Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-13 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, July 13, 2000 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSD 00-15.00: Large Scale Development (Lake Hills Church, pp 255) LSD 00-17.00: Large Scale Development (McDonalds, pp 134) MEMBERS PRESENT Lee Ward Lorel Hoffman Bob Estes STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Chuck Rutherford ACTION TAKEN Tabled Forwarded MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Kim Hesse Perry Franklin Kim Rogers • • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 2 Hoffman: This is the July 13 meeting of the Subdivision Committee. Today we have two items on our agenda. The first being a large scale development for the Lake Hills Church. The second is an LSD for McDonalds. I would like to jump ahead to the second item and bring up the fact that we all three had recused last time from McDonalds and get that discussion started now if we need to call three new members we better get with it, or if you would like to excuse us from our recusals for this Subdivision Committee meeting we can do that. Fullerton: I'm Kris Fullerton with McDonalds Corporation and we will waive those recusals so we can move forward. Hoffman: I would have to recuse at the Planning Commission meeting because I am still working directly with you. I'll try to keep my comments to a minimum. Estes: I'll have to offer to recuse. You can do whatever you want to. Hoffman: Well, we will go forward on McDonalds, the second item on the agenda with that in mind and you will at least have our discussions here. Thank you. • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 3 LSD 00-15.00: Large Scale Development (Lake Hills Church, pp 255) was submitted by The Benham Group on behalf of Lake Hills Church for property located on the east side of Hwy 265 north of Township. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 3.59 acres. The request is to build a church. Hoffman: We are ready to begin with Lake Hills Church which is a large scale development located on Hwy 265. Tim go ahead. Conklin: This is a large scale development located on Hwy 265 just south of the Williams Dance Center. It's on 3.59 acres. The request is to build a church at this time. A year or so ago we had a conditional use approved for this facility. That conditional use limited the size of the church to around 10,300 square feet. They are proposing to build a 15,360 square foot church. We are also amending our previous conditional use to reflect the changes that they have made with this large scale development. They will be utilizing a shared parking agreement with the Williams Dance Center located to the north. There was a variance granted by our Board of Adjustment for a 15 foot south side setback with a 0 side setback to the north for the canopy only. What you are looking at here is this canopy right here. They've put that closer to the north property line. There are no rare or landmark trees on this site. There is no canopy preservation in the A -I zoning district. We would like to make one point. When the conditional use was brought forward they showed all of the parking to be located in the front of the church. They have amended their plan from even this submittal at plat review, all the parking was located to the west of the church. Due to detention pond requirements they have relocated some of that parking back to the east. I would request that Mr. Rimbey to the north, that property owner, I tried to get a hold of him yesterday and make sure he is aware of that change. Also that Mrs. Shui to the south, if you can at least contact them and make sure they understand that this parking lot area has changed and will be to the east. There was a lot of discussion and negotiation going on between the applicant and these two property owners with regard to where the church was going to be. I'm not sure how much of that was also with regard to the parking. At the Board of Adjustment we granted a variance that the church had to be sited in this location and they didn't want it further back. Hoffman: I have a question at this point and then we will go on with the presentation, did that Board of Adjustment variance in any way compromise the conditional use that had already been granted with regard to either square footage or location or anything? • Conklin: With regard to the conditional use that was granted, typically we put, as a condition of approval, that what they are presenting as a conditional use is what Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 4 they will be building. However, there seemed to be some confusion between staff and the applicant that that was just a conceptual plan and that was not their final plan and the square footage was going to increase and the building was going to change. Therefore, I did inform them that when they came back through we need to amend that conditional use. Review and approve what they are proposing today. Hoffman: So that is a condition of approval? That we make a determination on that amended conditional use? Conklin: I'm not sure. Edwards. That was left out. Conklin: We need to put that in there. Estes: Tim, item 2, the conditional use, does that take care of Commissioner Hoffman's question? Conklin: Yes. That's what we are trying to achieve with item 2. Estes: So we have got a conditional use request for 15,360 square feet instead of what we had before, 10,300? Conklin: 10,300. Hoffman: Okay. Conklin: The reason why I put that in there as a condition is that the neighbors were concerned about the size of the church and future expansions and that if any future expansions did occur that this would be brought back to the Planning Commission for review and approval Estes: And by future expansion do you mean redesign or do you mean subsequent building. Conklin: Any subsequent building. If you put a gymnasium back there or a child care facility. That's what I'm looking at. The conditions to address and discuss are the curb and gutter shall be removed through the sidewalk at driveway approaches. This is a standard condition that Chuck Rutherford has. He does not like to see a curb going through these private driveways. The sidewalk should be • • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 5 continuous. So you need to remove that line. Once again, item 2 addresses the increase in square footage of the actual church. Item 3, the floodplain reference shall be corrected to include panel 103D dated July 21, 1999. The right-of-way dedication along Hwy 265 shall be by warranty deed. A list of materials must be furnished prior to the issuance of the building permit. A copy of the filed access/ construction/ utility easement along the north property line allowing for the driveway to be built on the property to the north shall be provided prior to the issuance of any permits. We did receive a letter today from James Meinecke stating that they have permission to cross their property at 2842 N. Crossover Road for the driveway entrance. I would like to see some type of permanent easement, access easement and any temporary construction easements you will actually need to build that driveway. But it does need to be shown to be permanently approved by that property owner for that driveway. Estes: Tim, I've lost you. Where is the Meinecke property? Conklin: The Meinecke property is here. Can you show how that driveway encroaches on that property? Fox: Yes. Here is the actual property line right here. The actual part of the driveway is on their property. Estes: And what is this curve? If that is the driveway why do they have this arc? Conklin: This is your curb line. This is the property line. Fox: This line out here covers any dirt work and construction that we will have to do also. Hoffman: Could you say your name please Fox: My name is Gerald Fox. Estes: So we have a construction easement that we are talking about? Conklin: We have a construction easement and we have an access easement because if you follow this line here this is not on their property. Estes: I see. Hoffman: Would it not be more proper to make a lot line adjustment? • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 6 Conklin: 1 don't believe Mr. Meinecke wants to sell this property. Hoffman: He does not want to sell that portion. Have you all had that discussion? Fox: I have not. I don't know if anyone else has. Conklin: That's an idea you might want to talk to Mr. Meinecke about. Estes: Let me say this. I have a piece of business laying on my desk right now where there was an easement given for construction and ingress and egress and then through a subsequent deed that easement was not reflected. Then there was a third subsequent deed that Just said easements of record and we've now got a law suit. That's why I think Commissioner Hoffman is suggesting that it be something other than an easement. Those things tend to get lost particularly when you have title companies instead of lawyers doing title opinions these days and then somebody comes up and says, wait a minute. We had a survey and your driveway is on the property that I bought from Mr. Meinecke who Mr. Meinecke sold to Mr. Matthews who Mr. Matthews sold to me. That issue could certainly be solved by deed. Ward: I think a filing of an access easement will too. Estes: But they get Lost. That's what I have on my desk right now. Subsequent deeds come out with easements of record or easements as recorded. Fox: I will certainly put that question to the representatives of the church. I have not had