Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-29 - Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, March 29, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN AD 01-6.00: Administrative Item (23 E. 4th, pp 223) Page 2 FP 01-2.00: Final Plat (Appleby & Quail Creek Phase III, pp 250) Page 4 LS 01-13.00: Lot Split (North College Development, pp 484) Page 9 LSD 01-6.00: Large Scale Development (Hanna, pp 643) Page 13 LSD 01-7.00: Large Scale Development (Lot 9 Millenium Place, pp 177) Page 27 FP 01-4.00: Final Plat (CMN Business Park II Phase II, pp 172 & 174) Page 31 Preliminary Review of Commercial Design Standards for the Pack Rat to be located at the southeast corner of Gregg & Sunbridge Page 50 Millenium Place Page 55 removal of condition to require large scale developments for all lots within the subdivision Approved Approved Approved Forwarded Approved Forwarded No Action Forwarded MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Lee Ward Sharon Hoover Don Bunch STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Sam Edwards Tim Conklin Ron Petrie Keith Shreve • Kim Hesse Perry Franklin Kim Rogers • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 2 AD 01-6.00: Administrative Item (23 E. 4`11, pp 523) was submitted by Albert Skiles, Architect on behalf of South Fayetteville Community Development Corporation for property located at 23 East 4th Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.17 acres. The request is to build on a non- conforming lot of record. Ward: Good morning, welcome to the Subdivision Committee meeting of Thursday, March 29, 2001. We've got eight items on the agenda this morning. We'll start with number one which is an Administrative Item AD 01-6.00. Tim, what can you tell us on this? Conklin: Good morning, this item was submitted by Albert Skiles, Architect on behalf of South Fayetteville Community Development Corporation for property located at 23 East 4th Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.17 acres. The request is to build on a non -conforming lot of record. The existing lot is 50 feet wide by 150 feet deep. Under our non -conforming lot of record standards, it requires Subdivision Committee approval to build a single family home. That's what we are requesting the Subdivision Committee approve today at this meeting. We do have three conditions. Number one, all improvements shall comply with current setback requirements for the R-2 zoning district. Any variance will have to be granted by the Board of Adjustment. Number two, all required building permits must be secured for proposed improvements. We are going to delete number three condition of approval. So, those are the two conditions that we have this morning. Staff is recommending this be approved at this level so they can go forward their project on this lot. Ward: Albert, is there anything you want to say? Skiles: No, we are just going to build a single family residence. Ward: Tim, the background on the 50 lot is that we an ordinance that it has to be 60 or 70 feet? Conklin: In an R-2 zoning district it needs to be 60 feet, so they are shy 10 feet of lot width. This is in an older area of Fayetteville, many 50 foot lots exist in this area and that's the predominant development pattern. There is really 110 problem issuing approval for a single family home on this lot. Skiles: There is a six foot abandoned easement on one side. We've got 56 feet. Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 3 PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: Is there any other staff comments? Seeing none, is there any audience comments? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Ward: Then I'll close that and bring it back to the Committee. Is there any recommendations or questions? MOTION: Hoover: I move that we approve AD 01-6.00. Bunch: I'll second. Ward: I'1l concur. Thank you Albert. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 4 FP 01-2.00: Final Plat (Appleby & Quail Creek Phase III, pp 250) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Bleaux Barnes for property located south of Appleby Road The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 14.74 acres with 31 lots proposed. Ward: The second item on our agenda this morning is a Final Plat for Appleby & Quail Creek Phase III Subdivision submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Bleaux Barnes for property located south of Appleby Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 14.74 acres with 31 lots proposed. Tim? Conklin: This is a final plat for two preliminary plats that are being combined together for Appleby and Quail Creek Phase III. It contains 14.74 acres for 31 lots. Just to remind the Subdivision Committee, the final plat is considered after the improvements are in, so the streets are in, the curb and guttering, water and sewer. So, all these improvements are in with regard to the subdivision. The preliminary plat for Appleby Estates was approved on April 10, 2000. The preliminary plat for Quail Creek Phase III was approved on March 15, 2000. The Planning Commission also did approve, a couple of weeks ago, a