HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-15 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, March 15, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in
Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED
LSD 01-3.00: Large Scale Development
(City of Fayetteville Drake Field, pp 834 & 835)
Page 2
LSD 00-36.00: Large Scale Development (J.D. China, pp 520)
Page 6
PP 01-2.00: Preliminary Plat (Mcllroy, pp 439)
Page 14
LSD 01-4.00:
Page 29
LSD 01-5.00:
Page 46
Large Scale Development
(Fayetteville Youth Center, pp 439)
Large Scale Development
(Allied Storage, LTD, pp 601)
MEMBERS PRESENT
Lee Ward
Bob Estes
Laurel Hoffman
STAFF PRESENT
Sara Edwards
Tim Conklin
Jim Beavers
Keith Shreve
Kim Rogers
Kim Hesse
ACTION TAKEN
Approved
Forwarded
Forwarded
Forwarded
Put on Consent Agenda
MEMBERS ABSENT
STAFF ABSENT
Perry Franklin
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
March 15, 2001
Page 2
LSD 01-3.00: Large Scale Development (City of Fayetteville Drake Field, pp 834,835) was
submitted by Arnold D. Rankins of McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. on behalf of The City of
Fayetteville for property located at 4500 S. School Avenue. The property is zoned 1-1, Heavy
Commercial/Light Industrial, C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and
contains approximately 512.28 acres The request is to build 14 hangars and a new Fire Training
Tower.
Hoffman: Good morning everybody. Welcome to the March 15, 2001, meeting of the
Subdivision Committee. We have five items on the agenda this morning. The first was
for the final plat for Appleby and Quail Creek Phase III. That's been pulled from the
agenda, so we'll begin our discussion with LSD 01-3.00. This is a large scale
development for the City of Fayetteville Drake Field submitted by Arnold D. Rankins of
McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. on behalf of The City of Fayetteville for property
located at 4500 S. School Avenue. The property is zoned 1-1, Heavy Commercial/Light
Industrial, C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and
contains approximately 512.28 acres. The request is to build 14 hangars and a new fire
training tower. Tim, can you fill us in?
• Conklin: This is a large scale development. They do show 14 new hangars and a new fire
training tower. The conditions to address and discuss this morning include: A sidewalk
fund has been created for the purpose of building sidewalks along S. School. The
Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator is requesting that $5,472.68 be contributed as part of
this project. There are no trees being impacted on this site as part of this development.
Therefore, there is no tree preservation plan. This did go to the Airport Board and was
approved on March 6, 2001. We do have Arnold Rankins here from McClelland. I
was trying to see if our Airport Manager and Economic Developer was here to explain
it. Arnold may have more information on this project.
•
Hoffman: What I think I would like to do is go through staff comments and have you make a
presentation or just answer our questions and go from there.
Jim Beavers - City Engineer
Beavers: 1 have no engineering comments but I wanted to mention one thing. We got our
standard conditions on the large scale development on there. My understanding is they
are going to build this over many, many years as the need arises.
Hoffman: We have some new faces on our staff that are not normally here so let's go ahead and
introduce ourselves for the record as we go along.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• March 15, 2001
Page 3
•
•
Beavers: Jim Beavers, City Engineer.
Hoffman: Anything further on that?
Beavers: No.
Hoffman: Sidewalks.
Keith Shreve - Public Lands Maintenance
Shreve: Our comments are included in the written here with the cash contribution into the fund
for future construction of the sidewalk.
Hoffman: I believe we've already set that precedent with another hangar that was built six months
or so ago. Didn't we put it in escrow?
Conklin: Yes.
Hoffman: Anything other than that?
Shreve: No.
Hoffman: Obviously there is nothing from Kim on trees. Would you introduce yourself please?
Rankins: My name is Arnold Rankins, engineer at McClelland Consulting Engineers. It's pretty
straight forward. The grading and drainage was done early on when they built the
airport. There will be minor changes in that. I did have one call from the letter we sent
out concerning this from the Greenland School District. They were concerned about
any additional water coming down in front of their school. If you look at the map, all
our drainage will drain through pipe across the southeast side of the airport going into
the 100 year floodplain over there.
Hoffman: Not this floodplain?
Rankins: The only time that floodplain would be intact would be if you got the 100 year flood.
Hoffman: So we are not increasing Jim, this 100 flood plain is located between the old and the
sewer, is it going to be unless we have a big rain storm? So we'll take that into
account. Did you want to say anything further?
•
•
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
March 15, 2001
Page 4
Rankins: That's all.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Hoffman: I'll take public comment. Does anybody here wish to address the Committee on this
project?
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Hoffman: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Subdivision Committee for discussion and motions.
MOTION:
Ward: I'll go ahead and made a motion to approve LSD 01-3.00 for the airport hangars.
Estes: I'll second. I do have a question. Mr. Rankins, is this a phased development? Will it
be built in phases over a period of time?
Rankins: As I understand, part of it will depend on whether they will get tenant that wants to
lease a hangar. They have one, Mount Superior that is going to get one of them right
away. Then if the other agreements come in then they would build those.
Conklin: With regard to condition number five, valid for one year, if you would like to give staff
some latitude in additional years of approving these as they come to us and make that
recommendation.
Hoffman: I say you could phase it, as they get more known.
Conklin: Maybe five years or something then revisit it.
Hoffman: The only problem I have with that is if we drastically change something about the
ordinance, we don't want them to be grandfathered and okayed for it. Why don't we
phase it for two years and if they have some other need, then we can come back. I
have a question, was that a second?
Estes:
Ward:
That was a second but Mr. Ward will now have to amend.
I'll go ahead and amend my motion for a two year phase two.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
March 15, 2001
Page 5
Estes: I accept that amendment.
Hoffman: I'll concur we approve this at this level. The only question I have, we've got one
hangar being constructed in the middle of some existing ones, is that going to be
matching that existing construction?
Rankins: Yes.
Hoffman: I know we don't have any elevations but that's the only that I see that's close to the
road and then we've got this roof canopy over here. Do we need to worry about
Commercial Design Standards? All airplane hangars pretty much look the same to me.
Conklin: This is zoned industrial. We have not applied our Commercial Design Standards to that
industrial use.
Hoffman: Do we have existing landscaping out there in front of any of those?
Conklin: There is some. Kim, did you get a chance to look at that?
Hesse: No. What's there is out by the highway.
Hoffman: I'm not trying to all of a sudden invoke Commercial Design Standards on this, I just
want to address it because we've got a few buildings that are going to be right there on
71. I'll go ahead and concur with the motion that we approve it here. Is that it? Okay,
thank you very much.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
March 15, 2001
Page 6
LSD 00-36.00: Large Scale Development (J.D. China, pp 520) was submitted by Andy Feinstein of
Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Jennifer Lee for property located at 1740 W. 6'h Street. The
property is zoned C -2/R-2, Thoroughfare Commercial/Medium Density Residential and contains 1.86
acres. The request is for a restaurant.
Hoffman: Our second item to consider is LSD 00-36.00 which is a large scale development for
J.D. China submitted by Andy Feinstein of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of
Jennifer Lee for property located at 1740 W. 6"' Street. The property is zoned C -2/R-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial/Medium Density Residential and contains 1.86 acres. The
request is for a restaurant. Staff?
Conklin: This property is located directly west of the Burger King on 6th Street. A lot split was
approved on May 11, 2000, which split this property on the west. The proposal is for
a 6,200 square foot restaurant, 58 parking spaces and a drive-through Conditions to
address and discuss: Planning Commission determination of compliance with the Tree
Protection and Preservation Ordinance. The applicant is proposing to preserve 21% of
the entire site in tree canopy. The requirement in a C-2 zone is 15% preservation of
canopy. That is located on an R-2 portion on the north end of the site. Once again, we
are asking for tree easements to guarantee that tree preservation will remain. This will
be preserved in perpetuity due to the granting of a tree easement. Street lights are
required every 300 feet. If it is determined that the existing street lights are not adequate
additional lights may be required. ADA spaces shall be located in compliance with the
federal ADA guidelines. Compliance will be determined by Perry Franklin, Traffic
Superintendent. One of the concerns was these four ADA spaces on the east side of
the building, they need to be closest to the front door. There was some discussion with
regard to the location of those and the front door. A conditional use has been
requested in order to provide parking spaces in excess of that allowed by code. For a
6,200 square foot restaurant, 38 spaces are allowed (1 per every 200 feet plus an
additional 20%). The applicant is requesting to provide an additional 20 spaces for a
total of 58 spaces.
Hoffman: Let me stop you here for one second. This is our usual restaurant variance request,
does this mean that we have to send it on to the Planning Commission?
Conklin: Yes.
Hoffman: I wish we could change that.
Conklin: I tried and was unsuccessful in that attempt. Let's wait another eight months or so and
.
we'll try again. don't like to get hit over the head too much at City Council. Number
•
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
March 15, 2001
Page 7
Beavers:
Hoffman:
Beavers:
Hoffman:
Beavers:
Hoffman:
five, the applicant is requesting a variance from §169.02(C)(2) length of cut slope, of
the grading ordinance which limits the lengths of cuts to 100 feet. Jim probably can
explain that variance better than I can.
When the grading ordinance was amended it was due to the Lindsey project north of
the elementary school. Council amended it. The grading ordinance required a terrace
if we cut or fill slopes after a length of 100 feet. You can see how the grading of the
parking lot is greater than 100 feet.
