Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-08-03 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, August 3, 2000 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LS 00-24.00: LS 00-25.00: LSD 00-19.00: LSD 00-20.00: LSD 00-21.00: LSD 00-22.00: LSD 00-15.00: Lot Split (Middlebrook, pp 140) Lot Split (Krueger, pp 255) Large Scale Development (Bradley, pp 177) Large Scale Development (Cornerstone, pp 402) Large Scale Development (First United Presbyterian Church, pp 407) Large Scale Development (St. Joseph Catholic Church, pp 373) Large Scale Development (Lake Hills Church, pp 55) MEMBERS PRESENT Bob Estes Don Bunch Sharon Hoover STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Chuck Rutherford Kim Hesse Kim Rogers • Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Tabled Forwarded MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Perry Franklin Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 2 LS 00-24.00: Lot Split (Middlebrook, pp 140) was submitted by Mike & Gloria Middlebrook for property located at 4110 N. Old Wire Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 3.65 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.24 acres and 1.41 acres. Estes: I think we can begin with item one. Welcome to the August 3, 2000, meeting of your Fayetteville Subdivision Committee. The first item of business that is on the agenda is LS 00-24.00 lot split. That is submitted by Mike & Gloria Middlebrook for property located at 4110 N. Old Wire Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains 3.65 acres. The request is to divide the property into two tracts of 2.24 acres and 1.14 acres. Tim, does staff have anything to report on this item? Conklin: This will need to go to the full Planning Commission. We do have three conditions that we placed on here to address and those include: a request for a variance from our Suburban Subdivision Regulations which require that any time you don't have a sewer system, the lot size shall be one and a half acres. At the City Council, last Tuesday, they did approve an amendment to that to allow lot sizes less than an acre and a half if you have your Arkansas Department of Health permit in hand. This is kind of being caught in between that amendment and that ordinance doesn't come into effect until after it's recorded and published so we are still working under our existing ordinance. Condition two addresses that we will want that actual Arkansas Department of Health permit in hand prior to us stamping the Surveyor Deed for filing over at Washington County. So they will have to go out and actually have the perc test done on tract A and have proof that it will work before we will approve that for recording. Number 3, and they will need to get Washington County Planning Department approval prior to filing a Lot Split 2. This is one of these lot splits where we have changed the way we are processing lot splits and subdivisions in our growth planning area. They come to the City first. We will look at these first and then the County will. One of the things we did look at at Technical Plat Review was to make sure we got the 30 feet from centerline which is a standard right-of-way for a street with a swale so they are dedicating some additional right-of-way also. That is all that planning staff has at this time. Estes: Chuck, do you have anything we need to hear about? Rutherford: This is outside of city limits. Estes: Ron, anything we need to hear from you? Petrie: No sir. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 3 Estes: Is the applicant present? Would you like to come forward and identify yourself and tell us anything you think we need to know? Middlebrook: Yes. I'm Mike Middlebrook. I own the septic system. Conklin: Yes. Middlebrook: Originally when I spoke to you, Tim, you stated that I need a pert test done. Conklin: Yes. Middlebrook: I had that done and turned in the paperwork to you. At the last meeting you told me I had to have the Arkansas Health Department permit. I have had that, it's in the process of being done right now. The septic tank has been laid out and the paperwork is waiting on the Health Department to finalize that. As far as obtaining approval from Washington County, I believe you talked to Celia from Washington County about that. Edwards: That's right. I'm sorry, it has been approved by her. Conklin: It has been approved by her? Edwards: I think so. I believe that is right. Is that what you understanding? Middlebrook: Yes. My wife actually spoke to her but she said that she was meeting with you that afternoon when she called her and apparently she called her back and said that she had met with you and that was not an issue. Edwards: Right. What Celia is waiting for is our approved stamped survey. Then she will take a look at it and stamp it also. Middlebrook: Okay. Conklin: Yes you are correct. You talked to Celia Scott-Silkwood the County Planner, however, there is an application form you have to fill out. Either you are going to get an exemption or you are going to get approval for a lot split. They are not going to accept those until the City of Fayetteville approves that. So we are going to give our approval first then we'll send a letter and minutes with staff report to Celia. Then she will review it and whatever the County requires, and you will have to comply with their regulations. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 4 Middlebrook Also, I have spoken with several people, Conrad Odom, Lee Ward. I was under the impression that there was a possibility that we could get this approved today contingent upon us providing the permit. The problem that I am faced with is we have the actual residence sold and the person is trying to move in to get his children into school The sooner we can close on the property that allows him to get moved in and register his kids for school. I was under the impression, talking to them, there was a possibility I could get it approved at this level without having it going to the fulI Planning Commission. Estes: Tim, is there any way we can approve this at the Subdivision Committee level? Conklin: Typically, ones with variances we have always taken forward to Planning Commission. We have an ordinance that says the minimum size is an acre and a half unless we have that permit in hand. With regard to the house, it's already on the septic system. That's done. I'm really looking for the permit for tract A. To make sure that is going to work on tract A. The Health Department is not going to renew that permit for tract B. I don't think that there is any way we can approve it here. As policy we have always taken it forward. That's what we did with the last one. Estes: Mike, I think the problem is we could approve the lot split but because you are requesting a variance that is what has to go to the full Commission. Middlebrook: Because it's less than the acre and a half? Estes: Yes. You are requesting a variance from the subdivision regulations which require where a public sanitary sewer is not available the minimum lot size should be 1.5 acres and so the three of us are not a quorum or a majority of the Commission and we cannot approve that variance request. If it was just a lot split, we could. Middlebrook: Okay. Do you foresee any problems or anything once I provide the permit? Conklin: I don't see any problems with this. Middlebrook: Would that cause any problems at the Planning Commission meeting? I know you can't say yes or no for certain but. MOTION: Estes: Mike, I cannot speak for the full Commission but I will make a motion right now that we forward this onto the full Commission. We did that before I asked if there Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 5 was any public comment. Is there any member of the audience that wants to speak either in favor of or in opposition to the proposed lot split? Middlebrook: One other thing really quick, Tim. Conklin: Yes. Middlebrook: One of the questions was where does the water line on the existing property connect at the main? I did call Arkansas One -Call and it does connect right in front of the existing residence. It doesn't cross over to the new tract. Conklin: That's everything. Thanks. If you have any questions, just give me a call. Middlebrook: Okay. Estes: Tim, Commissioner Hoover just asked me if although LS 00-24.00 does contain a request for a variance can we put it on the Consent Agenda? Conklin: Sure. Estes: Do you want to do that? Hoover: Yes. Estes: Okay. Let's do that. Conklin: It will be on the Consent Agenda for the Planning Commission so that will be the first item so you will not have to sit through a lot of other items. Middlebrook: All right. Thank you. Estes: You're welcome. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 6 LS 00-25.00: Lot Split (Krueger, pp 255) was submitted by Stanley Krueger for property located at 3169 Skillern Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 5 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 3 acres and 2 acres Estes: Conklin: Estes: Conklin: Estes: Rutherford: Estes: Rutherford: Estes: Rutherford: The next item is LS 00-25.00, Lot Split submitted by Stanley Krueger for property located at 3169 Skillern Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains 5 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 3 acres and 2 acres Tim, do you have anything for us on item two? This is a request for a lot split it's located on Skillern Road east of Brookbury Crossing. They are requesting a lot split and conditional use for a tandem lot. The proposed split is back behind the house. The front is Skillern Road. They have obtained an easement for access and utilities over to Brookbury Crossing. When Brookbury Crossing subdivision was platted there was a strip of land that is owned by the Property Owner's Association that prevented access back to this proposed split. They have given us approval from that Property Owner's Association and this morning I do have an easement for access and utilities for that lot. Those were the two conditions that we wanted to address this morning. It looks like they have met both of those. That's all that Planning staff has. Standard conditions of approval, we can read for ourselves. Yes. Chuck, do you have anything we need to hear? Yes. I had asked for a, the Master Street Plan calls for a ten -foot green space with a six-foot sidewalk and it still hasn't been shown so that needs to be added to the plat. Let's see, item number six Chuck is sidewalk construction in accordance with the current standards to include ten foot green space with a minimum six foot sidewalk. That's what you are requesting but you are requesting that it be reflected on the plat? Exactly. Anything else Chuck? That's it. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 7 • Estes: Ron, do you have anything? Petrie: A couple of things. Tim we have a signed easement? It's showing access on the plat. Conklin: It does talk about the utilities ingress and egress in utilities over and under and across the following described land. But the title of it says ingress/egress easement. We probably could request the title be changed. It hasn't been filed yet. It needs to be reflected as utilities also. Petrie: The other item I would like to add is the conditional approval that the new residents on those will be required to hook onto the City sewer system. Estes: And you want the utility easement reflected on the map? Petrie: Yes sir. Estes: Anything else? Petrie: That's all. Conklin: Mr. Estes? Just for clarification Chuck, with regard to the six-foot sidewalk, that construction will take place prior. As far as our office approving that Deed, is that typically how we handle that? After they obtain approval they will have to go out and construct the sidewalk and then once that is inspected and approved by your office then we will approve the deed or survey for filing. Estes: Is Mr. Krueger present or a representative? Fugate: Yes sir. This is Mr. Meineke and he's doing the lot split, my name is Ken Fugate. I'm the architect building this house. Estes: Would you come forward, please and if there is anything you need to tell us, please do so? Fugate: One request that we do have on the sidewalk is that it's our understanding that Skillern will be widened and that the construction of that sidewalk takes place at the time of the widening as opposed to before that and if any kind of bonds or letter of credit or build insurances or whatever need to be provided to do that we would certainly prefer to do that. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 8 Rutherford: Petrie: Fugate: I am not aware of Skillern road being widened Ron, do you have any comment? I don't remember it being on the improvement FIRM. They have asked us for an additional easement there on our first go around here. A forty -five-foot easement there so I'm assuming that's for the purpose of widening that road. Conklin: That's on the Master Street Plan, yes. In the future, long range, that road is targeted to be a four -lane road. However, at this time, it is not on our five-year capital improvement program and in my opinion, I think a sidewalk is needed at this time on Skillern Road. Fugate: I guess my question to that would be, we build a six-foot sidewalk at this point and then we come in at some point in the future five years down the road and we push it all out to widen that road? Conklin: Fugate: Rutherford: Fugate: Rutherford: Your sidewalk is going to be back at your right-of-way line which is a ten -foot greenspace between the edge of curve once that road is widened so with the help of Mr. Rutherford over here, that sidewalk can be constructed without being impacted in the future. Other than we wind up, if you can imagine now what we are left with as far as the Krueger's are concerned, we have a six-foot sidewalk apparently going through the middle of their front yard. Because the distance from Skillern to that sidewalk and then to their home, that really doesn't connect anywhere. There is no sidewalk that is on the other side or west of Brookbury. It doesn't really connect anywhere. My comment on that is, you know sidewalks have to start somewhere. Say because there are no sidewalks we don t build one, we never get sidewalks. We never get there. The lot to the west adjoins this Kirby Walker property, that's been asked for a sidewalk on it at the time of development so there will be a sidewalk there. Of course that time of development could be whenever. There are no plans to develop that. There are no definite plans for that. That's just the way our rules are set up on that type of property. They are like a subdivision. You can be the first property owner in there and go in there and buy and that's one of your requirements to build a sidewalk before you get your C of O. The last lot to be built on that, sidewalks will be required for it. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 9 Meineke: Rutherford: Meineke: Rutherford: Meineke: Rutherford: Meineke: Estes: Conklin: Estes: Conklin: Estes: My name is James Meineke, I'm planning on building the house on that lot, On the proposed lot? Yes sir. Now the sidewalk is required on the original lot. Right. My interest is, two comments, I have some sidewalk experience, I built a gym. I guess it was '93.. It's been 5, 6, 7 years ago. We put in a sidewalk on 265 but to my knowledge it's never been used. It's not an expense thing, my concern here is simply that my in-laws are making it easy for me to build a house at this location and I don't want to tear up their front yard. I don't know if there is some kind of way you can put in there that we will put in a sidewalk, at your discretion in the future. Right now, it's going to be exactly like my gym there is not a single inch of sidewalk between 265 and Oakland Zion Road as far as I know. There is nothing wrong with being first but I don't think they would like it. I know it is just going to tear up their yard. I was out there looking at this lot. I was driving down the road and there was a lady walking out in the street because there was nowhere else to walk. I like sidewalks. Let me say this. We have an existing sidewalk ordinance and we need to comply with that. When I say we, I mean your Planning Commission. Your lot split request does not contain any vanance request. What we are left with is that. Tim, can we approve this lot split at this level? It does take a conditional use for the tandem lots. It technically does not have frontage on Brookbury Crossing. Typically, we bring those forward together, since we have to have the full Planning Commission to act on the conditional use. Can we put it on the Consent Agenda? We can but you are going to be discussing the conditional use as the actual lot split itself so I think they need to be together. What we can do is forward this to the full Commission or you can pull it and make a variance request. Is that what I hear you saying? That you want a variance from the sidewalk ordinance? I don't think you are going to get that. Right now Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 10 Meineke: Conklin: Estes: Meineke: Rutherford: Meineke: Rutherford: Fugate: Conklin: there is no request in your application for a variance from the sidewalk ordinance. I don't think you are going to get that. Right now that is just not before us in your application. So what do you want to do? On the variance will that push us back two weeks? I think it's up to this Committee if you want them to write a letter and forward that to the full Planning Commission. You can do that or if you want to go out there and take a look at it as the Subdivision Committee and have them come back here and make a recommendation to the full Commission on that issue, you can do that also. I'm not in favor of a variance from the sidewalk ordinance but the spot that I see that your Subdivision Committee is in, is that you are asking us to vary from the Sidewalk Ordinance and that's Just not in your application at this time. Does the City have any mechanism for, since this is not a cost issue to apply that money to a place that a sidewalk is needed more? Like at a school. The City does not have anything in place. They don't have that mechanism? It's been talked about a couple of times, but then that money has to go to that ward. But it's not that simple. We will need to request a variance then we will need to come back. Okay. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 11 LSD 00-19.00: Large Scale Development (Bradley, pp 177) was submitted by Don Hunnicutt of Hunnicutt Construction on behalf of Jerry Bradley for property located on lot one of Millennium Place. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 0.75 acres. The request is to build a retail store. Estes: The next item on the agenda is LSD 00-19.00, a Large Scale Development submitted by Don Hunnicutt of Hunnicutt Construction on behalf of Jerry Bradley for property located on lot one of Millennium Place. This is north of Joyce Boulevard west of Highway 265. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains 0.75 acres. The request is that the applicant wants to build a retail store. Tim, do you have anything for us regarding item number 3? Conklin: This is a large scale development. The first large scales development for Millenium Place subdivision. Millenium Place subdivision is a subdivision that is on Joyce Boulevard and connects over to Highway 265 or Crossover Road This is adjacent to the Superior Carwash to the east. East of the carwash is the White Oak Station. That gives you an idea of where this in Fayetteville. They are proposing a 10,000 square foot building. Part will be antique furniture sales and part retail. One condition to address is compliance with the Commercial Design Standards Kirk Elsas has submitted a letter with regard to design coordination and them within the development This development is zoned R-0 and C-1 and he has come up with standards for each zoning district. Since each zoning district does allow different types of businesses, from offices in R-0 to retail commercial businesses in C-1, that's the only condition that we are looking at today for this Subdivision Committee to review and make a recommendation. Estes: The only thing before us this morning is compliance with Commercial Design Standards. Is that correct? Conklin: That's nght. Estes: Chuck, do you have anything? Rutherford: He has made the corrections asked for. Estes: Ron? Wait a minute I think Tim has something. Conklin: I just need to turn the page here. Assuming condition two, a continuous row of shrubs will be planted between the parking and right-of-way. Number 3, 4 inch caliper trees are required to be planted at 30 foot intervals along Joyce Boulevard due to a violation of the Tree Preservation Protection Ordinance. Number 4 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 12 excess easement to cover shared entrance will be called out on a filed easement plat pnor to issuance of a building permit. When this subdivision did come through with regard to the excess easement, they are sharing between these two lots, so there will be one curb cut on Joyce and they are looking at that. They are also proposing to place their dumpster over on this property also. So those are the four conditions that we placed on this development. Estes: What was the violation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance? If you know. Conklin: Kim here? Did you just walk in? Kim: Yes. Estes: Well, we will get to that. Conklin: Sure. Estes: Ron, anything else? Petrie: The applicants are aware of this item but I want to make the Commissioners aware. We have a situation where the sewer line was installed incorrectly. Estes: And how is that? Petrie: It goes out of the easement to the west. Estes: Give us a moment. Petrie: It's hard to see on this plan. Estes: Ron, what is your proposal to deal with that issue? Petrie: Two options: First option would be to relocate it to where it was approved and shown on the final plat. The other option is, if the pipes will be installed over, the sewer will have to be steel incased and we will need an additional easement to cover that sewer line. Minimum ten feet for the sewer line. Just making sure you were aware of that. I believe that applicants were aware of that situation. That's all I have. Estes: Kim, I know you just walked in. We are on item number 3 LSD 00-19.00. Is there anything that you have for us? Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 13 Hesse: Estes: Hesse: Elsas: Hunnicutt: Elsas: Hunnicutt: DeNoon: Conklin: DeNoon: Just that prior to the building permit, and I discussed this, that we will need a more detailed landscape plan. We will look at and know what to do. We do need probably one more tree in the northwest corner if we can find room for it. I'm not sure it will work. We definitely need another plan before the building permit stage. What was the previous violation on the Tree Preservation Ordinance if you know? The trees that were called out to be preserved were removed. The contractor went out early on and planted the trees so we have discussed with Kirk Elsass, the owner, that we would go in and put in larger trees along the main drive with 4 inch caliper trees and that in this fall I will plant growth trees around the detention pond in replacement and kind of also buffer some of those residences back in the corner. Then everything else will apply for the standards for each large scale development. If the applicant is present would you identify yourself and tell us anything you think we need to know. I'm Don Hunnicutt, the owner is in Little Rock and I'm the general contractor and with the architect we are making these meetings for the owners so as a representative. We have been in discussion with Engineering and everyone concerned about the sewer line which the original plat put it across the drainage easement and that looks like maybe the most difficult thing that we will have to face and try to get straightened out and we don't really know the line-up of it right know because we are still going to have to provide that drainage and straighten them out. But we are willing to comply with those requirements. Anything else? I don't know of anything. I'm Steve DeNoon with Jordan and Associates. We are the architects for the project. Looking at the Design Standards, we made a few modifications to the building since we submitted the color rendering. This is how it is going to be built? Yes sir. I brought a new poster up here. We have basically changed the front of the building a little bit. In middle of this metal pitch roof on the front, to simplify construction, we just brought the wall up straight and put some decorative panels on it. We have changed the windows at the owner's request for display. Basically, we feel like we haven't compromised the Design Standards. We are basically Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 14 using the same colors. The texture of the building will be primarily dry vit. We are using the same column scheme. I know you haven't gotten a picture of that yet but the same column scheme that we will use on Kirk Elsass buildings in the future. This building is almost identical to Norwalk Furniture, if you know where that building is located between Fayetteville and Springdale. This is sort of replicated off of that. We feel like we are in compliance now with Design Standards. Conklin: Chairman Estes? Estes: Yes. Conklin: Are the columns going to be the same color dry vit as the rest of the wall? DeNoon: No. I've actually got a color plan. The wall is sort of a taupe almost a gray, and it's called pearl ash. Then the columns will be more of this neutral white color here. It's a little variance in color. It will just be two colors. Then the roof will be more this light stone. It's almost really just a white with a gray tone. Conklin: I have one more question. On your plan you are showing a proposed monument sign, we don't have any elevations on that. I have not reviewed anything with regard to that sign. Originally, we made a recommendation for approval at this level. I'm uncomfortable approving at this level without having that information so I think we need to get that and send it to the Planning Commission. This is the first building in this development. Staff has been working with Mr. DeNoon and Kirk Elsas, trying to make sure that future buildings are going to have some common theme within here. They have given me some colors of dry vit they are going to use. I can tell you just with this building and another large scale development that is in process, they have used similar type windows and columns which have tied these building together. With the buildings that Mr. DeNoon is designing, there are some common elements between them. I'm not sure how that is going to impact other architects but for right now we do have some similar columns being used on other projects in this development. I just want to make sure that the Subdivision Committee is aware that your west and east walls looking down Joyce Boulevard that is what you are going to see. You do have the one window or door in that location with the columns. DeNoon: Just a window. Conklin: Just the window? Okay. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 15 Estes: DeNoon: Estes: Hoover: DeNoon: Hoover: Conklin: DeNoon: Hoover DeNoon: Hunnicutt: Hoover: DeNoon: Is your north elevation going to be visible coming south on 265? It will. It's about going to be 14 feet tall but there will be other buildings located behind it. I imagine, just guessing, some of those may even be a two-story building but it would be partially visible. But I think once you are traveling south and you look over into Millenium Place, you are going to see all these nice buildings. You will wind up down the road here. This won't draw your attention away from the carwash and this place behind it. It sounds like it is going to be a really neat subdivision from what we are looking at right now. I don't think it is really going to draw any attention. Is there any member of the audience that wishes to comment on item number 3, LSD 00-19.00? Either in favor or in opposition? I will bring item number 3 back to the Subdivision Committee. Commissioner Hoover, Commissioner Bunch, what are your comments? I have got some questions. How is the dumpster location determined? By Ms. Zotti. Cheryl. Is this the only location this can be? What has occurred is they originally showed it back at this location. You can't get your truck, they don't want to back out through the entire parking lot to get back out, to make that turn. You have got to be able to turn around. I would like to make a comment on that too. She said that the trash trucks usually come at 5:00 a.m. in the morning. Really? I wasn't aware of that. I doubt there is going to be anyone parked there. So she will have basically the whole parking lot. We would prefer to have it back there. That's where all their trash comes out of the building is in the back. In the back. That was one of the real grievances she had because some ladies working there and that's really where their loading and unloading zone is. She is really worried about carrying those boxes around front. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 16 Hoover: Yes. I can see that. Trying to get them to the front out the back door and then bring them all the way around. DeNoon: Yes. We would love it if we could put it back there where we originally planned. Hoover: What can we do about that? Conklin: I can talk to Cheryl again. She has expressed a lot of concern over recent developments that have gone through with their dumpster locations. She is having difficulty getting the trucks in. She is really taking a close look at these and trying to get them in there. From an aesthetic point of view, yes I would prefer it in the back too. Hoover: We have an applicant that wants to put it in a nice location. Even if it could go over here. Is that a possibility? Over on the side? DeNoon: No. We have a drainage structure there. It's actually a box culvert that is going to be required in the corner. Hoover: If they gave her some kind of turnaround for the truck? Conklin: I'll talk to Cheryl and see what we can come up with. Hunnicutt: The parking spaces are going to be empty. There is like an eye office over here and the Bank of America building and trash truck comes through there about 5:30 or 6:00 and all those parking spaces are empty. There is no way that trash truck can angle in there and dump those containers if there are people in those parking spaces but nobody is going to be here. I see a real utility issue here. The people that are going to be the tenants are going to be the owners of the building. That is very cumbersome and difficult to carry commercial trash out the back, up the side of the building and across the front. And then you have got the dumpster with a gate facing Joyce Street. Hoover: I assume the next building is going to be lined up right along here. DeNoon: Possibly, yes. That dumpster needs to be back over there in the northwest corner and there is not going to be any problem. Estes: Tim, this is your lob. • Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 17 Conklin: DeNoon: Conklin: Hoover: Conklin: Hunnicutt: Okay. I get to drive the truck, right? There is not going to be an issue dumping that thing at 5:30 in the morning. The only thing I've heard is, commercial routes are not all at 5:30 in the morning either. I'll get with Cheryl and see what she has. They can trade with my route that comes at 5:30 next to my house. Okay We would be glad to get it approved this way and we can always put it at the end of that. It won't be any problem coordinating with them. With the drive already there and everything it wouldn't hold up any approval. DeNoon: The owners are on a very strict time frame on this. They have to be out of their present location December 1' so we are kind of pushing their time schedule as it is. Conklin: And the owners are? DeNoon: Perfect Partners. It's a consignment furniture at Spring Creek. Over by the Home Depot. Hoover: DeNoon: Hoover DeNoon: Hoover: DeNoon: Hoover: Hunnicutt: DeNoon: Then my other question was, do you have any roof equipment? Yes ma'am. Is that getting hidden by the periput wall? There will be rooftop units. So how high is your periput? The periput in the rear is 4 foot 8 inches above the gutter line. The north elevation, that's the one that is on the back of the building and you can see the striations there that is going to be the metal roof portion that slopes. How is your equipment going to sit on there? There is probably going to be three or four separate units up there. Of course that won't be seen from the front or the two sides. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 18 Hoover: From the front or the sides, just at rear? DeNoon: Yes ma'am. Hoover: Then my other questions is, where does the carwash sit in relationship to this? DeNoon: I had mentioned it but it's about nght here. Approximately the end of it. This is all paved up to and along that point there. 4 Hoover: That's right because they have that driveway right along the edge of their property. Estes: Commissioner Bunch? Bunch: The curb cuts that is showing next to the dumpster location, what is the purpose of that? DeNoon: The ramp? Bunch: Just to the east of the dumpster. DeNoon. That's where there is going to be a drainage situation there. We split the flow of the drainage to come from this point and then actually come across the parking lot and we are trying to head the drainage all over to this culvert that is in the corner. Estes: Anything else Commissioner Bunch? Bunch: No. MOTION: Estes: I would move that we send LSD 00-19.00 to the full Commission with the additional conditions. The sewage issue decision regarding whether you are going to steel encase or whether you are going to move. What you are going to do, we need to know that or Ron needs to know that. A more detailed landscape plan is requested by our Landscape Administrator and then Mr. Conklin has requested elevation of the proposed monument sign. Conklin: I would like to add, I will need revised elevations of your greatest and latest design over here. Is that pretty much finalized now? DeNoon: Yes, pretty much. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 19 Conklin: Is that what Sara and I are going to see eight months from now? DeNoon: Yes. Conklin: Okay, good. Hunnicutt: We have said all we can. Eight months too long. DeNoon: Eight months too long. Hoover: Tim, how do we handle the dumpster issue? Do we have comments? Estes: Well, it will go to the full Commission. The applicant has,requested that we approve it but we would all like to see it moved to the northeast corner of the project. If I understand correctly, this is what City Staff has requested. Hoover: I'm not really for this. I'm sorry that you have to suffer the pain for this but if the dumpster would be here, I don't know. Conklin: I'll work on it. It's my job, right Bob? Estes: That's right Tim. Hoover: Or I'll be glad to make it my job. If you need any backup. Conklin: Okay. Estes: Is that okay with you? Hoover: Yes. Estes: Thank you. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 20 LSD 00-20.00: Large Scale Development (Cornerstone, pp 402) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Lyndy Lindsey for property located at Futrall Drive north of Hanks Furniture. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 7.47 acres. The request is for an apartment complex. Estes: The next item is LSD 00-20.00 a Large Scale Development was submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Lyndy Lindsey for property located at Futrall Drive north of Hanks Furniture. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 7.47 acres. The request is to construct apartment complex with 120 units proposed. Tim, what do you have for us on item four? Conklin: This is a large scale development with 120 apartment units, zoned R-2 directly north of Hank's Fine Discount Furniture. Conditions to address are, we do need proof of notification which has been handed to us. Number one, the sewer line is going through a flood way and then we will need to get Corp. approval for that crossing that is in that flood way. Also a floodplain development permit will be required to be issued by the Planning Division for that sewer line also that will be in the flood way and floodplain. Dumpster location is to be approved by our solid waste division and dumpster screening shall be shown on the plat. Planning Commission determination of lot site improvements to Futrall Drive. Currently Futrall Drive is substandard. The projected traffic counts are 120 units. Call for a 28 -foot local street. Staff has recommended a 26 -foot street be constructed due to right-of-way and utility relocation difficulties. There is a letter from Dave Jorgensen on that. Basically, the street from Wedington back to this project varies in width. It's substandard. In order to get an additional right-of-way to build a 28 -foot street, you would be in individuals' yards utility issues and therefore, the 26 -foot street is being requested. Which is not meeting the 28 -foot requirement. So those are the four conditions that we need to address this morning on this large scale development. Estes: Chuck? Rutherford: Tom, on that south end there I had asked David at the last meeting to bring that 14 feet access easement for a future trail on down to Futrall and I think he is showing that down there. Is that correct? Hennllee: Yes. You can see up in the southwest corner, Chuck, we have that easement marked on both directions. Rutherford: The actual line is? Hennllee: Exactly. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 21 Rutherford: The other thing is and we can't require this because it's on private property and on a private drive. I asked Dave at the last meeting if he should show some kind of sidewalk connection going over to Futrall Drive coming out of there and you can see he is showing sidewalks almost all the way up to there and then those sidewalks could connect. Hennllee: Yes. We can connect something from say that southwest building over to that corner, will that be all right? Rutherford: Yes. That would be my recommendation. You have got sidewalks throughout but you can get close there and they stop. Estes: Anything else? Ron? Rutherford: No sir. Petrie: No sir. Estes: Kim, do you have anything for us? Rogers: Yes. Kim Rogers, Parks. I want to ask are you going to be phasing this? Hennllee: This will be all at once. Rogers: It's just 120 units total in this project. Is this going to be it? Hennllee: Yes. This is all they have room for on this side. Rogers: • Okay. I guess you were unable to put the basketball court back in there? Hennllee: They are still talking about, on the northern end of this property, north of the northernmost building, trying to do that. They didn't want to put it on the plat and be held to it. Rogers: Okay. It was on the plat. Hennllee: Yes. Some of the tree preservation requirements and the grading constraints that we have with the flood way, we just weren't able to get all of it in there. That's the reason why that one had to go. Rogers: I think part of it was it was going to be in the flood way but if it moved a little bit • Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 22 more north like you were saying, it looks like it would be in the flood plain. If it's possible, I would like to be able to tell the Parks Board if you are going to put that back in. If it would be possible. Hennllee: Actually Lyndy Lindsey is the one that's handling this. Just north of the pool, across the parking lot from the pool, you see there is an open area there It's got two replacement trees shown in there. But that's where he had talked about if they were going to be able to put one back in. Of course it wouldn't be as big what we had shown initially. The basketball court used to be regulation, I think. Rogers. Just a half court would be good. Hennllee: Yes. I think that is what they are talking about. The majority of the canopy in that area won't be able to be preserved anyway. That's what was killing us was the tree preservation. Rogers: Lyndy was a parks major wasn't he? Hennllee: He might. Estes: Was that an editorial comment? Rogers: It helps, in this case, to know. Estes: What was the purpose of that comment? Rogers: I take it back. One more thing. The last meeting we asked for the fourteen -foot trail that's going to be dedicated, to be stated on here that it's going to be dedicated to the Sidewalks and Trails Division. Is it on here and I'm just not seeing it? Hennllee: Rogers: Hennllee: Rogers: I don't think anything that specifically states "to the Sidewalks and Trails Division" is on here but it can be. That was on my comments last time and I really need that to be on there on the next meeting. So you want this fourteen -foot access easement for a future trail to be dedicated to? Sidewalks and Trails Division. We are trying to keep everything straight for the Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 23 future, what is going to be Parks and Recreation and what is going to be Sidewalks and Trails. Those are two different divisions. Hennllee: Okay. Rogers: That's the only thing I have. Thank you. Estes: Kim, do you have anything? Hesse: Yes. We need to somehow get a grading plan from you. Hennllee: You can have this one but I thought I had already sent you one. Hesse: Did we recalculate the tree preservation percentage? Hennllee: Yes. It's shown on there. Conklin: What is that Tom? Are you meeting the 20%? Hennllee: It's at 21%. Conklin: Existing? I mean that is actual without replacement? Hennllee: That's preserved. Conklin: Preserved? Hennllee: Right. Initially we have shown 75 replacement trees. When we didn't take our initial submittal we were unable to make the 20% required so we put in 75 replacement pin oaks. With the sensitivity of the tree issue we worked really hard on trying to rearrange the sight and reorganize everything so that we did preserve the 20% and then Lyndy Lindsay said that, as he put it, a statement of good faith to keep the 75 pin oaks shown in addition to what was going to be preserved we would keep that on there, which brings it up to about 40%. Hesse: So this in here is 20%? Conklin: That was my question too. You are talking about everything outside of the utility easement. Correct? Hennllee: Let me show you what we got. This has the tree preservation outline. Dave, had Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 24 gotten a call from Sara. This easement was, in fact, included in the calculations which is about 8,000 square feet. Without that that brings us to 18.6%, if we don't include that easement. Conklin: They are going to have to dig a trench and have a backhoe and everything in there. Hennllee: Exactly. Conklin: Okay. Hennllee: Additionally, if you can imagine, there won't be anything done in this area outside of that sewer line. It's in the flood way. There is no grading or anything that can be done in there. Part of the canopy that is counted as original canopy includes this existing sewer easement that runs across the property which is, in fact, covered by canopy. Which our contention is that this sewer line will be in that same condition. Not far after construction these trees, once they get thinned out have a tendency to spread back out and cover that easement up. So even though there will be construction done in there this entire thing will be covered with canopy just as it is now, after this sewer easement was put in. Hesse: This easement is only for the trail and whatever is existing? No other utilities will come through here? Hennllee: Right. Conklin: I just have a difficult time reading the plan to see what trees are doing. Let me just make a statement. If you are going to show that as preservation, it needs to be clear that trees within the easement are going to be removed and that the canopy is going to be hanging over. When the public comes into the Planning Division and takes a look at the plan, they are going to question why trees are being removed in a preservation area. I have had that problem. You know Kim, I have brought you out to three or four different sites. Hesse: What we need to do is report what really is going to be there which is the 18.2% or whatever you just stated without this easement Hennllee: Okay. Hesse: I have been back in here, believe it or not, it's very very thick canopy. So leaving this alone is going to be the best thing. Being able to tighten this up. Depending on how deep the sewer is and how much excavation has to happen, we definitely Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 25 do need tree preservation along that while they are doing that work so that we aren't encroaching in on that which will need to show. We will have to do the same to the adjacent property so that we are not getting out into the adjacent property owners on this side. Which you are actually showing it there. We had talked about moving the utility easements around these trees to the west of the property and we are still really not quite getting there. They are going to end up going right underneath there. What needs to happen are the tree canopy needs shown which is really much bigger. So that's another thing you need to be aware of. We haven't looked at that tree individually to see the health of it Hennllee: Right. We extended this easement around through here, around these trees, for that purpose and you are only calling for two of those to be preserved. Hesse: Okay. So you are not showing this one? Hennllee: Right. That one won't be preserved because of that grading. Estes: So only one of the hackberry trees will be preserved? Hennllee: Right, there is a note right there that says three 30" hackberry trees, two to be preserved. Estes: I see. Anything else, Kim? Hesse: No. Estes: Tim, did you have something? Conklin: No, I was just going to say, it just needs to be very clear on the plan. Hennllee: Yes. Estes: All this talk about trees, there are a considerable number of trees in the parking lot but it doesn't show what they are. There is no legend that shows what that designation is. What are they? Hennllee: To be honest with you, those trees were added to the plan when I was on vacation. I don't know what they are. Hesse: From the tech review we requested 2" caliper hardwood. Conklin: Before we just leave that issue, Kim, are you saying that if it's 18% that is okay? Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 26 Just for the record. Hennllee: It comes out to 18.65%. Hesse: I can support that with the additional trees. Conklin: Okay, thank you. Estes: Does any member of the audience have any comment they wish to present on item number 4? Yes ma'am, if you would please come forward and say your name so that the tape recorder will pick it up and favor us with the benefit of your comment. PUBLIC COMMENT: Glass: I'm Doris Ann Glass, at the corner of Wedington and Futrall. The entry into this on the east side. Conklin: There is a detail of the street. She would be right here. Glass: And my question is, is the only entry and exit going to be off of Wedington. Estes: That is what shows on the plat. Glass: Like Betty Joe? I'm really concerned about that. Has the congestion at the traffic light been considered? Estes: That would be the traffic light at the intersection of 16 and Fulbright Expressway, is that what you are talking about? Glass: Estes: Yes. The traffic coming north already doesn't recognize us. As we want to make a right turn because they shoot out of there and hit. It is a real problem. Especially between 7:30 and 8:00 and from the time school lets out until 5:30. Let me share with you my personal comment. That intersection and the way that it is signaled have to be a disaster. I think Tim can explain to you how that happened. That was a combination of City, State and Federal and there were limitations on what could be done and if it is not the biggest mess in this City, I don't know what compares to that. Glass: At one time, I called the State's attention to it being much much more narrower. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 27 That was before they made it one-way and they came out in a couple of days and tore out the curb and widened it some. Then they have widened it more which makes it better but it is the biggest disaster I have ever seen. Estes: Yes ma'am. It's because of the interface or the overlay of the City regulations the State rules and the Federal rules. Glass: Such a line of traffic signals. When you add 120 more cars, Wedington is going to be worse. Estes: If it had been left up to your Fayetteville City Planning Commission it wouldn't be that way at all. But we just didn't have any control over it. Anything else you would like for us to know? Glass: I guess that will be all at this time. Estes: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to us regarding item number 4? Glass: Mrs. Williams, my neighbor, is with me but she doesn't feel she can hear well enough to understand what is before us. Estes: Okay. Thank you Mrs. Williams for attending. With that said, I will bring it back to the Subdivision Committee. Commissioner Hoover, Commissioner Bunch. Rutherford: Mr. Estes, I have one other comment. Tom, along the trail we are showing two trees being preserved and the keystone wall. Hennllee: The way we approached this, Chuck, was that we don't know when or if that sidewalk will ever be built. We had to make the grading work based on what was what was going to be going on on this site right now To answer one of your questions, yes, there is enough room between the trunk of this walnut tree and the edge of the property to get in the sidewalk. It wouldn't have to come around here. But we are showing any retaining wall or any grading to be as we need to do it right now to get the site to work and then when you get the funds to do the sidewalk, I guess that would be something you will have to address. Rutherford: Hennllee: Okay, but you feel there is going to be plenty of room to get it in on both cases? Yes. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 28 Rutherford: Hoover: Okay. Now I have a question for Tim. Would you explain why the trail is located where it is on this plan? Conklin: Chuck could probably do a better job than I can. Can you kind of inform the Subdivision Committee how we got to this 14 foot trail that has been voluntarily given on this project? They are not asking for any credits or anything so that's the question. So your question is, how do we end up with a trail easement? Or is the question why is it where it is at? Rutherford: Hoover: Rutherford: Hoover: Rutherford: Hoover: Hennllee: Hoover: Hennllee: Hoover: Is this going to connect with some other trail? We are working on our master trails plan right now and then it will go to the trails advisory committee. We are showing a trail on Futrall and Shiloh and all along the City of Fayetteville. The property to the other side of Wedington, which is Marinoni, they are building a trail along that drainage that will actually come up to Wedington to a six-foot sidewalk on down. Is that along the Fulbright Expressway or whatever it's called? The trail is all going to go along here? Along Futrall. The plan is to get all the way back as far as we can south along I- 540. So the trail is going to follow 540? It wound up where it is located on our property because Trails expressed an interest in having this trail that runs the length of the 540 corridor. The Lindsey's were not really interested in having a trail with through pedestnan traffic in the middle of their apartment complex so that was how it got located to the west side of the property. With the development of Hank's already complete south of it. You couldn't very well bring the trail right in front of their store. That's why we dedicated it down here and then the remainder of it will come down Futrall. Then is there a fence on the west side here? There is a fence on the west property line. So the trail is inside the fence line? • Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 29 Hennllee: Hoover: Hennllee: Rutherford: Hoover: Rutherford: Hoover: Yes. That's okay? Right. Also Kim Hesse and I walked the whole site, Sharon. Our original thought was to look at the plat with that going out there whether it might make sense to come down on the east side. Right. Well that was my first instinct. So when Kim and I went out there it was just apparent that with the grade and topography this made the most sense. Okay. And there is no problem with a public trail and then you got a fence on one side of it? Rutherford: The fence that is existing belongs to the State or I-540. Hoover: Hennllee: Rogers: Hoover: Rogers: Hoover: Estes: Hennllee: Estes: Oh, this is an existing one? There is an existing fence there but there will be a new Lindsay brick column with the 8 feet wrought iron in between. Tulsa has a lot of trails Just like this along freeways where also other types of transportation running by it. They also have the fence along it. So it appears that you are on somebody's private property but you're not. Right. Thank you. I understand. Tom, I have two questions. Other than the swimming pool are there any waters' features on the property? That's it. That pool I see will have an iron fence and will be gated? Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 30 Hennllee: Correct. Estes: The other question I have, with regard to the trail, will this be open to the public? In other words, can any child ride their bicycle on this? Hennllee: On the trail? Estes: Yes. Hennllee: Yes sir. That was the whole purpose of it, was that the junior high and the elementary school to have the ability for the kids to get between schools and neighborhoods on this trail, ultimately, when it's developed. Estes: The reason I asked that question is, I have heard some comments in other Lindsay developments, what I would consider being the golf cart trail, some people think they have the right to walk on those or ride their bikes. They have been run off. Hennllee: I think with the presence of the golf course that probably had an influence with that. This will be actually dedicated to the City. The Lindsey's will no longer have ownership of it. Conklin: Okay. Let me just clarify that. As an easement? Because if we get the actual property then we probably need to look at setbacks. Were you talking about an easement or an actual fee simple title? Estes: I think I heard Kim Rogers say that she wanted a fee simple. A grant of fee simple. Was it Chuck? Wants a fee simple grant to sidewalks? Rutherford: I think it was originally set up through the Parks Board and Dave who did this up until now. The way I understood it, it was just going to be set aside as an easement for now. Then it would be dedicated at the time that the trail would be built. Hennllee: Exactly. I didn't mean to say that. The Lindsey's will still maintain ownership of the property. As far as what goes on within that 14 feet and the trail being built is the City's. Rutherford: The way I understood it, at the time the trail would be built, then it would be dedicated to the City. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 31 Conklin: Then we would own the land under the trail. Rutherford: Exactly. But until that time it's just an easement that belongs to Lindsay. Estes: Well I'm just concerned about it. I have received several telephone calls from people who tell me that their children were riding through a Lindsay development and they chose to take off on one of the golfcart trails, is what I call them, and that they were run off and their bikes were picked up and carried off. Hennllee: I wouldn't be able to address any of that. Estes: I know. This is a trail and a trail is a trail and then there needs to be public access. Hennllee: I'm sure that it will be noted as such when it gets built. There will be probably some sort of sign saying that it is a public trail. Hoover: Do those have signs on it that it is a public trail? Estes: No. They are golf carts. Conklin: He has given this to the City for free We can't require it This is wonderful, great. Rutherford: And also the Parks Board got exactly what they wanted. This is just over and above Conklin: Forty-five thousand dollars. MOTION: Hoover: I would like to make a motion that this be forwarded to the Planning Commission. LSD 20.00. Estes: I will second that motion. Commissioner Bunch? Bunch: Concur. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 32 LSD 00-21.00: Large Scale Development (First United Presbyterian Church, pp 407) was submitted by Carter & Hodges on behalf of First United Presbyterian Church for property located at 695 Calvin. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 10.33 acres The request is to build a church. Estes: The next item is LSD 00-21.00, Large Scale Development submitted by Carter & Hodges on behalf of First United Presbyterian Church for property located at 695 Calvin. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 10.33 acres. The request is to build an additional to an existing church. Tim, what do we need to know about item number five? Conklin: This is an existing church with an expansion. Approximately 13,300 square feet. The existing building totals approximately, and there is a correction, 25,700 square feet not 58,000. I don't have a percentage of the increases but they are adding. Estes: Conklin: Edwards: Hodges: Conklin: Hodges: Edwards: Hodges: Estes: Hodges: What is the existing buildings total approximately? 25,700. Is that right? 28,000. 28,000. We had one typo here on the sanctuary that should be an 11. Do you have a percentage? Yes, that's 69%. So this will be an increase of approximately 69%? Yes, sir. Conklin: Planning staff has placed three conditions to address this morning. Three landscape islands must be added to the southwest parking lot in order to comply with the parking lot standards. Sara has drawn those in back up here. Kim may have something to comment on about that. A conditional use has been submitted to permit a church in an R-1 zone. The church has been existing without a conditional use and therefore is non -conforming use. Through granting the Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 33 conditional use it will become conforming. We are asking that a conditional use be brought forward at this time since one is required in an R-1 zone. All overhead electric must be placed underground. There is a letter regarding tree preservation and removal of rare trees. That's on the third page addressed to me. I did ask for them to justify their removal of those trees and I'll let Kim Hesse, our landscape administrator address that. They have, from Technical Plat Review, revised their parking lot. They are showing on the northeast corner, they originally had parking backing out into Calvin Street, that has been revised which will save some additional trees. Anything else Sara? Edwards: No. Conklin: That is all planning staff has at this time. Estes: Chuck? Rutherford: The sidewalk already exists on Knox? Calvin dead -ends just short this lot in here. All the requirements are already met. That's all I have. Estes: Ron, do you have anything? Petrie: Yes, sir. These show a drive coming into this intersection. The Calvin and Knox drive intersection. I just can't support that. Estes: I'm sorry, say again Ron. Give me a chance to find this. Conklin: Right here. This is actually a drive they are showing. Ron, I didn't see that. Hodges: There is an existing drive there, yes. Conklin: Is that your existing pavement line? Hodges: That's the confusion there. That does not open onto Knox. It comes to Calvin. There is an existing drive which comes in here and what we are wanting to do is straighten the drive because it curves right now and place the trash dumpster here next to the proposed kitchen so they will be able to come in straight to it and then out. Conklin: I see it now. That's existing. Hodges: Right. That's existing over on this side of the tree. We are proposing on Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 34 straightening that out. We would have to take that tree out to straighten it out so it's squared up with Calvin so the trash trucks will be able to come in and get to the dumpster without having to swing around. Conklin: I thought we talked about putting the dumpster back further? Hodges: Well, they were wanting to put it up here because of the kitchen because that is where a lot of the waste is going to be coming from so they wouldn't have to take it all the way down to the other side of the parking. It's just a much more convenient place for what they are trying to do. Conklin: This 24" post oak, do you address that in your letter? Hodges: Yes. That would have to be removed to square that up with Calvin. Right now it makes that curve right there and the trash trucks would have a hard time getting into that dumpster location. Conklin: I'm sorry, I'm reviewing this with Kevin here. Estes: I'm a little lost on Ron's comment and I need to be sure I understand. Petrie: I want to try to avoid all driveways coming into the intersection and that was the main concern. Estes: Let me step over there Ron. Is this an existing driveway? Petrie: Yes, I found that out. What's existing is this right here. DISCUSSION Estes: I think we are back. Petrie: In summary of what they proposed and I don't have a problem with it is, they actually keep the driveway is there as it is. So they are not widening it, they are not making it closer to the road, they can save that 24" tree since they are leaving everything the way it is. That's an existing condition. Estes: So you are on board with that? Petrie: Yes sir. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 35 Estes: Okay. Hayes: But the width of that drive won't have to be 24 feet? Hodges: Just leave it as existing right? Estes: Is that correct Ron? That's what I understand. Hodges: We just leave it alone? Petrie: Yes. Estes: Anything else Ron? Petrie: We need the storm water management plan. I requested that at plat review and still have not received it. Edwards: I think we might have it. Petrie: That is my last comment. Estes: Kim, would you please favor us with your comments? I would particularly be interested in what you have to say about removing the five rare trees on the side. Hesse: They did contact me early on in the process. We walked the site. There were large oak trees up there. Basically, for them to expand the grade that's required and the construction that is required, we looked at moving them one direction there was one tree hitting another tree. We re-evaluated the trees out there. They basically covered it pretty well in their letter. I can support what they are doing out there. Unless we just eliminate them and not allow them to grow is the only way we can do all of this. Some of these trees certainly are not in the best shape especially in the root center area. The only thing that you might want to discuss is maybe some additional screening. That would be in this area. Maybe because there is a back yard right here. There is a house right here. I don't know maybe that property owner is not concerned. There is some actual screening here right now. It's very thick. I do agree with Sara's comments about adding these. Other than that I feel that they have probably met all of our requirements. Hayes: We just saved one at the corner. Hesse: Right. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 36 Hayes: As far as this screening here. I fully support that. It is a bit bare on the corner and we are adding the parking lot. That would be a great idea. Conklin: They do have a six-foot board fence there. Hesse: But you are up above them. When I was standing there, I was looking right down in and the kids were playing in the back yard. I could see everything. Conklin: How high will those parking spaces be? When you are parking your car there on Wednesday night, are the headlights going to be shining back in their back yard? Hesse: They might shine in their second story. See it drops down the hill. Conklin: So it might shine in their second story. Hesse: Yes. You are up above their house. You may be on the second story of the house. Estes: I don't know, do Presbyterians' meet on Wednesday night? See you're a Baptist. Conklin: I'm not sure. Hesse: Yes. I think screening would be a good idea. Conklin: Let's discuss that some more prior to Planning Commission. I want to go out there and take another look at it with regard to that house. That could really impact someone having cars pull in there at night. Estes: What could you to fix that? The only kind of screening you could have are poplar trees and it would take those. Conklin: Maybe some type of fence or a wall or hedge up along the parking for the headlights that's what I was thinking about. Estes: Is there any member of the audience that wishes to provide us with their comments on item number 5? I'll bring it back to Subdivision Committee for comments and motions. Commissioner Hoover, Commissioner Bunch? MOTION: • Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 37 Hoover: I will make a Motion that this gets moved on to full Planning Commission, LSD 21.00. Estes: And I will second that. Commissioner Bunch? Bunch: Just one question, on these proposed trees in the parking lot, what kind are they? Hayes: Maple. Then the smaller trees are redbud and dogwood. Estes: I think Kim Hesse has a comment. Hesse: Just to confirm that the comments from the tech review do we need to finalize them with regard to species. Page 37 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 38 LSD 00-22.00: Large Scale Development (St. Joseph Catholic Church, pp 373) was submitted by Cory Phillips of Freeland -Kauffman & Fredeen on behalf of St. Joseph Catholic Church located on north Starr Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 18.08 acres. The request is to build a church and school. Estes: This is church morning. The next item, number six is LSD 00-22.00, Commissioner Hoover will return to us in just a moment. This was submitted by Cory Phillips of Freeland -Kauffman & Fredeen on behalf of St. Joseph Catholic Church located on north Starr Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 18.08 acres The request is to build a church and school. Tim, what do we need to know about item six? Conklin: This is a large scale development. Along with the large scale development will be going a conditional use for a church in an A-1 district. That's condition number 1, just want to make you aware of that. This is not a use allowed by right that it will require Planning Commission approval before that use as a conditional use. Number two, approval of additional parking spaces. Our ordinance allows one space for every four seats in the auditorium for a church and one space for every • 1200 feet of classroom area for a school. The code permits 174 spaces as a maximum. The applicant has requested 306 spaces, 132 additional spaces. That also has to be approved as a conditional use and will be going forward with the large scale development. Then Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. Number 4. A determination by the Planning Commission with regard to off-site improvements to Starr Road and Ron Petrie will go over City staff's recommendation and what we are looking for the church• to improve on. We will be bringing forward to the City Council and Planning Commission as a cost share. A Planning Commission determination of requested variance with a maximum 24 foot parking lot aisle and driveway widths allowed by code. Applicant is proposing two 26 foot driveways connecting to 26 -foot wide aisles. And Mr. Cory Phillips has a letter attached explaining his justification for the additional width. Planning Commission determination of right-of-way dedication for the continuation of Arapaho Drive. Staff is not recommending any right-of-way to be dedicated at this time. This is part of Barrington Park, Phase 2. It's directly to the east. It does not join up with this development directly It's adjacent to it just to the north. Typically, we would require a developer to extend that right-of-way. Typically, they have to extend that in order to create lots that have frontage under zoning. There is really no zoning requirements for this to have additional street frontage but we don't want to block that street either. Once again, it's not directly on this piece of property so, what's referred to as the Stanbury property to the north is developed, they would have the ability to connect Page 38 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 39 Estes: and eventually get to Starr Road. The other thing that I looked at from the City Planning Division standpoint was, there was a stub -out there that not necessary means that you bring the street directly across to the west and connect to Starr Road. Stub -outs, in the past, we have used to provide circulation throughout the subdivisions. The only consideration we talked about was, if we did require any right-of-way, we could require a possibility of 25 feet of right-of-way out to Starr Road but that pretty much sets that street where it would need to go in the future. Where if you just leave it there and development occurs in the future, we can look at how it ties in with future development. At this point in time we are not asking for any additional right-of-way but I want to make this Subdivision Committee and the Planning Commission aware that there is a stub -out to the north. Number 8. All utilities shall be placed underground. All ground and roof mounted utility equipment and dumpsters must be screened from the public view. That's all that planning staff has at this time. Chuck? Rutherford: I have one question. The curb and gutter need to be removed with a sidewalk at each wall. I thought we had. Oh, I see. Just a line work issue. The curb and gutter start or stop on each side of the driveway. Start right there Cory. Okay. That way when they are pouring the curb and gutter they will pour it through. Okay. Anything else Chuck? That's it. Thank you. Ron? Cory, I'm a little confused on the fire protection. Is this building going to be sprinklered? Phillips: Rutherford: Conklin: Philips: Conklin: Phillips: Estes: Rutherford: Estes: Petrie: Page 39 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 40 Philips: No sire. Petrie: Was it required to be sprinklered? Philips: As I understand, from the architects, they have met all the codes to not have to sprinkler it. Petrie: Another comment, I need a grading and drainage permit. That was requested in Plat Review. • Phillips: I sent that in, I believe. Petrie: Does Planning have that? Edwards: Maybe. Petrie: Still waiting on some information on drainage. I won't go into too much detail. I met with Cory on this. I just want to make the Commission aware that detention ponds you see on the plat. Last comment has to do with off-site improvement to Starr Drive. I've prepared a little memo here last night to sum it up. What the church is proposing to do, off-site improvements, is to widen the street in front of the site 14 feet on their side of Starr Drive including curb and gutter. To the north, the portion that is in the County, they are proposing to widen Starr Drive to County standards which is basically a minimum of 20 -foot wide street, ditches on both sides. Also, they will have to obtain the right-of-way to do these improvements that they are proposing. At staff, we met with the Public Works Director and we are going to make that attempt to get us, the County, City Council and Street Committee to agree to widen Starr Drive 28 feet wide, curb and gutter on both sides of the street. Estes: Would that be just in front of this project or would that be all the way? Petrie: No. Conklin: All the way from the south boundary of this church project to the north. Estes: All the way from the southwest corner of the project out to? Conklin: Up to Madison Avenue, or Drive. Page 40 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 41 Hoover: How wide is it now? I'm sorry. How wide is Starr Drive now? Estes: It's a substandard, shift and seal, used to be a dirt road. Hoover: Charming? Estes: It's charming. Conklin: There's places 16 feet, 14 feet, it goes back and forth. The issue is that it's part in City, or actually, most of the road is in the County. The city limit line is not the center of the road. It's this boundary edge of the subdivision. So that's always been a big issue. Almost the entire road is in the County, which has limited the City's ability to do that. Now we have this property annexed in. We do have a piece of property to the north that's in the County, which all of the road is still in the County on that point. We are going to look at the possibility to contact the owner of the property to the north and see if they would like to annex into the City to get it all into the City. So when we are spending City tax dollars, that is on a street within the City of Fayetteville. Philips: I believe developers are looking at that property already. Petrie: What we are requesting is developers' engineer show us the costs, so we can really understand the feasibility of this cost share of the two. To get it the way they are proposing or if we widen the whole thing. What's the cost difference? Obviously, you guys will be responsible for that cost for what's being requested. Phillips: I guess I misunderstood that the 28 -foot width was just the length of our property. Now you are saying to go and do a 28 foot wide street all the way up to the north of the Stanbury piece? Petrie: Yes, sir. Phillips: Okay. Conklin: Do you want to look at that? Once again, as Ron stated, it has to go to the Street Committee, talk to the County and talk to the City Council and everybody is going to work all that out. Something to look at to get it all straightened out at this time. Petrie: You need to be aware that if the Council does not agree to this, then what you see on the plan is what would be done. Page 41 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 42 Conklin: You already went over that, they are going to be responsible on their property 14 feet from centerline curb, gutter, storm drainage, a 10 -foot greenspace and a 6 - foot sidewalk. To the north, they are going to improve that, I think at minimum to the 22. Phillips: 10 feet wide with a 4 -foot shoulder. Conklin: 10 feet from centerline? Phillips: Yes. Conklin: With a 4 -foot shoulder which is going to make that road vary from 22.2 feet at the most narrow point to 30 something. So you will have at least a 22 -foot wide street in the County for this project. That is what we worked out up to this point in time. But once again we went out with the Public Works Director and we were looking at what the difference between what we have discussed and your clients agreed to versus bringing it up to actual 28 -foot wide street with curb and gutter. Estes: Rutherford: Estes: Hesse: Phillips: Anything else, Ron? No sir. Kim, do you have anything for us? Yes. We need to show the tree protection information on your grading plan. Okay. Hesse: There is a note regarding tree protection preservation to the contractor. At the bottom of that note it says if trees are damaged during construction it will be removed. Take that off. Philips: Okay. Hesse: It's going to be kind of difficult, we got trees along the east side that is shared with the private property owners to the east. We are going to be impacting those, we are going to try to route through them and try to bore them but we are going to be impacting those trees with the shared land there. They are large trees. Phillips: We specified to do the route treeing. What you and I talked about. Page 42 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 43 Bunch: What about the 50 inch trees that are showing on the C-2.8, 2.81 and 2.9 but they are also showing 34 and 26 inch trees there is a note that those are 50 inch diameter rare trees. Hesse: Is that 50 -foot diameter canopy? Phillips: I got a feeling that is a typo and they are. We are not even getting into these trees. Hesse: I would remove that. Phillips: We will just take that off because there is nothing that is going to happen over there. Bunch: It shows up on three different drawings. Phillips: We will take it off. Just leave the tree protection on there? Hesse: Yes. And stop it right here. It's a lot easier to damage them then to replace them. This is a concern for the adjacent property owner. These are big trees. The widening of this road will certainly take that out. Estes: Anything else Kim? Hesse: No. Thank you. PUBLIC COMMENT* Estes: Long: • Is there any member of the audience who has any comments regarding agenda item number 6? Yes sir, would you come forward and say your name so it can be picked up by the tape recorder and favor us with your comments. Yes, thank you. My name is Larry Long. I am the Co -President of the Starr Drive Association. I have with me Mr. Ron Marks, who is our Co -Vice President. We are a neighborhood association. A very active association and have been for a number of years. Perhaps a bit of historical prospective would help the Commission understand where we are coming from. About seven years ago, a large scale development was planned next to us and the neighborhood looked at it and said this is not within the character of our neighborhood, there are a lot of things wrong. We decided to fight it. To make a long story short, if you may remember, the Commission denied that subdivision. Although we had a two-hour Page 43 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 44 presentation in front of the Planning Commission with the detailed engineering studies, what have you. It all boiled down to, is it consistent with the character of the neighborhood and it was not and that's what we really determined. We have been in communication with St. Joseph's and we consider them our friends and we hope they are to be good neighbors. Some things have recently happened. Seeing the plat, it raises a lot of concerns. You have been to that area. Have you all been there? Estes: I haven't. Bunch: I have driven by it. Long: It is in the City, it's relatively rural. Large plots of land. This A-1 property is totally surrounded by residential. Totally. The neighbors, our association met last year and we talked about the church and we said we accept it. We think that they can put a beautiful facility and the K through six school on this property and make it work. It's 18 acres. When we see the finished product, we see the school, the . church and the 280 place parking lot stacked right up against Starr Drive. By anyone's standards that seven million dollar complex is going to be an eye sore. That's very unfortunate. We kind of wondered why that is. Then you have all of this beautiful area unused. Could they do a better job of positioning the chapel, the school and the parking lot? I would think so. We're inviting them to do that. But now, are there any further plans for this area that we don't know about? Is there going to be a high school? If there is, we're against it. That 18 acres will not accept a high school within the middle of that residential area Lighted playing fields and all the noise and the traffic associated with it would deteriorate our property values, quality of life. This is a very very major concern to all of us. By the way, we represent the 55 homes in our association along Starr Drive. We want to be good neighbors. We are happy to have St. Joseph's come into our neighbors but we wouldn't' be ... We are all very proud of our properties. We treat our properties right and if a house were to come into our neighborhood and pave the front line and stripe it, we would be concerned. This is essentially where we stand right now. And we are also very concerned about future plans. I would invite the Commission to deny this request if, in fact, we don't know all of the future plans of St. Joseph's. We are accepting a school, we are accepting a chapel, we are accepting a major parking lot, hopefully well positioned on 18 acres. Anything above that, I think, would stress the neighborhood beyond it's limits and start to deteriorate property values and quality of life. I'm not going to go into speculating what would happen if they put a high school there. You can just imagine that. Page 44 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 45 Phillips: Nobody has talked anything about any future school whatsoever. When I talked to one of the parishioners, last week, about the future chapel. They said that was down the line a long ways and they never mentioned anything about any future improvements in the back side at all. Long: Then my most immediate question, I don't know if this is conversation or interactive, but would be why not distribute this parking lot back here, along here. Present the front with a beautiful oval as we have seen with so many churches. It could double as a playground or fields for the students. I would think that St. Joseph's would want to take this seven million -dollar project and make it as beautiful as possible. This is just like we are sacrificing what could be the most beautiful church area in the City for basically utility. Phillips: , One of the reasons why we didn't go back farther from the church standpoint, is economics. We are going to have to, more than likely, take into effect this ditch down through here which carries a substantial piece of water up in this direction from the rest of the basin. Getting over that, in order to put this here, there would be no way to squeeze that building and all the parking in this side. We would have to, in face, be on the east side of it. That's going to incur a culvert, a closed box culvert, over the entire length of the property, 600 feet. I would imagine, from the church's standpoint they don't have that figured in their budget to incorporate that. That, right there is my understanding, is the reason why that they are on this side of the creek and not on that side. Long: If I were a parishioner, and coming to this place of worship, I wouldn't mind walking a few extra feet. As a matter of fact, it would be closer to the church if it were down here. We are talking about an A-1 property here and this would be a conditional use. This clustering of everything right upon Starr Drive with no aesthetic considerations whatsoever is something we as neighbors are concerned about. We are concerned that neighbors right here will be looking right at a density dumpster. I would think that we could just take this back to the drawing board and do a whole lot better job of parceling out the facilities on this complex. If it required making a culvert, which I would not recommend doing. I can imagine a couple of beautiful foot bridges here and they would probably cost about $30,000 to put in a bridge across that culvert. In the scheme of things, that is not much money. Then your parking and the lighting would be hid back here and it would also be buffered from the