Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-28 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, September 28, 2000 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN AD 00-34.00: Administrative Item (Frazer, pp 520) Approved Page 2 LSD 00-29.00: Large Scale Development Forwarded (The Mill District LLC, pp 523) Page 5 LS 00-30.00: Lot Split (Palmer, pp 572) Approved Page 27 AD 00-35.00: Large Scale Development Approved (Tnnity Temple, pp 252) Page 30 MEMBERS PRESENT Lee Ward Laurel Hoffman Bob Estes STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Sam Edwards Kim Rogers MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Perry Franklin Ron Petrie Chuck Rutherford Kim Hesse Subdivision Committee • September 28, 2000 Page 2 • • AD 00-34.00: Administrative Item (Frazer, pp 520) was submitted by John Phillips of United Built Homes on behalf of Jessie and Hazel Frazer for property located at 1520 W. Nettleship Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.172 acres. The request is to erect a new single family home on a non -conforming lot of record and to then remove the existing structure. Hoffman: Good morning. I would like to welcome everybody to the Subdivision Committee on September 28, 2000. We have three items on our agenda this morning. The first is an Administrative Item for a non -conforming lot. The second is a Large Scale Development for The Mill District. The third is a Lot Split for Palmer. If you are here for anything else, please leave. Estes: You forgot number four. Hoffinan: They keep me up to date. Number four is an Administrative Item for the Trinity Temple. That being said, if you are here for anything besides these four items, you can get out now. We'll get started with number one AD 00-34.00 which is an Administrative Item for Frazer. It is for the construction of a new single-family home on a non -conforming lot of record. Tim? Conklin: Good morning. This is an Administrative Item. Under our ordinance number 16407(b), Non -Conforming Lots of Record, it states that in a previously developed subdivision platted prior to June 29, 1970 and with approval of the Subdivision Committee a new single-family dwelling or repair to a existing single-family dwelling may be constructed in all residential zoning to keep with the existing standard of the neighborhood so long as the interior side setback is no less than five feet. That's why this is before you. It's a 50 foot wide lot. They are required to have 70 feet. They also have requested to be able to build a new house and live in the old one. After the new one is finished, demolish the old one and move into the new one. I can tell you, our first response was "No, I don't want two dwellings on one lot because if you can live in the old one right now, my fear was that "Boy that looks nice, move into the new one and get $350 a month in front of your new house." As a conditional of approval that we won't issue a final Certificate of Occupancy until the old structure is removed. Otherwise, staff is recommending approval and in our opinion will be consistent in that area allowing a single-family home. Estes: Can we approve this at this level? Conklin: Yes. Subdivision Committee • September 28, 2000 Page 3 Hoffman: I have one question. What is the side setback, are they less than 5 feet? Conklin: They are actually 9 feet with the new house. Hoffman: Okay. So we are actually, other than the lot meeting the setbacks? Conklin: They are meeting the setbacks, yes. Estes: They got 20 feet on the back of the new house, 8 feet on the north and south of the new house, is that right? Conklin: 9 feet. 9 on the west side, 17 on the east side, 20 feet on the north side and probably 80 feet from the front property line on Nettleship. It's a 24 foot wide house. Hoffman: Would anybody from the public like to comment on this item or is there an applicant here to make a presentation? • Phillips: My name is John Phillips. It's not United Built Homes. I represent Southland Homes on my own. This is just an error on the paperwork. This old house is about to fall down around them actually. It's in bad shape and she is wanting out of it as soon as possible. Hoffman: She does understand about the demolition? • Phillips: Yes. Very much so. She is willing to sign something before hand that the house is going to come down or whatever she needs to do. Hoffman: Okay. Estes: That means they will have to relocate for a couple of days. Does she understand that? Conklin: We will give her a temporary. Estes: Okay. Hoffman: That being the case and I assume we will get the contractor of record cleared up and we have the owner of record and everything. • Subdivision Committee September 28, 2000 Page 4 MOTION: Ward: I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve, at this level, AD 00-34.00 with all staff comments. • • Estes: I'll second. Hoffman: Thank you. I'll concur. Thank you very much. Phillips: Thank you. • Subdivision Committee September 28, 2000 Page 5 LSD 00-29.00: Large Scale Development (The Mill District LLC, pp 523) was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of The Mill District LLC for property located at northwest corner of 6`h and School. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 129 acres The request is to build 22,722 square feet Commercial Space and 11 apartments. Hoffman: Second item of business is LSD 00-29.00 a Large Scale Development for The Mill District. This property is zoned C-2 and I-1. It contains approximately 3.29 acres. The request is to build a 22,722 square foot Commercial Space and 11 apartments. I still don't have an agenda, if somebody can give me one. The white part. Conklin: Sorry about that. Hoffman: You gave me this two weeks ago so I guess it got modified sometime between then and now. Conklin: Typically, you won't have the staff report until today. • Hoff ivan: Okay. Mr Conklin would you start us off? Conklin: This project is known as The Mill District. I think everybody is aware of where it's located on School Street and Sixth Street, on the northwest corner. Used to be the old Campbell Soup Feed Mill building. Also, there was a office building up along Sixth Street. There's also what they are calling a concrete block Low Boy Building, they are calling it on the plans, existing. It came to Planning Commission a month ago with regard to the Master Street Plan right-of-way issue which we did amend. There used to be a Master Street Plan proposed along this railroad corridor that they acquired. That has been amended over to Government Avenue. In that exchange, they agreed to build a trail and dedicate it to the City of Fayetteville. Parks Board has acted on that request and has agreed to allow them to use that land dedication to meet their park fee requirement for the 11 residential units of the project. It's a mixed use project. I think I'll let the applicant