The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000-11-30 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, November 30, 2000 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSD 00-32.00: Large Scale Development (Park Apartments, pp 175) Page 2 LS 00-41.00: Lot Split (Lot 5 Wedington Page 18 LS 00-42.00: Lot Split (Fazoli's, pp 213) Page 23 LSD 00-34.00: Large Scale Development Page 27 LSD 00-35.00: Large Scale Development Page 44 LSD 99-21.00: Large Scale Development Page 64 LSD 98-15.10: Large Scale Development • Page 70 • MEMBERS PRESENT Donald Bunch Laurel Hoffman Conrad Odom STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Chuck Rutherford Kim Hesse Mike McKimmee Place, pp 401) (Fazoli's, pp 213) (Hooker, pp 209) (Bank of Fayetteville) (Kantz Place) ACTION TAKEN Forwarded Approved Approved Forwarded • Forwarded Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Lee Ward Bob Estes STAFF ABSENT Perry Franklin Kim Rogers Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 2 • • LSD 00-32.00: Large Scale Development (Park Apartments, pp 175) was submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of 1.E. Lindsey Family Ltd. for property located north of Joyce Blvd. & west of Park Apartments/east side of Park Oaks Drive. The property is zoned R- 2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0 95 acres. The request is to build 60 units. Hoover: Good morning everybody. Welcome to the November 30, 2000, meeting of the Subdivision Committee. We have seven items on our agenda this morning and I'll just go through those briefly so everybody knows what's up. The first item is LSD 00- 32.00 large scale development for Park Apartments; item two is LS 00-41.00 lot split for lot 5 Wedington Place; number three LS 00-42.00 lot split for Fazoli's; number four LSD 00-34.00 large scale development for Fazoli's; fifth is LSD 00-35.00 a large scale development for Hooker Construction; sixth is a large scale development for the Bank of Fayetteville to change elevation; seventh is a large scale development sign request. We are going to start with LSD 00-32.00 a Large Scale Development for Park Apartments. Conklin: Good morning. I'm Tim Conklin, City Planner. This is a large scale development for Park Apartments. It contains 5 twelve unit buildings with a total of 60 units. It's actually split into two different locations with three of the buildings located on the northwest end of this site and two additional buildings on the eastern side of this site. The first Large Scale Development was approved October 24, 1988. Their request is to build a total of 100 bedrooms for 60 units. There will be 103 parking spaces provided. Staff is recommending forwarding this to the full Planning Commission. Conditions to address and discuss include the Planning Commission determination of the required tree preservation. Currently there is 17.17% of the site in tree canopy. However, a majority of this canopy lies in the existing utility easement. Only 1.84% of the site is tree canopy outside the utility easements. The applicant is proposing to preserve 1.13% of the site. Replacement percentages have not been provided. Bunch: Is that 17 or 7? Conklin: 7.17%. Currently there is no foodplain or floodway on the site however a flood hazard study is being prepared by the Corps of Engineers in this area and will likely add floodplain/floodway in this area along these three units over here. This is important for the applicant to be aware of because when they do come in for permitting of those units, if that has been established, it will impact the construction of the driveway over this creek. This is Kitty Creek and also the elevation of these units. I'm putting them on notice that the data was supposed to be done about a year ago. This Mud Creek and it's tributaries is the number one priority they are working on as part of the study Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 3 right now so expect to receive some data fairly soon. The Planning Department is requesting the applicant to add a tree preservation plan to this plan or provide a separate tree preservation plan. I we want to make sure our files are complete and we have a document that says tree preservation plan on it. Approximately 30 linear feet of a five foot wide sidewalk and one access ramp shall be constructed at the southwest corner Park View Drive and Park Shore Drive. We also have payment of parks fees in the amount of $17,887.50 and parks land dedication of a 15 foot wide trial corridor of .246 acres and Chuck can go over that. Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator Rutherford: The trail location will be on the east side of Kitty Creek where that drainage channel is, all along there and it will need to cross at the south end where the road is going to cross Kitty Creek to get to that subdivision. The Parks Board made that recommendation out on the site and visited the site, also with the recommendation that the developer work with the City to construct some kind of pedestrian access along that vehicular bridge when it's constructed. • Eric Schuldt - Parks Development Coordinator Schuldt: It is requested in our minutes. Like Chuck said, the Board moved to accept a 15 foot wide trail corridor and the money contribution that included working with the developer/owner with regard to the pedestrian access. Hoffman: It's located along Joyce at Park Oaks Drive? Parton: Actually it's not along Joyce, if you look in this western expansion area on the left side of your page over here, the creek that runs down the eastern side of that property over there. The developers have agreed to grant a 15 foot wide easement along the east side of the creek which is actually off of this expansion area in the existing Park Apartments complex. Hoffman: We have a trail shown here too. Conklin: The creek goes like this right? Parton: Yes. • Conklin: The creek is not shown on your plat. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 4 Hoffman: But it's going through? My question is, do we have one shown here? It's shown at Joyce and Park One and then I was going to ask why didn't it connect over to the other part of the site, does it? This is the dedication right here? Rutherford: It would be on the west side of what they already developed and on the east side of Kitty Creek. Hoffman: Rutherford: Hoffman: Rutherford: Hoffman: Rutherford: Hoffman: Rutherford: Hoffman: Rutherford: Parton: What is this, just a sidewalk? No. This is the north side of Joyce Boulevard. It's designated as a multi -use trail. That's the only section that they are developing that fronts Joyce. This is where we are asking for the ten foot wide multi -use trail. We are also asking, which is not shown on here, a connection that goes down the other street will connect the sidewalk to the existing complex. Also if there is any corrections to be made to this before it's sent to the Planning Commission, could we have that note added because there is no place to show it on here? Add that note. That would be most helpful. This the only place that they are touching Joyce Boulevard, that's why we are asking for this. This here is a private street so we can't say that they have to build a sidewalk on this street. Another street over here. You've got Park View Drive here. We need a connection. They have a sidewalk all the way down Park View Drive with 30 feet short that's not connected to this street here. We are asking for that connection and then a ten foot trail over here. At this development point. Then the trail will be right along this creek right here. What is in this area? In the front May Construction has an office building there then directly behind it is an open area. I think it's some C-2 or R-0. Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 5 Bunch: Parton: Is it a different owner? It's the same owner that originally developed this entire property. It's the ? Joint Venture who owns that property behind the office there. Hoffman: I may want to revisit the creek issue in Just a minute but let's go through the rest of the staff comments unless you have questions right now. So Tim where you pretty much done with your presentation? Conklin: I'm done with my presentation. Hoffman: Do you have anything on the park dedication and trial issue? Schuldt: Just the fact that I would like if you can somehow mark on there for us either in words where that trail dedication is going to be. Conklin: I would like that shown on the plans. Hoffman: I think it needs to be also on the vicinity map. Schuldt: The idea behind the trail is to get the citizens from the apartment complex and maybe eventually from the neighborhood to the north, they will have access to get that adjoining piece to the south to the Mud Creek trail they will be able to get to CMN Park and all that. I guess the only issue is that we wanted to have the developer on the work to develop a pedestrian access across that bridge. Hoffman: How worried are we about the floodplain? Ron, do you want to go ahead and start on Engineering? Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: Well there is no official floodplain as of today. In between now and when they get their construction plan sent here, if those formalize they will have to design for 100 year water surface elevations anyway but if we have a floodway and floodplain it's more regulatory paperwork to go through, Corps of Engineers and those organizations. Conklin: It could impact that crossing because it wouldn't be allowed to have any rise in surface water elevation so they would have to design it to carry the 100 year storm. Typically, that can be an issue because they don't design those to pass completely the water Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 6 • • underneath and blocks the water. Ron, just to clarify, you said those buildings will have to be elevated to the 100 year, are they doing ultimate build -out calculations? Petrie: Yes that's what we have required Conklin: With the drainage in there so you'll have an ultimate build -out calculation of how much storm water will be coming through this channel. Parton: If I'm not mistaken Ron I believe you gave me some HEC -RAS computations and are from the drainage point that addressed that. I think two feet above 100 year flood elevation which is quite higher than what the City requires. Conklin: We require two feet. Your apartment buildings will be two feet above your HEC -RAS study that ultimate build -out of this watershed and this creek for those buildings. Petrie. Just as a personal question how long did it take you to do the HEC -RAS calculations of Kitty Creek? Parton: About half a day. Petrie: We heard something different a couple of weeks ago. Conklin: Did that calculation show the floodway/floodplain that you can show on your plan, that you've done that calculation. Parton: I don't have the floodway established. I could probably throw it on here. You've got to watch that service elevation and not determine HEC -RAS. Conklin: I would like that. You are going to get that anyway? Petrie: Yes. That's what is going to have to be shown before construction. Conklin: Do you think the buildings in the lowest adjacent grade are going to be above outside that 100 year water surface elevation? Parton: Yes, definitely. Hoffman: So the bridge can be adjusted accordingly? You just don't know that yet. Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 7 Parton: I don't know about the bridge but I don't think it will get the 100 year right now. It will definitely carry 10 and 25. Hoffman: Other engineering concerns? Petrie: I want to request a 20 foot utility easement to the south of unit 1. Parton: We had originally, you realize we... Petrie: You moved the building. Parton: Right and what I was planning was 20 feet off the south end of that unit there if that works for you. We didn't show anything on this plan because we weren't sure. I contacted Dixie Development and their engineer to try to get this worked out. We weren't sure where they were going to put that sewer after we moved our building. If that works for you then that's where we will go ahead and set it at if you tell them to put it there. Petrie: That's fine with me. The last thing I had, on Park Oaks Drive, I just would like to get this documented, it's this apartment complex responsibility for maintaining that whole drive. Parton: Right. Hoffman: So Park Oaks is private, Park View is public? Petrie: The reason I ask is, I've been told we have a lot of complaints from people who live out there. They are calling the City to get this drive fixed because it's apparently falling apart. I have to apologize, I haven't been out here to look at this. I just want to make sure that's the case Between now and Planning Commission I want to go out there. You may want to add a condition some work to be done on that drive. Parton: I have relayed that to the owners and they plan on doing something with that drive because they know it's in pretty bad shape. Odom: Is that a condition of approval? Hoffman: Yes but you are going to make that determination? Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 8 Petrie: I want to drive out and take a look at it. Hoffman: I would think it needs to be labeled as a private drive or signed as such, for one thing, if it's not already. That might help the calls to the City and then if it's in bad shape after construction go ahead and fix it back up. Petrie: That's all. Hoffman: I have some questions for you. We have on the east side, it looks like a ten foot drop in elevation, are we meeting the Hillside Grading Ordinance? I can't read the topo lines on the other side. Can we address the cutting and filling on this lot? Petrie: It can not be a cut of more than 10 feet. That's really the cut off that keeps you into a bunch of other regulations. Yes, they are meeting the grading ordinance. Hoffman: On both sides? Petrie: Yes ma'am. Hoffman: I wanted to check and see if that had, when we get to Kim. Chuck, did you have anything else that you wanted to go into right now? Kim, can you address the landscaping and lot grading and so forth? Hesse: This is something I'm having a tough time with only because a lot of the trees that's on this whole development is in an existing utility easement. I just have real bad experiences with utility companies. There are some large trees that they show on this site and they are filling this lot basically which will cause a removal of those trees. I don't know if it's sensible to us to put in retaining walls when we have no clue what will happen when utilities go in there. We will lose those trees with this grading. I just want you to be aware that my recommendation, what we worked for is saving this large oak tree and they have redesigned this to do that and we are working around an older tree here. There is a lot of smaller trees in here but nothing substantial even enough to show. Hoffman: The other trees on this utility easement, could that easement not be relocated to the other side of the site? Hesse: There is already utilities there. Conklin: It's an existing utility easement. I believe that, because it's an existing utility easement, if Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 9 • • the utilities went out there today they could go out and take those trees out. At Plat Review they say they want the utility easements cleared completely. Hesse: When we talk during Plat Review, Ozark says "We can work around them." I've never had a good experience with that happening. We don't know what will happen over here. Even if they didn't remove them for this particular development, once this is developed, I would imagine they will go in and utilize their existing easement. There is already phone and electric already buried in there and they probably have to upgrade that electric so they will have to go back in. Hoffman: There is really not a lot of trees overall in this entire area. Hesse: There is to the east of the development. Hoffman: Yes but not for a while. This is mostly pastureland so these trees in the easement what kind are they? Hesse: These are oaks. Conklin: 42 inch oak. Parton: Actually I think these are all 24's. Hoffman: So, in the tree preservation plan they are not part of the equation? Parton: I think what we have done, what Kim asked us to do was break out the entire tree canopy on the site and then break out what's inside utility easement and what's outside utility easement and then what we are proposing to save outside the utility easement. That's what we have shown here. There is essentially four noteworthy trees outside the utility easement. One is a double 30 inch oak, one is 12 or 14 inch hickory, 18 or 20 inch oak, 14 or 16 inch oak. We are saving two of those four. Hesse: That information is right here. Can you move that up to where it's visible? I'm assuming that's what that is. That needs to be shown on there and you really do need something on this plan that says it's tree preservation or Just make this block big enough so that we know that is the tree preservation. We need better documentation of it. Conklin: I'd like a separate plan. Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 10 • Hoffman: I'm looking for another sheet because typically you do add the parking lot landscaping and stuff like that. I assume you have one started or something. Parton: Actually the landscaping does not come until we get Planning Commission approval and so forth. Hesse: We do usually show the number of trees. Conklin: The Planning Commission is in charge of approving tree preservation plans on large scale developments. I would like the Planning Commission to have a tree preservation plan. We shouldn't be arguing about this right now. Hesse: All we are needing is to show the trees and show the species but we do have a detailed plan that we can get later. Hoffman: I think normally we do get tree preservation plans because we can see if we are having larger trees taken out and what's being used to replace, what meets parking lot ordinance. I think that's what we are asking for. Parton: I have the tree preservation information shown on here. It's here. It's not specifically labeled tree preservation plan. Hoffman: I don't see any other replacement trees or parking lot aisles or any of that. Bunch: Are you talking about tree preservation plan or landscaping plan? Hoffman: Both. Conklin: Put it this way, the amount of people that have been through my files and Kim's files, they are asking "Where is the tree preservation plan?" I just want a plan that says tree preservation plan on it. It's not that difficult. Hoffman: What I want to know is, we need to prove that we are meeting our current ordinances and that's why we are asking these questions about the grading and the trees being removed and replacement trees. If it's not clear on the plan, the trails aren't clear on the plan and such, I think you need to refine the plan a bit before it comes back to the Planning Commission agenda session. 1111 Conklin: How difficult would it be, since you have it almost done just to take those layers of Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 11 • • Hesse: trees and landscaping and put in on another plan and call it the tree preservation plan? Not to disagree but, one thing I have asked for in the past is that tree preservation go with the grading but that needs to be labeled on the plan. The reason for that is, that's the real plan that makes the difference when the grading happens and that's where the contractor is really going to pay attention. He's not going to look at the tree preservation plan. From experience the landscape plan and tree preservation plan is taken off when they get their set and they look at what they need to do. That's why I always ask for it on the grading plan and in the past we have asked for that so what we may need to do is just label it grading plan/tree preservation plan. Hoffman: Just put in combined. I would call it an environmental plan because you are going to be showing the floodplain information on that with the grading. Parton: I can if you want to. Hoffman: I don't want to reinvent the wheel here about what you guys are getting for plans but somehow somewhere we are going to need to show compliance with all of the ordinances, clear compliance with notes and plans and so one. So, however you want to structure that, I'm going to leave that up to you guys. Conklin: You are in charge, as the Planning Commission to approve a tree preservation plan. You better be aware of what plan you are approving since that's what the ordinance requires you to do. Hoffman: Right now my notes tell me that we don't have a tree preservation plan and that we do have calculations. We do have calculations but we don't have replacement percentages provided and such so it sounds like you just need to do some more homework and bring it back before agenda session. Conklin: I'm not trying to disagree with you Kim, I'm just saying the public and the attorney's, they want a plan and I want the Planning Commissioners to have a plan that says tree preservation plan on it. Right now it doesn't say anything about tree preservation plan. Parton: But it has tree preservation numbers on here. Conklin: Yes. I understand. Hesse: Most of those people that have went through my files, they will get the information that Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 12 they are looking for but it's not clear, it doesn't say tree preservation plan. It's crazy but I don't want to see us doing or having that much more paper. 37 copies. Parton: That's exactly what this requires is 37 more copies. Hesse: If there is any way that we can combine plans that have it very clear that it's a final. Tim suggested that they can stamp and I think it would be a good idea where I can stamp it saying it's final. Conklin: That's the tree preservation plan. I just want something that says tree preservation plan on it. Hesse: I agree. Parton: If it took right here and moved all this stuff down and wrote tree preservation plan right above that and circled that or something like that, would that be good enough to keep from running 37 additional copies. Would that be good enough? • Conklin: I'm not trying to be nit -picky on this. Maybe the Commission can discuss it Monday night too what you think is appropriate for your tree preservation. Hoffman: No, I want to discuss it now. Odom: It makes sense because we are required to make a specific finding and yet there is no way to clearly delineate what the finding of the tree preservation plan is. The question becomes, what are you appealing and what's being contested? I think it does make sense. I think you probably could incorporate it on a different plan. I think it would be a better way to do it. It does need to be clearly delineated as to what is the tree preservation plan, even if it's incorporated on this document. Bunch: Combining it with the grading plan makes a lot of sense but that also shows that there is going to be fill and cut and tell us what we are going to lose. Odom: We are going to have to know and understand that it's two different plans on one piece of paper. Bunch: Put it in the title block. • Hoffman: To add a third layer on this plan. I think you do need to show your replacement trees Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 13 • • Odom: because you have parking lot aisles with no tree shown and no bushes or anything. We've always looked for that information. We look for the screening and for species. For your own benefit if you put tree preservation on here and it didn't meet our requirements, we are going to deny it and it will appear that the whole project has been denied when in actuality the only thing that's been objected to and the problem with the tree preservation plan. Conklin: Ron, this is also the preliminary grading plan right? Petrie: Yes. Conklin: We got tree preservation plan, preliminary grading plan and a large scale development plan. Odom. Do we want a final tree preservation plan on a preliminary report of something else? I don't think so. I think that's a good point. Hoffman: Did you have anything else? Conklin: No. Hoffman: Let's understand we are going to have a tree preservation plan. Hesse: This is a private drive. So when we talk about parking lot landscaping, there is typically the trees and the shrubs that go between the parking and public right-of-way. I don't know how that is going to affect this. You still do the trees. They've got the room to do that and then they will, from experience, when driving through their development they plant. I'm not concerned that it won't happen. I don't know how we do it for private drives and parking lots. Hoffman: I just think we need to show the landscaping that's going to be outside. Parton: No problem. I can do that. Conklin: Can I say one more thing? Kim, does this meet the tree preservation protection ordinance? Hesse: Yes. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 14 Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Parton: Conklin: Parton: Conklin: Hoffman: Petrie: Hoffman: Petrie: Hoffman: Petrie: Hoffman: Petrie: Or it will when we get the plan and you will be able to certify it based on the discussion. She'll make a recommendation that it meets the tree preservation protection ordinance. When we come to Planning Commission with this project, we are not going to have incomplete numbers. We are going to have our FEMA information and all that. There is no FEMA information right now. We'll have HEC -RAS analysis. I need to show? I want you to show, you said you have that surface water elevation and you can show, based on your grading, where that water will come up to and that your buildings will be two feet above that highest elevation. So then, not knowing about the construction of the bridge, will that meet our new criteria for our grading and drainage permits if he does not know the full information before we approve the large scale development about his flow under the bridge. How does that tie in with our new criteria for grading and drainage permits? I'm not sure I understand your question but the bridge itself, that's something that is typically designed at a later date. I'm fine with that as long as it still meets our guidelines doing it that way. 1 don't think I understand your question. I guess maybe I better address that to Tim because, as a result the CMN Park questions about the phased grading and drainage plans, did we make any changes that would make him have to show more detail? No. The only changes will be heard at the next Council meeting. So we are still operating under status quo and we are fine. That's basically to formalize the way we have been doing things. Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 15 Hoffman: I have no problem with it because I understand that these things are found out as you go along and we are here to make sure we are meeting our general ordinances and you have to fill in the details and that stuff later on. Conklin: Crafton & Tull does have experience with Washington Regional Medical Center, same situation with their private drive going in. Corps Engineers did the flood hazard study and that was submitted to FEMA and created a floodway/floodplain and they actually had to submit a conditional letter map revision to get that drive in there and increase the water surface height on their property of that roadway. That's a somewhat expensive process. I think it's about $5,300 just for the permit application fee to FEMA. That's the risk they have with that one private drive right there and that's why I'm brining that up is to make sure they are not surprised three months from now if they have to go through that process. Hoffman: Okay. Anybody else have anything at this point? Commissioners? I have one question about the trail. This is filling in, you have an existing piece of property under the same ownership that is also the apartment complex, this is just kind of bookends on the existing complex? Parton: Yes. Hoffman: Is there any reason or have you looked from Parks Department standpoint about connecting the trail through back behind the property that faces Joyce Street to get a complete trail? Schuldt: We looked at it and we asked originally Chris if he wants to, or course the objective is to get to Joyce Street is to go on the property to the west and south, where the apartment complex is and Mr. Lindsey informed us that he is in a partnership on that property and could not dedicate the land at this particular time. Hoffman: When it is developed then we move it down. Schuldt: It's a commercial development and they cannot require it to the parkland ordinance but we can ask for it and would be willing to purchase it at that time. Hoffman: I just want to make sure we are not have the cash for it because of what we did with this. Schuldt: Right now this piece of trail property through this apartment complex goes to nowhere. Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 16 • • The intent is hopefully, in the future, to get that additional piece. Hoffman: Thank you. Bunch: I have a question on the area. It's showing 7.07 acres on this drawing and then the grading it says .95 acres. Is 7.07 the total development, the .95 just this portion? Parton: 7.07 should be both of these combined. I don't know where .95 is. Odom: I was wondering how you were getting 60 units on less than an acre. Hoffman: That brings us to the findings part of it too because I had a question. We were showing 100 bedrooms and there are actually 106? What's it called out on the plan? Bunch: It's 100 but what we had on our green sheet and what this is is rather confusing as to what was called units and what was called buildings. Edwards: I apologize. Hoffman: You were only doing this at 5:00 p.m. yesterday afternoon. Edwards: Yes. I know. Bunch: So there are 20 bedrooms per building unit and 12 apartments per building? Parton: Yes. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hoffman: And that meets our zoning density requirements? We checked that? And we talked about the 7.17 and the site canopy. 1.84%. You need to come up with a replacement percentage. That's all I have. If anybody else has anything to say, go ahead. I'll take public comment on this project. Does anybody wish to address us? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Hoffman: Seeing none, I'll go ahead and close it and bring it back to the Committee for motions and more discussion. Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 17 MOTION: Odom: I move we forward LSD 00-32.00 subject to all comments including the additional requirement that we talked about which includes showing the trail on the vicinity map and the plat. We have the tree presentation plan. The FEMA information and the engineering comments which includes the 20 foot utility easement south of unit one. The potential condition with regard to maintenance of Park Oaks Drive. Rutherford: May I add one thing? Could we also have in there the 30 foot sidewalk to be added to Parks View Drive. That's condition number four. I'll second. I concur. Thanks everybody. Edwards: Bunch: Hoffman: • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 18 LS 00-41.00: Lot Split (Lot 5 Wedington Place, pp 401) was submitted by Robert Brown of Development Consultants, Inc., on behalf of Steve Clary, Clary Development Corp. for property located at Lot 5 Wedington Place. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.8 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.801 acres and 1.023 acres. Hoffman: Item two is a lot split on 00-41.00, Lot 5 of Wedington Place submitted by Robert Brown of Development Consultants, Inc., on behalf of Steve Clary, Clary Development Corp. for property located at Lot 5 Wedington Place. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.8 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.801 acres and 1.023 acres. Good morning. Green: Good morning. My name is Butch Green with Spectrum Engineering. I'm taking BCI's place representing Mr. Clary. Hoffman: Mr. Green what we will do is go through the staff comments and come back to you for presentation if you have one and take public comment. • Conklin: Lot 5 currently contains 2.8 acres. They are requesting to split it into two tracts of 1.801 acres and 1.023 acres. This property is located in the Wedington Place Addition Phase 2 directly behind the new McDonald's Exxon station located on lot IR. Staff is recommending approval at the Subdivision Committee level. Conditions to address and discuss: approval shall be subject to the applicant showing a curb cut directly across from the curb cut approved for the grocery store located on lot 3R. A note on the plat shall be added that the limits of the curb cut on lot 5A to the location shown on the plat and a note that the curb cut on lot 5B shall be at least 200 feet from the curb cut on lot 5A. What we are trying to do here is to align that curb cut and to put the developers on notice that lot 5A and 5B that their curb cuts locations will be determined by the existing curb cuts for the grocery store and then they also need to meet the Overlay District requirements for separation between curb cuts. So that's what we are trying to do on each of these lots. The rest of the conditions are standard conditions of approval That's all I have on this item. Hoffman: Does it talk about the Overlay District anywhere on the plat that indicates that they have to meet the Overlay District Design Standards? If not, we need to add a note to that affect. Conklin: Yes. Number three under general plat requirements. Subject to the Highway 71 Overlay District Standards Each lot has to go through large scale development. • Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 19 • • Hoffman: Anything else? Conklin: That's all 1 have. Hoffman: Okay. Ron, do you have any drainage comments? Petrie: No comment. Hoffman: Chuck? Rutherford: The only comment I have was there was a section of sidewalk that has been left out for development and the developed section of sidewalk. Green: I think that was addressed at one point by Mr. Brown in his letter that the developers of each lot, that was going to be one of their conditions as far as when they actually do that construction on those. Hoffman: Okay. That's the usual. We haven't looked at any landscaping on this. Are there any trees on this site? Bunch: Lot split? Hoffman: I know but we are supposed to be looking at tree preservation from the beginning, I believe. This is just like a subdivision. Conklin: I don't believe there are any trees on the site. Hoffman: Okay, make a note. We are supposed to be approving this at this point. Has she looked at this? Conklin: The creation of this lot line is not going to remove any trees. Odom: It's still going to come back through for large scale development. Green: Yes. Each one of them has to come in for large scale development. Conklin: We are not building any streets or anything we are just creating a lot line. Hoffman: The reason that I brought that up is because this really is a subdivision and at that time Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 20 • • you would normally show the tree on the plat. I think I feel more comfortable if we add a note that says the tree preservation plan will be submitted with large scale development. Kim, are there any trees out there? Hesse: No. Hoffman: Okay. I'm