This is a pretty small site compared to that other one though. Is it going to adversely
create any drainage problems for anybody else?
No.
Anything else?
No.
Sidewalks?
Keith Shreve - Public Lands Maintenance
Shreve:
Hoffman.
Shreve:
Hoffman:
Edwards:
Hoffman:
Kim Hesse -
Hesse:
No comment.
They are showing their ramps through the driveways?
Yes. Everything is on the drawing.
Who determines the street lights, why don't we know that by now?
Perry asked them to go out and look if there are streetlights and they needed to show it
on the drawing. I guess that was overlooked on their part. We are waiting on that.
Thanks. Kim, do you want to address the tree preservation plan? Do you want to
enlighten us a little bit on the easement an so forth and they've done?
Landscape Administrator
We've been working on this probably over a year. They brought it to me early to try to
Subdivision Committee Meeting
March 15, 2001
Page 8
figure out ways they could save some of these large trees but you can't. You can see
the existing contours. The only way to really do that would be to preserve all these
trees in the back and the client actually purchased this piece of property for tree
preservation. This is a full forest. It's a good environment to keep and preserve. We
are losing some large trees.
Hoffman: Are these trees, that are shown on the site, every tree on this site or are they the ones
over twelve inches?
Hesse: This is the tree line. It's a wooded site.
Hoffman: So they will be saving about this much back here?
Hesse: Yes. It provides a buffer for the apartments back there. It's probably a good solution.
Yes, we are going to lose a lot of large trees and that's what citizens are going to see
when they drive by, but we are preserving a lot.
Hoffman: What have they done about replacements for the front landscaping parking lot
requirements?
Hesse: They've met all the requirements.
Hoffman: Are they replacing other than Bradford trees and so forth?
Hesse: Yes. They are meeting the minimum canopy requirements. Their landscaping is
meeting the standards of all the others, parking lot which they have done. I recommend
it be approved. I don't have a problem with that. They worked with me early on this
but we couldn't find any way to save those Targe trees.
Hoffman: I want to thank the applicant for that because it's a pleasant change to have this to look
at rather than one that has been brought in with trees cut down and have to go back like
we did on a previous project. Thank you very much for your work on it, Kim.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Hoffman:
Reynolds:
I'll take public comment on this if anybody is here to address us on this issue.
I'd like to thank these folks for taking the time doing all this extra work and buying the
extra land to clean this piece of property. This is the number one entry to the City of
•
•
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
March 15, 2001
Page 9
Hesse:
Anderson:
Fayetteville. We've been looking at this for years. We couldn't have picked a better
restaurant or people to go out there and take that over than these people. They have
been in business about 30 years They do a good job. I think you are going to see an
excellent project here. Everybody I know is on the City Council highly recommends
this. Bob Reynolds, City Council.
I'm Steve Hesse with Engineering Design Associates.
I'm Mike Anderson with Engineering Design Associates. Any Feinstein is on holiday
so we are here. If there are any questions, we can answer them.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Hoffman:
Ward:
Hoffman:
Beavers:
Ward:
Conklin:
McNeil:
Hoffman:
McNeil:
Hoffman:
I'll bring it to the Subdivision Committee.
Did we talk with Engineering on sidewalks?
We'll have to grant a variance for the parking and cutting and filling. You are satisfied
with the retaining wall? Otherwise, I'm generally not for grading variances on cutting
and filling but on a smaller site like this that's in an already developed area and not
going to be impacting a pristine hillside. This is right on 6th Street.
The ordinance requires a terrace and they can make the argument that the building
breaks it up and divides that.
What's the building going to look like?
They are proposing these elevations. Just one comment with regard to this. Just
looking at it this morning, the sign, we don't allow signs to be sitting above the roof line.
That will need to be revised. Why don't we have the engineering firm go over the
materials and their proposal. Hanna?
The materials is brick and EFIS and a metal roof.
Will you introduce yourself?
Hanna McNeil.
Would you bring a materials sample board to the Planning Commission meeting? It's
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• March 15, 2001
Page 10
•
much easier to have an example of the brick. I know that sometimes those are subject
to change after we've approved them but you can work on staff on that to make sure
that the general attempts to match. We would just like to get a fair representation of the
building materials and color scheme.
Conklin: We did discuss with them using materials similar to the building to screen their freezer
on the back of the building. All roof mounted utility and mechanical equipment will
have to be screened. Make sure your periput is high enough. They do show a pole
sign 15 feet tall.
Hoffman. Is it meeting our sign ordinance requirements?
Conklin: I haven't done the exact calculation on it. It will have to meet it. Burger King does
have a pole sign. Blockbuster has a monument sign. Burger King is right next door to
it with a pole sign. I think it's appropriate.
Hoffman: I notice we have cross access and is this a location that is safe for traffic between
Burger King, J.D. China and the eventual site to the south?
Conklin:
Hoffman:
Conklin:
Anderson:
Hesse:
Conklin:
Hoffman:
The Burger King is already constructed. They do have a drive in front of their building
that allows, if you came off of Mitchell Street you could go to Burger King and come
through to J.D. China. I think it does work.
We are going to construct it for this?
It will be constructed. They are also working with Burger King to grade part of the site
down, is that correct, to avoid some retaining walls in this area?
Right now we are still calling. First we were going to try to take some of that wall out.
Based on the final grading we've done, I think we will leave it.
There will be access be the east and west for this development.
We are meeting our driveway standards. These are such small lots, we don't have
much choice. It's just hard to take a left on that road but that's everybody's problem.
Conklin: Just one other thing I want to bring up. There was a Bill of Assurance that was agreed
• to years ago with regard to tree preservation, that's been to the courts and we talked
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• March 15, 2001
Page 11
•
with Kit Williams about it and it's his understanding is we do not have to enforce that
Bill of Assurance and that we have to comply with the tree preservation protection
ordinance today. That's the only other issue that staff worked out ahead of time. I just
bring it up because that information is in the file, in case someone brings that up to you
at the meeting.
Hoffman: We ought to have an explanation of that in our packets.
Conklin: Kit will be at the meeting.
Hoffman: He didn't say a word . We had a whole attorney there. We are happy to have him
there. We have to keep that going.
Reynolds: These folks have been working on this project since October of last year. Their lease
has lapsed where they are at and as soon as we can put everything together so that they
can get started before the monsoons, they would sure appreciate it.
Hoffman: That's one reason I was asking can we work on a way to administratively approve
parking variances? I know we can't do it on the cutting and filling because those
implications could be greater on another site but restaurant parking variances are so
common.
Conklin: That would be basically changed in the ordinance. They don't like that. When I went
to Council, they wanted everyone reviewing the public hearing setting and the findings
to be made and the additional parking needs to be made. I think it would be difficult
for me because I'm already somewhat biased to bring that ordinance forward and
understand the parking that these facilities need, if I basically change the ordinance
administratively then you would never see them. I don't think that's what they wanted.
So we don't have any problems at Planning Commission with regard to articulation and
blank walls, I think they have done a pretty good fob. If you start going back further
towards the back of the building, it's always difficult because you've got your restaurant
equipment and freezer, they do show some columns there and brick.
Conklin: Staff is comfortable.
Ward: There is a conditional and variance both that the full Planning Commission has to look
at.
• Conklin: Yes, with regard to the parking.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• March 15, 2001
Page 12
•
•
Hoffman:
Estes:
Beavers.
Hoffman:
Hesse:
Hoffman:
Hesse:
Anderson:
Hoffman:
Beavers.
Anderson:
Hoffman:
MOTION:
Estes:
I'll take discussion or motions.
Jim, with the length of the cut slope, are the pre -development flows going to be equal to
or less than post -development flows, particularly thinking about dumping water over
onto the Burger King parking lot?
They are providing detention under the parking lot. Without it, they would be damaging
property across the street. I really think that has been the hold up hasn't it? They have
been working since October to get the drainage in.
Is that what these are, big drainage pipes?
Yes. They are big drainage pipes that will be buried under that paved area.
Then a gully over here and then out?
We are getting an off-site drainage easement underneath the highway. It doesn't go
under Burger King at all.
We are trying to look at what the most cost affective thing is and we may do some
downstream themes and not do this.
That will be known as you are issued drainage permits right? Have you all changed
those ordinances yet?
That brings up a problem because if detention is required we require it to be known at
this time. We don't say "Well, maybe you will do something different later."
Maybe we have to come back to the Planning Commission. I think we want to go with
the plans as they are and if we have to come back to Planning Commission we will.
Again, I don't have heartburn with that because this is a highly developed area. I think
we can accommodate them.
I would move that we forward LSD 00-36.00, the large scale development for J.D.
China onto the full Commission.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• March 15, 2001
Page 13
•
•
Ward: I'll second that.
Hoffman: I'll concur. Thank you gentlemen. We'll see you at the next Planning Commission
meeting. This is a reminder to staff if we can have something on the old tree easement,
Bill of Assurance. We need to include a positive affirmation of the Commercial Design
Standards. We need to give them direction at Commission that we accepted those.
Ward:
Our comments were that Hanna is going to bring a board showing the actual materials
colors and that we had to problem with the way the building is designed and it does
meet Commercial Design Standards.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• March 15, 2001
Page 14
•
•
PP 01-2.00: Preliminary Plat (Mcllroy, pp 439) was submitted by Mike Anderson of Engineering
Design Associates on behalf Hayden Mcllroy for property located south of Hwy 16 and east of Rupple
Road. The property is zoned A -1/R -1.5/C -1/R -2/R-1, Agricultural/Moderate Density
Residential/Neighborhood Commercial/Medium Density Residential/Low Density Residential and contains
approximately 90 acres.