property by these beautiful trees along the creek. Which at times can be quite heavy. Right now it is probably dry. There are many suggestions to that. Page 45 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 46 Bunch: You were talking about foot bridges over here. You didn't mention a car bridge and now you are talking about basically moving the parking from this neighborhood to where it is impacting this neighborhood. Long: Well, the frontage of this property is on Starr Drive, that's what people are going to look at. There are also trees defined back here. They are eventually, I would imagine, if they purchased, and I'm just speculating, if they purchase they will expand. Philips: They are not going to. Long: They are not going to do that? We are trying to present this property not only for us but hopefully for them. Perhaps just make suggestions Like I said this property, like I say, it's an A-1 property, we're putting a church on it, can you imaging what 36 high-intensity lights are going to do to a neighborhood that has absolutely no street lights now. We can see the milky way at night now. We won't be able to see anything when that's up. Phillips: Additionally, if we were to move backwards, the church is already spending in excess of $40,000. Estes: Could we do this? Could we receive public comment and then I will bring it back to the applicant and you will have an opportunity to comment? I think that would work a little better. Then we will bring it back to the Subdivision Committee and the Commissioners and can ask and questions can be answered. Phillips: So we need to come back to the next Subdivision Committee? Estes: No. I mean when we are through with public comment I will bring it back to you. Then we can have a discussion and if we have any questions we can ask. I will certainly give the applicant an opportunity to respond to the public comment. Instead of the dialog format perhaps this will allow Larry to go ahead with his presentation. Phillips: Okay. Long: I'll just start at the top then. This is an email that I wrote to Paul Warren the other day just expressing some of our concerns. We do live in this quite neighborhood and when the neighborhood officers met in session the other day, really the question that kept coming back to us over and over and over is why do this when Page 46 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 47 you have this incredible opportunity. This is a beautiful piece of property. That, in a nutshell, is what we are trying to invite them to do is to reevaluate what they want to do. Also, to tell us in long terms what they plan. If they indeed plan to use this property for a high school that makes our position relative to this conditional use of A-1 completely different. Here is just some minor concerns that involve Tim and Engineering and other people. You talked about widening the road more or less to city specks and me and other neighbors have been trying to work with the City and the County now for 10 years and no one has been able to talk to each other and if you all get them to talk to each other and actually do this project, by golly I will take you all out to lunch wherever you want to go. It has been a difficult task. That is absolutely necessary and must take place. As Tim mentioned that road is indeed 14 feet wide at some places and cars have to stop to pass them at this time. There is going to be seven days a week traffic on this. This is a seven day a week project for us. We are accepting it but let's make it as little impact as possible. One way we can do that, of course, is to widen the road. Now one of my concerns is if you have ever passed by Route School before they put the turning lane in. Do you remember that? Basically it stopped traffic in both ways. I can imagine that traffic will be stopped in both ways. It's not a super busy road. We probably have 800 to 900 cars over it a day. This will double it. But those 800 or 900 traffickers will have to wait sometimes four or five or 10 minutes when cars are lined up to go get their kids out in the road and I don't know if this has been considered or not. Are they going to drive into the parking lot? Is there going to be a turning lane there? Do we do the widening to city specks at this time and later on after 10 years from now after we just have a million complaints that it goes to a turning lane or do we do it now? Because it will be needed. There are what 300 kids in the school now? Phillips: I believe so. Long: Go over and look at Vandergriffor any other school and Vandergriffhas a lane there where people can waft. My kids went to Vandergriffuntil last year and that lane can be as long as 600 or 700Teet long. There is no place for them to wait except in the road. Which means the traffic will wait going both directions. What happens between changed of service on Sunday morning? Saturday night? That's a lot of waiting for people without that turn lane. This is a major complex. It's a school and a church. A seven day a week project. Okay. Point made. If the street is going to be widened to city specks then there can be parking along that road. If it's not, I will think that up front we will need to plan all the on-site parking spaces to handle the volume at the facility. We, quite frankly, question even whether this over specification will handle that volume. That 208. The Page 47 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 48 lighting is a major concern. When you are used to being able to see the Milky Way at night. This will blank out the sky for us. I was wondering if it is possible to tone down that 36 high impact lights. Is it really needed? I drove around to a number of area churches just looking at lighting and it seems to be clear overkill especially in a residential area. The positioning of the school. The school is positioned within 40 feet of these large mature trees on the south side. Hopefully none of those will be impacted. There is a planned parking lot and a dumpster area there. We would propose along with other movement that is far too close. That is going to damage those trees. You are not going to be able to get a trash truck under those limbs as it is right now. There aren't very many trees in this city as beautiful as those. It is in a nice clear line along the fence and they are, I don't know, mature trees. I would be hopeful in the planning that they would move that school out. Also, it's only 75 feet from the road as it is now planned. Only 75 feet. Few houses are that close. I would even consider it a dangerous situation and would hope that they would move that school down deeper into that lot. I notice you were talking about the placement of the dumpster in another proposal. Right now that facility is visible from the road. You would hope, especially since it's a cafeteria and smells associated with that, are moved away and further from the road and adjacent neighbors. Sidewalks. I realize that you are planning sidewalks for this and I'm hoping that in your negotiations with the widening of the road to city specks, the curb and gutters and all of that that you remember that this will be only one of three schools within a very close proximity and that the sidewalks now that extend to this property are on the west side. Are we expecting the traffic from the other school to move to the east side or are we going to have sidewalks on both sides to support those schools? We feel like that portion in front that there is a lot of foot traffic on Starr Drive. Perhaps you go out there at night and there is a lot of foot traffic People like to walk and bike up and down that road. The entrance to Barrington right here, it's off the city property. Is there anything that can be done to plan that egress or an eastern egress to this property into the Barrington area to relieve some of the traffic? Especially if parking is ultimately planned down here. That is a question that I would like addressed. When I say I, I'm speaking for my Neighborhood Association. And, of course, the tree issue has already been addressed but there are many large beautiful trees. Our primary concern is along the southern border and along the creek area always provide a nice buffer from this rather high density type traffic area and the adjacent neighborhood areas. As neighbors, I guess, it is our responsibility to provide this kind of feedback and to let the church kind of know where we stand and present to you some of our concerns We don't want to have to fight this. It's not something we had planned on doing but the current configuration is something that we do not agree with and we are hopeful that they will go back to the drawing Page 48 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 49 board and provide something that is more beautiful and more compatible with the characteristic of our neighborhood. Ron, did you want to say anything? Estes: Larry, thank you very much. Are you done? Long: Estes: I just want to say that Ron will bring a little bit of a different perspective to the Commission. I'm speaking kind of with a broad brush. Ron lives right across the street from the facility. Thank you Larry. Thank you for attending and thank you for favoring us with your comments. Can you step forward, please and say your name so it can be picked up on the tape recorder and provide us with your comments, criticisms and suggestions? Marks: I'm Ronnie Marks. I live at 1663 Starr Drive. I'm one of the adjoining properties that was notified by certified mail based on here. What I've done is I have kind of written something here to go over with you. To us this is very emotional because we have a beautiful home and we don't want to impact it. Estes: Ron, where is your home? Marks: It's going to be like right over here. It's at that corner. In fact I will help you with this I did some, knowing there was three members I made three copies, I took some digital photographs and made some comments next to them to help you understand how we feel. As Larry puts it this is a residential neighborhood 100% everywhere so this is the invading our privacy bringing a big development like this into our neighborhood. I kind of Just wanted to read my comments here and then as you thumb through that. Two years ago when we first moved to Fayetteville we heard a rumor that St. Joseph would build on the 40 -acre sight across the street. At that time we thought the church would compliment our nice neighborhood. We didn't know that there was a school too, at the time we moved to the area. With this being the only Catholic church in Fayetteville, we started attending mass there. My family is Catholic. We soon found out that a school was proposed and a school would follow years later. We also discovered that the sight was 18 acres and not 40 acres. This idea now became less appealing to us knowing that the size of the property has shrunk down and cannot support maybe a large development. Recently the church announced that they are proposing a Catholic high school for the area even though someone mentioned today that they did not. I was in church when it was announced. Okay? They are doing study for it. If this becomes a reality, it will be the only Catholic high school in northwest Page 49 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 50 Arkansas. The Catholic population has grown as quickly as northwest Arkansas is today. The school will draw students from two counties and have the potential to be very large. This property is not large enough to support schools kindergarten through twelfth grade. Let me add that we have Vandergriff and McNair less than one half mile from this present site. This morning driving in, I had to wait for two red lights and traffic was backed up the hill from Crossover and Mission and school hasn't even started yet. As a civic association we met this week to view the file and site plan. I personally came to the office and viewed the file and all comments from the annexation meeting to share that with the rest of our civic association. With the phase one, which I call this phase one whether or not they do, is crammed on the south and west property lines tell us St. Joseph's building committee is only concerned with what is in the property line. They did not consider or attempt to blend with the beauty of our area. They have given us the back door and service entrance that has a 575 square foot dumpster pad. I can show you this is what we are going to see right here. This is our area. This doesn't show you the dumpster, the fence and all the parking that they proposed. I assume staff parking has been proposed to put back here. If you look at the site plan, it shows a big concrete area. One of the other ones shows the concrete. There's a site map that shows it even clearer than that. In fact, I have a copy of it nght here. It's in your group, I think it's the second page. This is the one I'm talking about right here. Those don't show that. This is a very concern with us. Because I'm going to show you those photographs that is directly across the street from out neighbors and we are going to be looking directly down that ally that service entrance that they propose. What I would like you to do is to look through photographs and look at the homes that are across the street from this site. These homes are $200,00 to $400,000 range on right about 2 acres' parcels. My house is 250 feet from the road. They want to put this 75 feet from the road. A large scale development I'll have to get the square footage on it. It's written on the plat how much square footage is on it. So this will have a great impact on us. What bothers us is that Larry mentioned earlier that it's right at the front of the property. There is no green space here. Look at the photos I took and look at the beauty of the neighborhood and see what's around there. See the view that I see from my porch every day. I won't see that any longer, I will see 36 lamps at night. You look at the photograph in there, you look off of my porch at night now and it's just beautiful nighttime landscape. With the late events with the church and school, I'm going to be looking at 36 halogen lamps which are going to light up like a football field. I'm very much against that. I really feel that a compromise can be made by driving this property back a couple hundred feet to where you will have a green space in the front that may be able to use on days like when they have their fund-raising events. All the children can play in the yard in the front and things Page 50 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 51 like that. That's a major concern on that. As he mentioned earlier, we know about this complex a church, a chapel and a school and we were willing to accept that but we are not willing to accept it based on these plans. We will vigorously be against it at the Planning Commission meeting unless they come up with something to help us out with driving this thing back. Let me finish my comments on here. Without a doubt they have outgrown their present location. I go there all the time and they will continue to grow with northwest Arkansas. If you visit the church today on Saturday or Sunday evening during mass, you will experience what we now fear. What we fear is the constant traffic and parking problems. No parking signs and tow away zones line the streets presently today at St. Joseph's. You drive by there Sunday or Saturday evening during mass and you can see for yourself. Is this what we have to look forward to? Our peaceful residential neighborhood will be changed forever by this large scale development. I can only imagine what the present neighborhood said 50 years ago when St. Joseph's moved to that present site. "Oh a church is moving to the neighborhood, how nice." I don't think you will find that reaction from the neighbors now because it has become a problem for the area We are submitting a letter with these copies. One for the Planning Commission and I have an extra copy if one of the Commission would like it. I would like to enter in the record these are some of our objections to what's going on. We have submitted a letter to the church and photographs with captions to the Planning Commission to help address our concerns. This is greater than the large scale development that would change our quiet neighborhood forever it will limit potential buyers because not everybody wants to live in that type of neighborhood when you have a large scale church and school development. It will also affect our property values. After discussing this with neighbors and adjoining property owners we are asking the Planning Commission to table this site approval request until we can resolve our concerns with the building committee. We are also asking the Planning Commission to assist us with a resolution on this I'm directly affected. I sit on my front porch every day. If you look in my photos, my porch wraps around the house. It's a room of the house. It's not a porch. We sit out there daily and this is what we are going to be fronted with. A school and a church is a 7 -day operation, early in the morning until late at night. Nonstop. During the school year it's seven days a week. Right now it would be probably just weekends but we also have more school months than we do not school months. We feel this development will impact our neighborhood forever and we would like some consideration for our neighborhood the way it looks today. Estes: Thank you Ronnie. Page 51 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 52 Bunch: I have one question. Estes: Commissioner Bunch? Bunch: You mentioned building committee? Marks: I'm talking the church building committee. There is one. • Bunch: Okay. That was one of my questions. You say you are a parishioner of this church. Marks: Yes. I'm not a member of the building committee. Bunch: Have you voiced these concerns to your parish, on your end of it as a parishioner? Marks: I just recently made the decision to do what I did today. Bunch: I understand that but you have a unique position as a member of the community that this would impact and as a parishioner to have voiced these concerns early on in the process and saved the church a considerable amount of money. Marks: To answer this I have been to the picnics where they had the model displayed. The model looked great. This isn't the model. Conklin: Did the model look like that board? Marks: I would have to stick it next to it to tell you Tim. I don't remember. Conklin: I was just curious. Marks: I remember the materials and so forth. The model was a cardboard model you know the architecture's style looked okay. But until you start taking brick and metal and so forth on it, it changes. The model I saw, to answer your question sir, is not this. This wasn't part of the model that I saw. I felt as though it was going to be more friendly to the neighborhood and so forth. I just see now it's just pushed up against the street and it's just intruding us directly. That's my feeling on that. I assume you solicit my feelings otherwise I wouldn't have got a certified mail. I apologize if I sound a little strong minded. My wife says I am and I am. Estes: Ron, thank you for attending. The only question I had was I was wanting to Page 52 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 53 know, does your bishop know you are here? Marks: Probably not. I think I have to take my family concerns first. Estes: Is there any other member of the audience that would like to provide us with your comments either in favor of or in opposition to the proposed LSD? Seeing none I will bring it back to the applicant and give the applicant an opportunity to explain and respond to any of the public comments that have been made. Phillips: All right. As I stated before I have been in multiple conversations with gentlemen from the church and they have never one time discussed anything about a high school so at this time we are submitting for this. I don't know what their future plans are. I don't think they even know what their future plans are as far as a high school goes. As far as the parking and the school being too close, as I understand it we have met all of the requirements that the City has in place for setback, for buffer zones, trees, landscape, everything. As far as moving across the creek, I stated before economics is going to play a large part in that. We have already estimated over $30,000 close to $40,000 for a pump station because they are down a hill and can't get into the sewer so they are having to incur that cost. That cost will just escalate the farther we go away. There will be money involved in extra paving and bridgework. There will need to be not only foot bridges but drive bridges across that. You are going to be talking in excess of hundreds of thousands of dollars for the extra paving and