have had robberies on our street. Rogers: It's pretty well lit back there. Ballard: Well, yes, and then I have a light on mine. Will there be extra lights back there? Hodges: Well, maybe on the building. I don't have anything proposed on this plan as far as additional light poles back in that area Smith: What kind of drainage, I'd like to know what kind of drainage you are going to be able to put and will it be a permanent one, one that won't stop up? Hodges- It will be permanent. We are planning on putting a channel back there. Just a flat bottom channel. Right now what you have is a hump back there with no place for the water to go. It Just sits there until it finally evaporates or soaks in. What we are looking at doing is just releasing that flow out of there, opening that up to let that water drain on out. Over on your property there is a hump right there where it goes over that gas line and it's holding all of the water in. We may have to get the gas company to • • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 7 lower that, see how deep it is, and knock that hump down to allow it to flow on out. You know right at the back of your property there is that little hump? That's what is holding every bit of that water in. Ballard: When you say channel, are you talking about a concrete channel? Hodges: No, this is going to be grass lined. Just grass. Ballard: Just grass Hodges: We will excavate it down and basically a flat bottom ditch, something like that. Instead of it being like this right here, let's say that's your fence, outside of those trees back here just putting in a flat bottom ditch to let that water drain on down to the other side of the property. Ballard: How are they going to mow it to keep the grass down? Hodges: Just like the do the one that's there right now. The one that goes right through the middle. Smith: The water won't stand in the ditch? Hodges: No. It should not stand in the ditch. Smith: How about lighting on the new building? Hodges: I'm not sure about the lighting on the new building. Rogers: Darryl Rogers, Associate Pastor of Trinity Temple. We want our parking lot to be well lit also so there will be some additional mercury vapor lighting in the parking lot. It won't be on the building but it will be in the parking lot, the new area parking. Ward: Any other public comment? We have gone over 3 things mainly, drainage, privacy fence and security lighting. We will try to focus on those things especially before it comes to the final Planning Commission meeting. I'm going to close the floor for public comment at this time. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: • • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 8 Ward: Ron, did you have anymore to say about the drainage as far as engineering goes? Petrie: Not really but just to assure them that without this project the problem will remain. I think this project will certainly help the situation out there. If there are some problems that they have on the yard, like this gas line, is that completely on their yard? Hodges: It's on Trinity Temple property. The actual line itself where it comes from Mrs. Ballard's property, she has a vacant lot next to her house that she owns. There is water standing there. There is basically a hump over that gas line which is holding the water in. The gas line is on our property. Petrie: Okay. We will certainly take in your concerns and make sure that that situation is addressed. Ward: Some of the other concerns we need to address at this time would be the Commercial Design Standards of the proposed building. I guess you are going to try to use some metal siding on the side and back of the building. It seems like we have kind of gotten away from metal siding in Fayetteville and I think that you are going to have to show once we come out there it's going to be pretty much out of site. The other buildings like this that other churches have put up like United Methodist and University Baptist have all been brick and no metal at all. Hodges: I think the difference here, if I may, is the distance from the public right-of-way back to Harold. It's dust a small glimpse if you even can see it. You have to intentionally slow down and look. You will have to go out there and see what we are talking about. There is a screen fence already along from the west that is already there. Of course you have Southwestern Bell. There's an existing metal building over here which is a daycare center. To see the back of that thing you are going to have to intentionally slow down and almost stop and look to be able to see that. I don't know how many feet it is over to that public right-of-way but it is quite some distance. Along Rolling Hills Drive that will be brick. Bunch: What about the west elevation? Hodges: That will be metal. We are proposing metal on the west, north and east side. To save on cost. The cost of the brick is high. Bunch: It will have a 22 foot height? • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 9 Ward: It will have to be at least that tall to put the gyms downstairs. Rogers: It's 22 feet. Bunch: Will that be visible from the Commercial complex on College? Hodges: It will be from over along Blockbuster it will be. There is a drive that goes back around behind from there. Yes it will be visible. Carter: But not from College. Hodges: But not from College. Bunch: Well, I mean from that complex that abuts College? I realize there are small driveways and everything around in there but it would be visible to the public from the west? Conklin: You are going to be able to see it from Market Street most likely. There is going to be a building on this lot right here. This is where the stop sign is before you get to Blockbuster. So if you turn back and look towards the east you will probably see that wall up above the fence. Hodges: There is a row of trees through there to obscure that somewhat but it's possible you can see it from there. Carter: It's pretty thick. I don't you would see it without driving back there just going back to the building to see it. Conklin: One thing I'd like to add was the distance from the street. I think there is some consideration there. It's about 440 feet from Rolling Hills Drive and about 760 feet from Harold Street. It's not going to be a building up along a public street. You are going to have to look through private property to see it from the public street. I think something we all should look at. I went out there and looked at it and as I mentioned earlier I really don't see it as a problem because it is set back one behind the actual church right here and it's 760 feet off of Harold Street. But I want to be consistent and careful because I don't want the next church that comes in throwing up a metal building along one of our public streets in Fayetteville. Marr: And use this as the predecessor? • • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 10 Conklin: Yes. Ward: That's what we will be watching for. I don't have any problems with the metal building unless it's going to be visible from public places. It probably won't be allowed. Bunch: Is there some sort of painting scheme that can be used on the west elevation to minimize the effect of a long expanse of metal siding? Hodges: What color is that going to be? Rogers: It coordinates with the red brick. Hodges: So it will be similar in color? Rogers: Yes. It would be accented to the white. As you are looking at the front elevation there with dry-vit, the colors of the building will be coordinated with those colors is what we have in mind. But is there any banding or anything on the back metal side that, I guess I'm looking at large blank unarticulated wall surfaces. If it's going to be metal, is there something that we could do on those sides to not do that? A paint line or something that carries around? Rogers: At this time I don't think there is anything planned in that way. I think it's just solid. We have a different color roof, a lighter color roof that coordinates. It's 3 and 12 pitch. We've got those gables. Those could be a different color. There will be a break that's in there and it could be coordinated a different color. It wouldn't have to be all the same color. We could break it up. Ward: That would kind of help break it up. That's what we are looking for. Rogers: That's no problem. Marr: I'm looking at avoid or minimize unpainted concrete precision block walls, square boxlike structures, metal siding which dominates the main facade. Large blank, unarticulated wall surfaces, large out of scale signs with flashy colors. Our job is to look at it based on these requirements, is it meeting those. The concern I think the Commission would have originally is, and we rely on Tim's recommendation, is there an issue with the metal siding? • • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 11 Rogers: We will try to work with you in any way. We want to be agreeable. Ward: I'm open to a motion. Bunch: On these new parking lots it does have some landscaping in it, does this type of addition to the complex kick in any of the retroactive clauses in the parking lot ordinance for going back on non conforming parking lots? I think it's probably stated as additions to buildings. Am I correct in assuming that does not include a new building in a complex or compound of buildings? Conklin: We have looked at the part of the new parking being planned with this addition, we haven't look at it as, I haven't done that calculation as an overall compound or complex of what percent that is. I think overall, their parking is located back behind their building and they are landscaping their new parking. It's something I can look at if you would like, before Planning Commission. Bunch: If you would please. It's not just the aesthetics it's also the cooling benefit and such of having the trees in the area. I live in an area that has large grocery store parking lots and various things on North College, church lots, buildings that have changed their usage and it would be nice when the non