go over what each building will have in it after I'm done with my presentation. I think that will probably be helpful They do want to utilized corrugated metal siding on parts of this project. It's a little different from what we have seen in the past. Staff is in support of utilizing the metal siding. I do need to make you aware that Commercial Design Standards say that metal siding which dominates the main facade... One of the reasons why we are looking at • supporting that is it is mixed use and it is residential up above in the upper floors of this project. It's not a complete commercial project. If it was all residential our • Subdivision Committee September 28, 2000 Page 6 Commercial Design Standards, I don't believe, would apply. The Commercial Design Standards are one of the things that we will have to take a look at this morning. Condition number two, requested waiver to reduce the 15 feet of green space between the south property line and east -west drive. Staff is in support of this request. What area I'm talking about is, this driveway right here typically would have 15 feet of landscaping from the property line back. This is an existing building that currently goes up Sixth Street. They are demolishing it up to this part and they want to get this drive-in at that location to provide circulation. Hoffman: Is this a large landscaped area on this side that I see? Brackett: It's gravel now, it's going to be grass. Conklin: This project has been scaled back quite a bit. During pre -application conferences with the developer... Estes: Tim, may I interrupt and clarify? • Conklin: Yes. Estes: You said it's going to be grass. The note says landscaping could be installed in this area. Brackett: It's gravel now. It's going to be grass. Chris Brackett, Jorgensen and Associates. Pickett: We have someone, Travis Brooks working on the landscaping plan for that area. My name is Kristen Pickett. I'm representing Robert Sharp Architect. Conklin: This landscaped area, they originally had three new buildings proposed and I guess to make sure you are aware that they could come back and eventually ask for additional development on the site, that's what their long range plans had in the beginning. They have not requested that at this time. Hoffman: I would like that instead of just landscaped areas noted there then we would say "future phase" or something so somebody knows that we were aware of it and that we have counted for parking for it. Conklin: We have not done the parking calculations for it. • Brackett: That was their original concept was to have buildings there. They have gone back to where they are going to go with this and we are going to see how this works out Subdivision Committee September 28, 2000 Page 7 and if they in the future decide they want to go here, that was the initial concept. I don't even know if you could say that it's 50/50 that anything would ever go in there. Conklin: With regard to the parking, in these pre -submittal meetings we had a lot of discussion on trying to show how this parking would be shared between the residential and the commercial and there was a request to be given consideration for sharing this parking. In this proposal, there isn't so they are meeting the parking with what they are showing. It's kind of difficult to show that parking on this future because they wanted something else. Estes: That was my concern and I asked the question that I asked because I remember that we saw this before as an undeveloped area and if it is a phase one and phase two, I wanted to develop that and that was my question. You've got in landscaped, you said it was going to be sodded. Tell us what is happening. Brackett: The original plan was for that to be developed and there would be additional parking. They scaled this project back so they don't know if that's going to be feasible. They don't even know if they are going to and if it is, they don't know if they are going to have one building here or two or three or what. I guess what I'm saying, this is all they know that they are going to be able to do. Pickett: It would be landscaped in the meantime before it went on to a phase two. Hoffman: My concern is that we are getting into a situation. Let's back up and say "Have we met all of the issues?" I don't know if there is tree preservation issues on this site at all but those kinds of things. This is sort of like a Kohl's and tenant B scenario. We need to make sure that not only can this project stand along in it's compliance but if we are going to plan for the future, that we don't approve something that you cannot use later on. Would you have to have structured parking underneath your building and things like that. Brackett. That's so far ahead, we don't know that. Conklin: Unfortunately, our Tree and Landscape Administrator is not with us this morning. I will try to get our staff, other division people here at these meetings. They are scheduled to be here in advance so I'm not sure why they can't keep their calendars clear. Hoffman: We can get reports from all of them though. Subdivision Committee • September 28, 2000 Page 8 Conklin: We did have this discussion. Let me see if I can find it in the Plat Review minutes. Hoffman: I read something about there is some replacement trees or some something. I didn't remember there being any big trees on the site. Conklin: There's two. Edwards: She wasn't here for the Plat Review either. Brackett: This is a 3" maple and 28" hackberry we will be taking out because of the additional structure and Kim has okayed that. The 24" elm will remain. All the trees along South School that are existing, will remain. Even if they do build something here, they are in the setback. I guess my answer to any development here is, we don't even know if that is feasible for this site. Before we were to proceed with that we would have to do extensive research. Hoffman: You would have to come back to us too. • Conklin: Now that I criticized Kim Hesse, I will just read her comments. "I apologize for missing the Technical Plat Review at the time The Mill District Large Scale Development was reviewed. I have reviewed the plat dated 9-20-00 representing the revisions for the Subdivision Committee. Based on these drawings, two additional trees will be required to meet parking lot requirements along with a few additional trees to meet Commercial Design Standards. I support flexibility in the planning location of these trees due to the existing water lines and other utilities. I ask that approval be subject to my approval of the landscape plan to be submitted by Travis Brooks. As always all applicable details and notes for the proper landscape installation a final landscape plan must be submitted prior to building permit approval " I would like to ask one question. I have been asking it at almost all these meetings. What is the minimum