any kind of indication that Mr. Meinecke is willing to give up part of his land. Hoffman: Well, I'm sure he would not be willing to give it away. If you would please check into that and let staff know prior to our agenda session or when you submit revisions as a result of comments made at this meeting. Would that work for you? Conklin: Yes. Fox: When is agenda session? Conklin: It will be next Thursday. A week from today. Hoffman: Thanks Tim. Please continue. • Conklin: A tree preservation application must be presented to the Planning Division and • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 7 approved by the Landscape Administrator prior to the Planning Commission meeting. They have changed, once again, where their parking was going to be located. Sara has drawn on her's what has changed from Plat Review. Basically all of this was going to be left in tree canopy. I do have a question just for the record, are any trees that are existing, this is pretty much wooded up to the current Hwy 265, are any of the trees going to be preserved in the front half of this property? Fox: I don't believe so. Conklin: So they will all be removed. The trees that will be saved will be on the eastern half of the property. Hoffman: Which is the back half? Edwards: Yes. Hoffman: I see. There's a note on the plan. I have a question. Did you say there are no rare or landmark trees? Those are not included in A-1? Conklin: Yes. To our knowledge there are no rare or landmark trees. Fox: That s correct. The only tree that Kim Hesse was concemed about was one that was Just off of the property right up in here. We certainly will not do anything to that tree. Hoffman: And your construction will initiate preservation if it's canopy or root line encroaches onto your property? Fox: Yes. Conklin: Then we Just need a determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards and they have presented their elevations to you this morning. That's all that Planning Staff has. There may be other staff members that have comments. Hoffman: Thank you. Do we want to talk about floodplain? Did I hear something on that? Edwards: They have referenced the wrong map. They have put the limits on there for me but they didn't change the reference. Fox: I thought I had changed that but the reference you are referring to is on the survey. • • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 8 Edwards: I would prefer it on the site plan anyway. Fox: I'll put it on there and will also mark through it and change it on the survey. Hoffman: Does the floodplain run through the parking lot? Edwards: No it's all back here. Conklin: No. It's all back here. There is a break in their description. This actually goes further back. Fox: I put it on the site plan and I've taken the break lines off. Conklin: You have taken the break lines off now. Okay. Fox: In elevation that is down like 30 feet or so on the back side. Hoffman: So it's not anywhere near? Fox: No. Conklin: Have you notified the property owners to the east beyond that? Fox: The property owner to the east is the city. Conklin: City park land. Okay. Hoffman: Chuck? Rutherford: Tim addressed the one comment I had about removing the lines through the sidewalk for curb and gutter. On the driveway approach itself that shall be poured and cement concrete not asphalt. The other comment I have, and I guess has been addressed through this easement to the north, is the driveway being on the property line. I guess that easement took care of that? Conklin: Yes. And you will need to get a permit from the Arkansas Highway Transport Department prior to constructing that driveway. They will need plans that they will have to approve. Rutherford: Mike Pickens is the person you contact there. • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 9 Fox: Hoffman. Conklin: Hoffman: Fox: Conklin: Fox: Hoffman: I'm familiar with Mr. Pickens. Since there is a city park to the east do we have any need to have the parks department here or discuss a trail connection from this church building to the park? On non-residential development we don't have any ability to acquire park land dedication. I didn't mean park land dedication, just an access. Have you all considered providing access from the church to get over to the park? I have not heard it discussed. I think we will have a natural way to do that if something comes up. We are taking our sanitary sewer through a lane down the hill to the existing sewer line so we will have a path through the trees. It would be a natural trail. That would be a natural place for that to happen. But it does get real steep. Chuck anything further on that? Rutherford: No. Hoffman: Petrie: Fox: Petrie: Conklin: Fox: Edwards: Ron? My only comment is when they submitted the storm water application I requested at the Plat Review, I need it signed by the owner before the Planning Commission meeting. That's my only comment. You said before the Planning Commission meeting? Yes sir. And in the future, preferably, before that application is submitted. I actually thought this had been taken care of. The owner came down and signed some other stuff. They signed the grading. Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 10 Hoffman: Ron, any other comments besides that? Petrie: No. Hoffman: In the Technical Plat Review minutes there is quite a bit of discussion about the locations of the building, parking lot/detention pond. Has that been resolved and have the neighbors seen it? Petrie: I don't know if the neighbors have seen it or not. The parking lot has been changed rather drastically to make way for the location of the detention pond. It meets the requirements that I was discussing at Plat Review but I'm unsure if the neighbors have seen it. Hoffman: I have two questions about this. Do you all ever retain water in the parking lots? Have you every used them as detention ponds? Petrie: They can be. Hoffman: Can this one be? Fox: Our parking is not flat enough to do that in my opinion. That's the reason we didn't try to do that. Petrie: I would agree with that. It's rarely done but it can be done and it specifically says it can be done in the ordinance. Estes: Tim, we have had some recent episodes regarding some serious injury and deaths involving detention ponds, do we have any requirement that the detention pond be fenced or some sort of security to avoid the episodes we have had recently with young children being injured or drowned in detention ponds. Conklin: Ron probably needs to answer that question. Petrie: We do not. We leave it to the owner's discression. Conklin: There are two types of ponds, correct me if I'm wrong here. Typically a detention pond is only going to hold water during a storm even and some developers design them to be permanently wet, a water feature in the development. Estes: This has got rip rap going off of it. I presume this is not going to be a water feature but is going to be a true detention pond, is that correct? Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 11 Fox: That's correct. It will be dry. Hoffman: I think that's something I've seen in different ways in different Jurisdictions. Some seem to have guardrails around anything that is over 30 inches in elevation change. I don't think that Fayetteville has that but I think it would be certainly worth while looking at. Petrie: If there was a vertical wall it would. Hoffman: If there was a vertical wall it would? Petrie: Yes. Hoffman: Just to avoid dropping off. But there is nothing like a swimming pool fence requirement for this? Conklin: Ward: Conklin: We don't even have requirements in Fayetteville to fence swimming pools. The insurance companies require that. If we do look at that we probably need to look at swimming pools also. I think you are right that the homeowner's insurance requires homeowner's to fence their pools. Hoffman: I think that is a little off this subject but certainly a valid point. Estes: For the purposes of this applicant I understand this is not a water feature but a true detention pond and it will drain out within a matter of hours. Fox: That's correct. Hoffman: Anything further on engineering? Petrie: No. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hoffman: With that I'll open the discussion to members of the public. Is there anybody here that would like to address us? Please say your name and come forward so we can hear you. Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 12 Rimbey: My name is James Rimbey. I live in the property to the immediate north of the proposed development and I must say that there have been several neighbors that have had extensive discussions with the church and representatives of the church prior to getting this approved at Board of Adjustment and Planning Commission, and this violates the spirit if not the letter of our agreement with regard to several things. First of all, we have a signed agreement from the church stating that the maximum size of the church would be 14,200 square feet initial signed 14,500 square feet. So I would like to know where the additional square footage is. Hoffman: The 14,500 square feet? Rimbey: We have a signed agreement with the church that the maximum size is 14, 500 square feet. Hoffman: Go ahead. Rimbey: This is 15,400 square feet in fact. That is one thing. The other thing is this detention pond parking lot subject. We have a site plan that was agreed upon and that is also a signed agreement That site plan has the parking lot in front of the building. There is handicap parking only behind the building. It looks to me is what we are doing here is we are, for the sake of having a detention pond as you indicated would drain just a couple of hours after a storm, we are building a parking lot in my front yard. You see my house back there, that little rectangle in the middle top there, that's mine. Hoffman: Can you come forward and show us? Rimbey: That's my house. Hoffman: And that's another residence? Rimbey: No, that's the Williams Center. Hoffman: Okay. Rimbey: The old agreement was that this area here would be handicap parking only. This is my corner post and this is my house. This, in an agreement with the city, this is to remain wooded. So, now what I'm looking at is parking. Hoffman: Okay. Thank you. • • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 13 Rimbey: I'm open to questions or suggestions because as I say, this has not evolved the way we were assured that it would and we sought considerable assurance on this. Hoffman: I'm not wanting to enter into a debate during this Subdivision Committee meeting but what 1 would like to do is get everybody's concerns on record and then have the Subdivision Committee make our recommendations as how best to handle it. Does that sound okay? That's typically how we do our Planning Commission meeting. What I'm trying to avoid is getting into a contest between the two of you at this meeting. Rimbey: That's perfectly fine with me. I don't seek a contest. I just seek an agreement to be adhered to. This has gotten out of hand with other developments around us as well. Hoffman: Is there any other thing that you would like to say before I move onto the others? Rimbey: Yes, there is one other thing I would like to know. You mentioned there is going to be a sewer connection going through the back of the property, where will that be located? Fox: Right in the center of the property. Rimbey: Right down through the center? Again, I think the city would have to waive the fact that that is to remain treed. Fox: Any trees that come out for that will be very few. It's Just a small line that goes through. Hoffman: Anything else sir? Rimbey: Size, sewer, parking, no. Thank you. Hoffman: Okay. Great. Anybody else? Slusarek: I'm Matt Slusarek one of the property owners to the south of the development. Hoffman: Where is your property located? Slusarek: Just south of the proposed development. We worked with the Rimbey's in the agreement with the church and we have the same concerns that he has stated. Also, this has come to us right now. We have not seen any of these changes at all • • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 14 so it is kind of a shock. Hoffman: So, are you adjacent to the Shui's? Do you live behind the Shui's? Slusarek: That's my mother-in-law. Hoffman: Any other comments? Slusarek: I think you have pretty much discussed the same concerns we have. One of the main things we are trying to avoid is having development far back. We gave up, well we didn't give up, we didn't have that right, but we agreed on a lower easements on the sides. Hoffman: This has been back and forth to us for zoning for a year. Slusarek: Right. We agreed to a smaller side setback as opposed to having the development be as far back. Hoffman: You all have referred to a signed plat, do you have a copy of that that you can produce for us that was signed by both parties or do we have a copy, Tim? Conklin: I may have a copy. Fox: I may have a copy. Hoffman: I would like to give your plat back but make a copy of it while we are here so everybody's got it. Is there anymore public comment before I close discussions? Rimbey: Maybe you can be sure that the one you have is the one we are talking about. Conklin: I may be able to find it. It's a letter right, Mr. Rimbey? Rimbey: There is also a plat. Hoffman: The reason I'm asking for this is, in my experience, and I'll need to be reminded of the history of the specifics, but I know the Planning Commission has seen this twice, once in the form of a rezoning and once in the form of a conditional use permit. Conditional use permits are very specific in their requirements and must be adhered to. If those adhearances are not honored later on then they are, typically, considered to be void and the conditional use is no more. Which leaves the church in a bad position and leaves us with no valid plan to go by. I know on Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 15 all sides everybody has been working on this for more than a year so I would like to start with any signed agreements and go from there. While we are looking for that is there anymore public comment because I'm getting ready to close comments to the floor. Conklin: While I'm looking through this we do need to make one correction. When the conditional use application came in on March 29, 1999 it was filled out with the square footage proposed at 10,300 square feet. That was signed by Mr. John Allen, the pastor of the church. Hoffman: Is Mr. Allen here today? No. Okay. Conklin: So what was looked at was a 10,300 square foot building not a 13,500, so I do need to make that correction. Hoffman: And now we are up to 15,000 square feet? Conklin: We are up to 15,000. During the process when they were looking at rezoning the project versus a conditional use, they did have a conditional use for a church, it was my recommendation that they come through with a large scale development so we know exactly what they are going to be building and look at the conditional use again. So, that's why they are coming back through. That is something that I asked them to do. For the record, on April 3, 2000 I made a statement during that meeting because I was very concerned looking at a conceptional drawing that no other divisions had looked at and how things might change and I stated at that meeting, "I just want to say that the site plan that you are looking at today has not been reviewed, to my knowledge, by any other city divisions. It still has to be reviewed by the Landscape Administrator, Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator, Fire Chief Engineering. My concern is if it's approved that this building may have to be adjusted 5 or 10 feet east or west, depending on the landscape requirements for the parking lot. It's hard to say this footprint will wind up exactly right here. I make this statement so the property owners know that it's difficult to say this building can be built in this exact location without going through the site plan process." So, I was very concerned back in April and we came to the Board of Adjustment and we had these outside negotiations going on between Lake Hills Church and these two property owners. That was my concern. At that time the applicant made a statement, I can't find it in the minutes, that they had been working with engineering and that they thought the drainage and everything could be handled as originally submitted. As we know today, that's not the case. I just wanted to make that statement. Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 16 Fox: If I can make one comment? Hoffman: Just one second. Ma'am, are you wanting to address us? Mrs. Rimbey: When we were discussing the location of the church and the zoning, I was under the impression, and Tim can answer this, that the zoning was changed with the condition that the property remain treed where they are proposing the parking lot. Now, I may have misunderstood that. They were very specific about where various things could be located and I thought one of the conditions on this was it remain. Conklin: Let me answer that question. In the staff report of April 26, 1999 from Brent Vinson, Associate Planner at that time, one of the conditions of approval was the applicant shall make a concentrated effort to preserve the natural character of the property especially behind the facility. This includes leaving and preserving as many trees as possible and providing landscaping around the facility in coordination with the landscape coordinator. So, the idea was to try to save as many trees as possible back behind the building. Yes, I think you are right. Once again, that was my fear going to the Board of Adjustment that, unfortunately, the issue of storm water detention was not fully analyzed and addressed and now we have this situation. Rimbey: This is really our concern. Every time this comes up there are major changes and that's why we got the agreement because we thought that was our safest bet. It has changed so many times and every time they change it, it impacts on us. So we felt with this agreement and with the statements it should remain natural back there that we were safe. Obviously, here we come again. Hoffman: Well, I think we all have some work to do. Fox: Can I make a comment? Hoffman: Commissioner Estes is next in line. Estes: I want to be sure I understand the time line. Tim, in March of 1999 did we see a conditional use? Conklin: Yes you did. Estes: And what action did we take? • • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 17 Conklin: Estes: Conklin: Estes: Conklin: Estes: Estes: Conklin: Estes: Conklin: Estes: Conklin: Estes: Conklin: You approved a conditional use. Now, when the Board of Adjustment took a look at the project and made their determination, did they do anything that impacted, changed, amended or modified any of those conditional uses? And if so, what did they do? And why did they do it and how can they do such a thing? They requested a variance for a setback. Was the building they showed back in April the exact configuration, same size? No. They requested a variance for setback. Here's what I'm struggling with, if the applicant brought to us conditional uses and we granted those conditional uses and then the applicant goes to the Board of Adjustment and modifies or changes or amends the project, where are we? They needed to find out whether or not they could get a variance. I think they did take the right steps because they wanted to make sure. I'm not questioning that anything was done improperly, I'm just trying to sort out in my head where we are now. But it only had to do with the setback of the building. Not the parking. Yes. And that's why I made that statement. I was trying to separate that out for everybody. They wanted to make sure before they came back with a large scale development and a revised conditional use request. So the Board of Adjustment considered the north lot line and south lot line. Yes. Now what we have before us today, is it in conformity with and in compliance with the conditional use that we granted in 1999? No. That's why we have condition number 2. Okay. Now is the only difference in the conditional uses that we granted in 1999 the square footage issue? Yes. Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 18 Estes: Now in the conditional use that we granted in 1999 was 10,000 what? Conklin: 10,300. Estes: So what we have about a 30% to 33% increase in square footage. Item 2 states approval shall be subject to approval of the conditional use but really what we are doing is amending a previous conditional use, is that correct? Conklin: That's correct. Hoffman: Let me interrupt if you don't mind. Was the back and the parking issue and preservation of the wooded area, was that a part of our conditional use? Was that even discussed in terms of conditional use? Conklin: The way I handle conditional uses, the site plan that is submitted, I put that information in off of the application submitted and the site plan as that's what's being approved. So when I go out there, I'm not going to see a parking lot 200 feet back along the creek, I'm going to see a parking lot that was shown on the site plan. Hoffman: Okay. Conklin: Now in defense here of the applicant, I don't think they understood the site plan they were submitting was going to be that way because Mr. John Allen has repeatedly told me that was just for conceptional purposes. Well, I need something, as staff, that we know what we are approving. Then they brought another site plan in with regard to Board of Adjustment showing this building's setbacks and that's when I was very concerned that it had not gone through the total site development review process and that things would change. Sure enough things changed and now we have two residents that are not happy. Hoffman: Now, I would like to see the document that has been referred to. Is this it? Estes: What are we looking at? Is this the so called site plan or plat that was signed off on by contiguous land owners? Hoffman: This has signatures and all that? Rimbey: Yes, that was the one that was agreed to by the neighbors and the Board of Adjustment. That was presented to the Board of Adjustment. Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 19 Hoffman: I want to get copies of the signatures and all of that for the file. Rimbey: Well, they are initials. Hoffman: The reason I want to do that is, my personal thoughts are that if you have two competing interests you have a conceptional plan that was agreed on in good faith I think, and then you have a drainage problem that altered that. In my mind, this issue must be resolved before it goes to the Planning Commission. I see no way we can forward this to the Planning Commission. You all jump in here anytime. Fox: Can I comment? Hoffman: Yes, I'm sorry. Fox: This is what we submitted initially. The only reason it didn't work, and I'm phrasing this question to Ron, is because there is 20 feet that the 100 year flood line has to be from the building. Is there any possibility of amending that 20 feet to something less and keep the neighbors happy and go back to the other plan? Rimbey: Is the floodplain the creek behind it? Fox: The floodplain is the creek behind us But the floodplain is not really an issue. We are not doing anything in the floodplain. Petrie: The water in the detention pond is the issue. Fox: The extra water that we create by building a building is what we have to resolve. Hoffman: Is there a different way to channel the water that would help them out? That goes back to my question about using the parking lot. It may cost more to structure it differently. Petrie: Estes: I'm trying to think back to the original plan. I've not looked at it lately. I think there are ways to change it and have a less drastic affect on what was originally proposed but I would have to go back and look at that previous submittal to give you a recommendation. Ron, with the detention pond not being a water feature but simply a storm water feature, is there a way to use the parking lot to pull that water off and give it to the west side of the property? • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 20 Petrie: I think there's a way to do that but I think the capacity of combining the two, the parking lot would not be enough volume. Hoffman: But it might make this pond smaller and be able to relocate some of the parking in the back up to the front. That would be the ultimate goal in that. Estes: That still leaves us with the 1999 conditional use of 10,300 square feet. Hoffman: And that's the two issues I think we need to really hammer out here. In my recollection of the discussion the extra square footage had intended to be used by the church as leased office space? Ward: Originally they were going to lease a little bit to a piano teacher or something. Hoffman: 2,000 square feet of it? Ward: Yes. But that's no longer the plan. I think the church has just grown into this size building. • Hoffman: Is there a reason for the additional square footage? Fox: I have not heard anything about the piano deal but I was not involved back then. Hoffman: My personal feeling is that a church is not in a business to lease office space out so it there is any of that I would not be in favor of that. • Rimbey: For clarification only, the original plan was to have multi leased units. That is out altogether. Hoffman: Okay. As long as this remains all church use, I would like to see the neighborhood and church work together on that issue. I do think the church does have a right and responsibility to it's members to accommodate them in their building. I think the second larger issue really is the intensity of development on the lot and how can we mitigate that. Is there any opportunity for more shared parking than has been addressed with the dance center or with another location nearby? How many spaces are being used by the dance center? Edwards: Seventy spaces Hoffman: So at 15,000 some odd square feet how many spaces are required? • • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 21 Edwards: They have 150 required. Estes: Those calculations are based on a 4,200 square foot auditorium. Where are the other 11,000 square feet of this building? Fox: It's in classrooms and bathrooms and such. Estes: And how is that use figured? Edwards: We just figure it based on the auditorium size. Usually there is one church service and then Sunday School. Estes: I would like to see the church building on the property. The level of density concerns me. It particularly concerns me that we saw this as a conditional use over a year ago and we dealt with the 10,300 square feet and now we have a building that has grown on us by about 30%. I understand that congregations grow and I understand that the congregation may very well need a building of this size, but I'll be very candid with you, I'm struggling with why every time we see this does it move on us. I'm concerned about the density of the project, simply stated, too much building for too little dirt. I've heard some conversation this morning about subsequent expansion, and that is of no moment right now so we won't consider that. We have some issues that have to be worked out before we can go to full Commission and I think they are the detention pond and the parking and the increased square footage. I'm not so sure how to deal with those issues. Hoffman: Is this a single story building or is it multi? Fox: Single story I believe. Edwards. It appears to be. Rimbey: It's single story with a celestry. Hoffman: So that would be the auditorium or sanctuary? Rimbey: It was originally going to be a 2 story but that was never drawn. Hoffman: I was thinking before we had all of the discussions about the agreements that had been reached between the owners and the church that I would like a letter of agreement before we went to the Planning Commission, but it seems to me that a couple things need to happen. You all need to get together on the revision of the Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 22 drainage and storm water management and see how much parking can be eked out from the back to the front. The neighbors need to come to an agreement with the church regarding the square footage. Personally 1 don't think that is something that you all should limit for the church. I think they need as much as they can have to accommodate their congregation. I would recommend a 2 story structure be considered because the will decrease the size of the footprint. I understand you have a worry about the massing of the building adjacent to your property. It's an idea, an option I'm throwing out. I'm not saying it's the answer