conforming parking lots that were built prior to the ordinance, I think there is a clause in there that says we can go back and require a certain percentage of additional landscaping and I think we need to do that. Conklin: Bunch: Conklin: Rogers: Ward: Marr: That's correct. With all of the attention we have had recently we need to look at what is available under our ordinances and see if we need to go with that. I'll get with Kim and look at that and see what we can do. Might I project something else at this point, we have full intentions, we want the church beautified. As far as landscaping in the grass areas there that we have lined the building with, there will be some other landscaping especially on the east side. Any other questions or comments? I could use a motion. Since I came in late, one more question. There were no concerns or any other concerns from the neighborhood? • • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 12 Ward: We already talked about the drainage problem that has been there for a long time. We've got some steps to help take care of those concerns. Our engineering staff is going to be looking further into it. We also talked about a privacy fence along that line. Also, some security lights either in the parking lot or on the building. Those are the three main things. All of this has to go to the full Planning Commission anyway. It's not going to be approved at this level. MOTION: Bunch: I move we forward LSD 00-14 with revisions to the full Planning Commission. Marr: I guess I'll second since there are three of us here. Ward: That's with all staff comments. Smith: I'm now concerned about where the location of the building is going to be. I thought it was going to be at the very north end of their existing property line. Is it going to be east of it? Hodges: It's going to be just to the north of the existing parking lot. Where the parking stops right now, it stops right here, your home is over there. Their parking lot stops right here and the building is just coming right off the very end of that. Smith: Okay. So it won't be towards here? Hodges: No. We are going to put in some additional parking right there but the building itself will be right at the very end. Ballard: Which way is the building facing? Hodges: It faces Rolling Hills Drive. Ballard: What's going to be on the east side? Any windows or Just metal? Smith: I thought it would probably be a brick building in conformance with the one they have. Is it not going to be brick? Conklin: No. • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 13 Hodges: They are planning on brick along the front and metal on the sides. Smith: Brick all along the east side? Hodges: On the south side. Conklin: Just metal on the east. That's a concern we have been discussing. If you have a concern about the metal sidewall it's something we can talk about at Planning Commission too. Ballard: That's what we are going to see and it will show from Cheryl Avenue too. Hodges: We will have that screen fence up there as well. Ballard: Well that will cover the lower part. Smith: Well, if it blends in with the other buildings. Rogers: I assure you it will. Marr: And again, what we are recommending is that it move forward to the Planning Commission and I would encourage you to bring your comments to the Planning Commission. Right now my concern would be an unarticulated large wall of metal that I'm going to want to drive out there and look at. I have not see the area. 1 haven't seen the street. Based on paper and looking at it I think it will be all right. The three of us are not going to decide. You have nine Planning Commissioners to make sure a good decision is made. Ward: I'll go ahead and concur on this to send it to the full Planning Commission. When? Conklin: July 10`h. Ward: Thank you for all of your help and input. I think they know what we are expecting and what the neighborhood is expecting. Thank you so much. Conklin: July 3`d your revisions are due by 10:00 a.m. That's Monday I'm also going to request, do you think we need color elevations of all three sides? • Ward: I think that would be good. If you give us some color elevations of how it will look. • • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 14 Marr: I think it will be to your advantage. Ward: That picture is worth a thousand words. Conklin: We want elevations of all four sides. We already have the color front one and will need 13 color elevations on the other three sides. Rogers: Twelve copies of that? Conklin: Thirteen. Hodges: By the third? Conklin: By the third, Monday, 10:00 a.m. Carter: How many copies of the revisions? Edwards: Thirty seven. • • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 15 LS 00-16.00: Lot Split (Gale, pp 60) was submitted by Arden Gale for property located at 1530 Albright Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural (pending R -I, Low Density Residential zoning) and contains approximately 4.21 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of approximately 3.21 acres and 1 acre. Ward: Moving right along our second item of business is LS 00-16.00: Lot Split (Gale, pp 60) was submitted by Arden Gale for property located at 1530 Albright Road. Is Arden Gale here? Come on up here. Go ahead Tim. Conklin: This is a lot split on Albright Road. We rezoned this property at the last Planning Commission and it's going to City Council. The request is to split the property into two tracts of 3.21 acres and 1 acre. Staff is recommending approval at this level. A couple of conditions that I want to make you aware of and the applicant. First staff will need proof of the Arkansas Department of Health permit for individual sewage disposal system, septic system and we will need that provided to us prior to this lot split being filed. We want to make sure that lot 2 gets a perk test done and the permit from the Arkansas Department of Health has been approved and issued. Has that been done yet? Gale: No. Conklin: Okay. So before staff, if they go along with this condition, before we allow you to create this lot we need to have that done. Gale: Okay. Conklin: That's required by ordinance Also, a 20 foot easement along Albright Road must be shown on the survey prior to the lot split being stamped and approved by the Planning Division. That was requested at the Technical Plat Review. The rest are standard conditions of approval. Ward: Thank you Tim. Is this out in the county? Conklin: This is in our city limits. Springdale city limits surround it on three sides, north, east and west. Mr. McWethey used to work for the City of Fayetteville and that is the story I've heard Ward: So that's how this happened. • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 16 Marr: That's this on the zoning map. Conklin: This is that little notch up there. Gale: Believe me gentlemen, I'm no more happy about it than you. Ward: Jason, do you have anything on this? Teague: There are no sidewalks required. Ward: Ron, anything you want to add? Petrie: -Nothing. Ward: Of course Kim, you don't. Do we require a fee on splitting the lot here on the parks? Marr. It's in there. • Ward: Okay. Pay the park fees in the amount of $470.00. Sara, anything else? Edwards. No. PUBLIC COMMENT: • Ward: Anyone from the public that want's to address us on this lot split? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Ward: Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and come back to the Committee. Mrs. Gale is there anything that you would like to add to this lot split? Gale: Ward: No sir. Tim, on this Health Department permit for the sewer, is this what you brought to us Just recently? Conklin: Yes. For ones outside the city. This is actually inside the city and the ordinance already is on the books and it basically requires that we can create a lot less than 1.5 acres as long as we have a permit from the Arkansas Department of Health. The only • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 17 way I know how to get that proof is for you to get that perk test done and have Little Rock send us or bring us a copy of that permit to put in the file. Gale: I may have a dated permit. This was done some time ago. Is there any question of recency? Conklin: No, as long as they are addressing this lot, tract 2. Not your own septic system. Gale: I know. Conklin: Yes. If you have one I don't think they expire. I'll look into it. I think that will be fine. Gale: I'll double check my paperwork, but if not it should not be a great deal to get this done. Conklin: Okay. Ward: Any other comments from Don or Don? Any recommendations? MOTION: Marr: Is this something we can approve at this level? Conklin: Yes. Marr. I recommend approval of LS 00-16 Bunch: I'll second. Ward: I'll concur. Gale: Thank you gentlemen. Conklin: If you have any questions just call me. • • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 18 LS 00-22.00: Lot Split (Martin, pp 609) was submitted by Paula Nall on behalf of Kenneth Martin for property located at 0 Hunt Lane. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 2 34 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.34 acres and 1 acre. Ward: The third item on the agenda this morning is LS 00-22.00: Lot Split (Martin, pp 609) was submitted by Paula Nall on behalf of Kenneth Martin for property located at 0 Hunt Lane. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 2.34 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.34 acres and 1 acre. Tim? Conklin: Another lot split. This one is located in our Planning Area outside the city limits therefore, we do have this ordinance that we talked about last Planning Commission meeting with regards to 1.5 acres That is going to have to be granted as a variance. Anything smaller than that we are asking that we get that permit from the Arkansas Department of Health. Because of that variance we do need to forward this to the Planning Commission. Ward: Any other staff member have any comment on this lot split? Teague: No comment from Sidewalks and Trails. Petrie: No comment from Engineering. Hesse: No comment from Landscape Administrator. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: I'll open it up to the public. Anyone like to address us on this lot split? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Ward: Seeing none I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. Looks to me like on this easement, going back to what is now the residence structure, is that a 10 foot easement we have got, Tim, going back there? Nall: Petrie: That's what they asked for. That's what engineering asked for. What that is is part of the water service. A private easement. The meter will sit on, does sit on the property line. • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 19 Ward: Are all the city utilities using that same easement? Petrie: It will just be the water line. It could be for their private utilities. Nall: I think there is gas there but the meters are right side by side. Bunch: What about electric? Nall: It's overhead Marr: You were going to make a comment earlier? Nall: The sewer, the Department of Health permit, do we have to have that before we build? Do you need a perk test before the lot splits? Conklin: Yes. Before you sell it, yes. I need proof of that. • Nall: This one is the one, you know, that we go it approved through the county and the sale has already gone through. We got a letter of non compliance and so we are trying to get into compliance. • Edwards. Did the county not require that? Nall: No. Conklin: Well the City of Fayetteville does require it. Nall: Right. That's why I'm trying to do this. We knew we would have to have one when they decided to build which will not be for a while. Conklin: So the county has already approved it? Nall: Yes, they approved it. Conklin: They have a standard condition on their permit for the septic. I just want to make sure that the people buying these pieces of property can get septic systems put in. Some of our soils you could have five acres and have trouble. Nall: I understand. • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 20 Marr: You don't have any issues with that? Nall: No. We knew we would have to get that. Ward: Any other questions? Bunch: The only questions I had were the easement and perk test. Ward: Okay. MOTION: Bunch: I move we forward LS 00-22 to the full Planning Commission. Marr: Second. • Ward: I'll concur. Bunch: Should I make a comment about the variance? The requirement to forward it to the Planning Commission based on a variance for lot size. Ward: This requires a variance right? Conklin: Yes it does. Nall: That's why I'm having to go to full Planning Commission. Conklin: That's why you are going to full Planning Commission. The county has switched the process. • Marr. Is there county approval on that? Conklin: There is a county approval letter on it already. I'm trying to juggle all of this new way of doing things. It's been approved by the county already. Since I'm aware of it I want it to go to the Planning Commission. Lee, you can put it on consent if you want. Marr: I'll do that at agenda session. • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 21 Conklin: I don't want to make your agendas any longer than they have to be. Bunch: It was an item at our last Commission meeting trying to get our urban within the planning area and growth area to get the requirements to read the same because there was a difference on lot size. Conklin: Yes, I have an ordinance that the Planning Commission passed and is at City Council for the 2nd meeting in July. Nall: Now do I need to be at the full Planning Commission? Conklin: Yes. Ward: Just in case there is some question that you could answer. Marr. I will recommend that it be put on consent agenda so it should be quick. Conklin: Which means they will read the consent agenda. If they pass and approve it you need to go home. Do not stay for the whole meeting unless you really want to. Nall: Now do I have to have this permit before that? Conklin: No. That is a condition for approval. We stamp your deed. It will say approved by the Planning Commission and sign off on it. Nall: The deed has already been filed. Do I have to get it refiled? Conklin: Bring us a copy. In order for the city to approve this I need a copy of that permit from the Arkansas Department of Health. Nall: That's what I understood. What I'm asking is do I need to bring you the original deed and rerecord it? Edwards: No. Conklin: No. Nall: Thank you. • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 22 LS 00-20.00 & 24.00: Lot Split (Eckels, pp 168) was submitted by William Rudasill on behalf of Dan Eckels for property located at 3906 N. Salem Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 30.06 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 27.06 acres, 1 5 acres and 1.5 acres. Ward: Item 4 is LS 00-20.00 & 24.00: Lot Split (Eckels, pp 168) was submitted by William Rudasill on behalf of Dan Eckels for property located at 3906 N. Salem Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 30.06 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 27.06 acres, 1.5 acres and 1 5 acres. Tim? Conklin: A lot split creating two additional lots. I did inform them ahead of time that they had to be 1.5 acres or we had to go to Planning Commission and apply for a variance so we do have 1.5 acre lots. It's between Arkansas Highway 112 to the east and Salem Road to the west. Staff is recommending subject to county approval, this will go the Washington County Planning, and then also that they dedicate the right-of-way on Highway 112 which is classified as a principal arterial by warranty deed. Those are the two conditions. The rest are standard conditions of approval. Once again, this is in our Planning Area outside the city limits. Ward: Any other staff member want to make a comment? Teague: No comment. Petrie: No comment. Hesse: No comment. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: Anyone from the public like to address us? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Ward: Seeing none I'll close it to the public. This is a county road these two lots are being split off of? Conklin: Yes, the west side is Salem Road. • Rudasill: It's a dirt road. • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 23 Conklin: Bunch: Rudasill: Conklin: Bunch: Conklin: Ward: Rudasill: Ward: Rudasill: Conklin: Marr: • Conklin: They are also leaving a 50 foot area access which is actually part of this lot 1-A. 1 recommended they do that to be able to during future subdivision of this to possibly build a road through there with a 50 foot right-of-way. Looking towards the future they will have an opportunity to get a road between Hwy 112 and Salem Road. There's quite a bit of terrain in there and it would be difficult but there is a possibility there. I don't want them to cut that off. Is that large enough? Is it 50 or 60 feet? It's 50 feet. It's 50 feet. Is that enough? I guess these easements are on the other lots to possibly take care of that. So that's enough? 50 foot is the standard for the City of Fayetteville. 50 feet of right-of-way. There is that right-of-way being shown but I did want to make sure they preserved that area. Bill, any other comments on this at this time? No. We will approve this at the Subdivision Committee level but you still have to go to the county for final approval. Yes. Which is in the proper direction this time. The reason they implemented that is there are minor differences between subdivision regulations between the county and the city. Used to be it went to the county then come to the city and then those issues became a variance for the city. So, they want the variances now before they go to the county. We are requiring a lot more information to be submitted than the county. I think it's going to work out in the future better to get all of our issues said and done and then have the county go over there. Is there a reason you didn't want that dedicated as a right of way? At this time the 27 acres has frontage on Highway 112 and there is really no need that I • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 24 can see to have a street in there. It has access already. They did cooperate with my recommendations a month ago when I sat down with the owner and I pointed out to him for future subdivisions that is something we would look at as a city so I didn't ask for it to be right-of-way at this time. Bunch: A question comes up then, there is a mention in the Technical Plat Review of structures up by Hwy 112. They are not shown. Rudasill: They are not in the right of way. We did check them. Bunch: It's not so much in the right-of-way but for future development of this remaining property. Rudasill: The final plat, I've actually made that adjustment with the final plat. I didn't bring it with me this morning. Those structures are on that new plat. I had left them off of this plat but I will bring you a copy. • Conklin: Bring me a copy. We want to make sure they are not in the right-of-way. Bunch: There would be room for an access from Hwy 112. Rudasill: There is. I'll bring you a copy. • Bunch: Should we not it on this drawing that the purpose of this 50 feet on the west so there will not be a structure put in there? Rudasill: There's nothing there in that 50 feet. Bunch: But make a note in there that nothing is to block that? Conklin: You can. I'm trying to figure out how we do that when we don't have building permits in the county and trying to monitor that. Bunch: I understand the principal is to provide access for future development of the interior area without dedicating a right-of-way. Rudasill: I could just note it on the plat. Put an arrow to it and note it as future right-of-way no buildings to be constructed there. • • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 25 Conklin: Why don't you make it an access easement then to go along with what you are saying. We will clean it up right now. 50 foot access easement back into here. Rudasill: Conklin: Rudasill: Conklin: Rudasill: Ward: MOTION: Can we just plat it as an easement or does it need to be added? Just show it on this piece of property as access. Okay. No buildings shall be built within this area. No problem. I can bring you the revised plat. Okay. Marr. 1 move for approval with the changes we've talked about for LS 00-20 and 24. Bunch: Second. Ward: 111 concur. Thank you Rudasill: Thank you very much. • • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 26 FP 00-2.00: Final Plat (Millennium Place, pp 177) was submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Millennium, LLC for property located at the north west corner of Joyce and Hwy 265. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 12.65 acres with 17 lots proposed. Ward: The next item on the agenda is FP 00-2.00: Final Plat (Millennium Place, pp 177) was submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Millennium, LLC for property located at the north west comer of Joyce and Hwy 265. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 12.65 acres with 17 lots proposed. Tim? Conklin: This is a final plat for Millennium Place located near the intersection of Hwy 265 and Joyce Boulevard. The preliminary plat was approved September 13, 1999. When it was approved it contained 16 lots. Since approval and construction they have added lot 17 which is a detention pond in the northwest corner. That is a change from what was approved a preliminary plat level. Lot 17 is unbuildable and there should be a note on that plat saying that. Lots 3 thru 9 and lot 17 are zoned R -O, Residential Office. Lots 1, 2 and 11 thru 16 are zoned C-1. We do have six conditions to address. One, developer shall submit a list of approved materials and/or design elements to be used throughout the subdivision prior to the submission of any Targe scale development. We talked with Kirk Elsass and he has provided us with his covenants for the subdivision. I need more detail than that, other than just a description of what materials are allowed, like colors. You have to give me a little more like a list of colors of those materials. Something that we can have a unified theme throughout this. That is something I'd like to see. Approval will be subject to a satisfactory final inspection by Engineering Division. Payment of $6,600.00 is due for the waterline extension along Joyce Avenue prior to final plat being signed. The right-of-way dedication along Hwy 265 will be by separate warranty deed. If you look at this plat it's odd that their property line is going all the way out to this intersection of Hwy 265 and Joyce Boulevard so we are going to ask to clean this up to get a warranty deed for all of this right-of-way where the street is currently located, Joyce Boulevard. Very unique. All grading must be completed behind the right-of-way prior to signing the final plat. Condition 6, 4 inch caliper hardwood shade trees required placed at 30 foot intervals along Millennium Drive. Each lot will be required to have a 30 percent tree canopy coverage. Our Landscape Administrator has provided a memo this morning. You will need to read this with regard to condition 6. It goes over why we are recommending condition 6 for this development. With regard to approval at this level, something you may want to discuss is bringing this to the full Planning Commission to look at materials list that we need for this unified theme. That's all I have. 1 • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 27 Ward: Thanks Tim. Jason? Teague: We need to have something showing the width of the greenspace on here. Unless I just missed it I didn't find it on there. Ward: Where? Teague: Between the curb and the sidewalk. That's all I have. Ward: Ron? Petrie: I need to clarify, is that an easement between lots 8 and 9? Parton: Easement and setback, yes. For that streetlight. Petrie: All the other easements are labeled. That one is not labeled. Parton: If you want it to label it that's fine. Petrie: Is it the same between lots 6 & 7 and 4 & 5? It's a little different. Parton: We will label it. Petrie: Since the owner is here, I want to make sure we understand what we need before we can sign that final plat. Make sure all the punch list items are done from the final inspection. That does include all of the seeding for this green area. We need the as built drawings, construction cost data and the maintenance bond submitted. We need that before we can sign the plat. That's all I have. Ward: Kim, I glanced through your letter, why don't you give us a recap of what this is all about and go through it. Hesse: That's why we you have a copy of the preliminary plat because there were some changes. There were a few trees that were on that preliminary plat that were removed prior to the construction. I don't feel it's necessary to apply our penalty as we really don't get any benefit out of that. The developer will create canopy requirements as I requested that in the covenants. Before I sign the final plat all of this will be in the covenants. The only other issue is not in the memo but it's listed in my notes from Technical Plat that there is a Catalpa tree to be preserved. We need to make sure • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 28 Ward: Hesse: that's done. It's on lot 2. I think the end result will be a nice subdivision. So, basically there were some trees that were taken off before approval and we are requiring 4 inch caliper shade trees be planted at 30 foot intervals along Millennium Drive and along Joyce Boulevard both. How many trees are we talking about? I's based on our Commercial Design Standards but it increases from 2 to 4 inch caliper. Actually I know the notes I originally was looking for 30 percent but because of this zone we have a minimum canopy requirement. If you look at our ordinance we can only require an additional 10 percent. I'm recommending we have 27 percent. Ward: Sara, anything? Edwards: No. PUBLIC COMMENT: • Ward: Anyone from the public here to address the Millennium Subdivision? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Ward: Seeing none I'll close it to the public and bring it to the Committee. Bunch: I have a question on the tree preservation. Since part of this is R -O and part commercial, is there a difference in the tree requirement between R -O and C-1? • Hesse: No. Ward: Kirk, would you like to address us on this? Elsass: One question I had was in her memo it is 27 percent and then the other part said 30 percent. I was just wondering if it will be based off of the 27 percent? We did try to preserve that additional tree that she spoke of when this accident occurred. It was definitely an accident. The reason it was done, if you will look at some of these lots where the trees were located part of them were utility easements, where a drainage easement went through. Another thing that happened here, some things have changed basically, because when we originally came and before we started getting into the grading and everything, we found that there were some discrepancies in the City's file of the drainage of this property. The engineering that was done prior to Ron and Jim or • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 29 anyone being here, whoever handled that, there was a concern about, or there was a letter stating, and Chris can tell you more about it, that we would not need this detention pond. As we got into it and strictly all we are addressing here is the fact of the trees, as we got into it we found that we did have to have a detention pond here to meet the ordinance. So there are some of those trees down along lots, and there really wasn't much trees down there but between 12 and 13, in that area, where we had to take that drainage easement out. I don't know that there was a whole lot of change in there. Then also, up along in between lots 9 and 10. We did try to preserve as many of the trees on lot 7. Also, lot 8 there was a pond in there that had to be mucked out and removed. There were some different type willow trees and things like that in there. It was an accident. I have, prior to knowing there was any concerns with this, I had already put in my covenants, which I don't have a copy of right now. Conklin: I do. Elsass: I did specifically put some of the restrictions in there of these trees prior to any of this being an issue because I had planned on requiring certain size trees to be planted anyway along Joyce Street and along Millennium Drive on the frontage. I can't remember what I had as far as, was it 30 feet? Every 20 feet actually is what I have in there. Every 20 feet and no more than 20 feet back. If you will read through that I tried to put a minimum of three trees per lot which I believe is going to more than compensate, take care of the ones we did remove. If you will look, like I say, lot 7 there is going to be a substantial amount of trees that are going to have to be removed before that can even be developed anyway. So it's going to dig into that additional 17 percent that we had to begin with. Anyway, that being said I'm okay with the 27 percent. Kim and I had also talked about another way to preserve that. With this detention pond, if you will notice, up there some of those trees had to be removed because of that in the back north east corner of the detention pond. We had talked about possibly replanting some trees in that area instead of requiring an additional 7 percent there, instead of going from the 20 percent which is required, which I believe, I think the trees in my covenants are going to more than cover that amount anyway. But, instead of having an additional restriction that has to be monitored and remembered down the road for Tim or whoever else, I'm not saying they will forget, I'm just saying instead of doing that, we would be willing to come in and plant some trees in here. Kim had mentioned maybe 7 trees or so that we possibly took out. I would be willing to go in and plant some trees of the same size back in this area to preserve some of those trees instead of doing the 27 percent. I'll go with the 27 percent I was just