canopy percent on this site, what is the minimum percent that you are saving and how much replacement are you proposing? • Brackett: I have it on the grading and tree and landscaping plan. I think you have one. It has the percentages, not on the large scale. Hoffman: Estes: 2.1%and 1.6%? Existing is 2.18% and then preserved is going to be 1.62%. Subdivision Committee September 28, 2000 Page 9 Brackett: That's due to the 3" maple and the 28" hackberry being removed. Conklin: Okay. So 15% is required to be saved. What's existing on site is 2.18%. What is being preserved is 1.62%. Hoffman: So that's more than 15% of the number. Conklin: No. The ordinance doesn't read percent canopy on total site area. There are going below what they even have but we have been doing that for 8 years so that's nothing new. Brackett: Kim has approved that. Conklin: She has approved it. We approved it for Mr. Lindsey's 120 unit apartment complex behind Hank's. We have approved it on probably four or five other developments this summer. Ward: Basically they are taking out the hackberry tree and something else. Brackett. A 3" maple. Conklin: My understanding the Landscape Administrator has recommended for that as she has on other projects too. Hoffman: Let me ask this really dumb question. Of these numbers, they are saving 15% of what is there. Conklin: No. That's not how the ordinance reads. Hoffman: So you need a 15% canopy site when you end up with your replacement trees? Conklin: If you have ten acres and it's completely 100% wooded you got to save an acre and a half of trees. Hoffman: Right. Conklin: Say you have ten acres and you only have an acre of trees. You are already below the 15%. You only got 10% canopy existing. The question in my mind, what I've been trying to deal with for 8 years, do you have to save that entire 10% then of that whole acre no matter where they are at? I went to the Tree and Landscape Committee the other day and I said "When they are spread out over the site you Subdivision Committee • September 28, 2000 Page 10 get penalized because you don't have much flexibility when you are designing your plan. If it's fully wooded, you carve out 8 '/z acres and you get what you want." • • Hoffman: I thought that it said, this is a little bit different than what you are talking about, that we have to end up with 15% of the site in replacement tree canopy and are we meeting that on this plan? Conklin: Yes. We are meeting that. Hoffman: I understand the other. I'm sorry, we have gone through it so much. Conklin: That's my frustration with the whole tree ordinance is that I don't see how you can just save percent to percent and be able to plan a development especially if trees are scattered throughout the site. It's very difficult. Once again, the Landscape Administrator has made recommendation after recommendation to go below that. If they don't even have 15% it could even go below that. I read the paper this morning. Hoffman: I didn't get a change to. Is it in there again? Okay. I'm assuming then that there are no major sidewalk issues. We dealt with driveways at Planning Commission and their locations and that those will remain. We gave waivers that we went over earlier. The drainage I assume that Ron will have a report ready by the agenda session. Conklin: Yes. Ron has looked at it. Hoffman: Okay. Kim, do you have anything further on parks? Tim, were you done? Conklin: I'm done. Rogers: Tim, I have a question. You said something about a triangular area for a trail cut. Conklin: Right there. Rogers: Are they supposed to add anything else here? Conklin: What we were looking at is with dedication of this trail, the original plan had this small little piece of triangle remnant piece left over which would have a property line separate it unless they dedicate the right-of-way to the City. We asked if they would dedicate all of that triangle to the City. I'm not sure what that line is Subdivision Committee • September 28, 2000 Page 11 representing right there. Brackett: That's a sewer line. That's the whole dedication and this is northwest corner of property to be dedicated to the Sidewalk and Trails. • • Rogers: Can you point that out? Okay, that's all I wanted. Estes: It's the shaded area that's dedicated? Brackett. No. The shaded area is actual trail. Hoffman: The trail is going to be what material? Brackett: Probably asphalt. Conklin: It's fifteen feet wide. Rogers: I'm dust trying to confirm they are going to pave that. Brackett: Yes. Rogers: So is there going to be more acreage in that dedication to the City then. Brackett: Remember when we talked, that included that corner. .22 acres is what is shown on this plat. Rogers. It's still going to be .22? Brackett: Yes, ma'am Estes: The dedication is from that line to that line? Edwards- Chris? This is a 15 foot wide trail? It doesn't scale that. I dust want to make sure. 20 is the dedication. Brackett: It's a 20 foot wide dedication with a 15 foot trail Conklin: Why don't we clarify that it's a 15 foot wide trail. Ward: 15 foot wide paved trail. Subdivision Committee September 28, 2000 Page 12 Conklin: Yes. Thank you Lee. The more detailed the better. Hoffman: Chuck was talking about the difference between concrete and asphalt. Who's responsibility is it then? It's our responsibility to maintain this? What's our feeling on concrete versus asphalt? Conklin: Chuck Rutherford will be maintaining the trail. He prefers concrete. Brackett: He also stated that if they continued this trail and the City built it, they would build it out of asphalt. Hoffman: So we are just doing the cheap thing? Ward: This would be a paved trail. Hoffman: This will be a ankle turner is 20 years is what it will be. Estes: It will be what? Hoffman: An ankle turner and then it will be your shot at it. Kim, was that all you had? Rogers: We will expect receiving the deed prior to you receiving your permit. We would like that as soon as possible after the trail is constructed. Hoffman: Okay. So we are okay on the parks dedication for the residential units? Rogers: Yes. Since they changed the units number from 30 to 11. Parks Board accepted the land dedication with no fees due. Edwards. I had something to add. We are making approval subject to Board of Adjustment approval and I have not received application that we can look at in our office. Pickett. The variance? Edwards: Yes. Pickett: Right. Those are in Rob's hands right now. I have done all of the paperwork that I can do on it and he's down to just writing that one page paragraph. Edwards. Why don't you call in and check our deadline? I don't keep track of those. I think it's in the next week or so. Subdivision Committee September 28, 2000 Page 13 Pickett: Who do I talk to? Edwards. Talk to Janet. • Conklin: Actually, they missed the October meeting. It will be the first meeting in November now. Can you go over the