to everything. Then I would also like to find out if there is anymore parking that can possibly be leased from somewhere. Either the dance center or an adjacent property within, what is it, 500 feet? Ward: 600 feet. Hoffman: Is there another business in the area? Ward: No. The only think there is the dance center. That will conflict with Wednesday nights. I think you have the option of moving the building back and putting more parking in front. I don't think you will get away from the detention pond. Estes: Say that again. Ward: I think you will have to move the building back and put more parking in front. I would rather look at a building than I would a parking lot if I was a neighbor. Estes: And your other parking would be where the footprint of the building was? Ward: Yes. Estes: And your detention pond would stay the same? Edwards: That would require a new variance. Ward: If I was a neighbor I would rather look at a nice landscaped building than a parking lot. Hoffman: Of the setback because they are only allowed the setback in one location? Edwards: Right. They made a condition that it can only be so many feet back from the front of the lot at the Board of Adjustment. • • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 23 Hoffman: Fox: Edwards. Hoffman: Edwards: Estes: Hoffman: Fox: Hoffman: Ward: Hoffman: In other words trying to keep the two commercial buildings close together. Well, I think we have some definite issues to discuss. I do know I am unwilling to forward this to the Planning Commission. I don't know how much more we can identify. We should probably go ahead and talk about the rest of the issues, Commercial Design Standards, anything else that we need to discuss during this Committee and then let you all go back to the drawing board and meet with the neighbors and come back and see us in two weeks. As far as the elevations we've been shown, that is a north and a west. The north is the one that faces the dance center. What are the materials of construction? That is brick but, did Joe talk to you Sara? I didn't get a hold of him. I can see it's a metal panel and a metal roof and the EFIS and brick. And do we know what the south and east elevations will be? Yes. A metal panel. Typically the Commercial Design Standards try to minimize large mass wall surfaces. You do have some windows but you don't have a break up of materials. My personal recommendation would be to go back and do some color banding and possibly the addition of some masonry around the building. I think you will find that to be a common request on any project. Anybody else have Commercial Design Standards concerns? The roof is not a reflective surface is it? We worry about that if it's next to residential property. If it's painted it's probably not. It's not a bright roof that will reflect sunlight? I'm sorry. I'm really not prepared to talk about the building materials at all. I'm the engineer. Well, let's double check that. Have we discussed everything? I think we have. I want to make sure you will come back in with a tree preservation plan and that's going to have to include the sewer line that goes to the east. I know you said it's a small sewer pipe but the tree preservation plan for your utilities is, I think, a requirement. • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 24 Edwards: Hoffman: Ward: Hoffman: Ward: Hoffman: • MOTION: Ward: • Estes: Ward: Fox: Conklin: Hoffman: Ward: Yes. She didn't say anything about it but we don't have a tree preservation plan. We need one and I'd like to add that to our list. Unless you are going to make it a trail down to the park. That's not what I was talking about I was talking about tree preservation plans. They satisfied my question about that. If there is a way to informally walk across to the park that's great. I just encourage connectivity in whatever manner. This is undeveloped and there's no reason to make a big asphalt trail through the back of the property. Anything else before we move on and make our motions9 I'll entertain motions. You want to table this? Is that what you are really wanting to do? Yes. Pending further revisions to be brought back to the Subdivision Committee. I'll make a motion that we table LSD 00-15 until we get more details about the concerns of the building itself, something different on the Commercial Design Standards on the south of the building. We need to work out things on the detention pond if possible, maybe more shared parking if possible. What else? The 1999 conditional use for 10,300 square feet. Well, I think that's why we are doing item 2, subject to approval of conditional use allowing the church 15,300 square feet. I think it's included in there. I have a question on the square footage of the conditional use, did you say it had been approved for 13,500? No. I checked. That was my mistake. The application submitted was 10,300 and that's what we put in the report. I think some kind of guarantee from the church that all of that square footage is indeed a church use and not lease space. So your motion is intended to table this and have the applicant resubmit, if at all possible? Yes. Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 25 Hoffman: I would like, if you can arrive at it, I would like to have another signed agreement from the neighbors. Rimbey: I'll make a copy for you. Hoffman: I would like to have that in the file as a record of our ongoing discussions. I would like to get, if you can come to an agreement, let's sign another plan that incorporates compliance with all of our drainage requirements and so forth. That may take a meeting, I'm sure city staff will be more than happy to meet with the parties involved to hammer these things out and then we will see you in two weeks. Conklin: Sure. Hoffman: Do I hear a second? Estes: Second. Hoffman: Thank you. Fox: When do I need to turn the plans back in? Edwards. See our secretary out there and she will let you know. • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 26 LSD 00-17.00: Large Scale Development (McDonald's, pp 134) was submitted by Ben Aguirre on behalf of McDonalds for property located at the northeast corner of Joyce Blvd. and Mall Ave. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2 acres. The request is to build a McDonald's Restaurant. Ward: The next item is LSD 00-17 a large scale development for McDonalds. We will let you take off with it Tim. Conklin: This is for a new McDonalds located at the northeast comer ofJoyce Blvd. and Mall Ave. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2 acres. The request is to build a McDonald's Restaurant. The proposed building is 6,437 square feet. It also includes an indoor play area. A lot split was approved on this property that split the property to the east on May 11, 2000. Conditions to address and discuss this morning include the applicant has proposed a 10 foot landscaped strip in lieu of the 15 foot landscaped strip required between the property line and parking areas as required by the Commercial Design Standards. Staff is in support of this variance because the applicant is dedicating an additional 16 feet of right-of-way along Joyce and 12 feet of additional right-of-way along Mall beyond the requirements of the Master Street Plan. Basically Mall Avenue has a boulevard currently in the middle of the street. Their curb line is almost one and the same. They don't have additional right-of- way outside that curb line because of this boulevard. The roadbed has been pushed over to either side. There is a requirement for a 10 foot separation and a 6 foot sidewalk which, they are in agreement to dedicate the additional right-of-way over and beyond what is required. This is a local street too, not a collector. With them doing that it gets our sidewalk off the curb and we felt like with that consideration we could go with a 10 foot planting stip in front of the parking lot. So, that is the justification for that variance. Joyce Boulevard, once again, with the additional right-of-way and the sidewalk, it's over and beyond what's required and that a 10 foot landscape strip would be acceptable up here. They are going to be required and are showing this additional lane being built by McDonalds on Joyce Boulevard. Ward: What's this additional lane for? Just to tum? Conklin: Ron, can you help me out with that additional lane? How's it going to work in that location? • Petrie: Just to give it a fifth lane out there. They added a turn lane in the middle and that makes it line up with the west end ofJoyce. That should also include a storm pipe • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 27 that is being routed down to the north side of Joyce. That will be done along with that construction. This will leave a gap to the east of this when that road is widened and that is the one thing we will have to take before City Council. We would ask McDonalds contractor to actually do the widening one more lot back to the east and the city reimburse them for that construction. Hoffman: Is there any development proposed coming through on that? Conklin: Ben made a statement at the last meeting he thought he heard of a sit down restaurant? Fullerton: From what I understand Mrs. Nelson is negotiating with a sit down restaurant for that lot. Petrie. If that came in before the request went to Council that would eliminate that. But what we would request from the Council is when something did develop on that lot that they would have to reimburse the city. • Conklin: Condition 2, the monument sign should not exceed 6 feet in height. They