the bridgework there. If they were to span across that then we are talking even more money for the box culverts. Stacking room and waiting on the children, I can appreciate that. I live next to an elementary school myself and I know what it's like to have to wait. What I have been told is they plan to, for lack of a better term, to snake the traffic through the parking lot in order to be able to allow for the stacking and be able to get the people out. We have a hundred and some odd extra spaces. There is going to be plenty of room for the parking and the capacity to stack up cars. Nowhere have they ever talked about allowing people to stack up out here. That's a road hazard and it's a danger and it inconveniences other people. They did talk about the stacking in there. As far as the trash location goes. The trash location needs to be somewhat relatively close to where the kitchen facilities are and their activity room facilities are where they are going to have cooking and whatnot. The dumpster, I have been in contact with the Solid Waste Division, they like the location. It requires an 80 -foot turnaround area which is rather large. They also require it to be screened. We've said okay to all of that. This plan does not show what's been revised and submitted. That is the dumpster location right there. Like I said it will be, I believe we called out I'd have to look on there, I believe we called out for a Page 53 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 54 6 -foot high wood privacy fence on that to screen that from the public. I have already mentioned the setbacks, like I said, we are well within our setback requirements that the City requires. Sidewalks on the west side of the road, obviously that falls into what Mr. Conklin, Mr. Petrie and we have all been talking about. If we were to widen the street then there would be sidewalks on the west side of the street. Obviously, we are going to put sidewalks in on our side of the street. Ingress or egress into the Barrington Park Subdivision, at this time with our layout, it's just not feasible. First of all, we would have to get an easement from Mr. Stanbury and whether or not he wants people driving through his side of his property is another question that would have to be answered. Like I stated before, I believe this property is being investigated right now for a possible development so I would believe that this street would be brought through at that time. Estes: You are talking about Arapaho Dnve now? Phillips: Yes sir. Estes: Any other comments? Phillips: No. I believe that's all I got wrote down. Estes: I'll bring it back to the Subdivision Committee. Commissioner Hoover, Commissioner Bunch, any comments or motions? Hoover: Yes. I have a lot of comments. The first one is I have a lot of concerns in fact with the Neighborhood Association just about every concern I have on this project. I was going to ask Tim, I followed this project in Little Rock that was similar to this. There was a hotel going in in a residential neighborhood. They sent it back to the developer and the Neighborhood Association for them to meet and come back, I want to say it was a unified front, but come back after they had met and gotten several of their issues resolved rather than coming to Planning Commission and us spending hours with them going back and forth. Is there any kind of device for that? Or can we just make a recommendation, is that all we can do as a Planning Commission for that to happen? Conklin: Yes. Keep in mind you have more ability to do that because this is a conditional use not a use by right. If it was a use by right if they meet the ordinance I would have to sit here and say no you need to tell them how to fix their development so you can approve it. Once again with a conditional use you can place any Page 54 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 55 conditions that you feel are appropriate or will provide additional safeguards. It's a little difficult and we looked at two churches today and we will look at one more. I have encouraged people to come through with a large scale at the same time as the conditional use because in order to address the conditional use we've compared the compatibility and buffers and screening we kind of need to know what they are planning so that is what we are looking at. I'm not sure if I should ask the three of you to make a suggestion with regard to looking at this as a conditional use we want to see more buffer between the parking area and the residential areas or that type of thing but you are going to have to use your own. Hoover: I mean just personally if I were to give all my desires for this project, which is a really long list, I mean first off the way the problem is approached is pretty anti to the neighborhood giving them the side view of the building rather than put a front view of the building and buffering the parking behind the building would be more of a normal situation like this. When you are in a residential area which I would say would be more in keeping with the residential neighborhood. To me there are so many issues that. There are 306 spaces they are asking for. An additional 132 spaces.' There are all these issues I don't know understand why and I don't know how many grades are in the school. Where are the kids going to play? Conklin: I think you need to ask those questions. I think that would be good especially for Mr. Phillips there. Estes: Commissioner Hoover, if I could say this. Hoover: Yes. Estes: I have some genuine concerns and I can't speak for Commissioner Bunch but I bet if you polled the three of us we would all have some serious concerns. Simply stated and this is not a laundry list of my concerns this is just what comes to the top. Really quick. Is upgrading and approving Starr Drive, I don't see how in the world Starr Drive can support this kind of development? There is going to have to be some accommodation as been suggested. We are going to have to do something with Starr Drive and to do it just to the frontage of this project isn't going, I mean that is blowing at windmills, that's not going to accomplish anything. The placement and the foot printing I think leaves something to be desired. The note that I made was to move the building to the front, parking to the rear, down light the lighting. It is a conditional use request so as Tim has pointed out we have a little more flexibility than we normally do. I would like to see the applicant get together with representatives that have appeared here this morning Page 55 • Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 56 and see if there can't be some accommodations made. I could not vote for it as it sits right now. Commissioner Bunch? Bunch: One of the things that struck me is I live in the neighborhood where the existing church is and school. Looking at this it looks like somebody has taken an urban design, a dense middle of town design and placed it in the country. I understand that the panshioners of the church are used to the type of setup where they are in a more densely packed inner urban area and now it's going into a rural area where there are more spacious lots and the architectural design to me should be in keeping with what is in the neighborhood. Things like play areas and this looks like a rather incomplete concept of what is going to transpire here other than showing one future chapel. I think that my concern would be to get back with the building committee of the church and express our concerns that we have shown here and the neighbors concerns and come up with something that better fits the location and the needs of the church. Estes: Conklin: Bunch: I don't want, for one moment, for this Subdivision Committee or the full Commission to micro manage the project. My concern is upgrading and improving Starr Drive. You are going to have to have a way to get folks in and out of there. That would be my first concern if I would want to improve and upgrade Starr Drive at least to the County Road. Yes. They are proposing to do that. Everything north up to that. That is going to be above County Standards. County Standards are 20 foot swales. As a side comment, when upgrading Starr Drive, that is a cut -through currently and will become even more so to the Wyman area and traffic when that road becomes improved, I guarantee the traffic and speeds going to pick up. Because right now all the times people cut through by the waste water treatment plant, Starr Drive is actually quicker as a cut -through over to the highway 16 area and over to the Wyman area and the Round Mountain area. That's just a side note to the neighbors that as this does get improved it's definitely going to impact the neighborhood other than just a school. With the improvement of that road it's going to make a tremendous impact. Estes: This is not before us now but we all know that this area wouldn't support a parochial high school. Bunch: This is something that I would be considering as a conditional use that this does not include that because that is a tremendous impact when you start considering a Page 56 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 57 junior high and high school with athletic events every night of the week. You know junior high and high school basketball every night and a lot of lighting. Some of the lighting concerns can be taken care of with timers to where only on nights of heavy usage would there be a lot of lighting and a certain amount would be left to security lighting. When you start looking at higher usage level then that makes me wonder if this is the right site. Hoover: Well I think it comes to also, let me ask Tim, I know because it is a conditional use that we can require more specifics on this. Really a conditional use on something like this I would like to see the master plan and what their 20 -year plan is for this whole site because if this is their whole piece of property. Surely do they plan on using this or never using this? I see they have thought about a future chapel but a high school. They must be thinking about that. How does that come into play with this? Phillips: Like I said, the only thing that I know is what's on the sheets right now. This whole area is to be mowed and up kept as playground area for the kids in this area and the K through two or something out front. Hoover: Out front? Phillips: Right here in a fenced in area with a wall. Hoover: They are going to need to show that on the plan and on the elevation. Philips: It is on the plan ma'am. Hoover: Is it on the elevation? Phillips: Yes, ma'am Estes: What, if you know, will the sanctuary remain on east Dixon Street? Phillips: No sir, the sanctuary is right there, that larger building right there. There is no gymnasium. It's just all church and classrooms and offices Hoover: I guess the other issue, if there's going to be play equipment in there, can you see it from the street? Phillips: No. It's an 8 -foot high wall. Page 57 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 58 Hoover: Phillips: Conklin: Phillips: Conklin: Hoover: Philips: Hoover: Phillips: MOTION: Hoover: Bunch: Estes: Hoover: Estes: Conklin: Phillips: Conklin: A retaining wall? A retaining wall here. When you are driving here you won't see in there. You said 18 foot high wall, what's the wall made out of? Modular block. Is that showing up on your elevation? Well, I can't tell, it's green there. It's cut off there. Are you saying then the road is up here? Yes ma'am. So you will be seeing right down into it. Into the whole play area. It will be 7 feet in height and 8 feet in height right here. I think, in the future, if there is a model, ihat goes with the plans for you to bring the model also to help explain. Frankly, I would like to make a motion that we table this until the Homeowner's Association and the building committee get together and try to resolve some of their issues before it comes back and I'm in agreement with Don that this seems incomplete to me in several areas. I'll second. I'll approve. And that was LSD 22.00. That is LSD 00-22.00. You need to come back and get a meeting together. Does this mean that additional fees and reapply? You are not going to Planning Commission. No. Page 58 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 59 Estes: No. If I understand the Motion correctly, it is that you meet with the Neighborhood Committee and come back to this Subdivision Committee. Conklin: And share your information with the building committee. Estes: If you can't resolve any of the issues you can just come back and tell us you can't resolve. Phillips: Next month's Subdivision Committee? Estes: Yes. If you can resolve come back and tell us on what issues you have resolved. Hoover. Actually, if someone from the church were here too, I think it would be helpful when you come back. Nothing to say against you but they could answer these questions directly so you are not in the middle. Phillips: I agree. I don't know what they are doing in the next 20 years. Hoover: Right. Bunch: It's important to have the church building committee involved. If we are looking at the neighbor's mortgages, how high in 30 years. You know 20, 25, 30 -year master plan. Phillips: I'm not sure they know what they are going to do in 20, 25, 30 years. Bunch: They may not have but they still need to. Maybe we need to ask them if they have one. They may not but if they are looking at growth and considering a middle school a junior high or high school that definitely has an impact on the saleability of the property and everything around it to develop and how long people's mortgages are. Conklin: Cory, just one thing. One the survey from McClellan they are showing Arapaho Drive and Lot 36 extending above this corner and the on your site plan, you show Arapaho Drive up against that corner. Phillips: I did this by the as -built plans. We'II make the survey reflect that. Conklin: So the survey is not showing correctly? Page 59 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 60 Phillips: The survey here, this piece is not showing correctly. I'll correct that next time. I thought I had. Conklin: Okay. Thank you. Page 60 • • Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 61 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, Agncultural and contains approximately 3.59 acres. The request is to build a church. Estes: The next and final item is item number 7 LSD 00-15.00 this is a Large Scale Development it's 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. We have seen this on previous Subdivision meetings. Tim, what do you need to tell us edifice and take us forward from where we left off. Conklin: Sure. At the last meeting there was a lot of concern over what was approved as a conditional use and as a variance at the Board of Adjustment and what was actually being shown. A couple of neighbors did have concerns about parking being shown east of the building, impacting their lots. They have reduced their parking lot down. Once again, this property will need a conditional use pre - approved. There was a conditional use that was applied for and approved on April 26, 1999, for a 10,300 square foot building. There is some confusion on that number with regards to that request because there was a professional office within that building and it was two-story. They have gone back and have eliminated some parking that was east of the building. A determination of the parking that's required by code is by the number of seats in the auditorium. The applicant has used calculations based on square footage of the entire building. If it's determined that the church requires more parking than is provided on site, it's shared parking agreement and parking waiver application will be required. Basically we are saying that the numbers are one parking space per four seats or one for 40 square feet. I just need to clarify that. I think what did we calculate? 50 total would be okay. Edwards: Yes. Conklin: Because they are proposing 200 people in their congregation for this facility. Curb and gutters shall be removed to the sidewalk at driveway approaches. Floodplain reference shall be corrected to include panel 103D dated July 21, 1999. Right-of- way dedication along Highway 265 shall be by warranty deed. 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. Use of the building shall be limited to uses associated with a church. No spaces for lease are to be included. And then once again the Page 61 • Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 62 Planning Commission determination of compliance with our Commercial Design Standards. Those are the eight conditions that need to be addressed this morning for Planning. Estes: Ron, do you have anything? Petne: No, sir. Estes: Kim, anything for us? Hesse: Well this is a really narrow spot. This is an A-1 so there is no canopy requirement. We did ask them to recalculate canopy preservation. Conklin: Did we get a revised Tree Preservation Plan? Or did you have one? Never got one? Hesse: It was not necessary because it's an A-1. Conklin: Okay. Hesse: There is a comment. The only thing I would add is regarding the sewer line to the east, and that is the contractor needs to go around as many trees as possible. Fox: We have that as a note. Hesse: It is not shown that way. Fox: It's a force band it can wind through the trees. We are showing it as a straight line but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. Hesse: That's all I have, thank you. Estes: I'm sorry, I didn't understand, what is your request regarding the sewer line to the east? Hesse: That we work with the contractor to wind it around larger trees. It does go so far through this preservation area. Estes: If the applicant is present would you please say your name and tell us what you think we need to hear, if anything. Page 62 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 63 Fox: My name is Gerald Fox. I'm representing the Benham Group and Lake Hills Church. The pastor of the church John Allen is sitting here beside me. We were here before as Tim has stated and we had comments from the neighbors. There have been talks with the neighbors. I personally have been on vacation for one week during the time since then so I wasn't involved in any of those conversations or meetings with Tim. I know John was and we did make revisions to the plans as Tim has stated. We are trying to address the concerns that were raised. Primarily, the concern was that more parking had been shifted to the back then what the neighbors thought would be there before. We have taken those out and have actually anticipated using more of the shared spaces of the Williams Gymnastic Center on the north. Estes: Any further items? Allen: I have a couple things to add. Estes: Yes, sir. Allen: I have a drawing of the old parking spaces in the Williams Center. We had a letter just simply saying we could have any and all the parking so why is that? So we figured that out. You can pass those around. Also, we count how many cars we have on site every Sunday morning and I brought that with me for you to review. You will see that this year, we are going back to the very beginning on our parking but you will see that we have two services. The second service has never approached one hundred cars and the requirement of 150 parking places is more than adequate. The misunderstanding about the parking has been corrected in that the last, by the way the drawing in this is not the most current drawing, this does not correspond to that page you have right in front of you there This is about four or five revisions back so I don't know where that came from. Conklin: Which drawing? Allen: This one right here does not match the one that you have right there in front of you. This is the most current one. Conklin: Yes. That was your signed agreement with the neighbors. Allen: No. I agree with that. Conklin: I know what you are saying. It's not the same drawing. Page 63 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 64 Allen: We just want to make sure everybody understands that the current one shows a double bay of parking behind the building but the last time we had four bays of parking back there. We just want to make sure that this is correct and the only reason that this is in here because we had agreed. This had to with the location of the building more than it had to do with a dozen other things. This had been revised also, not by our choice, but because we had to create a water impoundment. That's what created all the different options about changing the parking place. As it shows right now there are 95 spaces at the Williams Center and there are 59 on our property and total spaces are 154. I think the City is saying we need 150 to conform to the number of seats in the auditorium. I believe that is correct. Edwards: This calculation