Hoffman: Our next item is a preliminary plat, PP 01-2.00 submitted by Mike Anderson of
Engineering Design Associates on behalf Hayden Mcllroy for property located south of
Hwy 16 and east of Rupple Road. The property is zoned A -1/R -1.5/C -1/R -2/R-1,
Agricultural/Moderate Density Residential/Neighborhood Commercial/Medium Density
Residential/Low Density Residential and contains approximately 90 acres. Staff, can you
tell us what this is?
Conklin: A brief explanation. Sure. This is a preliminary plat. What I'm trying to do here is to
create the piece of property for the next item which is the Fayetteville Boys and Girls
Club. During research, staff found that more than three lot splits would have to occur
with regard to the right-of-way dedications and the existing lots that have already been
created. Tract number 6, to start out on this lower southeast corner is currently owned
by the City. We did not go through the planning process for a lot split on that so I
wanted to clean that up. Tract number five is going to be given to the City for parkland
dedication requirements. That went to the Planning Commission last year to bank those
credits for future development within this quadrant. Tract number 4 has already been
transferred to the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club, that did not come through our
process so I'm trying to clean that up. Tracts 1 and 2, when we dedicate 90 feet of
right-of-way it's going to separate those two tracts so that creates two more lots
including tract 3 and 7. So we end with a total of 7 tracts of land. I only have the
authority, as City Planner, to administratively approve up to three lot splits. Two have
occurred already, one would be left. It was my recommendation that we come through
with a preliminary plat. That's what we are doing today is coming through with a
preliminary plat so I have the correct paperwork in my office that we are complying
with our ordinances and that we are getting the right-of-way dedicated. Staff is not
recommending any improvements by the developer, at this time. We do have
conditions for future development and what they will have to do. What we are looking
at is trying to create tracts of land with appropriate right-of-way required by our Master
Street Plan. If a lot split came through our process, under that ordinance I would have
to acquire that right-of-way already so I'm not going anything differently taking it
through preliminary plat. Preliminary plat has been kicked in because of the number of
tracts of land that are being created. If the Fayetteville Parks Department came
through our process and we got tract 6 correctly, we would have had 90 feet of right-
of-way on Rupple, 110 feet of right-of-way on Wedington and 35 feet of right-of-way
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• March 15, 2001
Page 15
•
on Persimmon. Once again, trying to get the right-of-way dedicated in accordance with
our Master Street Plan and in accordance with our subdivision regulations. That's kind
of a brief history on why we are seeing a preliminary plat for this and not a lot split.
With regard to why we are not asking for improvements, the City has made
commitments to the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club through the Mayor's office and
through the Street Committee. With regard to building Rupple Road, this year's budget
we have set aside $395,000 of HMR tax money to go towards this project. We also
have set aside, in the 2001 budget, $124,000 for water and sewer improvements. The
City is actually building infrastructure to bring infrastructure down to this Fayetteville
Boys and Girls Club. Those two numbers I've just given you are in the 2001 budget.
It's kind of unusual because typically we don't allow lots to be created without utilities.
As we go through this this morning, ask as many questions as you want and we'll try to
explain everything of what's going to happen and when. There is also a resolution that
was passed on December 19, 2000, we made copies of that for the Subdivision
Committee members. With regard to a 2 mill personal property tax for 2 years to go to
the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club, the City is also, it's a letter of intent, it hasn't been
passed that that 2 mills, I'm not sure exactly what that money will be used for but the
City will also be participating in this project if the City Council approves the additional 2
mills.
Hoffman: This is a re -allocation?
Conklin: This is the millage that we had for the Senior Center, this would be a continuation of
that to help fund this project. There is a lot of issues here of taxpayer money going
towards this project for roads, water and sewer that the City is involved in plus the
additional land in addition to this 2.79 acres that will be Fayetteville Park and
Recreation land park. Any questions up to that about what we are doing on that, this
part? I can go over the conditions.
Hoffman. Yes. When we did the rezoning of this, we saw a piece of paper that had this property
because we knew at that time that a dedication was being made for the Boys and Girls
Club property. What we saw at that time was just an unplatted piece of property that
was zoned?
Conklin: Yes. Unfortunately trying to follow all the regulations, I think all the regulations weren't
followed. Sara and I spent an hour over at the County Assessor's office pulling deed
records to figure out who did what and when. I'm trying to clean that up. It needs to
come through a process. The right-of-way should already be dedicated. The Boys
and Girls Club shouldn't have that lot, the City of Fayetteville shouldn't have our lot.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• March 15, 2001
Page 16
•
I'm trying to clean that up. What I envision will happen is that since we have no
improvements, we'll have a final plat come through on the next cycles and that way it
will create all these tracts of land. Keep in mind, we've got land right now without
utilities and streets so there will be conditions of approval that will be placed on this for
future development and the City's intent to go forward on this project.
Ward: When do you see that being done?
Conklin: The road is 2003. Is that correct Jim?
Beavers: Yes. When we get to this and the wetlands, we'll discuss that.
Hoffman: Just a quick question, do we have large scale plans coming through on these tracts yet?
Conklin: The last meeting we had with the owner's attorney, she made a statement that she
didn't think he had any development planned for this property. To answer your
question, no, there are no immediate plans to develop.
Estes:
Studying the preliminary plat, over in the lower left hand comer, there is that table
ownership in Meadowlands, am I correct and if I look at Meadowlands phase 1 and 2
that those lots are only fee simple by those individuals listed in that table?
Conklin: Yes.
Estes: How do you get in and out of the Meadowlands phase 1 and 2? What has happened
here?
Conklin: This is Wedington Drive.
Estes: Although it's shaded, it's developed?
Conklin: It is developed. They show this in a half tone, the existing street right-of-way and lot
lines.
Estes: Although it is shaded, it is developed.
Anderson: It's just not part of what we are doing.
• Conklin: That issue will come up this morning as we talk about this project in more detail
•
•
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
March 15, 2001
Page 17
Anderson:
Hoffman:
Anderson:
Hoffman:
Conklin:
Hoffman:
Conklin:
Ward:
Conklin:
because we do have street right-of-way and street stub -out to this piece of property.
It may be that when we go to the next project, the Youth Center, we may even come
back to that issue.
Let's go through and discuss and hear if there are engineering concerns and so forth,
and discuss this as fully as we can without the large scale and then we can come back
and talk about the implications on that part.
You will understand more when we look at everything together.
Tim or Sara, do you have anything else before we move on?
I would like to go through these eight conditions just to get them on the record and
repeat some of the things I've already stated this morning. Condition number one,
Rupple Road is being constructed by the City of Fayetteville at a later date. We are
looking at 2003 just so everybody is aware of that. The City will also be responsible
for the construction of a trail on one side of Rupple Road subject to City Council
approval. We are talking about building a street with a trail on one side. We were
talking about building a street, this is classified a minor arterial, that will be less than a
minor arterial. This will be a two lane street with a trail on one side. Keep in mind
these are recommendations and if you have a different recommendation to the Planning
Commission or City Council, you are more than welcome to make that. Condition
number two, at the time of development on lots 1,2,3, & 7 two additional lanes will be
required to bring Rupple Road up to Minor Arterial standards. Street improvements
will be required on Persimmon to meet the needs of future traffic as part of future
development. What we are talking about with condition number two is that, we will
build a two lane street when tracts 1, 2, 3 and 7 come through, they are going to be
required to build an additional two lanes of street and other improvements associated
with that including curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage, streetlights...
Those are private for profit owned type lots?
Yes, 1, 2, 3 and 7 are private developers. It could be Hayden McIlroy, the owner, or
it could be he could sell them and we see something else.
Why don't we require the land be given now?
We are. I'm requesting 90 feet of right-of-way.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• March 15, 2001
Page 18
•
•
Ward: What about this trail? What kind of money are we spending on this trail? Three years
from now you are going to be building a street through there and sidewalks.
Conklin: Staff has been working with the engineering firm here to make sure that if we spend any
money that that money can be used, so we don't tear it out. If we get 90 feet of right-
of-way, that trail can be put on the edge of that 90 feet.
Ward:
I just didn't want to go through there and build out there on Wedington Drive. We've
already done that like on Clary development, he put all those sidewalks in there and 30
days later the state was out there tearing them all out.
Conklin: We've also given the owner the opportunity, if he wants to do the improvements now,
to work with us and build everything out and that way it's all said and done. That's not
a recommendation or requirement. I don't know if we checked, we still need $200 to
continue processing the preliminary plat, the fee for that. Number four, Wedington
Drive is a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan which requires that 55 feet right-
of-way from centerline. That allows us, even though Wedington has recently been
approved, it allows us to get the greenspace and the 6 foot multi -use trail in there.
Condition number five, lots 1,2,3 & 7 may not use Rupple Road right-of-way for
access until the street is completed. Fines may be accessed by the City if damage to
road work occurs prior to completion. We are very concerned about, once we do a
final plat since this is a fairly unique situation, that there will be ownership of tract. 3
could potentially have separate ownership and that if we are building our road, we
don't want people driving over the base and contaminating it and costing contractors
and the city taxpayer's additional money to build that street. We want to make sure
everybody is with the understanding that we'll do a final plat but don't expect to use the
street.
Hoffman: If we start building apartments in here, they are going to have to connect back through
the Meadowlands.