are proposing a taller sign. After staff is through and they do their presentation they can give you Justification for the taller sign. As staff we are recommending a monument sign. Their concern is the monument sign that was approved to go into this landscaped median for the Northwest Arkansas Mall. Item 3, Planning Commission approval of this large scale development does not necessarily approve the wall signs as shown on the building elevations. All signs must meet our sign ordinance. Floodplain reference must be added to the site plan. The applicant is requesting additional parking spaces. I need to correct that as Commissioner Estes did point out that they are showing 155 seats. • Fullerton: With play place and dining room. And 63 parking spaces. Conklin: Just doing a quick calculation here that would give them, under the new ordinance that is currently at Council, that would be 53 spaces. They are showing 63, ten more than what would be allowed under that current ordinance. Estes: So, Tim, in item 5 what do we need to do? We need to change 48 to 53? Conklin: Yes, 48 to 53. Estes: And 63 remains the same? • • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 28 Conklin: That's correct. Estes: So what we would be doing is granting a variance that would be in anticipation and conformity with the ordinance the we forwarded to the City Council? Conklin: Plus 10 additional more spaces above that. They have included in their packet numbers of parking spaces and the number of seats they have at other locations. They are also including the play area They have made a statement that people will stay longer at this restaurant and therefore, they would need additional parking spaces for that play place. Item 6, the applicant is requesting a variance of a 24 foot standard aisle width requirement. They are proposing a 35 foot aisle along the east side, 37 foot aisle along the north and west and a 25 foot aisle along the south side of the parking lot. This is being requested in order to allow drive- thru stacking and delivery truck traffic. This is the same situation we had when we looked at the Wedington Place Subdivision McDonalds. With regard to truck traffic coming in here and cars stacking up for the drive-thru lanes, having adequate room to circulate through this McDonalds. The driveway on the west side near the intersection shall be eliminated. They are opposed to eliminating this driveway. As staff, we typically make recommendations to reduce the number of curb cuts onto our streets. They feel like this curb cut is necessary in order to provide adequate circulation for people coming to the north onto Mall Avenue without having to come all the way up here, back through the parking lot where you are going to have cars backed up for your drive-thru lane. This would be an easier way to entrance other than turn onto Joyce and making a left into McDonalds. The applicant is required to construct an additional lane of Joyce Avenue along the property line. It leaves a 200 foot gap where Joyce has not been widened. Staff will bring that cost share to the City Council. Item 9, all utility equipment and dumpsters must be screened. All roof beams will be unlighted and the same color as the roof. Determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. Lets say I'm very pleased, they sat down with me ahead of time and we worked out the color scheme. Typically they do want to use red and white and I was trying to find colors that were compatible with what we have approved out at Spring Creek Center that adjoins this. They have agreed to use the colors shown on their elevations. Fullerton: These are the samples. Conklin: Typically they wanted to use the red and white and we are to these colors. So, I'm happy. That's all Planning Staff has. Other staff members may have comments. • • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 29 Ward: Chuck? Rutherford: The curb and gutter lines across the driveway needs to be removed. The curb and gutter shall start and stop on each side for the sidewalk. Also, the sidewalk needs to be added to the legend. Tim, on the driveway on Mall Lane, the southern most driveway, does that meed the requirement of distance from the corner? Conklin: Yes. We checked that. It's a 50 foot distance. It does meet it. Typically we do try to get those curb cuts further off. They are showing more than 50 feet from curb to curb. If you went to centerline it would even be a greater distance. The drawing does show the new curb line for the street widening. That is what it would look like in the future. This is your existing curb line and it's just asphalt coming back over here. Estes: Tim when you say it's 50 feet, where are you going from? I saw 20 feet plus 24. Conklin: I'm going from here to here. It measures out to about 60 feet. Hoffman: Did Perry Franklin make a recommendation on it? Estes: While we are on that issue, I'm concerned about the curb cut and the proximity to Joyce. I don't want a situation like we've got over on Township and Gregg where folks can't get in and out of that Subway and stip center. That can be very difficult. There have been a couple of accidents there. You are going to have 2 car lengths from Joyce to that southmost curb cut. You are going to have people circulating going north and people coming out going north. Aguirre: May I ask a question? We have currently a turn lane in the center of Joyce, is that correct? Conklin: Yes. Estes: But that would be for traffic going south. Aguirre: I'm just wondering, on a similar condition like we had on the last project we reviewed, what we need it for is to alleviate the pressure on our lot of all the traffic, but we can't use it for an egress only. Fullerton: There is not a turn lane so people will have to sit in traffic to make a left. Aguirre: No, I think there is a turn lane to go south. • • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 30 Conklin: He's talking about if you are going west on Joyce, there is a turn lane that you can go south on Mall Avenue so there will be cars stacking right here. Fullerton: If you want to make a left into our site and you are headed East on Joyce, from a safety standpoint, I think making the left turn at the light is going to be safer than people going through the light and stopping because there isn't a turn lane. People are going to have to wait. Estes: I think you have a protected left for 60 or 80 seconds to go north on Mall Avenue and then if you have people traveling west on Joyce that want to turn right and you've got people coming out of your curb cut that want to north towards the mall you are going to have traffic coming in from three directions and you are going to have an accident. Are you with me? You are going to have traffic that's going west on Joyce turning right. You are going to have traffic either on the protected left or on the open green light and then you have people coming out of your curb cut because the only way they can go out of that curb cut is right. Fullerton: Can the signal be timed where the left and right isn't a green arrow? Estes: That is an issue that Perry Franklin has to address. I know it's technical and complicated. I know it's not a question I can answer. Ward: I don't have any problem with the curb cut but I think it's not just an ingress only. Fullerton: Can you enforce that though? Ward: Sure. There are a lot of places we do that. Estes: How do you do that? Ward: You make it no way you can get in. Fullerton: If you are up in here and decide I Just want to go out here. Ward: It's narrow first of all and then a big arrow in the middle of it. I'm Just saying that is one thing you can do. Estes: Well, does that satisfy what needs to be done? I'm very sensitive to the way traffic circulates around. • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 31 Ward: Fullerton: Aguirre: Estes: • Aguirre: • Edwards: Aguirre: Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Fullerton: Estes: The main thing is you need have traffic coming in here circulate around but going out you can't go left, the only way you can go is right, so the main thing you can do is help traffic get in here. We also want to alleviate people cris-crossing on our lot too. The only issue there is if it's an ingress only it can lock up the lot real quick if it's ingress only. If people come in off of Joyce Street and they circulate around the back of the building and go through the drive-thru and then they have to circulate back around to the front and we leave that curb cut, I don't want to speak to any of the traffic pattern considerations on the pad because I don't know enough about that to speak to it, but aren't you going to have problems with some of those people wanting to get back out on Joyce? Where are the people going to go that are coming through that west curb cut? They can only go straight and circulate. In other words you are going to have two traffic flows. That's the ideal situation for our internal circulation is to funnel everybody to one transition point and get the pattern determined at the earliest point and have the entire lot circulate in one direction. The only hitch that can possibly happen though is if there is no outlet once someone leaves the drive-thru then it clogs everything up. Well, they would anyway if they are not going up that way. They are going to have to go on down. They have an out here though to turn this way. Who owns this property? This little piece? They are proposing a lot split for that small rectangle piece up there. I was wondering if it would