buildings issues? Edwards: The first building, the Nugget Building, we have already done a right-of-way dedication variance on it and I don't know exactly what it is but it's not meeting the front setback of 50 feet on commercial or 25 with additional landscaping. Hoffman: Do they actually have to go get a variance? Edwards: They are expanding on it. Hoffman: You are keeping out of the normal setback in the back. I mean they are encroaching on the setbacks around it. I remember that. We talked about that before somewhere. Edwards: The second building, the Block Building. Estes: Wait. Let me try to understanding the existing Nugget Building there is a planned expansion? Conklin: Yes. They are going to come around the side and come back. We didn't get the 55 feet from right-of-way and their keeping out of that. Hoffman: Is that still going to be for office use? Brackett: Yes. Edwards: The next building is up at the top. The Block Building. They are completely re- doing it so it runs into the value guidelines on that and on this back setback here they are three or four feet and we are counting it as a side which has to be 8. It's only like a4to5. Hoffman: You need to mention that on this plan please. Unless it already is. Brackett. It's not. You want this? Okay. Hoffman: So the Board of Adjustment needs to rule on that but they can do that after the • • Subdivision Committee September 28, 2000 Page 14 Planning Commission approval of the project. Edwards: Yes. Conklin: Yes. It's going to have to be now and subject to the approval Hoffman: I would prefer that they go before generally. Conklin: It's not going to be possible. Hoffman: American Milling, I assume they have been notified. Do they have anything to say about this? Conklin: I'm not sure anybody is here today. I haven't heard anything. Hoffman: If staff is through with the presentation for the moment, I will take public comment if anybody has anything to say about The Mill District project. No? Okay, we will bring it back to the Committee. I guess you haven't had much of a chance to make a presentation. Do you have one to make or do you just want to answer questions? Pickett: Tim had let on in Technical Plat Review that we might have some trouble on the metal siding that is on the building. Conklin: I would like you to go over each building by name and talk about what the materials are, what you are planning to use it for. Pickett: I'll start with the Nugget Building. This is an existing building, it's brick and steel. We are planning on adding on a section, you can see the hatch area on the plan. The existing building stays but the brick will be painted and the added on area will be hardy panel. Ward: So you don't paint this brick white, right? Pickett: Right. Hoffman. It's what panel? Pickett: Hardy panel. It's cement board. • Conklin: It's going to be a smooth surface? Subdivision Committee September 28, 2000 Page 15 Pickett: Right. Hoffman: This is this building? Pickett: It's that one. Hoffman: Does this tie in with the general overall theme? Are we talking about a similar appearance of all the buildings? Pickett: Yes. Conklin: I would say it has a similar theme of what do you want to call it? Hoffman: Industrial. Conklin: Industrial. Pickett: The Mill Building which is, if you go out there on the site now it's just steel columns, the lower two portions of that are commercial, the lower two floors. The third, fourth and fifth floor are residential. The first and second floor are predominantly cement board as well with a little bit of siding. Estes: Now that would be the east and west elevations? Pickett. That you are looking at is the north elevation and up above... Estes: Is this the hardy board or is this the cement board? Pickett: On top where the residential is we've got predominantly all metal siding. Conklin: That's corrugated metal siding. This is all the hardy board, cement board. Pickett: Rob has prepared this for you guys concerning percentages of metal siding on the commercial areas. Hoffman: I have a concern. He addressed the maintenance issue of the corrugated metal siding tends to over a period of years, I think the Wally Wilson house is an example, to deteriorate with the fastenings if they are not properly done and they start to discolor and look bad. This is four stories worth... Pickett: Three stories. • • Subdivision Committee September 28, 2000 Page 16 Hoffman: Three stories? Is there a loft area in the building? Pickett: This would be, these apartments have a second floor so the window shown on the very top would be the loft area. Hoffman: Okay. So the attic is not the loft? Have you addressed the concern about weathering, I guess I would call it? Pickett: I know that he is familiar with that building and I guess that the viability of doing anything different proceeds the maintenance because of the height of the building, the cost of it would be more. I haven't heard him address the maintenance issue and what it looks like. Hoffman: I would like to find out what method they are using and if it's no, what method will Roller Wilson use because I think there is a way that it can be accomplished. I would like to not see that same mistake made on this building should everybody agree that the metal siding is even okay. Can we have that or those things for agenda session when you get the rest of your information give it to Conklin? Can you address the maintenance issue? Pickett: Sure. Hoffman: Does anybody know who built that building? Conklin: They just recently redid it. Hoffman: They had to redo it and I don't know who the contractor was It had something to do with screwing through there and not having the proper seal. Pickett. How long has that been built, the Roller Wilson Building? Ward: 12 years. Hoffman: If the same thing happened to this building it would become a very large eyesore because you would have so much exposed area Estes: I don't understand Mr. Sharp's comment that the metal siding does not dominate the facade. • Conklin: He cut the building off right here, everything below the residential he is saying that metal siding is not dominating the commercial part of the building. • • • Subdivision Committee September 28, 2000 Page 17 Estes: I'm troubled by that. Conklin: Okay. This is site development standards and construction and appearance design standards for commercial structures. Design element guidelines for commercial Estes: structures, elements to avoid or minimize include unpainted concrete precision block walls, square box -like structures, metal siding which dominates the main facade, large blank unarticulated wall surfaces, large out of scale signs with flashy colors. Those are the standards of elements to avoid. Then I'm having a hard time calculating in my head the Mill Building, ten percent siding, 90 percent other. If I look at the Mill Building it looks to me like it's more