Conklin: They will have to figure out some type of access that does not interfere with our street
construction. Looking through, I'm not sure how much information you want but this is
part of it over the years, tract 3 they talked about an apartment development going in
and that apartment development would be extending utilities down to tract 4 and that a
lot of this work would be done, the infrastructure improvements would be in.
Unfortunately, that has not occurred and therefore we have to look at the entire Rupple
Road with regard to improvements and utility extensions. Number six, approval shall
be subject to approval of a conditional use allowing for a recreational center in an A-1
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
March 15, 2001
Page 19
Hoffman:
Conklin:
zone. It's not a use by right in A-1 for a Boys and Girls Club. That will be your next
item on the agenda. Number seven, a water line easement shall be granted in order for
the Youth Center to access water. What we are talking about, is that if we bring water
from Meadowlands Drive to the Youth Center site, that easement through WHM plat
will have to be granted. I'm sure there will be more discussion with regard to where
the waterline is coming from, is it Rupple Road or it coming off the end of
Meadowlands Drive?
What's down here?
Farmland.
Anderson. Outside the city.
Conklin:
Hoffman:
Conklin:
Hoffman:
Jim Beavers
Beavers:
Number eight, a note shall be added to the plat stating that water and sewer are not
available to all lots. Depending on where the City spends $124,000 to bring water and
sewer to the site, it will not, most likely, provide water and sewer to every lot. We
want to make sure future owners understand that, at this time. Those are the conditions
and issues that I brought forward on this. Keep in mind, this project started a few
years ago, the representative at the Youth Center was Charles Venable, our Public
Works Director. He was on the site selection committee. They selected this site, met
with the Boys and Girls Club, the architects and engineers are to the point where they
are bringing it forward now and there are a lot of issues that are coming up and there
will be even more issues with regard to the Boys and Girls Club.
This gives a good overview. I have a feeling a large part of the discussion is going to be
the cost of improvements to get back to the end of the site with something that we
understood that was going to be in place before. Do you have anything else to say
before we go on to the other departments?
That's all I have to say at this time.
Engineering?
- City Engineer
With regard to Rupple Road, we need a recommendation from Planning Commission
on whether we want to build a boulevard or two or four lane street. If we determine
that we should have a boulevard, an additional right-of-way will be needed. The other
Subdivision Committee Meeting
March 15, 2001
Page 20
issue is, we are very aware that there is property owner's Mr. McBride and Mr.
Marinoni to the south who have legal access off this now and we'll work with them
while we are building the street to make sure they have access to their properties. We
just don't want these other lots developed and access to go through. The right-of-way
and type of street that we build, Charles Venable took it to City Council as a standard
four lane street, the new Mayor has suggested that maybe we should build a boulevard
instead.
Hoffman: What's the cost difference between a boulevard and a street?
Beavers: I would assume the cost would be significant. I don't know.
Hoffman: Let me make sure I understand. This is slated on CIP to be built in 2003, this road?
Beavers: No. It is the City's intent to add it to the CIP. We have every intention to request the
City Council add it to the CIP but it is not in the current CIP.
Hoffman: What's the 2003 date?
Beavers: That's the date that we'll have it completed. I think if we put the easement in we have
the road in by August 2003.
McNeil: That's part of the grant requirements. When they receive the grant, the building has to
be completed by August, 2003.
Hoffman: You need to change the word in number one condition of approval of conditions to
address, that Rupple Road is to be completed by the City of Fayetteville, not
constructed. Right?
Conklin: We can say that but I'm going to add, we cannot, as staff, spend any taxpayers money.
The City Council is going to have to vote as they have the public hearings on the CIP to
fund that and when the City Council approves the CIP then the funding will be secured.
All we can do is make a recommendation at this time. We cannot guarantee any future
funds. The only thing guaranteed so far with regard to funding is the $124,000 and the
$395,000 that was budgeted and approved on December 19, 2000, for the 2001
budget that we have. The rest is a letter of intent for extension of 2 mills of personal
property tax for 2 years which will have to go back to City Council and then the whole
CIP public hearing issue and City Council approval of future improvements.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• March 15, 2001
Page 21
•
•
Hoffman: The $124,000 and $395,000 were budgeted for the road improvements?
Conklin: No. The $395,000 can be used for improvements to the youth center site. There is
also an issue of how to get vehicles down to the site because right now it's a dirt path
and with rain and everything we would have trouble getting concrete trucks or work
trucks down there. There will have to be a haul road constructed and we've been
talking about using that money to create a base for a haul road and then going back in
and constructing a trail on top of it as long as it can be used for improvements to multi-
purpose. Yes, the $395,000 can be used for different things. It's not enough money to
build a road. The road is estimated at a million.
Beavers: When we are through I would like to talk about the overall CIP and that process,
before we adjourn. The $124,000 was strictly the money we had left over: The
estimate was less than that to get water and sewer to the Youth Center. Mr. Mcllroy's
attorney was in here last week though and he basically gave her two options, whether it
comes from Meadowlands or from.Rupple, we don't know how that's going to turn out
at this time.
Hoffman: Anything else for right now?
Beavers: No.
Hoffman: Sidewalks?
Keith Shreve - Public Lands Maintenance
Shreve: Sidewalks will be a multi -use trail to be constructed as part of the street project.
Hoffman: Like you said, we can combine the use of the haul road base with a base for the multi-
use trail at a later time and make sure that location is adequately coordinated.
Conklin: Yes. I'm trying to make sure we place enough conditions on this plat because really
what we are requiring of WHM Land Investments is dedication of right-of-way only. I
do need to bring up the issue of water, sewer and streets because typically we don't
create lots that are landlocked or don't have access to utilities and streets. I have these
documents, this paper here that went to the Street Committee and it's in our budget
saying we are going to do certain things out in this area of the City of Fayetteville that
are separate from this plat, keep that in mind.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• March 15, 2001
Page 22
•
•
Hoffman: I am. Kim, do we have anything on tree preservation at this time?
Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator
Hesse: No.
Hoffman: That will come later with the large scale development?
Hesse: Yes. There was actually no trees affected on this.
Hoffman: We don't have to worry about a tree plan at all. Kim, parks?
Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator
Rogers: I have a question I want to clear up. The 2.79 acres to the City of Fayetteville, it's 3.2
acres on the deed, is that less because of the dedication?
Anderson. Yes.
Rogers. That's all I wanted to know.
Hoffman: Okay. Let's go ahead and bring it back to the applicant. Do you have a presentation?
Anderson: I just have a couple questions. One, on the boulevard issue, how does that work? On
the Master Street Plan you figure out what it's designated as but how do we move from
that to a boulevard? How do we vary from the Master Street Plan?
Conklin: I think you go to your client and ask if he's willing to dedicate an additional right-of-
way to be on the Master Street Plan so the City of Fayetteville can put in place the
infrastructure to allow a boulevard to be created. Keep in mind we will be building two
lanes, whether or not that's two lanes on one side of the boulevard or an island with
one lane on each side of the boulevard, I'm not sure if we are to that point.
Anderson. It will be up to the owner basically whether or not they want that?
Conklin: The City of Fayetteville would appreciate and strongly encourage the additional right-
of-way so we can have a boulevard and make this a premier project for the Boys and
Girls Club out in this part of town.
•
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
March 15, 2001
Page 23
Anderson: What would that right-of-way be, do you know?
Conklin: 110 feet.
McNeil: Is it 10 on each side?
Anderson: Which pushes our site to the max.
Conklin: That's just a suggestion, not a requirement.
Anderson. I don't see a problem when I look at the plat here and what we are going to be talking
about next, it creates a problem for us to give up additional right-of-way. The other
question I have is related to condition number five. This is the one about not accessing
Rupple Road, how do we want to handle that. Is that something you are going to keep
tract of or is that something we should have a note on the final plat?
Conklin: I want a note on the plat. If tract 3 comes through with a large scale development next
month we are going to say they can't start construction until Rupple Road is complete
and final. We do not want to get into a situation where the development is almost
completely done and street not there.
Anderson: I just wanted to make sure there was some way that everybody knew about it, if it's on
the final plat that will be fine.
Conklin: I would like it on the final plat.
Hoffman: Do you have anything left you want to say before I take public comment?
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Hoffman: I will take public comment but if you want to address issues pertaining to the Youth
Center in particular, you can wait until we get to that item and then we can talk about
that all at once. Since we haven't even looked at the large scale development and your
comments might have to do with that, we might be better served and more expedient to
talk about it then. Is there any public comment at this time? Well, I'm confused!
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
• Estes: It seems to me the seminal issue is the construction of Rupple Road. Tim, why can we
•
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
March 15, 2001
Page 24
not put in as a condition that "Rupple Road be completed by the City of Fayetteville,
not later than..." and then give a date?
Conklin: That's fine. Just as an understanding that it's not funded. That's the only thing that
concerned me but you can put that condition in there. I don't want, if the City Council
decides not to fund Rupple Road, I don't want a subdivision without the infrastructure.
Estes:
That's why I want to make that a condition. That's why to me that the seminal issue is
we have this preliminary plat before us but we've been asked to ignore the issue of the
construction of a boulevard or minor arterial or whatever this is going to be. I would
like to reduce to writing.
Conklin: We could say that and you could put another sentence to say that if the City of
Fayetteville does not build Rupple Road that Rupple Road will be built as development
occurs by the developer.
Estes: Let's see if we can word this before we relieve this issue. Rupple Road is to be
completed by the City of Fayetteville not later than August of 2003.