make sense to put a driveway out there? You go through the drive-thru and out there. We are trying to leave that lot where we can possibly sell it due to the cost of the land and the expense of the development. Well, I have an issue with curb cuts being in such close proximity to major intersections and Bill knows where the Subway is that I'm talking about on the • • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 32 corner of Township and Gregg. Just go there about 12:15 or 12:30, pull into the Subway, turn around and try to get back out on Township. Hoffman: But that's a two way. That's the difference. The road is two way. This is only a one way road. Ward: There is a difference because this traffic will only be able to go this way. You won't have to look two ways to pull out. Estes: Okay. Hoffman: With that light, you have the same problem on Township and Gregg too, you have the exact same problem across the street. Estes: Yes, it's terrible the way those two curb cuts, one sits further to the west and one sits back to the east and it's a mess. Hoffman: I think this one way business is a big mitigating factor. I really don't feel comfortable with discussing anything on this. I think, just for my conscious, I need to say that I will not vote on anything. But I did want to point that out about traffic flow. I think I will do, my feeling is you all can work it out enough to where it can go to Planning Commission and I will just go on and leave Ward: Let's continue on and we will get to Commercial Design Standards and such. Is there any other staff comments? Petrie: One thing for easements, you will need that 10 foot additional easement from the sewer line. Fullerton: Yes. We are working on that. We have to get the language together and all of that. Petrie: For this one. Fullerton. Yes. Across the front. Aguirre: This one is 48 inch? Petrie: The sewer line not the storm drain. Aguirre: That's currently installed, correct? • • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 33 Petrie: Yes. That was a condition of the lot split. Estes: Ron, does that go into that 15 foot easement on the back or where will that go? Petrie: It will be along Joyce Street. It shows a 25 foot utility easement and we need approximately 10 feet north of that. Aguirre: Is the sewer line currently so close to the existing easement that the easement needs to be expanded, is that why? Petrie: Right. Conklin: So an additional 10 feet to the north on Joyce. Aguirre. Is there any problem with us having this, and I apologize, these discussions may have come up in the last meeting, but is there any problem with us having our lot lights located within that easement? Petrie: No. I want to clarify the condition of approval 8 concerning the widening along Joyce. I want to make it clear that it is required but only the Planning Commission can require off site improvement and I just want to make sure you understood that. We are recommending that you do that, the additional lane and also running that storm pipe across this lot. Fullerton: And we are in agreement to do that as long as payment is made within 30 days. Ron said that the city has an agreement that reimbursement will be made in a timely manner on that. Petrie: Estes: Petrie: Right. Before the agenda item is sent to the City Council, I will prepare an agreement and we will get the numbers a little more firmed up and know exactly what they are and what the scope of the work is. Once I have that number I'll prepare an agreement and send it to McDonalds for signatures. Once we have that agreement then it will go to City Council. You'll have the ability to review that agreement and make sure it's fully satisfactory. It's a fairly standard agreement Ron, is the purpose of that to make Joyce uniform in width? Yes. If we don't there will be about a 150 foot gap right in the middle of Joyce so it really needs to be done all at one time. • • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 34 Aguirre: Petrie: Aguirre: Petrie: Aguirre: Petrie: Aguirre: Petrie: Aguirre: If I might add one other thing. We are sensitive to, in this undertaking with that storm sewer line, the time frame for the completion of the project. In that agreement, if we could structure the wording such that time frames are critical as well. I'm not sure how you had it in mind but I assume we would start at Mall Avenue side and work to the east. Opening dates and things like that are critical for us and I'd hate to be opening when there street construction right there. That's something we will have to work out, exactly how that is done. More than likely once we come up with the plans and they are approved and those details are worked out we will be able to begin construction probably while the Council is hearing the agreement. I do see those as two different issues. We will do what we can on the timing. Now this is going to be a little different than the normal procedure because we have to contract for the civil engineering of that storm pipe and we can't do that until the funding is approved because the city will share in that cost. Typically we have all of our engineering and civil documents completed by Planning Commission with very few modifications left to be made in anticipation of getting our permits for constructions. In this case, we won't even have approval to even start the drawings until after Planning Commission, is that correct? I think that is always the case. Well, our typical project, all of the civil drawings and engineering is done on our piece of property and we commission that and pay for that up front months before we even come to this meeting. Your drainage isn't. But the drainage follows suit but it's already started by then. For instance our grading is already commissioned and started paying the civil engineer to design our grading, so they have been working on it for quite some time. Ideally they complete shortly after we get approval from Planning Commission, anticipating approval. In this case, we haven't even gotten them started on the project until we are sure that the city, your portion, is going to be paid for. Then you need to design those storm pipe across this as a stand alone project. It will have to be constructed even if the city doesn't approve the cost share Also the street will have to be widened. They currently doing that. I figured that is the way it would be but the total • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 35 project, in the spirit of working together with the city, we really can't begin construction on it unless we plan to do the Mall Avenue portion first and then ours which is going to be engineered and then worked to the east So, to your point, we will have to work together closely on that time frame. Fullerton: I'm not clear, can I clarify, are we spending money? Aguirre: No. We will not spend money. Conklin: I would ask, just for the record and so it's clear for the Council who will read these minutes also, the storm pipe we are talking about, can you kind of explain where that begins, ends, size of it and who's paying for what and what percentage? Do we know that right now? Petrie: When Circuit City and Simmons were developed, you have one vacant lot and then you have Simmons then Circuit City, when Circuit City came in we had discussions on having an adequate storm sewer along this part of Joyce Street. At that time there was a pretty comprehensive engineering study done to determine what needs to be done along Joyce Street to make this thing work once it's all developed out. So we have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done and it's just a matter of putting it in and paying for it and who's paying for it and all of that. So as these developed and they widened Joyce Street and they added a 48 inch pipe along the frontage of Joyce Street, it just dead ends at the west side of Simmons. There is a large 60 inch storm pipe on the west side of Mall Avenue that we want all of this to end up in. Ward: Tim, do you have any other items? Do we need to talk about the landscaping or anything? Conklin: With regard to the sign, they are proposing a sign that will be 15 feet high. Staff recommended a monument sign. Ward: Where is it located? I'm sure it's on the map I just haven't looked. Fullerton: It's set back further from the road It's set back further to allow more height. We do have, Mike McKimmey has seen all of our signage and has initialed and dated his approval of what we have submitted. He supports what we have proposed. Conklin: Okay. • Aguirre: Our understanding is, as the ordinance reads, there is actually a 30 foot, by • • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 36 ordinance, allowed if you are so many feet back from the property line. Estes: Where are you? I never did understand your answer to Commissioner Ward's question. Conklin: We are back up here. Estes: Right there. Ward: It's going to be a monument sign out of what kind of materials? This right here? Aguirre: Similar. A block base with a sign. Conklin: No reader board? Aguirre: None showing, unless we can have one. We would certainly like one. Fullerton: We talked about that to the last meeting. Estes: And your security light poles are going to be 22 feet? Aguirre. The poles themselves are 28 feet and they sit on a 2 foot base so they have an overall height of 30 feet. Estes: In your lot light recommendation you have that they will be 22 foot metal poles on 24 inch diameter. Aguirre: Now what I just quoted you is our standard. Unless there was some specifics that were revised