like 70 percent siding 30 percent other. Brackett: Just the commercial area. Conklin: You have to cut this off right here, it's all residential up on top. Ward: You've got Commercial Design Standards which you have for these commercial buildings, the upstairs that you are talking about is residential. Conklin: We are trying to separate the two. Estes: So what you are doing is for the Commercial Design Standards you are whacking off the top three floors so we can't look at the top. Okay. That's challenging. Conklin: We haven't looked at it that way before. Hoffman: It's no secret that I don't mind that corrugated metal look because when I think it's been done architecturally, appropriately it can be a unique look. I also have to remember that we have to be consistent with what is in our ordinance. If we are going to grant a variance or deviate from that, we have to clearly say that we are at variance with the ordinance that under the powers of the Planning Commission approving something not consistent with the Commercial Design Standards or an alternate reason such as these themes. It's my view. I'm not really ready to say that a multi -family residential building is not a commercial use. Estes: I'm troubled by that. If it's a lease hold space, I'm struggling with that. Let me say this, I'm kind of where you are. The design theme. May we consider the unique design theme and considering a variance from the Commercial Design Standards. • • • Subdivision Committee September 28, 2000 Page 18 Conklin: That's what I was looking up right now to see what authority you had on that. Hoffrnan: We sort of did that on Hooker's building. I don't think we clearly stated it that way. If we are going to set precedence for approving this kind of material I would like to say we did it for these reasons Estes: I want to load the record with why we did it. Hoffman: Right, why. If somebody else comes in with just a metal shed, I'm not going to approve it. They are going to say, "Why won't you approve this when you approved that?" Estes: Some of the things I'm thinking about are the unique design themes that it is on the south side of Fayetteville. Pickett: If you go onto page two, he's addressed the unique neighborhood. Estes: Are these Mr. Sharp's comments?. Pickett. Yes, sir. Estes: The design theme, that it is south Fayetteville and I mean that in terms of the unique neighborhood identity and nothing else, the economic vitality of the area and that our 2020 plan encourages mixed use development in south Fayetteville Mr. Sharp says the 2020 plan encourages such projects. I'm not so sure that's true but it does encourage mixed use projects I am struggling with these Commercial Design Standards and with whether we may consider the unique design theme and a variance of those Commercial Design Standards. I'm not so sure that we can separate "residential" from "commercial" because it seems to me that it is commercial. Hoffman: I don't think that we can call that non commercial. Estes: Lease hold space is commercial when it's in a mixed use. Lease hold space, non mixed use as a residential area is not commercial but this is mixed use. This is residential sitting on top. Conklin: You ready? Consideration by the Planning Commission, Design Standards. I'm under section 156 variance in our Unified Development Ordinance subsection 156.03(A)(1) Undo Hardship. If the provisions of these standards are shown by the developer to cause undue hardship as they apply to his proposed development • • • Subdivision Committee September 28, 2000 Page 19 the City Planning Commission may grant a variance for the developer from such provisions, so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest secured; provided that the variation will not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the development regulations. Conditions and granting variances, the Planning Commission may impose such conditions as will in it's judgment secure substantially the objectives of the standards or requirements so varied. That's it. Hoffman: Okay An undue hardship is the basis of the granting of a variance and it could be any number of things including but not limited to financial material? Conklin: I don't know if I would use financial. Ho man: I'm not trying to, I'm just saying that it could be any number of different things. Ward: It could be economic. When we are dealing with the south part of Fayetteville the economic issue always comes up. I think they are trying to keep the integrity of the property as it is now. Using the theme that has been there forever. I personally thought Roller Wilson's house, when it was first built, was atrocious. I thought it was the ugliest looking shop silo I ever seen built. Hoffman: You changed your mind? Ward: Well as landscaping has been finally mature and all that kind of stuff, you don't even notice it and it looks, for some people, it looks alright. I don't think it's a great residential place to live of course he uses it for a studio but when it was first built, the first couple three years I thought that was the biggest eyesore ever built in northwest Arkansas. Today I changed my mind sake, it's not bad. It's different. That's kind of what's going to happen here. This has been, in some ways, it's been an eyesore for many, many years. It's one of the first things you see when you come into Fayetteville. It's on a very, very, very busy corner. I'm not sure what else could make it there. It's in the south part of town. Hoffman: This loft concept is one that's really, really popular in larger cities and other areas. I look at the industrial top portion as being like the loft idea and I see big open spaces. Usually those are, I'm trying to remember, the ones that I have seen have been like the old red brick for sides and stuff like that. I was thinking in my mind of what alternate materials could be used and of course there are things like brick and limestone or granite or whatever. Although this is a huge facade to cover with material like that, I'm sure the cost of that was what Rob was referring to. He said he just couldn't do it. If anything but this to meet our Commercial Design Standards all he would have to do would be to put that horizontal junk on • Subdivision Committee September 28, 2000 Page 20 and it would meet them right? Conklin: Yes. I also looked at it, if he left the old corrugated siding on, would we even be having this discussion? • • Hoffman: No. It was the same. Actually, in this picture it looked like it held up pretty well. Conklin: That's what I'm looking at. I don't consider it that we are building a new corrugated metal building. I wonder if they built it out and they replaced it piece mill over time if we would even have this discussion. I support the project. I'm looking for a way for the Commission to support it too. Hoffman: I think we need to add a condition