Hoffman: I have a question about completion by the City of Fayetteville, I think that these
properties, don't they assess the cost for the road based on a rational nexus of
development and traffic generated by other properties?
Conklin: That's a good point. If these come in for development, we could help save some
taxpayer money, if they come in next month. I'm trying to write this.
Hoffman: I want to cover the development possibility, so we could by the City of Fayetteville or if
development occurs in adjoining tracts or tracts 1, 2, 3 and 7.
Estes: Rupple Road is to be completed by the City of Fayetteville not later than August 2003.
Now let's talk about what happens if that condition preceding does not take place.
Edwards: You can make approval subject to the City constructing it.
Estes: No, I want to take care of the issue of what happens if tracts 1 and 2 come in and what
happens if tract 3 comes in as a large scale development? We don't want to preclude
that potential developer from the opportunity to develop that property, but on the other
hand, that developer is going to need to pay for the cost of Rupple Road, am I not
correct?
•
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
March 15, 2001
Page 25
Conklin:
Estes:
Ward:
Hoffman:
Conklin:
Hoffman:
McNeil:
Conklin:
Anderson:
Hoffman:
Anderson:
Conklin:
Your right. How about in the event the City doesn't fund Rupple Road?
Let's take care of the condition preceding first In the event that tract 3 comes in as a
large scale development and Rupple Road is just sitting out there as a dirt path, what
happens? We can't hold up a private developer contingent on this.
I don't even think we have to worry about it. I think when tract 3 comes in, we'll make
that decision then. That will be part of the large scale development to put the road in.
You have to put a note on the plan so they know.
Yes. Tract 1, 2, 3 and 7 that we are talking about.
And 4, that way this makes it all on an even playing field.
If they come in earlier and want it developed, they would build it to the road, right?
The City would be responsible for the additional road if the developer builds it first,
right?
They are going to be responsible for two lanes of street, so we have to say that
somewhere. That's number two and we can re -work that to say "At the time of
development on lots 1,2,3 & 7 two additional lanes will be required to bring Rupple
Road up to minor arterial standards." We could add a sentence in there that if there is
no road out there.
If you take out the word "additional", that would work.
In terms of the boulevard versus the four lane road, I don't think that's a topic that the
Planning Commission is privileged to discuss and I think that we can just require a road
up to our street standards and if City Council wants to put in a better road or prettier
road, that's up to them. 1 don't wan to say anything about that. It would sure be nice.
I don't know what our budget is.
It might require a combination of additional right-of-way on the two tracts that are not
included in the plat to make it work, if Council would be willing to do that.
With regard to tract 4 down here that's owned by the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club,
I did not include them in there because of discussions that occurred over the last few
years, they were never told that they would be required to build additional road
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
March 15, 2001
Page 26
frontage, the additional two lanes. They have been excluded including the City of
Fayetteville on tracts 5 and 6.
Hoffman: Can we put a note on the plat that says who excluded them and why they were
excluded?
Conklin: We can discuss that further. Why don't we discuss that further.
Hoffman: Let's discuss that large scale. I know we are going to end up with a road here and it
will probably all be fine but if none of this works out, we have to have something that's
workable as a plat.
Conklin: Keep in mind, we already have two tracts of land that have been created and filed over
at the County that, especially the park land, has no access or utilities. I'm am trying to
fix it. I'm trying to make it better and more useful
Hoffman: Let's talk about the road for the Boys and Girls Club with that. With that, let's wait on
motions on this one until we talk about the other one.
Estes:
The issue of whether Rupple Road is going to be a boulevard or minor arterial or
whatever it is, don't we need to talk about that now because we are look at a
preliminary plat with right-of-way?
Hoffman: We're building it to a Master Street Plan collector street.
Conklin: I know it's difficult, believe me, I've had numerous meetings on this trying to sort it out.
We are not making that road a condition of approval of this plat, a condition of
approval is the right-of-way and that the City is going to go out and build this street
within this right-of-way. If the taxpayers of this community talk to their Alderman and
they say "Let's build a boulevard", we can do that. I don't think I have the authority or
you have the authority to ask for the 110 feet since it only shows 90 on our Master
Street Plan. It would be nice if the owner offered that but I can't make that a
requirement.
Ward: There's three or four different owners.
Hoffman: They may as we discuss this, decide to that. I think it would be a great thing but we
don't have any financial power at all.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• March 15, 2001
Page 27
•
•
Ward: There's other company's. This is not one piece of property.
Hoffman: I will say, I don't like having a non-contiguous plat. I understand the reason why it got
this far.
Estes: What action do we need to take?
Conklin: Forward it to the Planning Commission.
Ward: 1 think I want to go ahead and make a motion we approve, I think we can do this at this
level can't we?
Conklin: No.
Ward: Why?
Conklin: It's a preliminary plat.
Hoffman: We could approve a final plat.
Conklin: Right. When that comes through the next time.
Hoffman: The problem is I don't want to spend Planning Commission time going through all this
nonsense.
Conklin: The public needed to be educated and the Commissioners. I think since it's an unusual
situation that we are in, trying to create a tract of land for the youth center, I think it's
educational.
Hoffman: I want to boil it down to a motion that's clear direction for the Planning Commission to
take. Subdivision Committee hashed it out and here's all this clean-up work that we
are doing, we'll have questions about it.
Conklin: The public is going to have questions too. They've been in our office and FOI'd our
files. We are spending 1 million for the street, $124,000 maybe on water and sewer
line, additional $300,00 will be requested for parking lot improvements for future CIP,
then the $395,000 for the 2001 budget that's already budgeted. There is a substantial
amount of taxpayer's money that's going into this project too and I think it will be
beneficial for the Commission to discuss it.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• March 15, 2001
Page 28
•
•
MOTION:
Estes:
I move that we forward to full Commission preliminary plat 01-2.00 with the following
conditions, Rupple Road is to be completed by the City of Fayetteville not later than
August 2003, the City will also be responsible for construction of a trail on one side of
Rupple Road subject to City Council approval. Condition number two, at the time of
development on lots 1,2,3 & 7 two lanes will be required to bring Rupple Road up to
minor arterial standards. The remaining conditions stay the same.
Ward: I'll second the motion.
Hoffman: I will concur. These are to be made into notes that are clearly described on the plat
before you get to Planning Commission. I'm going to reserve the option to amend this
motion after we've heard the large scale just in case something comes up that we
haven't thought about. Thank you. That's a great way to put it.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• March 15, 2001
Page 29
•
•
LSD 01-4.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville Youth Center, pp 439) was submitted by
Mike Anderson of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Fayetteville Youth Center Inc. DBA The
Boys & Girls Club of Fayetteville Inc. for property located south Hwy 16 and east of Rupple Road. The
property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 15 acres. The request is for a recreation
facility.
Hoffman: Let's go on to our fourth item which is a large scale development LSD 01-4.00
Fayetteville Youth Center submitted by Mike Anderson of Engineering Design
Associates on behalf of Fayetteville Youth Center Inc. DBA The Boys & Girls Club of
Fayetteville Inc. for property located south Hwy 16 and east of Rupple Road. The
property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 15 acres. The request is
for a recreation facility. This is also a conditional use in addition to the large scale
development.
Conklin: Yes, the conditional use will be associated with this property. This property is zoned
A-1. It's located south of Wedington, east of the future extension of Rupple Road.
Access will be provided to this property by way of the City constructing Rupple Road
subject to City Council approval. The floodplain and floodway is proposed to be
relocated to a channel on the east and south sides of this property. There are also
wetlands on this property that will require the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers approval
prior to any development. The applicant is proposing to provide 326 parking spaces.
With regard to the floodplain and floodway relocation, that will require a conditional
letter of map revision. That will have to be done by the engineering firm. The City will
have to sign off on that. FEMA will have to review that and approve it. Once it's
relocated and constructed, they will do a letter of map revision which will change the
actual floodplain map, the location of the floodway and floodplain. The floodplain and
floodway are shown on your plat. The area within the thicker dashed line is the area of
floodway, the solid line further up into this area is the floodplain.
Hoffman: They are going to be relocated down?
Conklin: It's going to be relocated on the City property. It's currently partially on the property
owned by the Boys and Girls Club. That's a fairly substantial change in what will occur
out in this area Conditions to address and discuss, construction traffic to the Youth
Center may not access Rupple Road. Access for construction will be provided by
means of a separate haul road We can talk about that in more detail. Number two, a
floodplain development permit, conditional letter of map revision, letter of map revision,
and Section 404 permit are required for this project. Number three, the Parking
Regulations do not adequately address parking for this type of development. Therefore
the applicant is proposing to evaluate the number of parking spaces based upon similar
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• March 15, 2001
Page 30
•
•
uses in other cities. It's been a challenge for staff to understand how much parking is
needed for this type of facility. Our ratios really don't work in this type of situation so
we have asked them to look at other cities and come back to the Planning Commission
to present those findings. Number four, the applicant is requesting a waiver for the
driveway entrance width. The applicant is requesting a 30 foot wide driveway. The
maximum allowed is 24 feet. Water will be extended by the City from the
Meadowlands Subdivision subject to contract approval by the City Council. Is that still
a true statement Jim?
Beavers: That's something we need to discuss.
Conklin: Number six, the applicant is requesting a waiver of section IX.2.2.4 of the Drainage
Criteria Manual in order to have a channel bend of less than the 10 times the bottom
width as required. The bend in the channel is located in the southeast corner, not
meeting the Drainage Criteria Manual. Number seven, Planning Commission
determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards including signage.