looking for a better alternative to put back what we had removed. • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 30 Bunch: Elsass: Bunch: Parton: Elsass: Bunch: Elsass: Marr: Hesse: Marr: Hesse: Conklin: Hesse: Elsass: Hesse: If you put trees in the vicinity of the detention pond wouldn't they have to be to the west and to the north because of the shift in the utility easement? They would have to be, they could be anywhere along this line from what I understand. This is a relocated utility easement isn't it? They were planted inside of the detention pond. In the detention pond on the edges of it. Okay. It wouldn't effect the detention pond as long as it was okay with Ron. We would be willing to do something like that. I'm Just throwing that out at you or where ever we need to throw it out. It's something, like Kim said, we plan on making it right. It was a total mistake when that was done. Where is the Catalpa tree noted? Is it noted on this? Where would I find that? It's in our notes from the Technical Plat Review. But how does it get somewhere so we make sure that that is protected? Before I sign the final plat, I won't sign it until I've been out there. That's on lot 2 Kim? Yes. That's the one, after this had happened we got in there and it wasn't required to save that tree from what I understand. There was nothing on there that said we had to save it but we got into it and we had to move a fire plug because of the adjustment between Tots I and 2 and it just worked out that we were able to save that tree so we did. I think that's a solution planting trees on the detention pond because that works with the drainage. Basically these are going to be along the property line and there will be landscaping to the parking lot. We found that we end up with a bigger canopy percentage anyway. I don't know this is a decision you can make. That's why I have • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 31 Elsass: brought this up today. One other comment was that this was required when we originally came through on the front end to take each individual lot through large scale development. As you will notice a lot of these lots are .36, .38, extremely small lots there. We've got the first two we are probably going to bring through are .29. I didn't know if there would be any possibility that the Planning Commission could reconsider bringing each one of these back through large scale If that would be a possibility. We don't have a problem if we have to do that it just seems like redundant overkill to me to bring back each one of these since we have already been through large scale on this. If each one of these have to be brought through I understand the 1.37 has to come through because of it's size regardless. 1 didn't know, with the things that we have done and the things we are trying to do on this subdivision, it just seems like a redundant overkill to bring each one of those small little restrictions back through large scale. I didn't know if that was something that could be handled. Ward: Tim, you want to address that? • Conklin: Sure. I'm not trying to make your future clients or sales to go through a process that is not going to benefit them. When we started out we looked at creating smaller lots that could be combined together and as staff we thought that making them go through large scale will help us achieve compliance with our ordinances. Especially with regard to Commercial Design Standards. Now with the additional landscaping I think that would be beneficial. Overall we place these restrictions on newer commercial subdivisions to help us meet that. Not that staff can't review it by ourselves independent of the Commission, but it does make it easier to make sure that we are treating everybody equally and fairly on these subdivisions. That was a condition of approval at preliminary plat level. I still would like to see them come back through. I think it would help us to plan this entire subdivision and have a nice looking commercial area Ward: And I think that we will be looking closely at the first ones that come through as far as how the design, colors, construction materials set the theme of the whole 17 lots Elsass: I'm doing those myself so you will see them from me. Ward: So we will expect that to kind of carry the theme for the whole thing. Elsass: There is a little bit of division on this. With lots 1 and 2 you have already got White • Oak Station there. Adjacent to that is a carwash so we have a little bit of a conflict • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 32 going along there when you pick up lots 1 and 2 and possibly lots 11 and 12. I know that Perfect Partners will be coming to you on lot 1 as soon as this is approved. They will be coming to you to put in their facility there. There will be some areas from what I understand, and I don't know if you have talked to them or not. Conklin: I've talked to Perfect Partners. Elsass: There are some areas back here in the back that they are going to ask for a variance with me on the covenants on facade and materials used in the back portion. As far as my concerns with the subdivision, I don't have problems with either vinylor metal in some areas in the back where they will not be seen in these areas or in the backs over here. But when it comes to you those are going to be some of the things that I'm going to have to make a judgmental call on. Mainly everyone needs:to understand that my objective in this subdivision is that we are going to sell lots to other individuals but my objective has been all along to try to build this out myself and control this as far as I can. Ward: To be honest about it, out in that area I doubt there would be any metal. It will be awfully tough to get through. The Commercial Design Standards will be tough on it. Marr: 1 would suggest looking at each of these as they come through. It gives us a unified development. Later if we want to take it off after we have done a good part of it we can. Elsass:. We can do that possibly? Marr. That's maybe something that we look at. I think initially we need to look at each lot as they come through. Ward: This is a high profile area and a very desirable area as you know. Marr: It's an area we tend to get a lot of public comment on. Ward: We get a lot of public comment on it. We will have a lot of the neighborhoods being very interested in what is going on there. Because of that it's going to be hard to do things besides brick. It doesn't cost that much. It is a high profile area and everyone wants that area to look nice. • Conklin: Commissioner Ward, I did want to share with you the restrictive covenants that have Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 33 Marr: been given to us on the final plat. This is one of the concerns I've shared with you and maybe you guys can give some advise to Mr. Elsass of what the Commission would look for. I know what staff is looking for. All exterior walls of all buildings in the property shall be of brick, stone, dry-vit, cut block, Masonite siding or vinyl siding except that a written variance for another exterior material or quality type or color in advance approved by the developer may be given by the developer but only after the developer's review and approval of the plans for the building. Roof overhangs visible from the ground level will be of asphalt singles, split wood shingles, colored metal and other material of other quality type in color approved in advance by the developer in it's sole absolute discretion. That is pretty much our Commercial Design Standard saying no metal buildings. I would like to see more so we can have some type of material color or theme that as staff I can apply, so it you can think about that. I did meet with Perfect Partners and that was the first time 1 saw their building and it concerned me a little not having anything to evaluate whether or not they were meeting this theme or are we going to make that the theme for the entire development. We do tend to have, at least my experience, is we tend to have more color pallets and ranges of things that people like to stay within. I know we did that recently on a McDonalds Conklin: At Wedington Place. Elsass: I have a color and design already for lots 5 and 6. I have a color picture of the first two building that will be going in there. Like I said the difference there is that when you come along White Oak Station and you hit the carwash and then you come to lot 1 and 2, they are kind of sitting there all alone. Those are on Joyce Boulevard. Those are the only ones. The rest of these, and even 2, but 1 is more so isolated from the rest of this whole subdivision so Perfect Partners is the only one that has even considered any kind of considerations on the materials. These are the ones that are all going to be in this development right here. We will bring you this. I'm not really clear on exactly what you want. You want me to bring you a chart of what possibly what might be or do you want a picture of these two buildings? Conklin: A letter stating it's going to be these bricks or colors. Elsass: There is no way I could list every color. Marr: Absolutely. There is a very big difference between a red theme and a blond theme. • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 34 Elsass: Conklin: Elsass: Conklin: Keating: Elsass: Conklin: • Keating: Conklin: Keating: Marr: Conklin: • Well, I'm not, you are asking me to put a theme of a particular set of colors through the whole subdivision. I don't have that plan. I mean you are asking me.... That is what the ordinance requires. You are asking me to require everybody to us a specific color. I don't want all red. I don't want it all tan. You can give us a list of materials and colors that are acceptable in this subdivision. That way it's easy for me and easier for you to tell Perfect Partners they are going to have to have some type of unifying theme that is going to match everybody else out here. But what if he picks a brick you don't like? That's what I'm saying. You know