of approval that a Commission determination of a variance on the metal siding for the commercial structure and that in our motion should the other two members of this Committee desire, we can recommend that it be approved. Ward: I think that is. To be honest about it with Commercial Design Standards, we have. It doesn't meet four of the five items. It's kind of square box -like. It says no metal siding which dominates, large blank articulated wall surfaces and this has all those things but it still can a very unique and very nice building. Four out of those five things. It says windows minimize. Conklin: The other thing I looked at, when you talk about a metal sidewall typically they don't have that many windows either. It does break it up quite a bit. Hoffman: I do have a question about the end elevation. I think those are large unarticulated wall surfaces. Have you looked at adding windows on this end and on the other end? Pickett: We have a stair in this area. It starts down at this lower level and it goes up. Hoffman: Well you can have windows and stairs. Pickett: That's true It's my favorite elevation though. Hoffman: What do you all think? Am I just going overboard? I'm looking at this top area. We've got the sign which I assume is a galvanized. Pickett: Oh, you are talking about right here. • Subdivision Committee September 28, 2000 Page 21 Hoffman: Pickett: I'm talking about up in here. I'm sorry. I thought you were referring to this down here. This area actually goes up like this. It's just this little part right here. We could go back and add a • • Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Conklin: Estes: Conklin: Pickett: Hoffman: Conklin: Ward: Pickett: window here. It's just a personal opinion that this is a bunch of area here and then the opposite elevation is similar. You don't have very many windows. I would like you to look at that before agenda session. I can't say "I want you to put more windows in." That's not my job. Is that on the north and south elevation? Yes. I would like it to be considered. Do you all have anything else to say about Commercial Design Standards9 Could we talk about the circulation in the driveways and just make sure because we have another variance we have to talk about. Our connectivity is fine we discussed that and been there and done that. On site circulation we really haven't talked about that much. Do you three have a good understanding what each building is going to be made out of? Made out of? I mean constructed out of, materials. Hardy board, concrete board, corrugated steel. Okay. We went through two. Do you want to go through the other? I just want to make sure you are comfortable and have a good understanding. What about the Low Boy Building? The Low Boy Building is an existing metal and block building. The southernmost section, I think it's about 30 feet, is going to be removed and then the back section which is about 25 feet is going to be removed to add a courtyard between The Subdivision Committee • September 28, 2000 Page 22 Mill Building and the Low Boy Building. It will be the existing materials that it already is. It will stay metal and concrete block, painted. The Block Building is an existing one-story block building and it will be added onto and have clear story windows on the north and south side and it will be painted as well. • • Hoffman: All this is going to be painted white? Pickett. No. The Low Boy will be yellow and the loft will be green. Hoffman: We need a materials board. Conklin: Is there a way to get a sample of this hardy board of the concrete cement board? Pickett: Sure. Conklin: We want to see what that looks like. It's Just flat? Pickett: Yes. There is an apartment on, I'm not sure you are familiar with it, that Bradley Edwards did. I think it's on the east side of Lafayette. It's like a rust color. Conklin: I'm familiar with that one. I don't know if that's a good example. Pickett: It's got hardy panel on it and siding on it. Conklin: If you go down Lafayette and keep on going, don't turn on 45, it's Steve Winkler's tri-plex. You get a good idea of what hardy board looks like. Ward: It's painted ugly. Pickett: This would be white. It's the same stuff that we proposed for interface. Conklin: I understand that now. I had a hard time with that one. Hoffman: In my mind, I would like to see the shade and I would like to see the material. I think we always ask for that. Ward. I think it's painted yellow now. Pickett: Yes. Hoffman: Kind of a butter yellow? Subdivision Committee September 28, 2000 Page 23 Pickett: Yes. Conklin: I think it would be good to have the color samples and the material samples. We can get a good understanding of what it's going to look like. • • Hoffman: Bring us a big old sheet of galvanized tin. Conklin: I'm not sure what corrugated metal looks like. Go out to the fair grounds. Hoffman: I'm pretty satisfied personally with Commercial Design Standards and I know some of the stuff, I forgot about the Low Boy being existing concrete block that you are actually adding landscaping features that are going to mitigate that. I'm not real concerned about it. Anybody else? Ward: I'm so tickled pink that somebody is doing something with the property it's like there is a lot of leeway in my thinking. For somebody to spend this kind of money and do this project that's been needed for so long. Estes: I think we need to be flexible and supportive. Ward: We need to be very flexible and very supportive of it. I think it's going to be nice. I don't think it connects to anything. Hoffman: Does it connect with anything now? Pickett: The intention I think is the same developer owns a piece of property on Center Street and he is willing to dedicate a portion of that with property to continue it onto Center Street and a woman at our office Laura Kelly has been working on extending all the way to Dickson Street. Conklin: City Council, next Tuesday night, has a resolution to offer $70,000 for the railroad right-of-way quarter to connect them up. There was some delay in that because it appraised for $50,000 and it's $20,000 more. Before they even looked at our offer, Council will reconsider that and hopefully approve it. Estes: Who is the fee simple owner of that railroad right-of-way? Conklin: Burlington Northern. Estes: They have abandoned? • Subdivision Committee September 28, 2000 Page 24 Hoffman: Well the Arkansas Missouri goes east of here doesn't it? It doesn't go here. Conklin: It used to have a, when I moved here 8 years ago, there used to be trains parked across Sixth Street. It's been abandoned. They have given up everything to the • • south and closed the actual tunnel that went underneath the tracks where it comes across on Sixth Street and it went behind Subway and Marina Village. That's all been closed off. This piece used to come up to here with the train and that's been out