Now we are down at the south end of this preliminary plat with this Boys and Girls
Club, planning the parking lots facing Rupple Road and Persimmon Street. Just so
everybody is aware, once again, Persimmon Street we are not asking the Fayetteville
Boys and Girls Club or Hayden Mcllroy WHM Investments to improve any of
Persimmon Street. Rupple Road is by the City. That's what we plan on doing. This
sidewalk that they are showing on this plat is by Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club, is that
correct?
Anderson: Along Rupple Road?
Conklin: Is that the trail? That's by the City.
Hoffman: No sidewalk on Persimmon?
Conklin: No sidewalk on Persimmon. When you go out there to the Boys and Girls Club grand
opening and you look out that parking lot, it's just going to be a channelized creek and
there won't be any street improvements or sidewalk improvements. Once again, that is
a recommendation staff is making. During this past two or three years of
correspondence with prior administration and Boys and Girls Club and Site Selection
Committee, there was never any indication that the Boys and Girls Club would be
required to build Persimmon Street. I'm trying to bring forward the understanding that
they had with Mayor Hanna and Charles Venable and bring that to the Commission.
Of course, you make those decisions, as staff we can only make recommendations,
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• March 15, 2001
Page 31
•
including the Mayor and the Public Works Director. I'm trying to honor those and it's
a little unique because all developers would typically be required to do those type of
improvements adjacent to a Master Street Plan. Boys and Girls Club, I don't think
I've mentioned this yet, they got a grant from the Reynold's Foundation, 9.2 million
dollars. They are working with the City trying to make this happen on this piece of
property. That's all I have.
Hoffman: I do have a question about Persimmon Street. On the property to the south, with the
Marinoni's and the other people who might develop, would the City be responsible for
half of the construction of the cost of that street?
Conklin: It depends on what's developed down there. If you can prove some type of rational
nexus formula that they are responsible for 100%, it could be. My guess is, we are
going to be responsible for part of it. I don't think we are going to be able to make a
developer build all of it.
Jim Beavers - City Engineer
Beavers. When we talk about the CIP, one thing I want to point out is, our sales tax collections
are going down and our budgets are getting tighter. We probably won't have any
money to do a cost share with developers in forthcoming years. When we talk about
when the City builds half of the street, it will be something the City Council to decide.
We get around 2005, 2006, we are out of street money. It may be that they have to
build the whole street.
Conklin: In the future, if you have those timing issues the City can't extend the infrastructure the
only way you can develop is by building the streets, we've seen that in the past happen
too. Covington Park is an example where we extended Township, the developer paid
for that because he couldn't develop without getting Township extended. We'll
probably be heading towards that in the future. I do expect our impact fee consultant
to have information back this week and that's another thing we can start taking a look
at with regard to whether or not we can start assessing some impact fees for different
types of infrastructure. We'll have to see where that goes too. We definitely need to
think towards the future and how we pay for future infrastructure and how that impacts
our services as we develop.
Hoffman: Thank you. I agree. The consultant, when he comes back with his recommendation,
that's going to go through a public hearing and ordinance review and so on and so
forth. It's really not going to impact this project which is a major project for the City of
•
•
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
March 15, 2001
Page 32
Fayetteville as well as the Boys and Girls Club. We are kind of stuck with what we got
on a tight budget. Do you want to go ahead and talk about the rest of the drainage
issues and wetlands and stuff?
Beavers: Let me address the water line first. Mike, when we met last week, did we agree that
EDA would design it?
Anderson: I think that's what we said, yes.
Beavers. We are going to take a bid waiver to the Council?
Anderson: What we discussed is, if we waited for a bid we could probably get it cheaper than at
the City.
Beavers: I guess we don't know if it's coming from the Meadowlands?
Anderson. We don't know yet. I don't know that it matters a lot in what we are thinking other
than it would be a different place.
Hoffman: The only thing I can think of is we have to buy the easement across from
Meadowlands.
Anderson: No. We would have Mcllroy dedicate it. One of the things we have been discussing
with them is initially that road would have to come down to Rupple. What we would
want to do it to have the waterline in such a position that you would be in the right place
for that future road. If we come that way there is a little coordination there. If it comes
down Rupple then it's just there. It shouldn't be an issue as far as Planning
Commission is concerned, it will come one way or the other.
Hoffman: I think we need to make a note on the plat that the water is going to be provided from
Meadowlands or from Rupple and that the plat will amended when the engineering
study is finalized.
Anderson:
Beavers:
Right now we show it coming out of Meadowlands. That may not be what we do.
One thing you might want on the grading application we noted there wasn't all the
signatures and we need that before Planning Commission. On grading and drainage, I'll
start with the panel, you made the comment that EDA has agreed to this. We show this
on the final plan and it really needs to be shown and I would like to note and if you have
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• March 15, 2001
Page 33
•
•
Hoffman:
Beavers:
Anderson:
any discussion regarding the waiver. That was really meant for the small channels and I
don't think really applies to what we are doing here. I think we've asked them to make
this channel as soft and natural as they could, maybe a shallow pool to make it look like
wetlands or such. They have told me that it's so flat it's probably going to grow up that
way naturally. As far as the drainage that's acceptable as a preliminary report but not
as a final. They are proposing detention in the southwest corner. It's real borderline on
whether or not that's required. I think it is but the numbers are close, it's really a
judgement call. We have the adjacent property owner, Mr. McBride here and he may
want to address the drainage. We've already talked about Rupple Road We have
every intent to get that in the CIP and have that constructed.
How much fill needs to be put to the football field to get it out of the floodplain?
I don't remember.
It's almost more of a function of the channel, we are putting the whole thing into the
channel, as long as it's above the channel there is some fill there, probably 3 to 5 feet
we are showing to put that together.
Conklin: We are relocating the floodplain/floodway. Your ultimate build -out calculations are
going to contain that 100 year storm within that channel. They will be completely
outside that once it's all redone.
Hoffman: I understand that. I'm just wondering. Now, do we have any ponds or just marshy
areas in there?
Anderson: It's really flat. There's poor drainage.
Conklin: Why don't you show the Subdivision Committee where the wetlands are?
Anderson: I'm not sure on these plans...
McNeil: There's a little section right here and then there is one other section. It's right here,
that's number two. Number one is right there.
Hoffman: I'm not quite ready to talk about wetlands yet, just a second. We'll do that after we've
gotten through all the staff comments, gone through public comment and then we'll
come back and discuss specific issues.
•
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
March 15, 2001
Page 34
Beavers:
Hoffman:
Beavers:
Hoffman:
Edwards:
Hoffman:
Edwards:
Hoffman:
Rogers.
Anderson:
Rogers:
Conklin:
Hoffman:
• now that we'll put that wetlands note on the plan subject to all federal and state
The haul road is an issue that we can work out. I made it clear that they can't interfere
with our construction. If they want the haul road to come down Rupple Road, I don't
know if the timing will work out, we probably can't give them the elevations of the trail.
We recommend their haul road come through the Meadowlands. It's my understanding
that if Mcllroy can furnish that right-of-way, if they don't want to it's something we'll
have to look at.
It's going to have to be there one way or another. That item is going to need to be
known before this goes to Planning Commission. I will request that you work toward a
final solution before it goes forward. Jim, do you have anything else?
No.
Sidewalks, we've pretty much covered our multi -use trail. That will eventually hookup
through the south and then also to the sidewalk along Wedington.
Kim did give me her comments.
Do you want to read her comments?
She says "No existing trees are to be affected by this development and the landscape
plan meets parking lot landscaping commercial design standards."
Thank you very much. Kim, parks?
I have one question I'll have to have clarified. This proposed property line for
dedication of park land to the City of Fayetteville, I don't understand what that's
supposed to mean.
Before the final plat, there is no line there. That's just a line that dedicates that lot
number five.
If I can meet you afterwards go over wetlands and marsh on the plat. I don't know if
that needs to be called out on here.
It needs to be called out on the plan.
I don't know if that falls under engineering or parks but yes, let's go ahead and note
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• March 15, 2001
Page 35
•
regulations.
Rogers: I can't tell the wetlands area and the one is here and the other is here.
Hoffman: They'll take care of them on both plats. Is there any further staff comments before I
take public comment?
Rogers: I just want to put this on record, after we receive the deed, I'll change the park lease
agreement. We're ready to go on it, we are just waiting for it to be processed.
Conklin: What process are you talking about?
Rogers: Well the lease agreement has to be approved by going to City Council.
Conklin: The actual lease agre ment for this project, okay.
Rogers. The additional six acres or actually 5.37 for the dedication. That warranty deed that I
received at preliminary wanted to look over the call out plan description is going to
change.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Hoffman: We'll make sure that gets in the record when we get it back. That's all. We'll go
ahead and take public comment now. Yes sir, can you go ahead and introduce
yourself?
McBride: I'm Brian McBride. I'm the property owner of the land caddy comer from the
southwest corner. We are very concerned about the drainage. I assume that, from the
plat, that everything is coming to that southwest corner as far as the drainage goes.
Hesse: Yes.
McBride: We already have a problem in Owl Creek, not only our property but even farther
down. As development has occurred and dumped more water into that. Owl Creek is
a very shallow drainage. It's very hard, it does not absorb a lot of moisture. We are
seeing a lot of flooding going on down Owl Creek. We are concerned about what kind
of retention there is going to be as far as not overloading that creek.