for this specific site. Fullerton. We didn't talk about lot lights at the last meeting. Aguirre: Then I'm inclined to say that is in en -or on our plan. Estes: So how should that read? Aguirre: 28 foot metal poles. Estes: 28 foot metal poles of 24 inch diameters and on concrete bases of how high? Aguirre: 2 foot high. • • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 37 Estes: And your monument sign is how far back from the lot line? Aguirre: 45 feet I believe it is. Conklin: Yes. Estes: Now, Tim, if they go back more than 30 feet what are they allowed? Conklin: I don't have that ordinance in front of me. What did Mike say? Fullerton: It's 30 feet. Aguirre: I believe it was it you are back 45 feet you are allowed 30 feet in height. TAPE TURNED OVER Conklin: We have applied those commercial design standards to require monument signs in certain areas of town. We did have a request from Wal Mart for a pole sign. They were approved for a monument sign. We did approve monument signs for Simmons and Circuit City. I'm trying to be consistent in the area. That's why I'm recommending the monument sign meet our standards of 6 feet tall. Estes: And Simmons, Wall Mart, Circuit City, are they 6 foot? Conklin: I'm not sure what they are. I can get that information. Fullerton: Circuit City is 12 feet. Aguirre: It's designed in a similar fashion with the large opaque base and then the actual sign itself is on that. Fullerton: The issues we have is the mall sign being right up to the street. Estes: In the landscaped island? Fullerton: Right. Estes: Do you propose any kind of monument sign for the southwest corner? Page 37 • • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 38 Fullerton: Ward: Estes: Ward: Conklin: Ward: Conklin: Ward: Conklin: Fullerton: Aguirre: Conklin: Ward: Conklin: Estes: Conklin: No. Do you have any other issues about the sign? No. Looks to me like on the colors and materials for Commercial Design Standards, looks like their play place will be facing Joyce, is that right? That's correct. And the drive-thru window will be on the west? Yes. Tell us how we got away from the fire engine red, which 1 really like a lot better than this. Well, Ben thinks that's the same colors. Ben's color blind so don't look at that. That's the close as the pencils were in our color box. With regard to the colors out there, what I looked at is other projects in this area and then the materials they have used and there has been a lot of the reddish color and the tan color. That's what I looked at instead of having just red and white. Of course this is not, Mr. Estes is wrong, this is not part of the CMN Business Park and never has been. And this is not part of Spring Creek either. It's separate but, as staff, I looked across the streets and I thought these colors fit. Now are you speaking to the monument sign? I'm speaking to the building colors of other projects in this area. This is separate from those subdivisions. What I did was, I went out there and looked and encouraged Ben to find colors that were close or compatible to what is out there. Page 38 • • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 39 Estes: And the building materials to Ben's left are the building materials that will be used on this project? Conklin: Yes. Now, they would like red and white but I requested they use something different. As always, the Commission is going to have to make that decision. They seem to be in agreement. Fullerton: We are fine with this. This is a concession that we are making. Matthews: Here is the color we wanted. The red. Estes: And you are going with the toupe. Ward: Everybody has their own ideas on what color is good. Conklin: Right. I'm not the color police here. Fullerton: It's taking into consideration the concessions that we are making for the project and the right-of-way that we are giving up. It's quite a bit of money we are considering. Estes: So what are you asking? I don't understand what you are saying. Fullerton: Well, whenever you are considering our curb cuts in the front. Just consideration. Aguirre: We have substantial concessions, in our opinion, both in dedication of land and color schemes. Fullerton. In working to get the property next door, all of the storm sewer and taking on that responsibility. Estes: I still don't understand. What are you asking for? What are you talking about girl? Fullerton. I really want the curb cut. I'm trying to be political. Estes: Okay. I can understand this kind of stuff. You want that curb cut right there, is that right? Page 39 • • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 40 Fullerton: That's right. And the sign. Estes: And the 15 foot sign over here. Fullerton: Yes sir. Estes: And you want it with those bright, gaudy, flashy colors? Fullerton: Yes sir. That would be McDonalds standard golden arches. Estes: Okay. Well, I understand your issue because of the mall sign over there. I struggled with that when we did that because we knew you were coming. Aguirre: I might bring one point, too, on that if I could, and this is directed to Ron. Do we know when that mall sign is going in and where it's specifically located? Doesn't it have to be back 10 feet from any easements? We are going to put this storm sewer right through there at the corner. Estes: That sign is going to go back almost opposite your curb cut isn't it? Conklin: No. That sign is really close to that corner. Fullerton. It was actually approved to be located in an easement currently. Conklin: You know where that grass joins the flower bed, that's where it is. Estes: It has to go 10 foot outside that? Petrie: I thought it was about 40 or 50 feet off of the intersection. Conklin: No. It's right on the intersection. We need to get with Mike and mall management to make sure your sewer line can get through there. Fullerton: It's currently located in an easement. It was approved within an easement so when the road is widened it's going to have to be moved. Estes: Petrie: I think it's going to go almost opposite your curb cut. That road shouldn't be widened where that island is. Page 40 • • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 41 Fullerton: But that easement is going to go across and moved back. Petrie: I don't know what you mean by easement. That's right-of-way on Joyce. Fullerton: Well, the storm sewer, when it goes across. I mean, you don't want it sitting right on top of it. Aguirre: That's my concern. The exhibit I saw last, that mall sign is currently sitting within the easement for the sanitary sewer line there. Then when we come through with our storm sewer pipe and any associated easement that goes along with that, it will also be right in that easement as well. Petrie: I don't understand easement. It's a right-of-way. Conklin: City right-of-way. Fullerton: Right-of-way. Aguirre: Okay. Right-of-way. Conklin: The actual pipe will be under the sign is what you are saying. Fullerton: Yes. Aguirre: That's it. Fullerton: Now and in the future. It was approved to be on top of this pipe currently and in the future we just have to make sure that it's not sitting where it's going to be. Conklin: We need to get with Mike and discuss that. Fullerton: It could be a problem. Aguirre: I'd hate for them to Just install it and then we come through and rip it out to put in the pipe. We need to coordinate that. Estes: Is there a reason you don't want a monument sign on the southwest corner? Aguirre: It had a lot to do with the mall sign being approved. It screens it from view so we Page 41 • • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 42 had to sit further back to be seen. Conklin: That's their original plan, to put a monument sign 6 feet high. Estes: On the southwest corner? Conklin: Yes. Estes: Then the mall sign killed that plan? Conklin: Yes. Ward: Anything else, Tim? Conklin: I can't think of anything else. MOTION: Ward: I'm going to go ahead and move that we forward LSD 00-17 to the full Planning Commission. I'll make the additional comment that we want something from Perry Franklin, some kind of recommendation on the traffic flow and so on, for that curb cut. I'm personally in favor of that curb cut because of the way traffic flows and the landscape island that's out there now. Normally I wouldn't be because it is too close to Joyce, but I am in favor of it here. Also, I'll say I'm in favor of the monument sign and the size of it the way it's set back. To reiterate, we need a 10 foot easement for the sewer line. We need to change the sidewalks on the plat, as per staff comments. Anything else? Estes: No. Ward: As far as the Commercial Design Standards, do you have any concerns? Conklin: The west elevation will be facing Mall. Ward: You have two windows there. Conklin: The drive-thru there. It's going to be difficult to do anything on that. That's the only thing I can think of. Page 42 • • • Subdivision Committee July 13, 2000 Page 43 Estes: There is going to be some landscaping out on Mall Lane that will kind of break that up and help screen that. That's the drive-thru side and their food prep area is back in the back and there's nothing that can be done for it, correct? Aguirre: That's correct. Estes: With regard to Perry Franklin's involvement, just off site traffic flow. I don't want to hear from him about, I will defer to the applicant for the traffic patterns on their project, but I do want to hear from him about how a curb cut that close to a major signal controlled intersection. Ward: Okay. Do I have a second? Estes: Second. Ward: So, we will forward it on. Thank you. Page 43