having them put a note that they will to be submit a tree preservation plan at large scale development. I guess you can take that off. Conklin: Unless trees grow. Green: There may be some grown by then. Hoffman: I don't think they need to be preserved by that time. Back to sidewalks. Conrad? Odom: I just want to make sure this job that everyone was saying, on here it says the developer shall be responsible for construction and completion of all sidewalks shown on this final plat. You were saying that each one of the lots will do it. Conklin: That's what they are requesting is that when the lots come under development that they will be responsible for the sidewalk. Chuck, do you have anything to say on that? I guess the note on the plat needs to be clarified. Odom: It says the developer shall be responsible for all of them. Rutherford: Typically, the way sidewalks are constructed in the City of Fayetteville, that note is on every subdivision, every plat, the developer is ultimately responsible for them. Odom. He may contract with someone else to do it but the developer is responsible? Rutherford: Exactly. Typically, what happens is, the builder of the building, builds the sidewalk. That's between the developer and the builder how they work that out. I think we need to keep that on there because we ask that for all sidewalks. The developer is the one that is responsible. Conklin: This is a little different how DCI Development Consultants Incorporated submitted their plat. Typically, we don't have a signature block and it's not a final plat. They've used a final plat signature block on this lot split. It kind of confused me too just looking at what you were pointing out, we would not see this on this plat. It doesn't hurt anything Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 21 if they want to have everybody sign it and agree to it but we don't require that. Odom: Okay. That's just a question I had. Hoffman: Do we have the curb -cut shown? Green: That's a note that is going to have to be added. Hoffman: We are just going to add note number one so that puts people on notice when they buy these lots that's how it's going to be. Do we need to say anything about cross access between lots at this point or leave that to large scale? A perfect example is that Millenium Place because I was confused, I didn't get involved in the initial discussion of cross access. It's typically encourage between parking lots and so forth. Did McDonald's show a connection? Conklin: I don't believe they did. Our ordinances do encourage it. It's not mandatory. I'm trying to think it might be easier to say it now but then again, we don't know what's going to develop on these lots and how it's going to develop. Our ordinance already should put everybody on notice that we are going to be looking for that. Green: That really would be more appropriate at the large scale wouldn't it? Hoffman: Yes. That's where we typically look at it. Bunch: If you are selling the lots, it's nice to let the potential buyers know. Odom: At that the same time, Tim is right, it's in the ordinances so they are already on notice that it's encouraged. It's not a requirement. Conklin: We tell them about it when they come to meet with us when they submit. Hoffman: We'll just put it on record that we talked about it. Bunch: Speaking of curb cuts, is there any consideration given to where the curb cut is in relation to curves just from a safety standpoint? I know we were talking about lining it up with the curb cut across the street, so far from the curb cut on 5A, I'm just concerned about 5B to not have a blind curb cut. Green: Typically the design on the large scale and the site design on there, that's one of the Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 22 • • things that is taken into consideration if it's by a respectable engineer. Right now, they aren't designing for either one of these and I think Tim's requirement in that the Overlay is that it be at least 200 feet from there which you can get that out of curves without any problems there. Edwards: Perry Franklin does check that. Hoffman: I think we will have ample time to take care of that so is there anybody else that have any comments before I ask for public comment? PUBLIC COMMENT: Hoffman: Any public comment concerning this project? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Green: No. I was just filling in here and being a warm body. Hoffman: Is there any more discussion or motions? Bunch: This we will handle at that level right? Hoffman: Yes. This we can approve at this level without it going to the Planning Commission and I feel comfortable with that. MOTION: Bunch: I'll move we approve Lot Split 00-41.00 with the stated conditions Odom: I'll second. Hoffman: I'll concur. Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 23 LS 00-42.00: Lot Split (Fazoli's, pp 213) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Geoffrey Brown for property located at 3035 North College. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.30 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.79 acres and 0.51 acres Hoffman: Our third item on this agenda is a companion item with a large scale development, it is a lot split for Fazoli's at 3035 North College. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.30 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.79 acres and 0.51 acres Tim, since this is also a large scale development, do you suggest we discuss the entire thing at once and then both separately in the interest of economy of time. 1 think that might work if that's agreeable with everybody. Conklin: I'll start out with the lot split and then go over the large scale development. It does contain a piece of property that will be split into .79 acres and .51 acres. It currently contains 1.3 acres. The property is on the west side of College Avenue across from Harold Street, between Goldie's and Superior Mitsubishi. We are recommending this go to the full Planning Commission. There is currently an overhead telephone line along College Avenue in front of the property, this line will have to be placed underground the entire length of the property for both lots. Approval will also be contingent on the applicant obtaining a lot split or property line adjustment or proving that a lot split or property line adjustment has been approved for the property separating it from Goldie's parking lot. Currently, our records show Goldie's is to the north right here. We can't find any record of this piece of property in this lot configuration and it shows this lot going north over on Goldie's. We are just asking for proof of that. You have a deed here? Brackett: Yes. We submitted it. Edwards: I don't feel that's proved how it came about. I agree that is the deed to this property. Brackett. That's all we have. That's all we own is the deed. Conklin: Since 1995? Hoffman: What is here now? Brackett: There was a Subaru car dealership. Hoffman: Typically, you can research a deed back to when it was first made a legal lot or Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 24 • something like that. Have you been able to go back that far? Brackett: We haven't talked to the abstractor. That's something they would do. Conklin: I'm just trying to make sure. Edwards: Have you talked to the owner? Brackett: This is Jeff Brown, he's the developer of this property. Did you speak with the owner? Brown: Yes. I spoke with David Sloan, the owner of the property and he said this is all he has and this is what the property lays out the portion that you think goes back belongs to Mr. Nelson. Conklin: We have a deed for 1995 and we just want to have proof that it came through a City process to adjust that property line or split it off. We'll need to get that. Hoffman: Wouldn't we need a survey then? Conklin: Or an abstract. An abstractor could tell us that. Odom: I don't know what we are talking about here. Is the deed less than what the property shows? In other words, no one ever came through and said "I want a lot split", what they did was they sold a smaller tract of land without doing a lot split? Conklin: Could be. That's what I'm talking about. We can't find records creating this piece of property. Hoffman: They either need to create it or prove that it somehow existed. Conklin: Yes. It's not really a big deal, it's just more paperwork. Odom: That's why we have a lot split, to make it legal. Conklin: Now they are taking this piece from 1995 and they want to create two parcels out of this. You've got this over here and you've got this piece over here. You've got 1.3 acres and they are going to split it. • Odom: So what you are saying is this is actually part of the Goldie's. Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 25 • Conklin: It looks like it. Odom: No one ever came through and said "I want a lot split here"? Conklin: No. Odom: So why don't we just do two lot splits? Conklin: That's what we are trying to determine. Bunch: I'm still a little confused on the piece back in this area, what this? Edwards: Their property continued on up something like that. This piece is attached to all that, according to our records. Bunch: At some point this piece was sold. Edwards: Right. Bunch: So this part right here is not that well delineated. Conklin: Yes. We are just trying to get our paperwork taken care of. Hoffman: All you need to do besides that is to have either a survey plat or an abstract. I don't think you are going to find an abstract on it though. Brackett: We have a survey of this property that shows it this way. Hoffman: Odom: Conklin: Brackett: Odom. • Conklin: That would be fine. I think we ought to just do a separate lot split. Or a property line adjustment. Right now, I don't know what happened. We don't either. When the they brought Goldie's it wasn't addressed? We haven't been able to find anything. Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 26 Hoffman: All I'm asking for is before the Planning Commission approve this you need to submit a survey with it showing because I don't want to approve a lot split that we don't know. Brackett: We can show a survey that agrees with this deed. Odom. Is that enough for you? What do you want to do? Conklin: That helps. If it needs to do a property line adjustment or something happened back in the 80's or early 90's, I think we just need to take care of the paperwork. I'm not that concerned about it because apparently Goldie's has their property and their parking lot built on it, assuming they bought it from someone at some point in time too. Hoffman: It's an existing lot inside the City limits and it just needs to be clarified and defined legally and that way you can file something.. Conklin: I'll work with Chris. To my satisfaction, we'll work it out. Bunch: If it agrees with whatever Goldie's is calling their survey and the County knows who's paying the taxes on it. • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 27 LSD 00-34.00: Large Scale Development (Fazoli's, pp 213) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Geoffrey Brown for property located at 3035 North College. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.79 acres. The request is to build a Fazoli's restaurant. Conklin: Why don't we go over the large scale development issues that we have. This is a large scale development for Fazoli's. The lot that they are building on is 79 acres. The request is to build a Fazoli's restaurant. It contains 3,246 square feet with 49 parking spaces. Conditions to address and discuss: cross access shall be provided to Goldie's on the north and we are recommending a curb up in this northeast corner. Planning Commission determination of the requested 29 additional parking spaces. The ordinance allows up to 20 spaces and the applicant is requesting 49 parking spaces. Planning Commission determination of the compliance with the Commercial Design Standards including signage. We do have elevations of their building. They are planning on using stucco or dry-vit material. Chris: Dry -vit. • Conklin: With regard to tree preservation, there is no canopy that is required to be preserved on this site. One tree is existing but has been damaged therefore, no canopy will be preserved. I guess with my comments on the last one, as long as we have tree preservation plan on here, that it's clear that we have no trees. Brackett: Conklin: Hoffman: Conklin: There is no tree preservation plan because there is no tree preservation. You have a waiver form to us. That's all I have. You do have some notes about it. No landmark. I would like the applicant, when you do discuss your Commercial Design Standards to go over the building materials and how they plan on screening their freezers and utility equipment. Hoffman: Can we save that until we have gone through the rest of staff comments? That's a whole discussion unto itself. Do you have anything, any problems with the parking other than showing the cross across access which will wipe out two or three spaces? Conklin: Sara, have they provided Justification for the additional parking? Have you provided • any documentation? Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 28 Edwards: They did include a letter. Odom: Yes, November 6th letter? Brackett: That Just addresses that City ordinance on restaurants are rather restrictive and we don't believe it's adequate for this type of use. The guidelines that we have in there, I spoke with Tim, that was his recommendation. That's why we have included that. Odom: What guidelines are those? Conklin: The Planning Commission recommended an ordinance that went to City Council that was denied and that was to allow one space per four seats plus one space per employee. Odom: Why should we follow something that was denied by City Council? Conklin: They suggested you look at it on an case-by-case basis and grant the approval for those if it's justified. That's what they are looking for. Odom: It was just we don't like the ordinance not we don't agree with the way you evaluate the cases? Conklin: They just want you to have more control. I think this is reasonable for what they are planning on for this restaurant. Hoffman: One space per four seats is a standard application around many zoning ordinances. They are asking for fewer spaces than that so personally I would have no problems with it. I do want to know if you agree with the location of the cross access and if you can live with that? Brackett: I just have a question. We don't own that property and I don't know how we are going to negotiate with Goldie's which is going to be a competitor of this restaurant to make them allow us to connect into their parking lot. My understanding was, we would definitely adjoin to their parking lot if cross access was provided when Goldie's was built. I just don't see Goldie's letting us tie into their parking lot because they are a competitor. That's why we didn't show it. We show cross access to the south because this isn't developed and that's no problem of course. I'm just saying we don't own into the Goldie's parking. Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 29 Hoffman: What's up here Tim on Goldie's? Brackett: It's a drive. Edwards: They have no parking against this side. They have parking over here. It would be perfectly fine to connect right there. Odom: There is nothing that we can do to require them to connect. Edwards: No. To make them remove their curb. Odom: How about can we require an access easement here if this ever came through for redevelopment, then it would be allowed? Conklin: What we have done in the past is require them to build it up to the property line. I've seen that done over by Chili's with that hotel. You have a problem with doing that? • Brackett: Not really. It would look kind of silly. The only reason it would look silly is Goldie's only built like two feet off of their property line. • Hoffman: College is such a busy street. I'm really in favor of doing it just because it keeps people, if this is full and somebody decides they want to go to Goldie's or Goldie's is remodeling at some point, it keeps them from having to come out and go back in. Brackett: I wouldn't have a problem with the easement. I'm just saying that stubbing it out and having it would look really strange. I'm sure we wouldn't have a problem with having a cross access but, two things, I prefer instead of being here that it be back here because this lines up with this drive coming in and this is a one-way going this way if I remember right. I think the parking is like that so they would have to pull here, go all the way around and back through their drive-thru I guess. If it was here, they could pull in and go around their building or down this drive. They couldn't go like this. Hoffman: That's fine. Edwards: Okay. Brackett: If you want some kind of easement to show that if this ever re -develops that they can come through and connect to these, that wouldn't be a problem. We are right now, this curb is at grade with this because we are taking on this water and this swale so when Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 30 this does go, if this ever does go through, connecting it back in wouldn't be a problem. Hoffman: You need to show that easement on your plan and make a note that this access easement is required to connect when the adjacent property develops. How is that for everybody. Conklin: That will work for me. Bunch: Unless Goldie's would like to do it now. If they don't mind doing it now, why wait? Hoffman: I think they would benefit. As far as I know, I'm not certain but if one is full people tend to go to the other one. Brackett: I don't have a problem contacting them and asking them. If they are agreeable to do, then we can provide it. Bunch: Do you have time to do that between now and Planning Commission? Brackett: I have enough time to contact them. I doubt I have enough time to revise my plat and get it in by Monday because that's when the revisions are due. I'll contact him before Planning Commission and have an answer to that but I'm just saying, if they say yes, I wouldn't have time to re -draw it. Hoffman: If he doesn't have time to do it on his plat, make it a condition of approval and handle it that way. Conklin: Okay. Edwards: I have a question Fazoli's will be required to build it to their property line, not Goldie's? Hoffman: No. We can't make them. Anything else from a land use standpoint? Conklin: No. Hoffman: Ron, do we have any drainage issues we need to talk about? Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 31 Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: Hoffman: Brackett: Petrie: Not drainage issues. I do have one comment about the drainage easement I requested at Plat Review. For some reason I told you 20 feet from the pipe, I just need 10 feet. The other is water comments, we discussed this at length at Plat Review, it's not really on the conditions. I want to just state there is an existing 2 inch waterline that is across tract 1 and 2 that we will have to abandon for this work to go forward and that would involve relocating the water meter to the rear dimension back to College Avenue. That's something that I would like to add as a condition. Are you aware of that work? Yes. That's not a problem. Where you show the new fire hydrant, what we would like to see when you bring this in for final construction this needs new meters to come off of that drainage so you know that tap and valve, short segment pipe then the fire hydrant. Bring a double meter set off of there so you have one on tract 2 also going from there to College Avenue. So we don't have to tear up College Avenue once again. Hoffman: It's before the fire hydrant, the metering? Petrie: Right. Hoffman: Anything else? Petrie: That's all I have Hoffman: Chuck? Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator Rutherford: They have everything on there I asked for. Hoffman: Kim, we don't have any trees? Kim Hesse - Tree and Landscape Administrator Hesse: No. The only thing that they are showing on the grading plan there is two existing street Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 32 trees they are going to protect during construction. Hoffman: As far as the parking lot ordinance, are they complying with that? Do you have notes to that affect? Hesse: Brackett: I'm not sure. Yes. The landscape requirements, the interior and perimeter landscape, I show what we have. Hoffman: Do you show the species? Odom: Yes, right down here. Brackett: Yes. Planting trees are maple, red or pin oak. Hoffman: You have approved the conceptual plan? Hesse: Yes. Conklin: Are all the islands going to be irrigated? Hesse: They are showing a note on here about having a water spigot at 100 foot intervals Odom: Irrigated with automatic sprinklers at a minimum of 100 foot radius intervals. Okay? Petrie: That involves an irrigation meter. Brackett: Okay. The new water meter could be a double meter set. That will be a double meter. We were showing a new meter because we can't use the old one so we'll show that as a double and one will be for the building and one will be for irrigation. Petrie: Just wanted to make sure. Hoffman: Is the building sprinklered? Brackett: No. Odom. It's not required to be sprinklered? Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 33 • • Brackett: No. It's like over 10,000 square feet. Hoffman: It's divided up between the kitchen and the restaurant. Brackett: It's over my head. Hoffman: The only thing we have to go over is the Commercial Design Standards and if you guys want to go ahead and tell us what you are doing. Brown: The construction of the building is a frame building with a dry-vit on the exterior and the canopies are asphalt shingles on the roof. The freezer is in the rear and extends out. That's a separate attachment to the back of the building, it's painted. Hoffman: So you have a drive-thru actually. Brown: Yes. A drive-thru on the opposite side from the front entrance. Hoffman: We don't have a rear elevation shown. That's just a blank wall there? Brown: Yes. Well there is a door right next this freezer that's a back door, entry door into the kitchen for deliveries and then there is about 10 feet there and the freezer takes up the rest of the building. It squares it off. Conklin: What is that? Brown: That's the refrigeration unit for the freezer. Conklin: Can you increase that peripet wall up to screen that? Brown: Yes. It's not really very visible. In this drawing it appears visible but if you go the restaurant in Rogers, Arkansas, at 1735 W. Walnut and drive around, you'll see this is not really a visible feature to the restaurant. Hoffman: Our Commercial Design Standards require screening for rooftop mechanical equipment. We need you to put some kind of screening around it. Brown: If it's a problem, I can bring the roof up there and screen it off. Hoffman: Or you could separately screen it with another material on the roof. Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 34 Conklin: No. It needs to be architecturally compatible materials on the buildings so it needs to be dry-vit peripet wall. Brown: A peripet wall in back of the refrigeration unit? Conklin: You are just going to increase the wall height. Hoffman: This other red and green is that a canopy? Brown: Yes. That's the front entry. That's the front door. The other side, this little window, that's the drive-thru window. Hoffman: Where's the drive-thru menu going to be located? I don't see it on the plan. Brown: That would be right behind the refrigeration unit, right on the back. Hoffman: Can you show it on the plans so we know where it's located? Brown: Okay. Conklin: You are not planning a sign on the drive-thru on your tower? Brown: No. There is a small sign just prior to the drive-thru right here. It says drive-thru. A little sign, three feet high. Hoffman: You need to show all that on these elevations and on the plans please. So we will see al the signage on the lot. You can have directional signage I believe but the sign inspector has to approve it right? Conklin: We need to approve it with our Commercial Design Standards. We usually approve it with the sign ordinance, yes. Brackett: That sign on this elevation all you would see is the very end of it. I don't want to try to get around something but the architect for Fazoli's is in Kentucky and getting these was very difficult. I understand if we were making modifications to the building but just like adding a sign on it, I was wondering if there was any way? I'll show it on the plan and if we can do it that way, I would appreciate it. Brown: It's a very small sign. It's about that big and this wide. Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 35 Hoffman: I'm sure it meets our sign ordinance requirements, it's just again we have to approve it. Brackett: It's a little sign that says drive-thru with an arrow is all it is. Edwards: You could take pictures of the one in Rogers if it's going to be like that. Brown: Yes. It's going to be exactly like the restaurant in Rogers. Hoffman: Good idea. How tall is this sign from the ground to the top of it? Brackett: We can set that at whatever you would like. The maximum it can be by ordinance is 25 feet and if you would like it 20 or something we can. Whatever you would prefer. Conklin: How about a monument sign? Brackett: The only problem we have with a monument sign is that the other restaurants adjacent to this, Goldie's and IHOP all have pole signs. It would kind of put Fazoli's at a disadvantage as far as being recognized as you go down College. They would prefer a pole sign is the main reason. Conklin: Where is your pole sign on here? Brackett: Right there. I have the maximum square footage and the setback that's required by ordinance. Conklin: It just shows you designing the building with a tower, you can get a sign pretty high up. How high is that going to be? Brackett: I don't know. I'm sure that's 8 feet. 16 feet, something like that. Brown: It's not on the road, it's setback. Odom. Five feet more than what you get with the pole sign. Brackett: Actually it's about 25 feet. It would be actually behind the Goldie's building if you were driving this way. Brown: The Goldie's building is going to block it until you are right on top and then you will see the tower. If you are coming down College and going south, you won't be able to see • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 36 the tower of the building until you get past the adjoining restaurant. Hoffman: From the front elevation you don't have any wall sign? Brown: No. Hoffman: Our dilemma, of course, is always to try to balance with the appearance of College Avenue which is not great. With that in mind, I think a monument sign is preferable but I want to talk with you all about how far we can take and deviate from the sign ordinance in terms of requiring a monument sign. Odom: For me I have to drive out there and look at it to see the Goldie's sign and the other signs. Bunch: A monument sign is probably going to wind up being more visible because the trees, as they grow up, are going to hide this sign and if a pole sign were to go in as shown... Brackett: It's 20 foot. Those trees may or may not. Odom. Do we know the height of the Goldie's and IHOP sign? Conklin: No. Brackett: We don't have a problem with figuring to whatever height. We would like to keep it at least 15 foot. I just see it as a competitive disadvantage for this restaurant. Odom: Is it lighted? Hoffman: They have a menu board or something on it. Bunch: What type of trees are these four that you are showing along College? Brackett: They are either maple or a pin oak. Bunch: They are not going to grow more than 15 feet? Brackett: That sign would be right here. With the monument sign is going to be covered just as soon as those trees are going to be planted. Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 37 • Bunch: My problem seems to me, the comment was made that Goldie's building hides the sign that will be on this peripet for someone coming south. For someone coming south, you have a line of four trees that, if I'm not mistaken, maples and pin oaks do get a little more than 15 feet. The foliage would hide this sign anyway coming from the north. Brackett: Not necessarily. You are going to have a site line behind the trees to the sign. The trees are going to be here, you are going to be far enough back you are going to have an angle to that sign. Where if it is a monument sign, dust as soon as we plant those trees it's going to cover it. Bunch: We are not talking shrubs, we are talking trees with trunks. Typically limbs are going to be above head height. Brackett: I'm saying even with the trees there, you will be able to see the sign on the road, I believe from right here you are going to be able to see behind the trees and to the sign. Hoffman: We want to make the best decision for you and for the appearance of College and I think we need to look at it. Are we going to be going on agenda tour for this one? Conklin: No. Hoffman: I would like to put in our recommendations to the Planning Commission that everybody visit the site prior to our meeting. Can we take the sign off of the large scale and approve it later? The only thing I don't like to do is have a Committee meeting at Planning Commission. I like to have everything set and pretty much the Subdivision Committee go in and say "We like this. We recommend it." and you get approved. If we have a sign that nobody's seen and we can't agree on, why don't we take it off and bring it back to the Subdivision Committee later? Can we do that? Odom. No. Then it would still have to go to Planning Commission. Hoffman: Not necessarily. Conklin: We've approved large scales and their signs at this level. Brackett: It wouldn't require a variance because it meets the ordinance. Conklin: How important is the sign? If you are not going to do the development if you don't get • the pole sign? • • • Subdivision C November 30, Page 38 Brackett: Hoffman: Conklin: Brown: Bunch: Brackett: Hoffman: Bunch: Brackett: Odom: Hoffman: ommittee Meeting 2000 It's not that way but I'm saying we strongly feel a pole sign is adequate for this development and that was something we feel strongly about. We are not going to insist on a pole sign if it's going to mean that this development is going to be rejected. Since we are meeting the ordinance we would like to have a pole sign. I want to give you the fair shake of seeing whether or not a pole sign, in our opinion, is warranted or not. Have you talked to Fazoli's? Is that what they want? Yes. That's what they would prefer. I'm just having trouble even to see the justification of a pole sign versus a monument sign for visibility coming from the north. Now coming from the south, the building itself is going to be visible coming from the south, if I'm not mistaken. Just looking at how far this is from North College, where the tree are and where Goldie's is, as those trees mature, that sign probably won't even be visible from the north except for just a split second. I'm looking at the comment that you made, as you come past the building at Goldie's just have an instant to see the Fazoli's building and make a decision to turn in. You don't think this is going to be visible. This is the building. These are the trees. You are going to have a site line right down here of that sign, behind the trees, before you get to the Goldie's. I don't want to worry about it anymore. I just want to go look at it. From way north of Goldie's. So you are going to see it before you get right up on the drive. I agree with Don. I think a monument sign makes a lot more sense However, this is not my application. They have the right to ask for a pole sign by ordinance. We have to make a determination of whether or not it complies with the Commercial Design Standards and that's why I think it's important to go out there and look and see what else is sort of out in that area. We can do that one of two ways. We can all three go and try to make a recommendation for a sign, one way or another, before agenda session. Can we do that? Just call Tim and give him our recommendation. Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 39 • Brackett: Hoffman: If you would like us to show up at agenda session and discuss it then? The full Commission is not going to go on tour so somebody needs to go look at it. We will do that. Conklin: Just give me a call. Hoffman: We'll call in and then express our opinions and go from there. Bunch: Is a press representative going to be notified that we are having a meeting? Hoffman: We are not going to have a meeting we are just going to call Tim. Conklin: Are you going together? If you go together I need to notify. Bunch: If we go together, we are having a meeting. Hoffman: I don't think we need to go together. I don't want to hang it up on the sign. Personally, I think thing the building is fine. I'll go on record to say the Design Standards are met. Conklin: I was going to add one more thing, just on this drive-thru side. The only other concern I may have is this wall right here, this comes out, this is not just a flat wall right here? Odom: Just articulate it. Hoffman: That's something we required McDonald's to do and this is exactly like what they have done pretty much. Conklin: The only thing I can think that might make it look a little better is to put a canopy over your drive thru window. Hoffman: It's more convenient. Odom: I think we required that on McDonald's. Brackett: We don't have a problem with that at all. Odom: That there is going to really break it up and articulate. Personally I think it meets the Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 40 Commercial Design Standards for articulation. I don't even have a problem with the sign on the building. Conklin: Is that cupola going to be lighted internally? Brackett: Yes it is. Odom: This right here is going to be lighted? Brackett: Yes it is. Odom: This red thing right here? Brackett: Yes. We can take a picture of what's out in Rogers and show it to you. Odom: Do we allow that? • Conklin: No, we typically don't allow that. Odom: What you are doing is you've turned it into a sign as opposed to an architectural feature and that would make it large and out of scale, in my opinion. • Brackett: Maybe we will bring pictures and give them to Tim before agenda session. Will that work? Odom. Something will have to be done otherwise, I wouldn't support that. Conklin: I'm not in favor of that being lit up either. Odom: In my opinion, what you have done is turned an architectural feature into a sign. That would make it large and out of scale to the proportion of the building. Brackett: Can we just put the plastic in and not light it so it's just red plastic? Hoffman: That's fine. Brackett: We can do that. Hoffman: This is the same conversation we had on the Sonic on their architectural features. If • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 41 you are okay not lighting that then we will go with that. No internal lighting. Brackett: The sign itself can be lit Conklin: Yes. Odom: The sign in itself is not out of scale with the rest of the building. If you include that then it all of a sudden becomes out of scale. Hoffman: We are in agreement with that cross access going in the back here? Brackett: We will show the easement. Bunch: Check with Goldie's to see if it's agreeable to them? Brackett: I'll contact them. • Hoffman: You'll call that a condition of approval even if you don't have time to put it on the plat. Anything else about this large scale? What I'm going to do is go back to the parking. • Bunch: It says 80 places 1 per 200 square feet. Brackett: That's what the ordinance says. I'm showing the ordinance and then I'm showing what we provided and I added a note that we are asking for a variance of 29 additional spaces. Hoffman: Do you have a letter requesting a variance? Brackett: Yes. Bunch: I see now what you are saying. I just misunderstood. You are saying four eating places. Brackett: That's what the ordinance states right now. Conklin: Are these shutters fake? Brown: Yes. Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 42 • • Hoffman: MOTION: Hoffman: Brackett: Conklin: Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Bunch: Odom: Hoffman: MOTION: Odom: Conklin: Odom: Anything else? I am going to go back to the lot split and take a vote on it and then take a vote on the large scale. I'll make a motion for LS 00-42.00 subject to staff comments with one additional comment you provide a survey plat as a part of this document to conform with the legal description that you got. That's just something that we need to get with Planning. All the Commissioners don't have to hear it? I'll inform the Commission that we have taken care of it. We are approving the lot split here. We'll just make it a condition that it be taken care of. Just make a condition that before the lot split is final that you have to give him that documentation. I'll make a motion to approve this lot split based on this survey and paperwork being cleared up and other staff comments. I'll second. Concur. Now let's go on to the Large Scale, motions? I move that we move LSD 00-34.00 forward to Planning Commission subject to staff comments and additional comments that we have outlined here mainly the cross access at the northwest corner and the engineering notation about the 10 foot utilities from the line, the third is to abandon the existing water meter and relocate it and the additional meter off the fire hydrant line before the irrigation meter Ron will actually finish up the report for the conditions. Subject to the Engineering additional report. Screening of the rooftop and you add Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 43 • • Bunch: Hoffman: Odom: Brackett: Odom: canopy over the drive-thru and no internal lighting on the top of the building, cupola. I'll second. We'll call you with the sign recommendation before agenda session. Are there no trees planted in here other than this one right here? No. Is that just all landscaped area or what? Brackett: We haven't got the landscape plan yet. It's not going to be pavement. It's going to be grass or something. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 44 LSD 00-35.00: Large Scale Development (Hooker, pp 209) was submitted by Neal Albright, P.E on behalf of J.M. Hooker Construction, Inc. for property located at Highway 112 North. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.36 acres The request is to build 4,200 square foot structure for office, storage and work space. Hoffman: Let's move on to item number five which is a Large Scale Development 00-35.00 for Hooker Construction submitted by Neal Albright, P.E on behalf of J.M. Hooker Construction, Inc. for property located at Highway 112 North. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.36 acres. The request is to build 4,200 square foot structure for office, storage and work space. TAPE NOT TURNED FOR BRIEF TIME - STAFF REPORT ADDED HERE (other comments are from typed notes) Conklin: This property is located on Highway 112 south of the restaurant on the corner and north of the Highway 112 Drive -In Theater. All the surrounding property is zoned C-2, with the exception of the property directly across Highway 112 which is zoned A-1. The applicant previously presented a large scale development for his construction offices for property on Van Asche, but has decided not to purchase that property. Staff recommendation is to forward to the full Planning Commission. Conditions to discuss and address• a property line adjustment was approved administratively in September of 1997 with a condition that no curb cut would be allowed on this property and access to the north but is requesting a curb cut on this property. There is no existing canopy including rare or landmark trees on this site. Approval of a Conditional Use allowing for storage in a C-2 zoning district. Planning Commission determination of screening. The applicant is requesting a chain-link fence with sugar maple trees planted on the inside of the fence. Screening is required for all outdoor storage yards. In the Design Overlay District if a metal fence is needed for security it must be inside of a fence made of natural materials. Furthermore, all outdoor storage must be screened with natural vegetation. Ordinance requirements are included. The rest are standard Conditions of Approval. Key: I did get a certified notice receipt from the Transportation Department. We also have a signed copy by the owner agreeing to the standard conditions of approval. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: I have not received the grading drainage permit Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 45 • Edwards: We have a copy in our file. I'll get that to you. Key: We put in a request for a waiver for the tree preservation fee. Petrie: Okay as long as I get a copy of that. If you can label the fill slopes on the grading plan. Put whatever means of stabilization you will be using. Also add a note on how you will re -vegetate all of your disturbed areas. That's all the comments that I have. Kim Hesse - Tree and Landscape Administrator Hesse: I'll just get with the applicant. TAPE TURNED AT THIS TIME Hoffman: Key: You were saying about the trees along the screening? We were proposing to use a super pine along the north and east. It's felt to be desirable because of the height of the screening from the overpass of I-540 which is quite elevated from this site granted it's 500 feet to our east but it was felt that it would be acceptable to provide that screening within our fence for security reasons. We were concerned if we placed the trees outside of the fence that it would possibly be used to assist access to the site by climbing the trees and scaling the fence. That was discussed at Plat Review and felt it was an acceptable alternative to place the trees inside the fence as opposed to outside the fence. Conklin: What kind of pine trees are these again? Hoffman: What's a super pine? Conklin: Is that what he said? Key: It's a hybrid, quick growing, hardy pine tree. Kim Hesse - Tree and Landscape Administrator Hesse: I would assume it's used for quick harvesting. It grows fast. Key: I'm sure these are going to grow to a large height in terms of longevity and the life span 41111 of the tree, I don't know any specifics on that. I would anticipate that they would be Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 46 • Hoffman: Hesse: Hoffman: Key: Hooker: Albright: long living trees. There are a lot of loblolly's in Northwest Arkansas in the natural forest areas that have been planted in the forties and fifties that are still thriving and are very nice size trees even in a denser application. So you would support that? Yes. Could I get you guys to introduce yourselves? I did but the tape was off. I'm Jim Key, architect for the applicant. Morgan Hooker. Neil Albright. What's your name? Hoffman: My name is Laurel Hoffman. You didn't know that? The spacing is okay with you too? Hesse: Yes. Conklin: I just have a question and must apologize to the applicant because last meeting I had to go to Regional Planning Commission and leave the meeting so I didn't attend the whole time. These super pines, that's going to make a solid screen wall? The intent in the ordinance is to have it view obscuring completely. Hesse: Key: Hesse: Key: From the bypass it will because it's elevated. So that will be great from the bypass. It will be a higher screen. There is just trunks showing until 8 feet high. From the restaurant would you guys be opposed to put a second row and offset them so that the trunks will create a screen? I think Mr. Hooker would be agreeable to do whatever is necessary to achieve the screening that's necessary. If it's a staggered row of plantings I don't think that would be a problem. Obviously there are other possibilities, a view obscuring fence would be one possibility. It would our desire to do it with vegetation and staggering and decreasing the space to half as much would be desirable granted we are still going to have a trunk every ten feet. Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 47 • Hoffman: You might want to do bushes too. Conklin: Is it going to be three years that we are going to have a solid screen fence? Hesse: They will have it early The young will screen it. It's like 20 years down the road that it won't. Key: I would say in the next year, year and a half we will have a solid screening of pines from the parking lot of the adjacent property to our property and a matter of ten years, that screen will have elevated and we'll have less of a view obscuring situation at the ground level and the parking lot level and have nice big trees. Of course if it's ever a problem, we are wanting to be a good neighbor, it's possible we can come in and do intermediate plantings of shrubs or something at the lower level but I don't think it would be advisable to do it at this time because they would be competing with the density of younger pines. Hoffman: I've seen rows of pines used effectively and they are attractive so I'm inclined to go with staggered rows on this side of Bronson. Key: That would only be necessary on the north side of our property to the extent of the adjacent commercial development. On the east we could stay with the standard spacing for view obscuring from the interstate. Conklin: In the Overlay District it talks about not allowing chain link fencing. It says all fencing shall be constructed out of wood, masonry or natural looking materials. No optional fences shall be located within the green space required by section d(2). No metal fencing shall be allowed except in the following cases; wrought iron fencing. If other types of metal fencing are necessary for obscurity purposes they may be used if the area is first fenced off with a view obscuring natural or natural looking fencing material. Fencing material shall be placed inside the view obscuring obstructing fence and the view obstructing fencing shall be at least the same height of the metal fencing. Key: This is actually the fencing on the adjacent property that we are not going to be providing. It's existing. We are proposing to tie into it. This fencing along the south is all Arkansas Highway Department's fencing that's being installed currently. It's our intent to install a little bit of fencing here and here, this area in the Overlay District, I think is probably the issue of question, in my opinion. • Hoffman: It clearly gives us the option to use the fencing. This is a towing yard situation which we Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 48 • • have not had good luck with. I wish we knew about super pines in towing yards. Hooker: I don't want to build up super pines too much, it's just a glorified tree. Hoffman: I love that name. Because of the character of this area, I don't really have a problem with the chain link with the trees. Conklin: That will have to be a variance. Key: On the original proposal on the adjacent property we were utilizing new chain link in conjunction with existing chain link on both sides with pine plantings screening from the interstate and it was felt to be an acceptable solution and it sounds like it's agreeable to Tim but it would have to be a variance I understand. Bunch: One question, in this strip right here where it's going to be adjacent to this, specifically, which one of these parcels is the restaurant corner on? Key: The restaurant is located on the parcel that's noted as 3. It's parcel 15824. Their parking lot is also located on that parcel. The parcel that's noted as 3 is listed as 15823 is actually an old house lot that is green space right now. The house has been removed several years ago and it's totally undeveloped there in front of their parking lot. Hooker: They basically sit back in the back corner of this right back here. Bunch: I see in my mind where the building sits but I didn't know where the lot lines were. Key: The restaurant basically sits here and they built a new little canopy and they've got a little parking and their parking lot is all of this area and there is a little exit drive right there and this is the restaurant building backed up fairly tight to the east side of their property. This is totally unutilized. It had an old house on it. That's an old foundation. Bunch: Basically the part that's in the Design Overlay District is also immediate proximity to their building and their patio. I was concerned about not having a chain link fence there. Key: We've coordinated closely with the owners TL and Debra Nelms, and they are in support of what we are doing, he didn't feel the chain link fence would be a bad thing there to his west. He's got some screening in terms of a wood fence at the edge of his Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 49 • patio that separates it from his gravel parking lot. Hoffman: The only way they'll ever see this is if you are out on his deck. Key: As I said, it's screened partially, not a full height wall but he's got about a four foot wood screen fence that obscures. Odom: It's higher than that isn't it? I think all you can see is the canopies up on the tables. Hooker: Our property drops down off that hill too. Key: We are lower there. Albright: It's elevated right here. Key: In this corner this whole area is quite elevated and our site drops down In reality their building sets here and patio and this is all their employee parking and dumpsters. They are looking out from that and they screened it for that purpose and there is an existing small fence along the wall here that we will be removing it and replacing with a better quality fence. Hoffman: I'm satisfied with this and I would like to move on in the interest of time. It's almost 10:20 and we got this and two more items to go so unless anybody else has anything to talk about can we go back to the driveway and then go to Commercial Design Standards? Is everybody ready? Bunch: I just have one question on this rip -rap on six mill black visqueen, is that just a typical section that you are showing? Albright: It will go all the way through that. We have those slow contours. Bunch: So that ties into what Ron asked earlier and I was just wondering. Basically that's typical and extends forward. Albright: Yes. The draftsman got lazy and just stopped there. Petrie: It wouldn't be black visqueen there it would be a non -woven geo-textile fabric. • Key: We've also got a concern as you know where this high area is to our north here we've Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 50 • got about six times the water that we are going to be generating from development of our property, flowing off of their parking lot on our property here at about the point where the Overlay District starts. We are trying to direct that back to that natural drainage area on the south of our property. Hoffman: Through here is what you are talking about? Key: Yes. We are dedicating an existing utility easement along the east with an existing sewer line. It's our desire to build that up just slightly because it is kind of marshy right now, a little bit of fill to kind of spread and expand that loose material and then we are going to seed all of that in response to Ron's comment about re -vegetation is going to occur. Everything we are not utilizing to the rear is going to be grass and there will be an area that we are asking for a Conditional Use as a gravel paving in the lot storage area. Conklin: Can you describe what kind of material and equipment you will be storing back here? Hooker: Job site trailers, back hoe, we don't really have a whole lot of material that we stockpile. Key: They don't have a lot of heavy equipment. They are not a civil contractor. They are a general contractor. They have a few small job trailers, a flatbed trailer they haul the scrap material off on it and that type of thing from job sites. Hooker: It's not going to be like a bunch of two by fours. Hoffman: You want a Conditional Use from Subdivision? Conklin: I think they are requesting the gravel SB2 for the outdoor storage area. It's my only concern is how often are you going to be driving on that and is that going to be making dust go over to the restaurant? Hooker: Their's is all SB2 on that one side and they have ten times more traffic than we do on their SB2. Key: It's not going to be a heavily trafficked area. Hoffman: If it were a nursery or something where you would have cars running in and out all the • time, I think we have a couple of those in town that have SB2 but it's not like a parking Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 51 lot for vehicles that are coming in and out constantly. You are going to have light traffic. Key: We have it fenced screened. Hoffman: If you have a trailer, you will move it out for a job and then bring it back. I think that's okay. Bunch: How far does the paving extend? Just to the gate? Key: Yes. Just to the fenced gate which is about 20 feet from the northeast corner of the building. You can see it separating the public parking is going to be paved in the front. Odom: Is the SB2 a conditional use? Conklin: I don't think it needs to be a conditional use. Odom. What if the owner changes hands? • Conklin: We have a conditional use for this. Keep in mind, this use is not allowed in this zoning • district, that's why I'm concerned about the screening. Odom. So if there is a change in ownership or a change of use then we could say to pave it. Hoffman: Then you have to pave it. This is specifically for this use. Key: The owner is not intending to develop this and sell it. This is their office. They are going to move in there. If the property does change hands. It's not that this is intended to be done for this means and changed at any foreseeable date. We have provided for some expansion area to the east. They are hoping that if the business will grow and they can add a little more office space and at that point we would probably move the fence back, pave more parking as necessary to meet the requirements of the office needs and make adjustments. Hoffman: I understand the concerns about sharing the driveway with the restaurant, I would just like Perry to tell us if this is a safe distance between the two. Is that alright with everybody? Kim, did you have anything else to say about his before we move on to Design Standards? Hesse: No. Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 52 Hoffman: Okay. It looks like we have a concrete pad to put your air conditioner on, is that what you are going to do your walls with? Can you give us a presentation? Key: • This is not a transformer pad or a conditioner pad. It is our desire to develop a building utilizing a cast concrete base, a galvanized metal wall finish above that concrete, wood timber canopy structure similar to what has been constructed recently at Ozark Natural Foods property which Mr. Hooker constructed. We are looking at a natural timber arc with an open lattice for the canopy, large timber columns, timber awning structure supported on steel bracket and this is the aesthetics that we are hoping to achieve. To compare I wanted to show you this, this is another commercial structure downtown you are all familiar with. This is the old Good Year building which was renovated several years ago and currently houses the U of A Community Design Center and by request they have done similar to what we are proposing they've used cast concrete. The holes that you see as shown are representative of the form ties for the actual construction of the wall and it's our desire to add reveals on the lower portion for a three foot height that create a square checkerboard pattern with the form tying in the center of each one. Half of which is represented on the lower portion of this sample panel. The area above that which will vary in height give some articulation to the various parts of the facade. It would be varying height between windows and at the end come up higher standard waynescoat type height of about 5 % feet adjacent to the door and between these windows. It would be up to the top of the windows here and at the end with the wall panels in between them. • Hoffman: What's this? This is also concrete then. This is concrete and this is concrete but they are different patterns? Key: Different pattern. Same color, different pattern. That is the first proposal we submitted that you have shown there. We were looking at possibly a darker color on the concrete. I believe the second submittal that was revised and submitted after Plat Review is possibly showing a lower copy of the elevations you got there which are with the wood awning structure accentuated a stained dark and the concrete left natural. Hoffman: This north elevation faces the restaurant. Key: Yes. It would have this finished back to a point about here we have a personnel door going into the building and this pattern will be to there and the natural concrete at that same height would be all the way to the back corner and the metal panel will continue all the way down. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 53 Hoffman: This side is the same all the way? Then this is the east that faces the bypass. Key: With overhead doors for more access to our storage and warehousing section of our building. All metal siding without the concrete continued around that side with the understanding that with the super pines, they live up to their name, provide the screening we need so this building will not even be visible from the interstate. I think quite truthfully at 550 feet or 600 feet to the back of the building, I don't think it will be that visible especially considering the direction of traffic. The northbound lanes on I- 540 actually sweep slightly to the east there as you come off of the exit to I-71 and the swing to 1-540 going north to Johnson and Springdale. When you are northbound you are actually lower than 800 or 900 feet from our building and are not actually able to se over the southbound lane down to this property which is considerably lower. Hoffman: What's number 4? Key: Number 4 is the property that we originally proposed to develop. Hoffman: It's got the asphalt thing on it. Key: No. The asphalt is actually here, this is the undeveloped lot that is shown in one of these photos. Hooker: Keep in mind, we are right beside the Highway Department. Hoffman: I know that. This side doesn't matter. Key: This is Thomason's Asphalt which is actually right to the east of lot 4 which is shown there. The lot, I haven't brought the board today because we weren't developing it, is the one between this building and the back of the restaurant on the corner and it has a current two-story tin building on it. It's a total bare gravel lot that used to have an industrial contractor in it. Cross Street Services with a lot of heavy equipment and a fuel storage tank and all types of things. That lot has been considerably cleaned up. It is the one that we were originally proposing to build on. It had an access easement problem and have not developable by our standards for what had been approved and purchase on that property had been nixed. Currently that is unoccupied. It has an industrial type warehouse building on it that was used as a maintenance shop for truck maintenance and is completely surrounded by chain link fence and barb wire. • Hoffman: Can you explain the rest of the materials up there on the board? Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 54 Key: Originally this was a sample submitted on the original building that had some concrete masonry units attached to this lower area with a metal panel above This was intended to represent this panel which was submitted separately basically it was there to cover the holes and debris from the previous submittal. This would be the concrete base with galvanized metal wall finish above, galvanized finished trim for corners and gutters, black painted finished metal frame for windows and doors and that's about the extent of our trim package. Our intent is to have a natural concrete base with galvanized wall finish above it trimmed with natural similar mill colored galvanized color trim and the windows and doors elements... Hoffman: What about the roof? Key: The roof will also be the same thing. It will be a galvanized metal roof panel. Hoffman: Will it be the same pattern as the wall or will it be different standing seam? Key: It will be a standing seam with a two foot pan and mechanically attached vertical leg every two feet. Odom: You don't have a large out of scale sign with flashy colors. Key: We do not have a large out of scale sign with flashy colors. We are not proposing a large black unarticulated wall surfaces, all of our walls have doors and windows. The east facade which is shown on a separate plan which is page 2 that shows the floor plan, here it's got several windows in the offices towards the west side of that south facade. Again, we have to consider that this building is directly adjacent to the Highway Department's engineer's office will be built directly to the south and the the front of the building is basically aligned with the front of the engineer's building is going to be right here and set here with a large building basically blocking the entire south facade. We've got a few windows looking out on them. We haven't proposed to put canopies on there so they won't need it for screening purposes. We aren't going to be getting that much sunlight from their building. We are proposing canopies along the west facade and windows and articulated materials along the north facade. Hoffman: I've got to compliment you on doing not your usual contractor's office because they are usually dust very utilitarian. I've heard some concern expressed about the concrete base and I would like to know why you've gone away from the split face block that you originally were proposing. Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 55 • • Hooker: I just thought we could do a little more with the concrete and make something different. Key: Morgan and I had discussions. The split face concrete block has become very popular. You start seeing it on every building being built now with charcoal or buff or this or that. Quite truthfully, as you will recall, it was not our first choice on the original building we had presented. Our first choice was not a split faced concrete block but rather a raw concrete block that scored with 8 inch by 8 inch square pattern that was presented with our original submittal on the building that was in the Overlay District. Through the process we made modifications. We discussed the split faced buff block. Ultimately, the final solution was we were going provide a finish with brick veneer for the lower waynescoat and some slate as an accent around the penetrations. This as revised and submitted for this particular site is really what we would like to built. The concrete is felt to be a nice aesthetic. You see it has been used in other applications as documented and shown including buildings here downtown. I've got a whole roll of photos that were shot with other buildings, Mcllroy Bank on the square is a concrete cast structure. It's got aggregate in areas, it's got fluting in other areas. We don't feel it's an inappropriate product. It is not an unfinished precision concrete block as stated in the ordinance as an item to be avoided. It is a natural product cast with a pattern to create an aesthetic. Odom: Is it an unpainted concrete precision block? Key: No. Odom. Why is it not a unpainted concrete precision block? Key: Precision block is a cast element manufactured in precision dimensions, 8 inches by 16 inches, 12 inches by 16 inches. Hooker: This is like a tilt -up panel wall. That would be a better description. Hoffman: This, unless I'm mistaken, has a mixture in it to provide a buff color and not just plain old gray. Key: This does not. This has a rock concrete. There is a buff brick on the building itself but the actual concrete form work on the front of the building is all raw and natural. Hooker: Keep in mind, that's really green concrete. That's not the color it's going to be once it dries. Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 56 • • Key: Once it's cured and dried. This has been poured about 8 days. It's not fully cured until 28 days. It's gets drier and drier as it cures and at this point it's green. It will weather. Bunch: Key: Bunch: Key: What are these landscaping elements immediately in front of the building? We are looking at shrubbery planting there. The reason I ask that, this particular building right here to be used as an example, if you are walking down the street coming from the north on a summer afternoon, the west sun hits that thing and as soon as you get past the tree canopy and vegetation that's like walking into a sauna just walking right in front of that. We've got nine foot of landscaping between the face of our building and the sidewalk where the cars will be parked and we are proposing a juniper landscaping ground cover with some bushes. Bunch: Across the street from this is an asphalt parking lot and all that and that contributes to it but that particular design just for a pedestrian walking in front of it is amazingly reflective and holds the heat in the afternoon and the evenings. I'm not saying just for aesthetics but for usability of your building to consider that. Conklin: Just looking at this photo, comparing this photo to your elevations, what I see is, this looks like a warehouse, this looks like a commercial building. You've got the windows and you've got the brick above it. Key: You've got a canopy that extends. This is not a commercial retail building. This is a commercial office building. Conklin: You are in a C-2 zone requesting a Conditional Use. Key: Keep in mind, we are also next to this building approaching our site from this directions, passing these mechanical industrial supply. Again, as we had presented before, we are considering the neighborhood of the nature of the site, environment, surroundings. Directly to our North on VanAsche Drive is the City of Johnson's industrial park. There is a concrete plant right there directly across from our previous site. We feel that what we are proposing is reasonable and acceptable and an improvement upon the development that you see occurring in this area particularly considering the Highway Department shop that's being built to our south, the hut and bare metal building that's built further south of that. We feel this is going to be an attractive addition to the Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 57 neighborhood. Not to be offensive, I understand this is a commercial site. We desire to use a commercial aesthetic that is different than what some people's visions of a commercial aesthetic should be. We are not proposing brick, we are not proposing split faced block, we are not proposing marble, stone, we are not proposing a metal clad structure, vinyl structure. Here we have a metal plaid structure in a Design Overlay District. I question how that was every approved and built if we got metal wall panels in the Overlay District? They do not look like stone, wood or other natural occurring material. We've been on this issue time and time again. We are proposing something we feel aesthetically pleasing. We've seen and shown examples of similar projects around town. It's always been our desire to consider the Nadine Baum Education Facility, particularly the Pauline Whitaker Arena on the U of A agricultural campus just south of our site. This is the type of aesthetic we feel is desirable and the client wants to show his client his approach in his building the types of things that he can do and show them a building that's not your standards, that's not a bare raw contractor's office, metal building as it's been referred to. It's not a medical clinic, it's not a retail shop. Hoffman: Can I interrupt you for just a second? What is the spacing on these because it doesn't • appear to line up with that. You've got a big top part. • Key: They are 3 by 3. You are seeing two pieces of the lower portion and half of the upper portion. That was created by applying wood to the inside of our form work to create the reveal and that will be doubled on the bottom for a height of 3 feet with an 18 by 18 inch square pattern. Hooker: The edges are not going to be square. That's a pretty rough sample of what it will look like. Hoffman: Two things that come to mind. As I stated in the earlier meeting with the vinyl siding office buildings, we have a really gutted and subjective Commercial Design Standards ordinance and we have to avoid these elements. In my mind, it's unpainted concrete but it's not a precision block wall. It's not a square boxlike structure because you've got articulation on all the important sides and I'm pretty convinced that you can't see this from the highway. You don't have metal siding, unarticulated wall surfaces and you don't have large out of scale signs with flashy colors. I guess my primary concern is the unpainted concrete. I think that we were happier when you came in with the first building with the split face block which is on the Baum Center and all these others. Odom. Will this be darker or not? • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 58 Hoffman: That's what I'm wondering. If you can put a concrete tint in there to make it not look like this. Not painted. I'm not talking about painting the front of it. I'm talking about putting it in the mix. Key: We can do that. We've considered painting it and we'll do what we got to do to build this building and get him an office. We'll make accommodations, we'll tint. It's our desire that this is the type of affect that we would like. If adding some tinting to the concrete to make it more of a charcoal or buff or something that is determined to be more desirable or to contrast the lower portion from the upper portion. I think that's all within the bounds of what can be done. Hooker: I want to make sure that whole concrete thing is going to be cast at one time so we tint the whole concrete. I didn't know if you meant the lower portion. Hoffman: I'm just reading through the things that we have to worry about and the first two words are unpainted concrete and then it goes on to say precision block walls. • Key: Precision block walls. Hoffman: The unpainted concrete. Key: I don't think you can read it that way, Laurel. It's got to be read as a statement, as unpainted concrete precision block walls. Here is a precision painted block wall. Is that more desirable than what we are proposing? Hoffman: That's a 50 year old building. Don't show me examples of old buildings. Key: Odom: I'm just saying that because you paint a concrete block wall doesn't make it a nice finished element. What we are proposing is an overall aesthetic that we feel is very pleasing, desirable. I agree with her. You failed B completely. It's a square boxlike structure no matter way you look at it. You pass C. I think you passed D. You've got a question on C and a bigger question on A. Hooker: We can tint the concrete. Odom: If you tint the concrete, in my opinion, that makes you pass that. Then you pass three out of five with a close call on C, which I think is okay on. Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 59 Conklin: Typically we can get a percent of metal versus non-metal elements on the main facade, can you give us that number? Odom: Even if it's more than 50% I think that these other things help break that up. Key: I would say it's close to 50/50 then you add in the other elements with detract from the 50/50. How much credit do you give to the awnings and columns? I think that we do not have metal which dominates the main facade. Hoffman: I agree, I'm not worried about the metal. Key: As for item B, I question the validity of item B from the beginning and I always have. When you are talking with building construction and inherently building materials are dimensional unless you want to do something like the Frank Gary Guggenheim Museum with undulating surfaces and titanium platting, it's cost prohibitive considerably. Any building inherently by the nature of how it's built is going to be boxlike. I don't see how a square boxlike structure is a statement that can be considered. • Odom. Let's not argue because I completely disagree with you on that. You 100% completely fail square boxlike structure period. Key: For future purposes and clarification, Conrad. Odom: This is not a square boxlike structure. Look at it's footprint. Look at it's articulation. By Request, it's not a square boxlike structure. Key: It's an existing automotive shop as well. The components are square and boxlike. Conklin: The illustration we had in the ordinance before they took it out was a box, a cube. Hoffman: Like a contractor's office. Hooker: We've gotten to we are going to tint concrete and that's going to be acceptable. We've been on every point but square boxlike structure. Odom: I'm not saying you have to pass that part. I think you can do 4 out of 5 and pass it. It only ask you to avoid or minimize these things. • Hoffman: By articulating his wall surfaces, I think that mitigates the boxlike business. You have to Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 60 have a rectangular usually. Key: We considered an appendage office area that sticks out. Hooker: The awning sticks out. Odom: That does help. Hoffman: Why don't you put a door with a nice wooden awning on this lower door? It faces Roxy and have a cover for your employees. It will make a less boxlike appearance to it. Would that be acceptable? Hooker: I can do that. Key: As opposed to the large canopy at the entry, I propose we use a small line as over the windows so that doesn't appear too dominate. We don't want to draw the public to that door. An awning would definitely help on that. We discussed the possibility of putting awnings over these windows, it was just felt since they are facing north, if you are putting them there simply for the idea of wanting an awning, you are not providing solar screening because we don't have that much solar gain from the north. The door for weather protection, appearances, it would help with the facade and articulate that north facade which does face the restaurant. Hoffman: I feel uncomfortable making specific suggestions like that, let me back up and say that if that's not your wish, it's not something I feel like I can require or say that's my benchmark for passing this project. I appreciate the offer to tint the concrete. I think that goes a long way for getting away from the unpainted look. I'm trying to move this on. Conklin: The south elevation, what does that look like? Key: It's shown on the floor plan. It was in the original submittals second page. It's got several windows in the offices that are located in the west end of the building. Conklin: The state one you are not going to be able to see that, is it right up against it? Hoffman: Are they putting a fence around it? Key: A chain link fence right there. Their parking lot is a double parking lot. They are not Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 61 providing the twenty-five foot landscape buffer in the front. Conklin: P11 have to trust him because they haven't submitted any plans to the City. Key: Mr. Hooker is building that property. Hooker: We lined up pretty much with their building. Conklin: You have no concrete or anything, it's just all metal sidewalls? Hoffman: Let's Just put in the notes that if the buildings don't line up then they could carry the concrete around. Conklin: To match the north. Hoffman: Yes. Key: The other consider, this is not a big issue but this is one of several buildings on their property. They've got a larger warehouse type building to be built further to the east. Conklin: What kind of building are they building? Hooker: Metal building. Conklin: Had to ask. I hate to go out there and see a brick building next to you. Hooker: They do have some brick on it. Conklin: Do they? Key: On the front one, the rear one is Just all metal. Conklin: So this one up here has brick on it? Hooker: I don't know. John's doing it. Conklin: I think I will call the Highway Department and find out exactly. That's all I have. I think if you do approve this building, the same thing that we did on the Mill District, I think we need to make a lot of findings about this is located next to the Highway Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 62 • • Hoffman: Key: Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: MOTION: Odom: Hoffman: Department in this area. Because Dennis Caudle, the zoning we denied, that's coming back to Planning Commission does want to build that additional warehouse. I'm not sure what the Commission is going to do with that but I would hate to have someone hold this up and say "This meets Commercial Design Standards" all over the City of Fayetteville because I don't believe it does. Right now we are working on a case-by-case basis. I have not had time to sit down with you or with Sharon to talk about the use of metal siding and aesthetics. I've talked with the local AIE Chapter here in Northwest Arkansas. They are very interested in this as well. Mr. Kelly commented that he brought the water and sewer department's office to the City recently located on the southwest entrance to the City, it's going to be a galvanized metal building. It's done with aesthetics that is thought to be pleasing. It's in an industrial zone so it wasn't necessarily anything that he had to comply but he said he wanted to make it a point that it is a commercial building. The local architectural group is very interested in getting together and talking with the City about the ordinances and exclusions and see if we can arrive at a solution that's more defined. There are elements obviously that we want to avoid. Conrad and I have worked a lot on this. We have worked a long time on this ordinance and it got gutted by City Council and now we are back to this. They took about ten pages of the ordinance out. We told you what we wanted you guys to do and you said "No. Architects, don't tell us what to do, tell us what not to do." So we ended up with the stripped version and it's very difficult to apply evenly in a case like this. In the interest of time, I'm going to go ahead let's just take motions and stuff on this and move on. I move that we forward to the full Planning Commission LSD 00-35.00 subject to all comments. I think we need to make a specific finding that we have discussed the Commercial Design Standards with the few additions that they will be making to their plans that we will go ahead and recommend that this meets the Commercial Design Standards. Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 63 Odom: Based upon it's location and configuration. Hoffman: And adjacency to the Highway Department. Bunch: I'll second. Hoffman: I'1l concur. Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 64 • • LSD 99-21.00: Large Scale Development (Bank of Fayetteville) Hoffman: We have LSD 99-21.00 which is a revisit of the elevations for the Bank of Fayetteville. Which location is this? Conklin: Wedington. I'm going to have Sara talk. Edwards: You can correct me if I tell them wrong. This is the approved elevation from when they went through Large Scale Development and this is what they have submitted now. The major changes, we've got an arched drive-thru on the original, now it's more squared off Hoffman: Is it flat or is gable? Pierson: It's hipped. Edwards: Where they had an arch here, now has gone hipped also. This top southeast is changing to metal from brick. Pierson: I'm Matt Pierson. Basically Sara is correct. The drive-thru at one point had a heavy timber glue lamb arched drive-thru which would have also required all the pneumatic tubes to be exposed so two factors made us change this. One was cost, we had to come back and take out a quite a bit of money to get the project built. The second one is the owner of Bank of Fayetteville desired where all those guts be hidden and so that's why we went back to this type of structure here. Then secondly it was also a cost related feature was that we had brick originally on this back piece right here which is reflected in this elevation. Conklin: Where would that be facing? Wedington? Pierson: There is really not a back to this building especially the way we have articulated it. Those are really the only two issues that we brought up that we recognize that there are changes and we felt we needed to come back and just verify that it's okay. Edwards: I would like to state that we tried to go with an arch theme throughout this development, I don't know if you can remember we did this recently on McDonald's. The first thing that I did when 1 got here was review Sonic elevations for their incorporated arches. I didn't have a lot of time to go through all the minutes, I did find it in the Sonic minutes where Tim was talking about the arch features throughout the Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 65 development and in two places, especially here they are taking out the arch feature. That leaves no arch features remaining throughout the building. Hoffman: Is that a big cost feature? I know you need to change the glue Iambs, those are expensive but can you not arch the roof canopy just with the materials that you were proposing? Pierson: The structure will be more costly. I don't know what the figures are. To bend the steel obviously is going to be more than straight pieces. It is a legitimate cost issue. Odom: That should have been taken into account from the beginning. When we approved it I remember very specifically incorporating this project because of the arch features along with the rest of the development there. I would be very willing to talk and give consideration to revised schematics if you have somewhere incorporated in there some architectural features. If they were nothing more than that, just they don't have to be the pipe, it could be something else that incorporates some type of arch. Even if you brought the roof line up here like this. Conklin: I was going to say maybe arches over the windows. Sonic put arches in theirs. Pierson: How do we know if there is an arch feature when we are designing this? Is it an ordinance? Is there some kind of covenant in this area? Odom: In this area, in the Commercial Design Standards you have to incorporate certain features with the area that you are coming in, this whole shopping center. One of the reasons that we approved this is because it incorporated that which was in the development area. Conklin: We can show you the grocery store and other buildings that have these features but we actually made Sonic redo their building plans to incorporate an arch feature in it. Pierson: I guess what I'm getting to is, I hope there is something that is documented like a covenant or something like that, that's not in the minutes. Odom: That's part of the Commercial Design Standards. Conklin: As you heard, our Commercial Design Standards are pretty thin and when we start on these developments and they start getting these projects come through, we look and compare what elements are common between the different projects. I can show you Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 66 • the elevation drawings for the other buildings and arches they've used. Are you going to find a covenant or ordinance that says you shall have arches? No. I don't have it. Pierson: That makes it pretty difficult for us. It's kind of a word of mouth thing. Do you understand where we are coming from as designers? Odom: Not really. Hoffman: John Lewis was here when we approved this and talked about it. Pierson: The other part is we had no idea there an was an arch requirement when we designed this. I don't know where it came from. The arch that is on there was our design feature that we came up with. It didn't arrive from something like this. Edwards: Right. Then we used it for other buildings. Conklin: We used them. As they come through, we try to find common design elements. Hoffman: It's not our intent to be punitive about the design of a building at all but we started out with a certain design theme and I would like to see if it's possible for you to do back and try to incorporate an arch some way that's makes more economic sense. Pierson: Obviously it's possible. The other side of that is we are 100% done with working on this. We are ready to go build. Hoffman. I understand that. I just feel like at this point to change and have one building out of a whole rest of them. Pierson: I can come back to and I'm not meaning to be contentious, I'm just wanting to have a fair ground work. When I see the Exxon there, there is no arch theme in that building either that I can see at least. Hoffman: We have materials. We've talked about materials and the arch. Conklin: I'm not sure if McDonald's has an arch theme. The Sonic has arches. Edwards: The grocery store. • Conklin: The stand alone building does. Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 67 Odom: I specifically remember that being one of the architectural features that we talked about for the approval of Commercial Design Standards of this particular project. Pierson: Was this one of the first ones? Conklin: Yes. Pierson: That may have even established. Hoffman: Usually on a large scale development meeting or Planning Commission meeting we'll talk about the unity and conformity of the shopping center. We had a long discussion about the Cozart development on 265 and 45 where there is a Bank of Fayetteville there. We have a difficulty finally arriving at a unified design theme at that location but it was a good deal, you don't have a hodgepodge. Bunch: When did this one first come through? • Conklin: July 19, 1999. Hoffman: What do you want to do? I say have them work with staff and come up with an arch. Odom: Surely you can incorporate some architectural features even if it's just pulling the brick out for arches. Pierson: There is a lot more involved than just doing that. Odom: I'm trying to tell you that I'm not require you to come back and do this. I'm just saying that if you can find a better way to incorporate some type of arch in here I would be more inclined to accept it. Conklin: I can support that too and if you are comfortable enough, if you want to leave it to us to work out and he puts arches in there, I can approve it administratively. That's fine too. I just feel like here we had Sonic redo their elevations incorporate some arches in their buildings then not to incorporate any arches in this building. Edwards: You guys are okay with changing this top part from brick to metal? Hoffman: To me that's a big change and it's a big change in appearance and it's not nearly as • attractive but I understand your reason for it. We were just hoping to achieve part of • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 68 Odom: Bunch: the original intent. I not concerned about that. It does add up. The reason I was looking at the dates, I was wondering if I recused myself on this originally because I do bank with Bank of Fayetteville. I don't know if that's a conflict. Hoffman: You don't own them do you? Bunch: No. I don't own stock. Hoffman: I would like to go ahead and either table this or just send it back to staff for consideration. MOTION: Odom: I would move that we allow it to be handled administratively if it meets the approval of the Planning Director and incorporates into it some type of arch. Pierson: Which means I come up with ideas and pass them to Tim? Conklin: Pass them to me. Pierson: He says yes or no. Conklin: I think you are hearing from them they want to see some type of arch incorporated in there. If it's around the windows. Bunch: If Tim is not comfortable with it he can always bring it back to Planning Commission. I'll go for that. Pierson: What if it was within signage out front or something like that or does it have to be actually incorporated on the building? Odom: It needs to be in the building. Hoffman: If Tim doesn't feel like he can approve it then it will come back to us but I have a feeling you guys can work something out. We are not talking a real major design thing. You got rid of those expensive glue Iambs. Where they using the drive-thru too? The Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 69 glue lambs? Pierson: We have glue lamb inside and outside. The inside has taken out quite a bit of money. We had