• Hoffman: Let me understand something, I'm going to interrupt you just for a second to make sure
•
•
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
March 15, 2001
Page 36
Anderson:
Hoffman:
Anderson:
Hoffman:
Anderson:
Estes:
Anderson:
Estes:
Anderson:
I understand. When you relocate all this floodplain, is it flowing this way?
Correct.
For some reason I thought it was flowing uphill. How could I possibly think that? Then
what they've done is level out the football field, created another drainage ditch along
the southern property line, does that then go into the open field detention system or
does it bypass it?
It bypasses it. We are retaining, the development that we are doing, the creek is being
re -channeled basically to handle the existing flows and I don't know if Steve has looked
at the future development but that's what the channel is for, to handle everything
upstream from us basically.
At this point what I want to encourage is that you get with Mr. McBride and explain
because their calculations, Jim jump in here anytime, are going to have to prove that
they don't exceed the existing runoff that is currently generated by this site and the peak
flows are no worse than they are. They have to detain it and let it gradually go. If they
put that in their numbers, they have met the ordinances but I certainly understand your
concerns. I want you to communicate directly.
What's hard to understand about it is, right now it's just kind of a little channel out in
the pasture, it doesn't look like much. When we get done and you go through the
calculations it says that it's 30 feet wide and 3 %z feet deep, so it's going to look totally
different. It won't go back to what it was when it crosses Mr. McBride's and Mr.
Marinoni's property. It's kind of hard to understand when you look at that. You are
going to have these channels coming at you that looks huge and goes back to the small.
That's the way the numbers say it should be.
The relocated channel, you've got a future box culvert by others, does your relocated
channel go under Persimmon Street?
It would go under Persimmon Street.
What happens after it passes under Persimmon Street?
It goes back to the natural channel. That's what I was just talking about. When
Marinoni develops the channelization will go on and then there will be another box
culvert immediately under Rupple.
•
•
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
March 15, 2001
Page 37
Estes:
Anderson:
Hoffman:
Beavers:
Hoffman:
Beavers:
Rogers:
Hoffman:
Hesse:
Hoffman:
Conklin:
This existing channel is marked by the shaded large hash marks, is that correct?
That's the floodway. Those two lines here is where water comes down. You can kind
of see it on this. It's not a real well defined channel. We were really surprised to find it
was on the map.
Jim, I have a question for you. Is there a reason to think we are going to need to
require off-site improvements before Persimmon is put in, to handle this drainage? We
are just kind of re -channeling and stopping at the property line and saying it's just going
from there before all this other development is done. Have you looked at that?
No. Persimmon is a future unknown base. 1 have thought about making sure that the
way this channel permeates, I think it ought to be some kind of a pool, a weir structure
or something to slow the water down and try to reduce the erosion on Mr. McBride's
and Mr. Marinoni's property. That would be a final design submittal. We haven't got
to that yet.
As our ordinances stands now, on a large scale we have to have that before we can
approve the plan?
No. That's really an erosion control issue.
I also have a question or statement. By redirecting this floodplain, that's also going to
cost the City more money for two blocks more.
That's why I asked if you were bypassing the detention pond. A lot of engineers don't
understand. I would sure like to know more.
The detention pond is basically designed to take all of our increase pavement
impervious areas and all we are doing is channelizing the off-site, all the upstream stuff
and taking it around this.
That currently goes where the football field is.
The purpose of the channelization is to be able to build a parking lot where the
floodway currently exists and build a football field where the current floodway exists.
To do that you have to move it. They are just moving it. I guess my question is, where
does the channelization end, is it at the property line right here or does it go across
Persimmon?
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• March 15, 2001
Page 38
•
Anderson. It would be at the property line.
Hesse: We've talked with Mr. Marinoni who's very willing to work with us. I'm sure we
could get a temporary drainage easement from him for construction.
Anderson: That's what Jim was alluding to when we talk about signatures. It's our intention that
Mr. Marinoni sign something as well as the power company because those are the
beginning and end of our channelization, we will obviously have to be worked on. The
other thing that Tim brought up and just so everyone is clear, where we begin the
channelization and where we end the channelization are to the two end and beginning of
the existing channel as they come onto this. We are not moving any place else different.
They are entering and existing our property in the same place.
Hoffman: You are not making it go faster by re-channelization.
McNeil: Her statement, we are not creating more culvert for future development because we are'
starting and ending in the exact same place where it starts and begins right now.
Hoffman: Actually you are because when the property is developed because of your re-
channelization, there will be two culverts.
McNeil: There will be anyway.
Anderson: There would have anyway because there is a floodway there anyway. The floodway
downstream stays the same, the floodplain stays the same downstream.
Hoffman: I'm beginning to get a grip but not much of one this morning.
Conklin: Since we haven't seen your conditional letter of map revision, I want to ask a question.
You are not impacting the floodplain or floodway off-site right? All changes to those
boundary lines are on site?
Hesse: Yes.
Conklin: I would request that.
Hesse: That's a requirement of FEMA.
• Conklin: I don't want to sign a piece of paper with the boundaries changing someone else's
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• March 15, 2001
Page 39
•
•
property. Thank you.
McBride: How does the drainage down Rupple Road affect this? There are already culverts
coming down Rupple Road now that come all the way from 16. That created part of
our problem, I think, in the fact that water from 16 comes all the way down. We are
looking at eventually all this 90 acres that we talked about earlier, is it all going to come
to this one point?
Beavers: When we design Rupple, if we end up picking up all that water whether it's in an ditch
or pipe, eventually it will get three blocks down to this corner. That's our concern, this
is one little piece of property. You start adding on all these other development and they
are going to come to this one point then we really create a major funnel.
Hoffman: As properties develop and create more runoff, there is a natural occurrence of that and
you have undeveloped properties at the very end of it, does that mean they end up with
bigger detention ponds? What do they do?
Beavers: As the other property develops they may require detention.
Hoffman: Upstream it's retained.
Beavers: It should. There may be a case where we need a regional detention or something. We
might need to look at that.
Hoffman: That might be a thing to look at because we've got several large tracts that could
conceivably have that that could be incorporated into some landscaped area or
something like that. At this point, is there any other member of the public that would
like to address us? Let's go on and touch on Commercial Design Standards and then
come back and try to fit all the drainage and utility issues into a motion.
Conklin:
McNeil:
I think 1'll let Hanna McNeil go over those.
That's a front elevation of what the building will look like coming off of the circular
drive with a canopy. Basically the way that this building is designed it's several
buildings that come together and that's what you are seeing in these different elevations.
As an example, you have a gym that comes out so you have one section.
Hoffman: Where is that on the plan?
•
•
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
March 15, 2001
Page 40
McNeil: If you are looking here, this is the main entrance coming in and this over here is a leisure
pool, this is a gymnasium and this is a gymnasium. Then this over here is kind of a
multi-purpose, arts and crafts and classroom at this section. You have some big
structures so what we have done is we've designed it so each of these kind of look like
a collection of buildings. It's not one huge mass building, it's broken down so it sits
more to scale, especially depending on how much residential you get around. Since it is
a Boys and Girls Club, they want to encourage it so it's a little bit more lower scale.
There is a variation in materials anywhere from brick to EFIS, to metal. What we are
basically doing is each of the elevations has a different appearance. All have similar in
common but we are changing it because we don't want it to look like one big massive
building. That's kind of what you are seeing here.
Hoffman: You'll need to bring a materials board.
Conklin: It helps the Commission. I guess it's a requirement. They are asking you for a
materials board.
Hoffman: We usually get one and this is a really important project.
Conklin: Most architects bring sample boards.
McNeil: This is the first time.
Conklin: I didn't tell you that.
McNeil: You didn't.
Conklin: In defense of Hanna McNeil, I told her to bring the elevations. I'll start making sure I
tell everybody to bring sample boards.
Hoffman: I think it would be great.
McNeil: I don't have a problem putting one together but I will be very honest, I'm just going to
throw one together.
Hoffman: Those things are going to change. If you change manufacturer's and specifications and
things like that but they need to stay in the general tone of what the Planning
Commission approves because if we approve a blue roof and you come back with a
red one, he's going to send you back to Planning Commission. That's what I mean.
•
•
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
March 15, 2001
Page 41
McNeil: I'll be honest. In this scene right now, I've shown the roof all one color. We are not
going to do real bright roofs or whatever but we may do some variations on the others
so they look like collections of smaller buildings and it's a broken down scale. I don't
have a problem doing it, I just know that we'll be back because there is no way at this
point I'll have anything.
Conklin: I don't think it's that big of a problem. If you don't think it's a problem coming here at
8:30 in the morning.
McNeil: As long as I don't have to go through the whole process.
Conklin: Only Subdivision. That's what I typically do to take the heat off of my own
architectural desires.
McNeil: We would like to look at using three or four different colors of brick, they would all be
variations but, at this point, we really haven't gotten into how that pattern is going to
work out. I'll be glad to put something together.
Hoffman: This building is going to be a really important civic use to the City of Fayetteville. I
think that citizens have a right to see what's going to be planned and what it's going to
look like.
McNeil: This is a big project for us. It's an important one that I've worked on for 2 % years
now. Trust me, we will put ultimate care into the design.
Hoffman: I understand.
Estes:
I would like to emphasize what you just said, this is going to be the anchor project for
this developed area once it's done. It's a considerable amount of public money going
into this. I compliment you on what I would say is your overall design scheme of the
separate buildings and the articulated lines. I think that's a very good idea. You do
have a substantial project to work on, as I know you are very much aware, it's very
significant.