what, that really doesn't happen that much, Bill. I'm saying they goose the goose. That's a common expression. I understand but I'm trying to enforce the ordinance and almost 99.9 percent of your projects meet the ordinance. I don't want to stick my nose in it, don't get me wrong. I see what Kirk is saying. You are asking him to tell his clients what they can have. I believe that many ordinances have that. I know that when we were building a location in Colorado Springs or Fort Collins we had a pallet that we choose from that has to be unifying to that development if we are going to have our office within that. I don't think that our ordinances are different from that. You choose your development based on whether that is something you can live with or not My prospect on it is I'm thinking of numerous examples in the last year where we have had buildings that we've looked at and someone has said this building color doesn't go with this building color and it's in the same development as part of this item. And they have been turned down. We are trying to get it all straightened out up front. One thing you are asking for is not to have it go through large scale development. That means yes, I have to sit in my office and look at your brick colors and have Sara here to say yeah, I think it will work. I would rather have a list like Wedington Place did. That worked great. We went • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 35 down the list, yeah, those are colors that the Commission saw. Each building is going to have that color on it or roof type. Elsass: Where is Wedington Place? Conklin: Wedington and Salem Road. Near Salem Road Elsass: It goes back to what I was talking about a while ago. If it doesn't meet the standards of the city commercial code and if it has to go through large scale on each individual lot why do I have to restrict every lot to specific theme when each one has to come back through large scale anyway? Conklin: I'm asking you to help me. Elsass: I'm still restricting the creativity on the front end so when they, what I'm saying is if you are going to ask me to restrict, which I feel that is what it's doing, then maybe we should drop the fact of large scale development at the end. Or maybe if we are going to do it this way make each individual bring that product in here. If each one has to go through the critiquing of large scale development then it just makes sense to me that that decision can be made of the material if it fits what is going in there or not and doesn't require me to go back to the individual and say, hay, you can't do this because you can't do this. If they come in and decide to buy the property and they come to the city and the city says you can't do that, that's between them and the city. They can make the decision. You are making me restrict what I put in. Like I said there is going to be probably 50 percent of that at least that I will have to bring back to the city anyway. I don't mind bringing a list. In fact I can make the list extremely long if you want, but to me, I understand you are saying try to make it simple for you, but are you going to, when someone brings it in there are a hundred different colors for this type brick and a hundred different colors of this company's brick. Marr: Elsass: Marr: And do you see your development as a unified theme of color brick? Somewhat. But then again I don't see restricting it to the level anymore than you do a simple residential subdivision. Right. And that is my point then. I'm not sure, and I'm speaking for myself now, I'm not sure you want nine people on the Commission deciding the taste of the development you have a picture of in your head. • • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 36 Elsass: I think I have that anyway. If they have to go through large scale development then my opinion is everyone of these that come through here is going to be critiqued whether it is viable to the ordinance or viable to everybody's taste. Marr: And I think you expand that the broader you leave that. When you say as a developer I'm comfortable with these ranges of things, then in my opinion, we don't get into judging whether that range fits or not we get into does it meet the other Commercial Design Standards. Do we not have Targe metal walls, all of those things that we just went through with the church development versus no, we are going to decide whether these colors all fit. If there is something that you are going to say this is all acceptable colors etc..and these are the ranges that I'm willing for it to go between, then I don't get in there and say well, that's too purple for this. I know you have already taken into account and this is the range we are looking at. Elsass: I'll do it. Conklin: I really don't want to get into the business of picking colors. Elsass: That's what we are into here. Conklin: I want you to pick colors. Elsass: But I don't want to pick the other person's colors is my point. Keating: The University of Arkansas campus would not pass your standard. Elsass: If you don't mind Tim, if you will furnish me with the Wedington ones that you have approved I'll review those and then I'll add to it and if that makes you happy we will do it. There again, we are getting to the point here on some of these things that to me it's gotten completely out of control. If you are going to large scale it here, lets do it here. I hear what you are saying but at the same time everyone of these is coming through the same process the same critiquing the same people. You are pounding the same deal again and if I'm going to have to do that and if everybody is going to have to do that they are going to get this same lecture. So, I don't understand why now we have to do this. If we are going to do it, let's drop the large scale on every one of them. I feel like it's overkill. I feel like if you are going to put standards in place and say okay, everyone of these buildings are going to be a certain standard then when we present this thing right now then I'm going to fill that covenants out and give Tim everything he wants we shouldn't have to bring these through large scale. It seems like redundant • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 37 overkill, overkill, overkill. That's all I'm getting at. I'll do what you want. I don't have a choice. Bunch: I think that part of the deal is you create, as a developer, the unified theme and we help you administer it. Elsass: Bunch: Ward: Elsass: Marr: That's correct. You can build in a certain amount of latitude. It's your dream, it's your plan. All we are, basically what the ordinances are asking is that it falls within certain parameter but then you communicate that to the planning process to help you maintain that. We did not come up whh these Commercial Design Standards. No, but we have added to it Lee. I disagree with you on that. That requirement is not an added to. That requirement was in this ordinance from the start. Elsass: No, no, no. That's not what I said. Let me finish. If that is in the ordinance 1 understand that. But the fact that we have added to the additional large scale, the ordinance states in the City of Fayetteville, correct me if I'm wrong, that anything under 1 acre does not have to go through large scale development again. We have added that to the process. That's the point. I'm not arguing with you on anything. I'm Just making the point that if the ordinance requires in large scale that it meets these standards then why large scale it once and large scale it again? I don't dispute the fact of what he is saying is in the ordinance. Conklin: I'll Just read it for the record so everyone is aware of it. §166.14, A commercial development that contains more than one building should incorporate a reoccurring unified and identifiable theme for the entire development site. That's all I'm trying to do. I met with Perfect Partners and saw that building. It concerns me a little. I looked at it and said, how are we going to take, going down the five, six standards on the Commercial Design Standards with the sidewalls and the backs, you already pointed out it's next to the Superior Carwash and White Oak Station. I understand that but I'm looking at that building going, I don't think Kirk Elsass is really intending for all of the buildings to look like this Perfect Partner building. I'm not trying to be critical about • Page 37 • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 38 Perfect Partners but it's somewhat of a box that I reviewed. All I'm asking for is to come up with some standards. Is it going to look like Sunbridge? Is it going to look like Milsap Road? CMN I? Elsass: Give me something to work with and I will do it. Bunch: I also think the intent on the deal with less than an acre has to do with a partial property that is independent of anything around it where as this is a cohesive development. That might be one of the considerations on having large scale look at it. It's in a sense to help protect you on saleability of your other lots if someone comes in and doesn't conform. Marr: I think he brings up a good point. The more the boundaries are defined then the process becomes more and more redundant. Conklin: I agree with you on that. Looking at Perfect Partners I think we need to go through large scale development on these. Marr. I think that is where we get into, is this going to be the look we are gong to go with when we get these others or that you are going to go with? Is that going to meet the ordinance? But I agree with him. I think once you know the lines I'm not sure that everyone of them needs to go through. That's my own opinion. Bunch: Once the unified theme is established. Marr: Right now there is none. And if I read that that doesn't give me insight. Conklin: This doesn't give me any guidance. Elsass: But you are asking me to give you the guidance and I will give you the guidance. That's my point. I just ask that one or the other. It just seems overkill and it seems this group right here and the Planning