quite a bit to take out. If you've been to the east branch you will understand, that's a nice building. Hoffman: They didn't want to do the same consideration? Pierson: They wanted to do another nice building but they didn't have the money for it. Odom: On the east side of town on the retaining wall there is an arch feature incorporated in it. Pierson: A very expensive arch feature. I guess from my point of view, I would dust encourage if a theme like that is identified then it needs to be clearly stated. Odom. If you have been here from the beginning you would have known. That was a big part of this. Hoffman: Your president has been here. Pierson: We didn't know about the arch theme as the architect. Maybe we were just deaf that day, I'm not sure. It was not clearly relayed to us. I'm just stating that for the record. Bunch: If you were the first one in that development. You established it for everyone else and we held everyone else to the arches. Pierson: Obviously our project wasn't built yet so maybe the minutes need to, I don't know. Hoffman: I understand what you are saying, you need to discuss it with your group. Pierson: I'll get some stuff together. Hoffman. We appreciate it. Good luck. Subdivision Committee Meeting November 30, 2000 Page 70 LSD 98-15.10: Large Scale Development (Kantz Place) Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Ball: McKimmee: Ball: McKimmee: Ball: Conklin: Ball: Conklin: Hoffman: Conklin: • Our final item is LSD 98-15.10 which is an additional sign request for Kantz Place. I'm going to let Mike McKimmee handle this one. Let's have everybody identify themselves. I'm Cathy Ball and I represent the Kantz'. I'm Mike McKimmee, the Property Inspector and Sign Inspector for the City of Fayetteville. I'm here in my capacity as Sign Inspector to help to talk about a proposal that Kantz Center is asking for. I have a couple of aerials to help see where it is that we are talking about. Here is the site plan. We've got a big arch. We carry it all the way through. Everything that is being presented at this point is preliminary, nothing is in concrete except including the design is a concept design only as represented to me. The placement is also preliminary. It is just to get the proposal moving forward. How this came about really, I had heard through the City that the center across from Glennwood Shopping Center, Harp's, Don Cozart. ..had just constructed a pylon sign for joint identification for the center. It was known to me then that we might come back to the City and ask for something similar for joint identification. Who was at the Subdivision Committee when we talked about Glennwood? Cozart built a sign and it was not shown on his plan and it wasn't discussed. Last January there was a discussion about allowing a sign on this project and allowing a sign on Glennwood Shopping Center. Apparently some mis-communication and time went by eight months and one Saturday I go over to Glennwood Shopping Center and see this joint identification sign there. I say "Well I need to do something about that because we argue over these signs every two weeks." It was already permitted Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 71 through Inspections. It was built. There were signs on it for each of the tenants and I brought that back to the Subdivision Committee. At Subdivision Committee a motion was made to approve that since we issued a permit and Bob Estes thought we would probably be estopped from requiring that sign to be down since we actually issued a permit and to contact the owner/developer of Kantz that they be treated the same way and to be allowed to have a freestanding joint identification sign. That's why Kathy Ball is here this morning. McKimmee: I would like to continue the narrative. The sign was permitted. Every document within the development papers were reviewed, there was no statement that they could not have a sign like that. Hoffman: McKimmee: Conklin: • It just wasn't addressed. I was not addressed. It was not in writing and therefore we issued a permit for this. I'm not trying to say you did anything wrong, my interpretation is that if they don't show a freestanding sign for individual business or joint identification sign on the plat, whatever is approved, is approved, they can't have anything more. That's my opinion. McKimmee: We have rectified that so that future projects will have some continuity in the interpretation of the records. Hoffman: Ball: Bunch: Conklin: Ball: • These are two competing centers and we are trying to give them an even playing field. I think one reason initially that we were so agreeable to not having a sign because no one else out there had one. They didn't have a sign, Mcllroy Court has a pylon sign. We thought it was all even that's fine. Here we are today and we would like to make a presentation to get a sign, a joint identification sign. But what has happened since we made this initial proposal is that WalMart has now come back to me and said that they would prefer to vacate their monument sign that is now there and join us in a joint identification sign on 45. What about 265? Are we looking at one or two signs here? Does WalMart have one monument sign on 265? Yes. Initially what I had thought is they are going to want to keep their monument sign so we would propose a smaller joint identification sign at the 45 entrance and they Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 72 • would keep their monument sign here. Well yesterday I began to have a different communication with them and this morning she called me and she said if they cannot have their name on both, they would prefer to give up this one and become a part of the joint identification sign here. Hoffman: We've got an either or situation. Ball: That's sort of what I saw. Yes. Hoffman: A smaller sign. Ball: This would be about 113 square feet and it would be based on the size of this building. Now, if they give up their signage here then what I would ask for is a second choice would be a larger joint identification sign about 200 square feet which will be based on the size of the whole center. Hoffman: What does our sign ordinance say about the two separate entrances? Can they keep their monument sign and have a smaller sign because you have two separate lots? McKimmee: The option she presented come out of my research. They are based upon the gross feasible space of the structure. Those options being that WalMart retains this Crossover Road sign they would not be on the joint identification sign on Mission. If they opt for select that be agreeable that option then they would have anoint identification sign and they would release this sign here. So they would have one freestanding sign on the lot as ordinance provides. Bunch: What would become of this? McKimmee: There is a question which I have not done research on so far, the question is can they have an area identification sign at the entrance to the shopping center since it is a remote and down under the hill location and that is still, I'm not certain that can be. I haven't done the research on it yet. This would be a 32 square foot sign as opposed to the 75 square foot sign which is currently on site here. Conklin: It would be like Kantz Center monument sign on the comer. McKimmee: Something to that affect. • Ball: That's what it looks like right now. It's a monument sign of that style but it says Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 73 • • Bunch: Ball: Bunch: Ball: McKimmee: Hoffman: McKimmee: Ball: Odom: Ball: Odom: WalMart Neighborhood Market. Does it have an arch on it? Yes. A big beautiful arch. It would in affect look just like that with Conrad's arch? Yes. If we were to keep it and it had to be smaller we would have to make some adjustments. It would more than likely have to be rebuilt. The options available under the ordinance would be a 202 square foot joint identification sign based on the gross leaseable area of everything in the whole center that would be the option that WalMart indicated they would like to go with to Kathy this morning. That is subject to your desires. Where is this going to be on this? There is an island out here and is strictly a preliminary thought. The 40 foot setback which would be required for this site from the property line there at the highway would go back beyond this, right to the tip of this lossage here. So there would be a conflict in the driveway and they would have to find a location and it's the preliminarily proposed that they might use something like this. This is a public way here and there would be similar setback from this street. I believe that is approximately in this area here. So they would pretty much have to reconfigure the lot to house a sign like that or use that lossage and that's beyond my authority. It's kind of unusual to have a City street on the interior. It does kind of complicate the situation. So what do you want? I thought we wanted a smaller sign and WalMart to keep theirs but now they tell me this morning they want to be on this. If they are on this and they get the big building I really do need the sign that would allowed for the whole building and we want to put it here. I would really love to put it on this little thing. WalMart would have to remove the other sign. Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 74 • • Ball: Yes. Conklin: Or use that as an area identification sign. Ball: The best case is if we could put Kantz Center on the WalMart sign. Hoffman: Does the Board of Sign Appeals approve setback variances? Is that something she should pursue? Ball: I was wondering about that. Conklin: The fee is what $390? McKimmee: The setback variances on the Board of Sign Appeals would be required. Ball: It would be the location to put it right there would be ideal, I think. Odom. You are also going to remove a tree because that whole little area is for a tree. Ball: That's true. We could replant though couldn't we? McKimmee: At this juncture, the drawing that's submitted is a preliminary drawing. It's been suggested and I've given her my point of view that the style that I receive the most positive input from the citizen body is a monument style though this drawing doesn't reflect that they are willing to go that way. Ball: Yes. Which really means you are going to make a more solid looking base. I've already talked to Nancy at the sign shop about that. We are all in agreement that would be the way to go. McKimmee: This is an administrative question for you all to discern your intent here, again it's preliminary as far as the specific designs go but before money and time is spent, that's the question that needs to be answered. Can they do this? Hoffman: What we need to do is make a determination as Subdivision Committee that they can alter their signage based on what happens across the street and then let you guys work out the details similar to what we just did with the design of Bank of Fayetteville. What do you all thing? That we can they determine that they can alter the signage as long as it complies with the sign ordinances. Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 75 • • Odom: Bunch: Hoffman: Bunch: Conklin: McKimmee: Ball: McKimmee Bunch: McKimmee: Ball: I don't like it but I think it's the only fair thing to do. How many more steps do we have in playing CYA to cover a glitch? I think we have done them. Well no, if we allow this sign here to be changed, is this one over here going to want to do something and these people over here at Mcllroy? Mcllroy Plaza has one already. This is the last shopping center out there that doesn't have one. For your information, Mcllroy Plaza has a freestanding 30 foot high joint identification type sign. This one here would have one if you approved it. We have two pylon signs, one for Lindsey Mercantile and one for Crossroads Conoco down there where Burger King used to be, right across from Lindsey Mercantile. WE have a pylon sign for the liquor store at the corner which is a rather unique triangle sign that does everything but rotate. It's the oldest one. That's right. Now we have anoint identification sign about 150 yards east of that beyond the Bank of Fayetteville which handles what was developed as Glennwood Shopping Center. There are numerous examples of signs at this location and this is the only one who doesn't have one. Maybe I should rephrase my question. That would put them on a level playing field in that respect but now we are looking also at having a sign on one highway frontage and then another sign on the other highway and would that generate another level of sign placement so that everybody would have one on 45 and everybody would have one on 265? You have the ability to control that. I would say the first choice is that we know that we can have this sign and then secondly you can make a separate decision about whether we could keep the monument sign there or not. If you say so, we have to take it down. Obviously WalMart would prefer this and that's their choice. They constructed that other sign. If we have to remove it I think they are saying they will. Subdivision C • November 30, Page 76 • • McKimmee: Hoffman: McKimmee: Conklin: McKimmee Hoffman: Odom: Bunch: MOTION: Odom: Hoffman: Odom: ommittee Meeting 2000 This sign is an area sign as the proposal goes. What I heard you say is if you go with the bigger sign here that this one has to be reduced in size to comply with the sign ordinance and that you are willing to do that. Then across the street if he chooses to do that then he would get an area sign on 265 of 35 square feet unless he already has one. If you allow it. We can make Mr. Cozart come back for that area sign. I think Mike and I area at the same page with regard to what they have is what has been approved by the Commission. We want that step in the process where we found a way to work it so that the ordinance will seamlessly work with the Planning Commissions needs and their ordinances by doing this administrative review. The area sign is a sign in a development that you can grant or not. To answer the questions, it may very well may escalate the requests for Mr. Cozart's property wanting the sign of a similar nature but again, that is something that is within your ability to say the area needs it or not. 1'11 remind you we just approved an area sign off site for the mall. They have a big mall sign and wanted one in the escalate on Mall Avenue. It's a public driveway or something. As if anybody didn't know where the mall was. She said people coming in from out of town can't find it. I've actually had some people have some problems as well. If you look to the future and everything develops around that, we've all firmly know where the mall is because it was the first one there. Someone that comes in from somewhere else that has not seen the various stages of evolution would not know. We want those out-of-town people spending their tax money here. I move that we allow the big monument sign. What do you want to do about the other one? Allow them to put Kantz Center on the other one if WalMart puts that on there. Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 77 • Bunch: Hoffman: Bunch: Conklin: Ball: I'll second. I'll concur. Are we going to do this administratively. Yes. I'll make sure it's the same materials and colors. Make sure that when the sign company is designing this, they are using the same colors and materials in the center, that's what I would like to see. I told Nancy that but this is what she came up with. We were already there. If I choose to try to get a variance on the location, that would be a separate issue that I handle through you? Conklin: Yes. Ball: Then if not, it's probably more than likely going to go on this island. Hoffman: Just out of curiosity, do they grant variances like that routinely or not? McKimmee: Routinely? It varies by Board. Ball: If we had known when we were designing the parking lot, it would have been easier to put a place to position it. Odom: How did Evelyn Hills get a different sign? How did that work? Conklin: There was a large scale development but that building that they were proposing, was removed. They didn't build it so when came with the building permit, they came with the demolition permit and they actually just demolished that front portion of Montgomery Ward's. There was no large scale development on that project. That was just done through Mike's office. McKimmee: They came a year ago and talked about various signs for joint identification sign and I held them up for a year because there was such a history on the historic first shopping center in Fayetteville sign, Evelyn Hills sign, the green thing with blue tile, such a volume of paperwork on it, hearings and whatnot. • Conklin: That was non -conforming right? Subdivision Committee Meeting • November 30, 2000 Page 78 • • McKimmee: Yes, it was non -conforming. It went through all kinds of variance requests. It was allowed to stay as long as it did not have advertising. As long as it just named the area. They agreed in the interest of getting a joint identification sign which the ordinance would have given them if they took this sign down. They did make that agreement that they would take that sign down and receive anoint identification sign. They did try to make it conform to the shopping center. This was done through D -sign and they did a wonderful job in coordinating the whole thing. That's how it came about. Hoffman: The shopping center is really looking up. Odom: It really is and I think a joint identification sign like that is a good illustration why you need one particularly when we required all those trees on the parking lot. You can't really see back in there. Hoffman: We are adjourned.