McNeil: The other thing we talked about, we built a model and we could bring that to the
Planning Commission.
Hoffman: That would be great. Put in on the floor in front of us.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
March 15, 2001
Page 42
McNeil: It will show you how the roofs are broken up and how this things works around. I
would be glad to bring that at that point.
Conklin:
McNeil:
Conklin:
McNeil:
For the record, do you have any metal sidewalls?
We are considering some metal sidewalls up high. I think again when we look at the
model, there are areas way in here that you will never really see. It's going to be a cost
issue of doing some metal panels.
That's what we are worried about It looks really great on this piece of paper.
You can't really tell here but if you look, this building way back here, you won't really
see it ever at some point, you may see a little portion of where the skylight comes
around and reflects the climbing wall. Some of those we are looking at because it's a
huge cost issue to put EFIS way up there and it's also a maintenance issue. There are
some things we are looking at metal panels.
• Hill: My name is Mike Hill, I'm on the Board. One of the concerns we have, we want like
everyone else would when we build a project, to be as maintenance free as possible.
Obviously, from an EFIS standpoint, being out there and my concern is and I know •
things have improved over the years, in homes and other construction, there are certain
people that don't allow EFIS as much as possible. It gets hail storm damage, you get
mold in this part of the country. Where it's great in California, it's not real good in this
humidity and mold processes here. Our concern is that whatever product we put up
there is something that won't look unsightly 25 years down the road. Those are the
issues and nothing has been completely decided but our feeling as a Board is that we
look at something that doesn't have much of an aging process. That's all.
Estes:
Specifically, Hanna what I was looking at is the north and east elevation, I understand
the refinish metal but if you are going to use that, if we could somehow get away from
just that flat unarticulated surface.
McNeil: We would run reveals. Even if this is EFTS, we would articulate certain joints because
it's such a big building, you need to do stuff to break it down.
Estes: That is not showing on the east and north elevation. There is some of that on the
southwest elevation there on the tower.
• Hoffman: A reveal, you are talking about a depression in the joint, so it's really not by a window
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• March 15, 2001
Page 43
•
•
or anything?
McNeil: No. It's not a window but it could be that based on a scale that reveal is 12 inches high
and we accent it with a different color. Even if we did that with metal, we would do the
exact same thing, change materials color so that the same affect would be there.
Estes: I don't know how to spell architect, but it would seem to me that EFIS is not the best
selection in materials.
McNeil: It's not something that we really looked at but the City Council has a problem with the
metal panel.
Hoffman! We need to move this meeting along. I know that you are going to come back to
Subdivision Committee with design revisions on this, let's leave it at that, can we? She
doesn't really know what she's going to do yet. We are going to go ahead and go
forward on the project but she's going to come back on the Commercial Design
Standards as she develops. If that's okay with everybody, I'm going to leave that part
of it to be determined, to make that clear at Planning Commission that we are
approving a general design that certainly is broken up into many different facets.
McNeil:
Hoffman:
Ward:
I'll be glad to bring the model
Do that. We'll just say it's not completely designed and we want everybody to be
involved in this design process as possible. They are all welcome to come back to the
Subdivision Committee when we know more about the materials. Does anybody else
have anything to say before I try motions?
Don't we have variances to run over real quick. The first one we are looking at is the
variance for the driveway from 24 to 30 feet and they are asking for a wider drive aisle
because of school buses and so on turning in and out of there.
Anderson: Yes. There are several issues there. We think that aesthetically it sets up the
easements a little better and makes the entrance seem more important. We have school
buses. All the parking lots basically empty into that. We think it's a safer deal if it were
a little bit wider.
Ward:
I know personally that's something allowable. It looks to me like you have as much
parking as you can get for these kind of clubs as needed. You have two football fields,
that brings on 500 or 600 cars because every kid out there is 8 cars.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• March 15, 2001
Page 44
•
Anderson: We don't think we are over parked.
Hoffman: I think you've done a good job breaking that up with islands.
Anderson. We wish we had more parking.
Ward: I guess there is also a variance for channel bend radius. It's more of an engineering
decision I think.
Hoffman: Would you recommend that Jim?
Beavers: Yes.
Ward: Is there any other variances to discuss?
Conklin: No.
Anderson: The conditional use for a youth center on an A-1 property?
Conklin: That's Planning Commission.
Hoffman: We'll recommend it. Personally I would have liked to spent more time looking at this
and I will do so before the Planning Commission meeting. I would like to say that it is
certainly needed. My son is grown now, and used the youth center facilities for games
and activities and it has certainly outgrown. I have a question, what's happening to the
old youth center?
Hill: 1 can tell you that right now the land is owned by the Fayetteville Public Schools. The
building has been built over the years. There were certain agreements that said that "At
the point in time that the facilities are no longer used for recreation, it would revert back
to the school." We have been visiting with the schools, talking with the City about what
the process is because obviously the youth center can't afford to have both sites. We
are working along those lines that in combination with working with the City and the
Parks and Recreation people as well as the school, the agreement was in place that it
reverts back to the school.
Hoffman: Thanks. Do you want to try a motion?
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
March 15, 2001
Page 45
MOTION:
Ward:
I'll go ahead and make a motion that we approve and forward to the full Planning
Commission LSD 01-4.00 Fayetteville Youth Center for the Fayetteville Boys and
Girls Club, with all the conditions that we've addressed the main seven and there are
some things like you need to get the signatures for the grading permits that are needed
and number five, water to be extended by the City from the Meadowlands Subdivision
or could come down Rupple Road, could be added on there or a few things like that. I
think we'll go ahead and say at Subdivision that we support all the variances that you
are requesting as far as the radius for the creek bed, the wider drive aisles and so on,
get the drainage study stepped up as soon as possible so you can sanctify the adjoining
property owner's concerns and make sure we put on the plats all the added things we
talked about during this discussion, the wetlands and so on, subject to all the federal
regulations.
Estes: I second.
• Hoffman: Thank you all very much. We appreciate it and look forward to seeing you at the
Planning Commission.
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• March 15, 2001
Page 46
•
LSD 01-5.00: Large Scale Development (Allied Storage, LTD, pp 601) was submitted by
McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. on behalf of Randy Salsbury of Allied Storage, LTD. for property
located at 85 W. 15ih Street. The property is zoned 1-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains
approximately 14.98 acres The request is to add additional storage buildings.
Hoffman: Our final item is number five, a large scale development for Allied Storage submitted by
McClelland Engineers on behalf of Randy Salsbury of Allied Storage, LTD for property
located at 85 W. 15th Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light
Industrial and contains approximately 14.98 acres. The request is to add additional
storage buildings. Tim, if you could bring us up to speed.
Conklin: Sure. They are adding three new buildings, two buildings are 4,200 square feet, the
third one is 4,500 square feet. No additional sidewalks are being asked for. The
applicant is requesting a waiver of the Master Street Plan requirements for the principal
arterial street. 55 feet from centerline is required and the applicant is proposing not to
dedicate any additional right-of-way. Currently 50 feet exists. City Council approval is
required. This came through with the large scale several years ago.
Hoffman: Is that on 15th that we are talking about?
Conklin: Yes.
Hoffman: Because of the existing conditions?
Conklin: Yes. They've done landscaping, the sidewalk is in, we are not asking them to upgrade
any of that at this time. They are just adding the three additional buildings.
Hoffman: Didn't we just add onto this storage park last year?
Jones: About a year and a half ago.
Hoffman: These are just going behind this building?
Conklin: I'm not sure exactly what's in that building.
Jones: I'm not sure.
Hoffman: It's a commercial building.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• March 15, 2001
Page 47
•
•
Ward: It's Kelly Brothers.
Hoffman: It looks straight forward to me.
Conklin: There's nothing else from Planning.
Hoffman: Engineering, sidewalks?
Ward: That's already been discussed.
Hoffman: I don't see any big deal about the waiver but it does have to go to the Council. Do you
have any trees to worry about?
Edwards: Kim didn't have any comments.
Hoffman: That answers that question. This is not subject to additional screening because it does
not have Commercial Design Standards under I-1.
Edwards- They've met their screening requirement already.
Conklin: Adjacent to this residential right here, this is I-1 over here, no additional screening is
required.
Hoffman: I'm being specific because I called for it on the other one but we had a different zoning
designation.
Conklin: Yes. I think on the other one we called for it because Max Parker had a residential
house south of there and a street next to it.
Hoffman: There's no street, no residential.
Conklin: Right.
Hoffman: I want to try to be consistent.
Conklin: Thank you.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• March 15, 2001
Page 48
•
•
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Hoffman: Does anybody else have anything to add? Public comment?
Jones: I didn't receive any notification nor did the Planning Division.
Edwards: No.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Hoffman: Back to the Committee.
MOTION:
Estes: I move that we forward LSD 01-5.00, a large scale development for Allied Storage, to
the full Commission.
Ward: I'II second that.
Hoffman: I'll agree.
Beavers: Since this has to go to City Council, can you approve it? I want to submit the drainage
permit to Carol.
Hoffman: I don't think we can skip Planning Commission. If we could, we could forward straight
to Council, can we do that?
Conklin: No. Anytime we have a waiver or variance we take it forward.
Hoffman: Why don't we put it on the consent agenda though with the recommendation for a
waiver to City Council.
Estes: Put it on consent agenda for agenda session.
Conklin: Yes.