Commission has enough stuff coming through. This is not that it's important but to overkill something and see it over and over again it kind of gets to the point that I've been around enough of these for the last 15 years it comes to a point where they start coming through and they get redundant and you all are just sitting like this going okay, let's Just pass it on. I'm planning on bringing everything to you Tim. I think you know me well enough to know I'm going to do that. • Page 38 • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 39 Conklin: Yes. Elsass: All I'm asking is one or the other. If I have to do both I'll do it. I'm not here to say I'm not going to do something. I'm just trying to makes sense of it. Ward: Marr: Ward: I still think that like a carwash was not in a subdivision or a platted commercial subdivision it was jut put on a piece of land. Same with White Oak Station. Once you bring in a platted commercial subdivision to us it comes under a not of other ordinances that we are required to follow. That's what Tim's job is. We don't have a whole lot of leeway. The difficult thing is probably the first one that the city has seen is very different than whatwe have heard about what the entire development would be. From that -• • standpoint it begins to say, now is every one of these going to be that different and how do we get to the unified theme. I can sympathize with Perfect Partners saying gee wiz, we hate to make a monument out here next to a carwash but again they are gong to up against your whole subdivision. I haven't seen any of these yet. Moving things along, can this be approved at this level? Conklin: It can be approved:at this level. Ward: Some of the things we need to go back over, developer shall submit a list of approved materials and/or design elements to be used throughout the subdivision prior to submission of any large scale development. That is pretty important. There is supposed to be a right-of-way dedication along Hwy 265 by separate warranty deed. And four inch caliper hardwood shade trees are required placed at 30 foot intervals along Millennium Drive. Each lot will be required to have 27 percent tree canopy coverage not 30 percent? Conklin: We will go along with Kim Hesse's recommendation. Ward: Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 10 foot of greenspace with 6 foot sidewalks along Hwy 265 and a minimum 6 foot greenspace and 6 foot sidewalk along Millennium Drive. Also we are going to label these easements between the lots. Another thing we talked about is on lot 2 the • Page 39 • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 40 Catalpa tree, the fact you need to get it preserved right and shown. Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Bunch: In note 1 on the drawing there is a contradiction. Where it says lots 10, 11, 2 and 3 shall access from Millennium Drive only and then in the next sentence it says a shared access between lots 1 and 2 will be used for access to Joyce Street for lot 1. Elsass: That was staff's recommendation. Bunch: It's saying lot 2 has to dedicate part of it's land for an access to lot 1 but it can't use that land. Conklin: You need to clarify that. I see what you are saying. It says you are going to have assured access between lots 1 and 2, one curb cut on Joyce Boulevard but it's saying that that access will only be for lot 1. Parton: Is that not what we worked out at preliminary plat? Edwards: Yes. That was straight out of preliminary plat. TAPE TURNED OVER Elsass: Say that again. I have an agreement with Perfect Partners that states that I will share, or whoever owns lot 2 will share cost and construction of that entrance. Bunch: Right. But the preceding sentence though says lot 2 shall access from Millennium only. Elsass: Oh. Bunch: The two sentences contradict each other. Parton: You are right. Bunch: Another question, before we put building setback on the preliminary plat a note says it's per covenants but then that's not showing up on final plat. Has there been a change in the covenants? • Page 40 • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 41 Elsass: Bunch: Elsass: Bunch: Parton: Conklin: Parton: Conklin: Parton: Elsass: Bunch: Edwards: Bunch: Marr: No it's no my covenants but it's also part of, there should be a restriction with Joe T. Robinson that disallows that. I don't know if it's necessary to be on this plat. It has to be abided by because it was something that was agreed upon by Dr. Albright with Joe T. Robinson and it was an understanding when I purchased the property that that had to be a 40 foot instead of the standard 25 foot. But the final plat only shows a 25 foot. I asked for it to be a 40. You can tell them what you decided on that. It can be marked however you want it. I would prefer it to be marked. It seemed like a contradiction. I didn't understand where it was coming from. We were just told on the preliminary that it did not need to be on there. We don't enforce it. It was a private requirement between seller and buyer. We can't enforce that because it's not a city law. It's Just a private agreement between the property owner and the owner will have to sue whoever violates it. If you want to put a note on the plat to show the 40 foot setback by restrictive covenants you can. We can do that. I would prefer that. It would be easier for me down the road. The other thing is on lot 10 it looks like everything has shifted to the north, is that because that utility easement does not extend all the way across? It has two fronts. Okay. That's what I wanted. Do we have the opportunity later down the road not to bring everyone of these in front of us? • Page 41 • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 42 Conklin: Bunch: . Conklin: Bunch: Marr: Conklin: Ward: Elsass: Hesse: Conklin: Hesse: Conklin: Petrie: Hesse: Well, you have a condition of approval that says they have to come in front of us. I guess we could bring it back as an administrative item to amend that condition. The answer is yes. Once the unified theme is established that consideration for all of them except the one that is over 1 acre could be done administratively. Could we say something like that here? Yes. Okay. Mr. Marr since that is your request. I get blamed for everything. As noted. Okay. I'll take that as a direction. You will see them as large scales and you can tell me, Tim, let's bring this back up and remove that condition or modify it. Can I get a recommendation for approval or disapproval? Can I ask a question. Did you all want to, we mentioned about possibly planting those trees instead of the 27 percent, do you want to look at that idea or just go with the 27 percent? I would support that. You are going to support what? I need to go out and take a look at it. Are you approving this right here? They are approving it right here. So we need to know exactly what Mr. Elsass is going to be planting and where it's going to be located and what species and size and everything else. I would like to see the final detention pond. You can leave that to our discression. Can you leave that to our discression? • Page 42 • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 43 Ward: Sure. Petrie: I just don't want it blocking the flow in there is the main thing. Elsass: This obviously is going to cost me more money to do that. But I'm looking at trying to do exactly what we are talking about to preserve this out here. There again, that's one less thing I've got to remember down the road to tell someone, by the way, you have 27 instead of 17 or 20 that is required. It was just a thought that I threw out. Kim actually, it was her idea to begin with. Ward: Okay. We will leave that to the staff. Marr: We will leave that to staff, Kim and Ron. Ward: So the final tree canopy will be at their discression. Marr. Whether to use detention planting or the 27 percent. Ward: Yes. MOTION: Marr: 1 would move for approval of FP 00-2 with the recommended changes that we have talked about. Bunch: Second. Ward: I'll concur. Elsass: Thank you very much. Appreciate the considerations. • Page 43 • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 44 LSD 00-16.00: Large Scale Development ( Keating Enterprises Inc., pp 289) was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Keating Enterprises Inc., for property located on lots 1 & 2 of Sunbridge. The property is zoned C -I, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 2 89 acres. The request is for office/lease space. Ward: Final but not least is LSD 00-16.00. Large Scale Development ( Keating Enterprises Inc., pp 289) was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Keating Enterprises Inc., for property located on lots 1 & 2 of Sunbridge. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 2.89 acres. The request is for office/lease space. Tim? Conklin: This is a large scale development for lots 1 and 2. We rezoned these lots this year from R -O to C-1 and it contains 2.89 acres. There are three buildings on this site. The building to the west contains 11,463 square feet, the building in the middle contains 7,200 square feet, and then there is a small rectangle up on the northeast confer that contains 2,040 square feet of floor area. Curry's Shopping Center is to the east zoned C-2. Additional landscaping is being provided in order to screen this property from the residential property to the north. There is an existing mobile home park to the North. No rare or landmark trees are being removed. One 12 inch oak is being removed. There is currently 7.43 percent tree canopy. The applicant is proposing to preserve 7.19 percent canopy due to the removal of the one 12 inch oak. Staff is recommending this be forwarded before the full Planning Commission. They are requesting a variance, it is condition 1 to address, from the 15 foot landscaping requirement between parking lot and right-of-way. The request is to reduce the requirement to 5 feet along the southwest corner of the property in order to save a 30 inch oak tree. Staff is supporting this variance request. There is a letter from the applicant. Determination of compliance with the Commercial Design Standards. The applicant is proposing a red brick building with red asphalt shingles. Keating: Now, there's the first problem. I know Tim didn't like red. I came in and found out what color you did like. Ward: So if the color is red he does not like it? Keating: No, red is not his color. Conklin: Red is not representative of the asphalt shingle, so I don't have a problem with it. 11111 Page 44 • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 45 Keating: It's a close as a computer colored printer can get you. Conklin: We do have a sample of that red shingle and yes, I'm not against red, only bright, bright red. There it is. There is a little difference in the actual color and the drawing which kind of shocked me when I first saw it. Ward: Let's go first to sidewalks. Jason, you have anything? Teague:. We need to show the widths of the greenspace and sidewalk on there. The minimum sidewalk width is 5 foot with a 4 foot greenspace. Keating: I'm sure it's on there someplace but I don't see it. You're right. And it gets a little close up there where the Sunbridge came to the corner. What I always try to do is give you the sidewalk. That's my goal in life, to give the city all the sidewalks. Ward: Is that your only comment? Teague: Yes. That's all I have. Ward: Ron, what about engineering? Petrie: Just one comment. Reading through the comments Jim had at Plat Review, I think you may have misunderstood but, he wanted the easement to the north of that box culvert to be a combination drainage easement and utility easement. Brackett: So you want the 15 foot to be, but he did want the 10 foot also? Petrie: Yes. Brackett: So make it 35 feet of drainage and utility easement? Petrie: Right. Since we are not having open swells out there. Brackett: Is there a problem with this road on top of the box culvert? Petrie: I've red the minutes and Mr. Beavers was supporting that. • Page 45 • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 46 Keating: What's on top of the culvert? Brackett: The screening. Conklin: The screening. Keating: Oh, okay. Petrie: That's all I have. Ward: Kim? Hesse: Just a note, we came up with shrubs and I think since there's quite a bit of a berm there the combination of that and landscaping it meets the ordinance. Ward: Thank you so much. Any other staff comments? • Conklin: Mr. Keating will explain how this theme works. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: Let me ask first is there any Public Comment? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Ward: I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the applicant to explain what you are doing. So, there are three building on the property, is that what we are looking at? • Brackett: There are three buildings. Ward: And all three of them will look like this. The colors? Brackett: They will all be the same. Ward: A unified theme? Keating: Unified theme. That's what we want. We like unified. We don't want anything to look Page 46 Subdivision Committee • June 29, 2000 Page 47 • different. Conklin: And you have used similar colors in Sunbridge on your other buildings? Keating: Yes. They are identically the same. Some people like and some don't. Conklin: There is definitely a theme at Sunbridge. Keating: Well, there's a theme in mind. Now, when you drive down the street, that gets right back to what you made Kirk do. I wouldn't say whether I like driving down Sunbridge or not. You have 10 different owners and there is 10 different buildings. Whether that's good bad or indifferent I don't know. Marr: I think you get that from the developer. The differences and their picture of it. Keating: I don't think Mae when she developed Sunbridge, she could have controlled it more. You would have wanted me to control it more. There is no way she could have picked pink stucco on the psychiatrist office. Whether it's good or bad 1 don't know. I'm not saying. Man. Bunch: Conklin: It goes very well with this red shingle. And the dogwoods in the springtime. I just have one other question. The backs of these buildings, they are all brick, right? All four sides? Keating: All brick. All four sides. Conklin: Okay. Keating: The easiest cheapest. Why anyone would do it any other way I don't know. Ward: We hear it all the time. Keating: I'll tell, that's the one problem. I agree with you. If Kirk was here, and I wish he was, Just because you say this is the back of the building, give me a break. I have lived to • Page 47 Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 48 learn when I did an ugly back of a building all of a sudden I owned the lot next to it and I had an ugly back of a building looking at me. I quit declaring what was back and what was front a long time ago. 1 let someone else decide that. When I'm dead. Ward: On this tree we are trying to save out there, the 30 inch oak tree, give us a history of this thing. We are trying to save this tree and we are willing to give up something? Brackett: What it is, the requirement is 15 foot off of the property line for greenspace. If we go 15 foot then we would have to put our 24 foot drive about 10 foot into the canopy of the 30 inch oak which is not desirable for the oak. By pushing the curb out the way we have it around the tree, we are able to keep out of the root system of the tree. That's the reason for the 5 foot. Ward: Another item, are we looking at this also? What is this? Keating: Yes. Because they asked me to locate the signs and to givd you drawings of the signs. Ward: What is it 75 feet maximum? Conklin: Six feet high. Ward: What materials will that be built out of? Is it similar to what we have out there already? Is there anything like that out there now? Keating: Well, of course, this is commercial and the rest is R -O. We did get a variance up the street for some aluminum signs that we incorporated into the light poles. There is nothing like that. It's more of a low monument sign to help identify who's in what building where. Ward: Where is the sign going to be? I don't see it. Conklin: Right here. Brackett: There is two. One there and one there. Conklin: Are we looking at a piece of plywood? Is it dry-vit, block? Page 48 • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 49 Keating: It will be a metal frame with solid panels. Can I have it ground lit? It's only when it's lit on the inside that they call them lighted signs. Conklin: I think you can. You will need to check with Mike McKimmey on that. Keating: Whatever the code says. Conklin: This is what we will see out there. This is what we will get. Keating: Yes. Now if it will be that exact color, of course, you like brown. It will be that exact color. Conklin: What kind of flowers are these, that's what I want to know. Ward: That looks like McDonald red flowers. Conklin: You're going to have to change out those flowers. I really don't have a problem with the sign. Keating: Whatever the sign ordinance says is what we will do. Conklin: I think it would look nicer if you put a brick column around it. Keating: The problem is, the bigger you start making them, the more clunkier it is. I'd rather have no signs ever except on the door of the building. You have problems with safety. There's a doctor's office. Conklin: I don't have a problem with it. Ward: We allow monument signs. Conklin: Typically you will see them try to incorporate something off of their buildings into the sign. Maybe take that arch over the doorway and put that out front and put your sign in that arch. Keating: What we did up the street. I regulated the signs and they are all identical. You should like that. • Page 49 • • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 50 Marr: Keating: Conklin: Ward: Brackett: Ward: Bunch: Brackett: Bunch: Keating: Bunch: Keating: Conklin: Keating: Conklin: Keating: Actually I like variety. All the signs on the building, and we didn't show signs because, who knows, they will all be identical and they will all meet the code. Okay. Any other concerns? I have no problem with the building itself as far as Commercial Design Standards. I don't have any problem personally with the monument signs. Chris, I guess you will put in the 35 foot of drainage and utility easement? Yes. And show the rest of the sidewalks with the greenspace. Don? We have a couple of numbers here, I'm assuming those are building numbers? Or are they lot numbers? They are lot numbers. The 1 and the 2. That's the lot numbers and I considered not even showing it on the plat. And then the property line is between lots 1 and 2 is it this line here? The big dark line. Yes. There was some comment about the easement. One comment I thought was kind of nice in the Technical Plat Review was having a building easement. That was me. Could you show me this single wide building here? Single wide? I'm Just curious how that's going to look. From the front it will look just like the other buildings. • Page 50 • Subdivision Committee June 29, 2000 Page 51 Conklin: Keating: Conklin: Keating: So the one elevation, we will see a 20 foot wall? Yes, you are right. And really he didn't show a window in there. I can glue a window in there if you want. I'd like a window. Actually that's going to be really nice. That's all going to be trees and greenspace out there. That should have had a window on that elevation. Marr: That would get us away from unarticulated wall surfaces. Keating: Yes. I'll glue a window in there. Conklin: It should be an interesting space to lease Keating: Actually it's perfect because most people, when you get 60 foot wide new buildings and someone comes and wants 600 feet, you go, okay, I'll rent you 10 feet. That. works. Those are perfect. Those will lease out quick. That building, you can't make money on that building, ever. Ward: Any questions or recommendations? MOTION: Bunch: I move we forward LSD 00-16 to the full Planning Commission. Marr. I'll second. Ward: And I'll concur. Thank you gentlemen. • Page 51