for a long time. Hopefully, City Council will approve that and we will accept that $70,000 offer. Hoffman: Anything else before we move to on-site circulation? Does anybody even want to talk about that? Estes: Let's take a look at it. We have looked at it before. Let's see where we are. Hoffman: I just like to understand things like where are the dumpsters and screening and parking and loading. Is this a loading area back here? Brackett: Our dumpsters were originally here. We had it on the northeast comer. There was some objection to that that maybe that would block the circulation. We have moved them to the back. They will be screened, of course. Hoffman: We have an off-street loading area. I just hate it when I'm driving in a parking lot and there is a great big old semi in it and they don't take into account where it's going to be... Brackett: We are really kind of squeezed with the building being existing. There is several ways to get completely around the two metal buildings so as far as off-street loading, I assume that anywhere in this drive could be off-street loading. Hoffman: You don't designate off-street loading at this time? Conklin: If it's needed. That came up with the Three Sisters project too. Where are the trucks parking? On this one, I can see them parking in the aisles of the parking lot and unloading. It needs to be completely separate. It's something to consider. Hoffman: With this driveway, you are correct, you can get around other ways. Conklin: 24 feet that's not going to block the entire aisle. It will block the cars parked in those spaces. Subdivision Committee • September 28, 2000 Page 25 Hoffman: This is going to be commercial, not residential. Brackett: Yes. Hoffman: What is the variance again on the green space? Brackett: This drive here, because of the building, we are taking off 46 feet of that. We don't have the 14 feet from the property line to the back of the curb so that's the variance for the 15 foot green space right here because of where the building is and where the right-of-way was dedicated we don't have the 15 feet. Hoffman: Okay. I would like to see a landscape plan as a part of this package, you mentioned one is in progress, before agenda session. Pickett: Laura talked to him yesterday. Conklin: Monday at ten o'clock Mr. Brooks needs to be complete and bring his plan to us. • Hoffman: I think that's pretty much all the questions I have. Does anybody else have anything to add? I did ask for public comment on this didn't I? Ward: Yes. • Hoffman: I will entertain motions or further discussion. MOTION: Estes: I would move that we forward LSD 00-29.00 Large Scale Development The Mill District to the full Commission subject to all staff comments and to the conditions discussed, the landscape plan, variance for the siding, Board of Adjustment. Conklin: Yes. Board of Adjustment. Hoffman: Approval will be subject to the Board of Adjustment approval Estes: Subject to staff comments, subject to the landscape plan and subject to the Board of Adjustment approval The reason I do this with particular attention to the Commercial Design Standards are that the existing building use the corrugated metal siding exclusively that the unique design concept and the unique neighborhood identity that it is in south Fayetteville and by that I mean the economic vitality of the area and that our 2020 plan does encourage a mixed use Subdivision Committee • September 28, 2000 Page 26 development and redevelopment in the south Fayetteville area. Ward: I'll second that. • • Hoffman: I didn't hear in your motion that we are making a variance on the Commercial Design Standards. You stated your reasons but I want that added. Estes: Yes my motion does grant a variance of the Commercial Design Standards for the reasons stated. Hoffman: I concur. Subdivision Committee • September 28, 2000 Page 27 • • LS 00-30.00: Lot Split (Palmer, pp 572) was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Hodges on behalf of Larry Palmer for property located at 6290 Danita. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.46 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.83 acres and 0.64 acres. Hoffman: Our next item is LS 00-30.00 which was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Hodges on behalf of Larry Palmer for property located at 6290 Danita. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.46 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.83 acres and 0.64 acres. Tim? Do we have any plat on this? Conklin: I apologize if you don't have yours in there. He didn't resubmit. Hoffman: Is the applicant here? Conklin: The applicant isn't here but I would encourage us to go forward. Ward. I saw him last night and he said he had a meeting and couldn't make it but he didn't think there was any reason for him to be here. He thought it could be approved anyway. Conklin: Typically we don't do that but in this case since conditions have changed and basically what has changed is that Ron Petrie has looked at a cost share with regard to the fire hydrant that was required before and there is a letter in your packet from Ron. Hoffman: We just heard this I'm sorry. Okay. Conklin: We just heard this two weeks ago. Mr. Palmer was concerned about paying for a fire hydrant to serve the entire neighborhood in order to split one lot off and build one house. Ron did calculate how much a new fire hydrant would cost and based on the six existing residences in the neighborhood that would benefit from the new fire hydrant, calculated that the assessment should be 1/7th of the $1,800. The assessment of $257.14 for Mr. Palmer. Mr. Palmer is in agreement with that calculation. Hoffman: That makes good sense. Conklin: I think that the City needs to do that. I don't believe we shouldn't make up deficiencies based on one property owner when other property owners will be benefitting from that. I think this is a fair way to look at it. • • Subdivision Committee September 28, 2000 Page 28 Hoffman: Is that the same way we are looking at the sidewalk issue? Conklin: Yes. Estes: Have we ever done that? Conklin: What? This fire hydrant? Estes: No. Portion the sidewalk? Hoffman: He is just putting in the drive-through driveway. Conklin: With regard to the sidewalk issue in this neighborhood it's built out Just like the street too, I went out there typically we would make them improve the street 14 feet from centerline with curb and gutter. You would have one house with one section of the street improved and I don't think the City is ever going to go out there and improve that street. It's functioning as a 16 'A foot street right now. Hoffman: It's a dead-end street. Conklin: It's a dead-end street. We have many streets in Fayetteville that narrow. I don't think it's going to benefit anybody having curb, gutter and sidewalk in front of one house in this neighborhood. Ward: Can we take