we are questioning a little bit because it's got the auditorium at 4200 square feet and then you have divided one seat per seven square feet so that would be using every inch of the auditorium. Instead what we are wanting to know, how many seats are you planning to place in the auditorium. We want one space per four seats. Fox: The architect made that calculation. He didn't have the exact numbers. I don't know if you do now. Allen: I'm not sure when you get inside the building. I'm not sure how many we will have but I can tell you this. Based on our attendance numbers. Fox: That number is large. Conklin: You have a general idea of how many, you're designing a building to have a service for a desired number of people. Right? Allen: Let me just do this quickly. When we first looked at this property, we had three different people in Arkansas tell us what is the maximum usage we could ever get out of this property. We wanted to build one time to do that. Rather than like so many churches around here build and then add another structure and then another and just do one thing. It's much more than we need right now but that is the maximum size building we are ever going to build on this property and so that is why there is this confusion. Our congregation, at the second service, runs about 200 or less. So if you worked out the parking there you are only talking 50 parking places or something. So we have more than enough parking places. These design numbers, part of them came out of your office because what's the most parking places you would ever need? So that's where that 150 number came Page 64 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 65 from. Conklin: Okay. We just want to know how many seats you are going to put in the building. Allen: I would say less than 200. Conklin: Well, we would probably need a plan. Fox: But then the room is actually larger than that so we can add seats. Conklin: But overall we have a shared parking agreement of 154 spaces total. Adding yours with gymnastics. Fox: Right. Conklin: Which would give you what 600? Allen: Yes, 600 people which is three times more than we have. Edwards: I want to say if we determined that you want to use these numbers which I think are really high, then we need a shared parking agreement. We need you to come in and fill out a parking waiver, pay the fee, get it in writing, the whole deal and send it to the Planning Commission with your conditional use and large scale. Conklin: We need to bring that forward. I gave you this information to help get the parking numbers on gymnastics. We do need the form filled out and a letter from Mr. Meineke. Fox: We had a form filled out once before. We can do it again but we just said we would share all the parking and at that time we were only looking at like 70 over there. If we need a new one, we can do that. That's not a problem. Conklin: It just states that we want a letter and an agreement signed by Mr. Meineke saying that during these hours or is it 24/7 days a week that you can use those spaces. That is what we are looking for. It can't be shared by more than one user at the same time. So, if there is a gymnastic event going on Sunday, there is going to be a problem. Allen: Sure. Page 65 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 66 Conklin: I think it's great I think it's wonderful We encourage shared parking. I'm glad you went to your neighbors to the north. I'm not trying to be argumentative about it I think it's great. Bunch: They will get utilization of that sidewalk too. Conklin: That's right. Fox: If they park down there they are going to have to walk up the sidewalk. Bunch: How far is it? Just out of curiosity to walk around from the Williams Center to the church? I understand it's right here. Fox: They church is right here. Bunch: Sometimes when there is a sidewalk that doesn't connect to anything this would be some utilization for it eventually. Fox: Right. TAPE two Bunch: The idea would be to come out from this area to come out to the existing sidewalk and then to come around and tie in here and come in this area. It would be the walking distance as opposed to linear distance. Fox: That would be sometime in future that would be needed because right now there are plenty of spaces for the people that are going on the church property. Bunch: We are dealing with, in the future, that is one of the concerns is how distant is the shared parking is from the actual usage. Allen: Well from the Williams Center to our property is zero because our property meets each other. To get from his parking lot to our parking lot, for instance, we are talking 60 feet perhaps. The only thing that we could do that makes sense would be to build a sidewalk from the edge of his building to the edge of our driveway so to speak. Which would make it a pretty straight. Fox: I think you probably wouldn't get it back there and connect it in here somewhere because their septic system is in that area. Page 66 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 67 Allen: I'm just saying that would be the obvious thing to do rather than make people walk in the street. Fox: Allen: One thing that I failed to mention we were asked last time to back and talk to Mr. Meineke about purchasing the property for the access easement by one of the Commissioners. Mr. Meineke stated he is not interested in selling that property. That he had no problem with his letter which is attached back here suggests. Our driveway only goes across his property about two feet out near the road and it's a very small portion across his property. It's not like we are parking right in middle of the street. Fox: It's a little more than two feet. Allen: Whatever it is. Estes: Anything further? Fox: There was also some discussion before about the elevation on the south side. Allen: Here's the four elevations and the original drawing was just a schematic of the building and if you look at this, probably be your second page, the part that says the southern elevation. First of all, the building is below ground on the east end about six feet and then with trees and so forth you can hardly the building. We lowered this roof line six feet out of consideration for the neighbors but originally we have two floors in there. So we have already reduced it six feet which also reduces the impact from the south view. Hoover: What kind of trees are these? Fox: These are existing trees. Allen: Well, there are some existing trees. Hoover: Are they deciduous or evergreen? Allen: They are all oaks Well now this is a tree removed and that has to be replaced. That's where the trees are to be planted in there. Bunch: The 24, I'm assuming the leatherleafviburnums. That's what is showing on the Page 67 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 68 plan and that is what we have to go by. Fox: Right but there are already trees there that's outside that. Bunch: Well I don't see those. Hoover: They are not on your property. Fox: No, they are. There are some on our property. They are along that edge. Bunch: We have to go by what we have in front of us Fox: I'm just trying to show you what the view looks like. Bunch: Right, but we need to have that information that tells us that because it's showing us this and if it doesn't correspond with this Fox: What you didn't have before was what is really there. Now we are showing you what it really looks like because we are sitting down and there is a retaining wall. We are not disturbing what's behind that retaining wall. We are trying to show you what it really looks like. Estes: What is your concern? Bunch: This is not this. Estes: Okay. Fox: That is additional planting there. Estes: This page it looks like shoulder to shoulder what? Bunch: I'm assuming it says 24 leatherleaf viburnums. Estes: Those are shrubs those aren't trees. Bunch: Right, so that's shrubs so there are no trees shown here. Conklin: What are those trees coming from? Page 68 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 69 Estes: On the south elevation. Conklin: This is Tu's property? Fox: There are trees on the property already on Mrs. Tu's property, yes. Conklin: So you are showing the trees on your elevation are off of this property. Fox: No. Some are on the property. Bunch: You are showing six existing trees at lined up there at even distances between them? Fox: This isn't a photograph. Estes: It's your concern that this is just an artist rendering and not really what's there? Conklin: That's not what is being planted there. Because you have 9.83 feet of retaining wall. Are you saying there are going to be trees saved? Fox: No sir. There is not going to be trees saved in between the property line. There will not. Conklin: Why are you showing the trees? Fox: We are trying to show you what it looks like. Conklin: If the Tu's don't develop their property. Fox: They have developed their property and have left the trees there. If you want us to erase the trees fine, but we are trying to show you what it looks like. Allen: If you go back to this thing that shows the canopy you will see that there is 40 or 50 feet of canopy on their side of the property. I understand what you are saying but I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Bunch: To me the screening of your property of your building it's incumbent upon you to do it within your property not within say well this is what the neighbors have. Allen: Sure. I understand. If they said if we build one house, Mrs. Tu is here she can tell Page 69 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 70 Estes: you, if we build our house in middle of the property what are we going to see when we forward. Well unless she takes down her 40 feet of property this is basically what she sees. That's the only reason this was done so everybody could have an idea of what that looks like. Anything further? Is there any member of the audience present who would like to provide us with their comments regarding agenda item number 7? If so, would you please come forward and say your name and provide us with your thoughts. Bunch: A question before we have them here for public comments. Is this what this looks like without the trees? Fox: No. Right here this is what it would look like if you didn't have the retaining wall to the dashed line. Bunch: The dashed line? Fox: That would be where the retaining wall is. So you actually can't see the lower part of that. I understand that part. At the top of the wall we are also, as you pointed out, planting the shrubs. Bunch: Fox: Bunch: Right. In this view the shrubs are slightly visible back up in here. Something is visible. This is basically what it looks like without the neighbors trees and without the shrubs and that sort of thing. Fox: That's right. Bunch: Okay. So these do represent that same thing. Fox: That's right. Bunch: They are not totally different drawings? Fox: No. Estes: Mrs. Tu before you make your remark Chuck would like to provide us with some additional information. Page 70 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 71 Rutherford: On your, showing your sidewalk. You need to remove that curb and gutter line that's in the sidewalk and just for information that's on the sheet there. Fox: I realize I need to do that for the construction plans do I need to it another set of plans and come back. Okay. Rutherford: And that driveway approach will be important to submit. Fox: Okay. The reason that was not on this particular one, I heard that in the meeting last time but I was gone on vacation when the plans had been revised. I apologize for that. Tu: Can you stay for a second? Fox: Sure. Tu: My name is Amy Tu and we are the owners of the property to the south adjacent to the property in question. This is what I have in terms of the plan, current plan that you are proposing to the Committee and I just wanted a little more clarification that this is actually what you have submitted. Fox: Yes. Tu: Is that correct? Fox: That's correct. Tu.: The second thing I need is clarification on the south side. Along this drawing is a fifteen -foot setback along the entire length of the property and per our agreement it was only a 15 -foot setback for the length of the building. Here I see these parking spaces and I would like some clanfication on the parking spaces with why they are going over that fifteen foot. Why they are not even within the 20 foot which is required by regulation. Fox: Tu: Fox: The fifteen foot is the building setback is what we were working with. What we agreed to correct. That is not the same as the parking but if it would help to take out a couple of parking spaces. Page 71 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 72 Estes: Tu: Could we do this? Could we receive Mrs. Tu's comments and then we will bring it back to the applicant and you can make notes. Mrs. Tu you have questions or comments, perhaps you could make some notes and respond. I think that will get us out of here a little quicker. My second point is the clarification on the setback because the agreement was fifteen feet along the length of the building and the remaining portions would be as required by regulations. The third point is finally, it should be noted. Estes: Wait you were interrupted a moment ago. What was your first comment. Tu: My first was confirmation that this plan is what was submitted. Estes: Okay and then your second one is the building setback and that you would like to see that extended to the parking space's setback. Tu: Right. So if that means kicking out a couple of parking spaces then I would be agreeable to that. Estes: Okay and then what's your third? Tu: The third point is that it should be notified here that I will not agree to any further push back parking spaces. That this is our agreement. It's agreeable to me if there are certain spaces that are kicked out. That's it. Estes: Any other comments? Yes sir, if you would come forward please and say your name. Rimbey: My name is James Rimbey. I'm the neighbor to the immediate north. We have reviewed the drawings with the representative of the church. Just a couple of points about the package I have in my hand. You pointed out that this is the wrong drawing. Is that right? Conklin: When you say that wrong drawing, we put that in there as a drawing that had initials from all the property owners, yes that is not what we are considering but I don't have any other drawings. Estes: I think that's in the packet because at the last Subdivision Committee meeting a Commissioner said there was a signed plat or signed footprint let's see it but I think that is why that's in there. Page 72 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 73 Rimbey: I understand, I'm just trying to make sure that everybody is on the same playing field. The page before that, the proposal it states parking 150 sites required and there are numbers printed. This is dated July fifth. If those numbers are, in fact, revised I would like the revised numbers to go before Planning and Zoning not these numbers. Conklin: The letter submitted to our office from the applicant. Yes. They do not accurately reflect. Rimbey I would like what was proposed and represented today to be with their application. Estes: Let me say this the second condition of approval is determination of parking required by code. Are you asking that the applicant fix and commit to the numbers that are in the packet today? I don't understand what you are asking. Rimbey: Well, I'm just saying that the page that is dated July fifth these are numbers that they are not using today. I would like for whatever document that goes forward in the future reflects the numbers that they state today. Rather than carrying these numbers forward. Do you follow what I'm saying? Estes: Yes I do In determination of parking requirements by code is going to be a condition that is going to be addressed at the full Planning Commission. Rimbey: Okay. Estes: And I have some concerns about that. It was talked about just a minute ago. Rimbey Are we on the same wavelength? Conklin: Yes. We are dealing with different pieces of paper at different times. Things are changing. What I try to do and Sara we put in our staff report for the Commission on the drawing that gets approved. We'll stamp it, it'll say Planning Commission Approved and date it this is what's been approved this is what the conditional use applies for and we don't want any additional parking lots or buildings built in the future. Rimbey: That's my next point. I'm off parking. There is also a statement on here. This is just a clarification. This is not an issue. The word "possibly" is in the wording on that July fifth. At this time, we propose only to use the outside of the building for parking and possibly a playground. Where would the possible playground be? Is Page 73 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 74 that in the front of the building? So I hear affirmative? Allen: Yes. Rimbey: I note that the placement of the dumpster, I don't think I have any public comment on that. I'm directly upwind. The other question I have was the sewer line, are they going to try and bury that through the trees? I think somebody said that would go through the center of the property. In other words, they are not going to take down the trees on the immediate south or the immediate north of the property. Sloan: It is 20 feet away from the property line. They will try to take down the least amount of trees as possible. Rimbey: My concerns have been addressed and would ask that you go ahead and approve it. Estes: Thanks for attending and thank you for your time. Rimbey: Thank you for your attention. Estes: If I could bring it back to the applicant now would you please comment on the specific items raised by Mrs. Tu. Fox: That letter that he was talking about, is that one that reproduced? Conklin: Yes. Fox: Do we need to redo a new letter with new numbers? That's my question. I don't know if that was a staff letter that I was seeing there or if it was from the church. Conklin: No. I didn't write it you didn't write it. Edwards: I didn't write it. Estes: We can take care of that in a minute because I have a question about that. Fox: Well it does represent the numbers of our original submissions Conklin: It says Lake Hills Church on it. Page 74 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 75 Allen: Estes: Fox: I know it says that but I don't know. We'll deal with that in a minute. Mrs. Tu had some issues regarding building setbacks. Okay. Let me ask a question of Tim and Sara on the issue of the building setback. Our. building is setback 15 feet and there is no overhang in those as I understand. What are the requirements outside that for parking and various things? Are we violating that? Conklin: With regard to parking it's five feet. Now I can tell you that the neighbors here what they talked about at the Board of Adjustment they probably thought that included parking but we only have setbacks for buildings. Our standard is five feet. But once again this is a conditional use. You have to determine that it's compatible with the adjacent properties. I'm not saying you can't require a greater distance on the parking. With regard to the building setback they only granted the approval just for the building we do need to correct that for the side. Allen: Fox: What was the last thing you said? I missed that too. Conklin: The setback for the building. They only granted the variance for the building footprint. Fox: Right. Conklin: So we can't show the variance on the building. Fox: So you want me change and show a setback here that's 30 whatever. Conklin: Thirty-five feet or thirty. I'll have to check. I don't have my code book with me right now. You have yours? Estes: Is that it? Allen: There's one thing she about parking that we wouldn't push the parking back. I assume she means we wouldn't go back to the previous plan. • Estes: I think she is talking about the two, I was going to ask about that when we bring it Page 75 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 76 Allen: back to the Committee, so why don't you let me do that? Well I just want to make a point here. I want everybody to understand that we are not saying for the rest of all time and eternity we are never going to build anymore parking because we may have to come back and put more parking back there some day. But realistically I told Mr. Rimbey that it could be five or ten years or more. We may have to put more parking back there some day but for right now we don't want to do that. Fox: Of course, to do it we have to come back here with another plan. Estes: Do you want to address anything else that came out of the public comment? Fox: No. Estes: Okay. I'll bring it back to the Subdivision Committee and let me start if I could with this. Ms. Tu what is the issue with the two parking