an easement on that? Conklin: For a conditional right-of-way? Ward: A right-of-way. 200 years from now if we ever decide to build that street up to city standards, we would have the right-of-way. Conklin: Let's see if I can use the scale this morning. It looks like he has 24 feet from right there. He has over 25 so he is already meeting the minimum right-of-way. Edwards: Here it is. 25 right-of-way. Conklin: Dedicated by this plat. Thank you Sara. Estes: We are relocating the sewer line? That was an issue when we saw it before. • Conklin: Yes. Sewer line must be installed and inspected prior to the deed being stamped • Subdivision Committee September 28, 2000 Page 29 approved. If the City ever did build a sidewalk in this neighborhood at least it would be through the driveway right now. Estes: Can we approve this Lot Split at this level? Conklin: Yes. Hoffman: I have a question on that sewer line. He was so sure that he could just extend his own sewer line from the other house. Should we say a separate sewer line should be installed? Edwards: I think he's just moving one. Wasn't the idea to move his so it wasn't on that property because right now it's running through here and he's going to move it a little? Conklin: It's actually this public line. This is a private line right here. This public line has to be extended. In order to clarify that one public sewer line must be extended, installed and inspected to the existing house on lot one. • Hoffman: Public comment? Okay. Bring it back. MOTION: Ward: I move that we approve at this level LS 00-30.00 Lot Split for Larry Palmer. Estes: I second. Hoffman: I concur. Conklin: Thank you. I'm sure Larry appreciates you taking care of this this morning. • Subdivision Committee • September 28, 2000 Page 30 • AD 00-35.00: Administrative Item (Trinity Temple, pp 252) was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Hodges, PA on behalf of Trinity Temple Assembly of God for property located at 1100 Rolling Hills Drive. The request is to reconsider the conditions of approval for LSD 00-14. Hoffman: Our final item is AD 00-35.00 which is an Administrative Item which I told to go home earlier but they snuck it in on me. I only had three items on my earlier agenda. This was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Hodges, PA on behalf of Trinity Temple Assembly of God for property located at 1100 Rolling Hills Drive. The request is to reconsider the conditions of approval for LSD 00-14. Estes: Chairman? I recuse. Hoffman: Okay. Mr. Estes has recused himself so we only have Commissioner Ward and Commissioner Hoffman but I think that's okay because two constitute a majority. Staff if you could give us some background, Tim? Conklin: Sure. I'll have Sara go over what has transpired up to now. Edwards: We approved this Large Scale back in July and the applicant is now requesting some changes with regards to the elevation This was the original approved elevation. I'm sure you will remember, they have metal side walls and we required the trees on the side facing Blockbuster. Originally, the roof, the gables were on the east and west sides. They came in and Darrell Rogers did not come in, their architect came in and requested these changes. Conklin: I approved those administratively, right? Edwards: Yes. We approved these administratively. Basically making the gables end on the north and south sides. Conklin: The reason why I support that is because the east and west is going to be a lower side of the building, it's not going to be as high up, not have the gable facing Rolling Hills or the residence. Edwards: We approved that administratively. Then these elevations were brought in. Basically, what it looks like they are doing is switching the colors. This was going to be, from what was taken from the minutes, this siding was going to match the brick of the existing church and then the roof was going to be a lighter color. • Rogers: May I project something here? • • Subdivision Committee September 28, 2000 Page 31 Edwards Yes. Hoffman: Can you state your name please? Rogers: This was something that John took on himself from the very beginning the color scheme was to be like this original that you approved. It was to be the red roof. Hoffman: Can you tell us who you are please? Rogers: Darrell Rogers. Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Rogers. Rogers: Associate Pastor at Trinity Temple. The side walls was to be this here which was close as we can match it with the redbrick that we now have. The existing brick. This is still way off but my understanding was John Top said his computer, this is what it projects. This is terrible too as far as I'm concerned. This color, these two together are terrible. When you look at these two together, they blend. Also, the rest of our trim on our church we are going to change. We have some that's dark but we are going with this. Our existing sign has these colors incorporated in it now so we want everything to coordinate. Conklin: I asked Mr. Rogers to bring in this color sample so we know exactly what color we are really going to have built up there. Hoffman: That seems to me to be more in line with this because this matches brick and that's not mustardy looking or whatever. Conklin: With those changes, I thought we needed to come back and have you bless it. Hoffman: On unarticulated wall surfaces, which I see a lot of, I don't remember there being that many. Is it just that we mitigated it with landscaping? Edwards: Remember it was so far back. It's like 100 feet back. Hoffman: Okay. A lot of it's back facing their own property and such. Conklin: It's back behind other buildings and fences and parking lots. It's not right up against Market Street. It's not nght up against College. It's not up against Rolling Hills. It's kind of back in there. • Subdivision Committee September 28, 2000 Page 32 Ward: Plus we made them do some additional landscaping after we drove out there. Hoffman: I don't have any problem with light stone and rustic brick, if that's what you want to stick with. • • Conklin: Can we keep this? Rogers: Yes. I'll get another one but you might check it there with your pen as to what we are doing. The roof definitely will be that rustic red and the light sand stone will be the walls. Conklin: This banding that you have in there, you are going to put those up. Rogers: That banding will match the rustic red. Conklin: Okay. Rogers: That solid red to me just looks like a big two story hay shed or something. Hoffman: They would be wanting to have keg parties in there. MOTION: Hoffman: I'll go ahead and move for approval of this administrative item based on those colors. Ward: I'll second AD 00-35.00 Hoffman: Thank you. Thanks for bringing that back to us. Good luck with your building. Do we have anything else before we adjourn? Conklin: Nothing else. Hoffman: We're adjourned.