spaces back there? I understand that fifteen -foot setback and the Board of Adjustment and so on. Are you wanting them to wipe out two parking spaces and if so what is that going to accomplish and why? Tu: Yes because if we were to build a home on that particular property there is only a certain amount of this that level and I would like to have the least amount of visibility toward these cars as possible. So two spaces, actually one space on each side. Estes: You were talking about taking two spaces back off. Tu: Yes. Estes: What does the applicant say to that? Allen: It depends on how many feet back she is talking about. Estes: If I understand what she is saying is she is asking you to take out two of these parking spots so your building setback line runs go down the parking lot. Allen: She wants to go back to the original 20? Fox: She wants to run her deal across here. Page 76 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 77 ??: ??. Estes: Estes: Just keep the parking lot 20 feet from the property line? Yes. Get back to the normal setback. Is that fine? Fine. Okay. Commissioner Hoover, Commissioner Bunch? Any motions, comments? Hoover: I think, do you have on your list of items, determining the occupant load of the building so we can determine what the parking needs really are? The auditorium space has to have an occupant load to determine the fire code regulation and surely somewhere on the plans. I mean wouldn't that help us out on this parking number actual? Allen: We were told the City required 150 parking spaces based on the size of the auditorium. Now how they got from there to there I don't know but that's what we have been working from day one. Conklin: It's one per 40 square feet of auditorium space. Or one per four seats whichever is less. Hoover: Oh, whichever is Tess. Allen: So if you work on 40 square feet what does that give you? 150? Conklin: 105. But they are sharing parking so they have 152 shared. Hoover: I know there is plenty but do we need to get the numbers actually clarified. Conklin: I'm all for clarification, Sharon. I'm not going to sit here and say. Sloan: Can we get what you guys require and also calculate what you require? If you can give us the numbers, formula and calculation. Estes: For the record, who is this gentleman over here? Sloan: I'm Charlie Sloan. I'm a member of the church. Page 77 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 78 Bunch: You mentioned a playground in front of the church. Where would that be? Allen: This drawing down here. It would be in this area right here. This is all grass right here. Hoover: Will there be a fence around the playground. I mean I'm assuming it's on 265 you would worry about it. I just think that you should show that on the plan. Fox: Even if you got down here you have a barm down here between them and the street. Not that kids can't climb over that but. Bunch: On this rim elevation on this right here. I'm trying to see how it sticks up and everything would be secured by this line. Fox: I can just tell you I will do a much closer technical check on the plans as we revise them. I wasn't here when they came out the last time. I wasn't in town. Hopefully we can get that. Allen: There will definitely be a fence around the playground, I can promise you that. Hoover: I think you better show that on the plan before it goes to the Planning Commission for approval. Conklin: Just for the record, there is no preschool, daycare in this facility? Were considered, right? Allen: Preschool, daycare, how do you define that? Conklin: That you hire someone and you bring your kids and you drop them off and someone takes care of them and you pick them up later. Edwards: At times other than church service. Conklin: Other times other than church service. Allen: I wouldn't want to say no that will never happen. Conklin: But we are not considering that part of this. Hoover: They would have to come back for approval of that? Page 78 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 79 Fox: That wouldn't be a standard church activity? Conklin: Yes on Sundays during service but like Central United Methodist when you are having daycare you are compensating someone to take care of your child. I would consider that different. Allen: Let me ask you over here on number seven on page two of this thing, it says use of the building shall be limited to uses associated with a church. Is that a City definition of what a church can do or what? Conklin: I just gave you my interpretation that if you are planning on having daycare you need to inform me, the Subdivision Committee, your neighbors and the entire Planning Commission. Allen: Well I would say that is a possibility. What about vacation bible school. What about AA meeting? I just need to hear from you if that's what you require because I can give you a list of every possible ministry we could ever have. That certainly would be one of them and I hate to say oh nos we'll never do that. Conklin: Well if you want to do something like that we can just come back to the Commission. Estes: Let me say this and make this a part of the record. My attention was directed to the phrase shall be limited to the uses associated with a church. That's a compulsory shell. To me I could list the things for you that are not included rather than the things that are inclusive of and I would not think that would include primary or secondary school or would include daycare. It would include worship, Sunday school, teaching, community ministries, those things, whatever. Allen: There was also some question about conditional uses. I still don't know where this came from but it says here. Estes: Wait a minute. Let's go back to that now. If there is going to be a primary, secondary or daycare Bob Estes would like to know that. Allen: Well then I would. I'm just feeling uncomfortable saying the City is going to be determining what kind of programs your church can have. I would think would be put in here because we originally had thought about having some commercial space. We were going to rent out offices and stuff and we have no plans to do that. I understand that. But this means we can only worship two times a week or Page 79 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 80 however the City determines. Conklin: The City is not doing that. All I'm asking, as a conditional use, different uses have different impacts just as we heard from St. Joseph's. Cars coming in and cuing up or as he referred to it snaking through the parking lot how your children are being picked up. Those are the things the Commission needs to know. Estes: Would our U.D.O. have defined these sorts of things? Could you turn to that? Conklin: Yes. • Estes: What we are talking about is the use See you have brought before us a conditional use and we need to know what you are intended use is. Let's go to the U.D.O. Conklin: Sure. Under use unit, cultural or recreational facilities. Consists of cultural recreational uses to serve the residents of the community. It lists childcare centers, nursery school, church, school, elementary, high school. So it breaks it out different types of uses. Hospitals, community centers. So these are separate. Estes: Does that include uses we've got church, we got a separate use for a childcare center, nursery school? Conklin: They are broken out. Estes: Is primary and secondary school in there? Conklin: Yes, that's broken out. Estes: So that's all within that use unit. Conklin: Yes all within that use unit all that you can consider as a cultural and recreational use Estes: See that's what we are going for. Let me see that will you. Bunch: This was one of my concerns. Normally associated with church type usages do not interfere with business traffic. This is on 265 and close to intersection 265 and where it's Old Wire Road and that is a very high traffic area at 7:00 or 8:00 in the morning. If they have people dropping off kids trying to cross that highway Page 80 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 81 Allen: Estes: without a turnaround, it will tie everything up. Considerable other consideration and that's why we are concerned about schools and that sort of thing. These are things that happen at times other than normal church activities. We are not talking about Wednesday night, during the day time in the summer time, vacation bible school, Sundays. These are not times for peak traffic To use it for something else, we need to look at that. If this were like Kinder Care separately private organization, I would understand that. But to say that as a church, we have twenty different things going in the course of the week. I just took exception to this where it says limited to the use associated with a church. My question is well who's going to define that? If we decide to have a vacation bible school how do we know someone's not going to say you are impacting the traffic. Who determines whether it's associated with a church or not? I'm on board with you that was my concern. That caught my eye. Shall be limited to usage associated with a church. Your question comes back to the Planning Director. Conklin: Then if you don't like my interpretation you can appeal that. Then the Board of Adjustment can determine if my interpretation of what use associated with a church is correct or incorrect. Fox: Tim, let me ask a question. Conklin: I'm not trying to be difficult. Fox: Is vacation bible school? Conklin: I would say that is associated with a church. Allen: What are you saying is not associated with a church? Conklin: I would say its child care five days a week. You hire someone and you are receiving compensation is child care facility. Allen. How many churches in this town do you think you will have that weekly kind of child care? Estes: Most of them. Few of them don't. Page 81 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 82 Allen: Would you consider that a regular church ministry if more than half of the churches have it? I mean I would. Conklin: I don't know. Estes: I don't know. Bunch: I don't know. Conklin: But if you want to add that you can add that in there. What I'm trying to do is I want your neighbors to know what you are doing and I want your Planning Commission to know what you are doing. I want to know what you are doing. That's all I'm trying to do hear. It was certainly an issue with St. Joseph neighbor. How to pick up the kids. Fox: That was a primary school. Sloan: My kids go to Shiloh and I wouldn't say this is like Shiloh by any means. Estes: That's how Shiloh started. I have a 29 -year-old son that was the charter enrollee at Shiloh He was in the first class. This started out as being a daycare Rimbey: I know it's not time for public comment. Estes: No that's over with but go ahead. Rimbey: I hope that this doesn't muddy the water but one of the first questions I asked when I saw the plans the way they were drawn is, is this a school or can this be a school? The answer was "No." Estes: I don't mean to be. I'm Just trying to follow what I think we are supposed to be doing here. This is a use unit four and a use unit four is broken down specifically. One of them is a church, one is a riding stable, one is nursery school. You have come to use and ask for a conditional use so to fit you into that use unit four Bob Estes needs to know what you are going to do out there. Are you going to have a riding stable and charge people to ride horses or are you going to have a nursery school and charge people to take care of their children? I need to know which one of those boxes to fill out for you. If there are, one of those boxes you are going to do but are not telling me about, I need to know. I tell you we don't have any self enforcement mechanism in place. We depend on the community and when Mrs. Page 82 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 83 Tu comes to us and says "Mr. Conklin you know they are running a nursery school out there." Then we are all going to be sitting down here again and talking about it. So we need to know. Allen: Well I can give you a list of every possible ministry we might ever involve in. Estes: Don't do that. That's why I showed you the U.D.O. If you have never seen a U.D.O. before that's why I showed rt to you. I showed you the page you need to be looking at Just look at use unit four and just tell us are you going to be doing anything that's in there? If so, let's talk about it. Are you going to charge people money to come out there and ride horses? There's swimming pools in there. Are you going to build a swimming pool and charge people $2.00 to come out there and swim in your swimming pool? We just need to know those things. Are you going to have a nursery school and charge folks money to take care of their children? We need to know that. We don't need to know about AA meeting or Sunday school meeting or food banks or those other sorts of things. Allen: Well we are going to have a library. Is this part of this deliberation today? Conklin: Apparently, Sloan wrote that. Allen: Oh he did? Oh, okay. Conklin: That did not come from the City of Fayetteville. That came from one of your parishioners. Allen: Bunch: Conklin: I just take exception to one word here because of having to do the use of hours. But if we can change that it would be fine. Did you do that? It says proposed to build a church with the following operating hours and I would say the main hours of operation be open. One of the conditions I want to do is to put on there no schools. Do we put conditions on at this point it time? As a conditional use. Yes. Conditional uses go along with it. That's why I offered to have you three if you have an issue or something I would like to be aware what you think is appropriate for a condition to be placed on this development. Then as a Planning Commission you all vote on it. Bunch: One of the conditional uses I would definitely consider would be not to have a Page 83 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 84 Estes: Allen: school or daycare center, for hire public daycare center. Or a school or whatever language we need to place that out to include nursery schools, K through 12, commercial daycare operation. A condition that those would not be included in the usage on this property because of it's location and traffic impacts. I think you have gone directly to the issue Commissioner Bunch. You used the word public for hire. Mothers Day Out is certainly a ministry I think would be afforded under a church purpose. Providing parishioners for the Mothers Day Out program or Dads Day Out program or whatever you want to call it. The note that I made was no public for hire daycare, no schools. Well if you are talking K through 12 type schools I would be for that. But I just see a possibility for childcare weekday ministry and I would hate to say right now that we are never going to do that. I don't think it's the City's business to say you can do this ministry but you can't do this ministry. We see childcare as part of the ministry of the church. A school? I think you kind of jumped the line when it comes to something else. Bunch: I think one of the City's concerns were, where it does become the City's business, you are asking for a conditional use for a specific site. Had you chosen another site, we might not be sitting here having this conversation. It might have already been concluded a year ago or whenever it was this process first started. But you have chosen to be on one of the busier streets in our community. We are having to look at the hours that there are usages of that street and the various properties. Not all businesses up and down that street have everyone show up at 8:00 or 8:30 or 7:30. People dropping children off for daycare is at prime time. I have looked at traffic on 45 and on 265 at peak periods of the morning and there is fairly busy traffic I'm not wanting to, by my action as a Commissioner, I'm not wanting to further bottle that traffic up. If your property had an access over to Old Wire Road or whatever the east west road is to where you can get to the traffic signal that would be a completely different story. But right now we are just a couple of buildings away from a traffic signal and the combination of that traffic signal and no turn lanes. Allen: Oh, there is a turn lane isn't there? There are two lanes there. Bunch: Is there a turn lane there? Allen: There's a center lane. Page 84 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 85 Conklin: Three lanes yes. • Bunch: The question is which way is it striped? I've forgotten about that. Is that a suicide lane or a left turn lane? Conklin: It's just a suicide lane. Bunch: Is the signal light close enough? With that in mind I feel that the City does have a concern with conditional use. Estes: Tim, first of all let me ask you this, is it permissible for us to place a restriction that there be no public for hire daycare schools or primary or secondary schools? Conklin: Yes. Estes: And if the applicant wants to come back or change it six or nine months from now or has more definition to their planned use can they come back and ask for that? Conklin: Sure. Estes: Where do they ask for that? Where does that go? Conklin: Goes back to Planning Commission. Estes: To Planning Commission and not to Subdivision? Conklin: No. Bunch: Let me clarify what I was saying. Public for a hire daycare center and then schools period whether it's a church school for parishioners only. Estes: The note I made was no public for hire daycare, schools primary or secondary. Bunch: Right but there would not be, want the public for hire to include, more or less a private school where you charge tuition. I wanted it open to the public but still charging tuition if that makes sense. Dust wanted the public for hire to not be inclusive with the schools. That would be for the daycare. Estes: So just eliminate the word public and just no for hire daycare, schools primary or secondary. Page 85 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 86 Bunch: Okay. Estes: Is that what you want? Bunch: Basically that would be subject to review by the Planning Commission and if they don't accept it they don't accept it. Or if they want to reword it then that's up to them. But just to have a starting point to get it on the record is just one of our concerns. Estes: Anything further? Commissioner Hoover? Hoover: My only comment would be the south elevation and I'll have to drive by. I'm assuming that is going to be able to be seen by the road at sometimes of the year. Fox: No. Hoover: It's not? Fox: I can't imagine that will be able to see that. Conklin: It's heavily wooded back in there. Fox: Its way back from the road. Up the hill and way back. Hoover: Well I'll have to go by and look. That's my only comment. Fox: We'll have to take some trees down for you to see it. Hoover: How far back from the road is the building? Fox: Its way back there. From the actual paved area we are 235 feet roughly. Bunch: I have a question about floodplain. Estes: Commissioner Bunch? Bunch: It's showing on here the floodplain on the east end of the building lands in the 100 - year floodplain. Fox: You mean on the east end of the property. Page 86 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 87 Bunch: Fox: Bunch: Fox: MOTION: Estes: Edwards. Hoover: Estes: Hoover: Estes: Bunch: Estes: Conklin: East end of the property? Yes. That's associated with the creek to the east. You will notice that is at a higher elevation than everything else on the property. We are right up here with the building and this is higher in here then it drops off drastically. Commissioners, I am going to move that we forward to the full Planning Commission LSD 00-15.00 and I'm going to pay particular attention at the full Planning Commission to the determination of the parking required by code and I will speak in favor of an additional condition that there be no for hire daycare schools primary or secondary and this is in addition to all staff comments. Some of the notes I've made are sewer lines to the east to be located with consultation with the contractor. We need to see a shared parking agreement, whatever is missing or lacking. Sara we need to see that. Of course there have been some technical comments such as remove curb lines on the sidewalks and the two parking spaces in the southeast corner of the project to be removed. The other thing I have is Sharon wanted them to show the playground. Yes, please. I can't see the playground. There is a motion on the table. Oh, second. Sony. Commissioner Bunch? Concur. Mr. Conklin, is there any more business before the Subdivision Committee? No. Page 87 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2000 Page 88 Estes: We will be adjourned until the next regular or special called meeting. Conklin: Thank you very much everybody. Page 88