right-of-way vacation request on lot 1 and lot 18. Back in the 1980's, the City acquired additional right-of-way for improvements to Appleby Road This was in excess of our Master Street Plan, 55 feet from centerline, so there were two triangular pieces of property on lot 18 and lot 1 that are currently at City Council to be vacated. We are charging the applicant $815 to pay that City for that right-of-way since we did have receipts on how much we paid the property owner for that right-of- way in the 80's. Staff is in agreement with that. This way it will allow lot 1 and 18 to be platted as shown on the preliminary plat. That was something that was discovered at final plat stage. Condition number two, sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a six foot greenspace and a four foot greenspace along Dorchester and Ripple Creek Drives and a six foot sidewalk along Appleby. The applicant is requesting a variance of the greenspace widths along Appleby in order to avoid removing additional trees and to avoid the replacement of existing drainage structures. Proof of payment or copy of contract for street light installation if not already installed. With regard to condition number three, what we've been requiring for proof or guarantee is that we have a contract in hand showing that they paid SWEPCO or Ozark Electric for streetlight installation. Typically they don't install those until after the subdivision is done and they got power into the subdivision. Those are the conditions that we have placed on this including the standard conditions of approval Staff is in support of the sidewalk location and greenspace with regard to the location along Appleby Road. • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 5 Ward: Kim has looked at this and so on? Ron? Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: For this western lots, how this easement splits along these lines, can we get a better definition of where that easement sits in there on the next plat you are going to submit? Several of these lots are pretty tight building spots, you really need to have that on the plat. On lot 13, you show a 15 foot drainage easement, you need to make sure that easement is 10 feet from the center of that pipe. I don't think the pipe is drawn correctly. I think it's okay, it is more or less running along that property line. That's all I've got. Edwards: What was your first comment? Petrie: That the easement that runs in the back of the western lot needs to be described better. That's all • Ward: I'm looking at this plat, I'm kind of confused. I see two lot 13's. Brackett: What it is, we initially brought Appleby Subdivision which is the northern half of this development and after this was approved the owners acquired the property to the south of that and that was a separate preliminary plat. So, the lots numbers are at the top Appleby Estates 1 through 18 and the south part is Quail Creek Phase III 1 through 13. The dark line in the middle, it kind of gives the separation there. Conklin: It probably wouldn't be a bad idea on the mylar copy if you could separate the two. Brackett: Separate the two as far as two different plats? Conklin: Yes. Will that be a problem? Brackett: No. We can do that if you would like to have two separate plats. Conklin: I think that might help since there is two different subdivision names on it. I'm worried about being able to track these. Brackett. It's dust an auto cad thing. • Conklin: Your subdivision boundary description is not describing the whole thing, is it? • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 6 Brackett: It is. Conklin: Why don't we have staff work that out with Jorgensen & Associates. Brackett: They came in separate and the reason they are together is we did the construction plans together. We just assume they would come in together but if that's a problem we will definitely work with staff on whatever they prefer. Ward: Keith, on sidewalks? Keith Shreve - Public Lands Maintenance Shreve: They haven't been constructed yet. We just want to make sure it's guaranteed. The grading has been completed. Just a comment on Quail Creek Phase II, lots 2, 3, 4 and 5, they graded area for the sidewalk but the adjoining slopes up into the lots but they are still pretty steep, we would like to see a 3 to 1 slope there if possible for future driveways. Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 on Quail Creek Phase II. • Conklin: That will be done before we sign off on the final plat? Shreve: Yes. Ward: Is there any other staff comments? Conklin: That's in the staff report. They are going to pay $6,410 for Quail Creek III and $7,990 for Appleby Estates. • Ward: Has the developer agreed on this fee on what the City has paid originally to get this cleaned up? Brackett: Yes. They've agreed to pay that. Ward: This is all agree on? Conklin: Everybody is in agreement. Of course the City Council has the authority to sell the land back to the developer so if they decide not to do it, we'll be back before you. Ward: We've made note of this right? • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 7 Conklin: Yes. Shreve: I misspoke a moment ago, that should be Quail Creek Phase III. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: Is there anyone from the public that would like to address this particular item? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Ward: Seeing none, I'll close it to public comment and bring it back to the Committee. Hoover: _ I've got one question just because I haven't been to Subdivision in a while. Explain again on final plat, you are saying that they've already built the street but not the sidewalk? Conklin: The ordinance requires the developer to install all the improvements except for the final • layer of pavement, sidewalks and landscaping. Those are guaranteed 150% of the estimated cost of installation. Sara Edwards either takes money and puts it in escrow, a letter of credit or a surety bond. That's how we guarantee a developer will actually go ahead and build this. I thought I would point that out because at this point in time, sometimes people are not aware that these streets are in we can't be moving things around or redesigning streets, everything is in. This ensures that when the building permits are being issued, you've got a street, water and sewer. Prior to that ordinance change we had preliminary plats, final plats filed and we have construction happening at the same time the street and water is going in and fire protection was always an issue and contaminating the road base and stuff from all the construction vehicles building the houses. We've tied it down now to get all the improvements in ahead of time. Ward: Before I get a motion, since there is a small variance being requested for on the greenspace width, can we still approve this at this level? Conklin: We have in the past with regard to the sidewalk. Ward: Any other questions? Brackett: No. • Ward: I would like somebody to form a motion. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 8 MOTION: Hoover: I'll make a motion to approve FP 01-2.00. Ward: Do I have a second or do you have some things you would like to add into it? Bunch: Yes. With the seven conditions of approval as stated and with an additional condition to clarify the sewer easement line on the west side of Appleby and Quail Creek Phase III and to locate the waterline on lot 13, to address the issues on slope for lots 2, 3, 4 and 5, Quail Creek Phase III or comments by Keith Shreve and to address the Appleby/Quail Creek delineation administratively to make it easier to locate this in the future. I'll second on those conditions. Ward: I'll concur. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 9 LS 01-13.00: Lot Split (North College Development, pp 484) was submitted by Richard Alexander on behalf of North College Development for property located at 9 & 11 N. West Avenue. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.45 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.23 acres and 0 22 acres. Ward: Our third item on the agenda today is LS 01-13.00 a Lot Split for North College Development submitted by Richard Alexander on behalf of North College Development for property located at 9 & 11 N. West Avenue. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.45 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.23 acres and 0.22 acres. Tim? Conklin: This request is for a lot split to split the property into two tracts of 0.23 acres and 0.22 acres. It's located north of Center and West Avenue intersection, it's the site of the Cooper House. The request is to split off the westernmost building to exist on a separate lot. Both buildings are used for offices. The applicant is dedicating an additional 5 feet on West Avenue pursuant to the Master Street plan. This brings the total to 25 feet of right-of-way from centerline as required for a Historic Collector. The applicant is seeking a variance for the northern side setback for the rear building. Ten feet is the required setback. The building is located 2 feet from the side lot line. That's going to Board of Adjustment this Monday. There was some confusion when the building was constructed with regard to setbacks, that's not dealt with at Subdivision Committee, that's a Board of Adjustment action. The one condition that we are placing on this is the structure may never be converted to residential due to the requirement of a minimum lot width for a residence within the R -O district which is not required if the lot is used as office unless a specific variance is granted pursuant to current regulations. Basically if you have an R-0 zoning district and you have residential uses, they are required to have lot width or lot frontage on an approved public street. Office use, there is no lot width or frontage requirement, you can have buildings behind buildings. That's what we have in this situation. They are showing an access easement for access back to this building, that is a requirement that they have access to that three story building on the west of this property. That's all I have for staff comments on this project. Ward: Ron? Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: On the actual plat that is going to be recorded, can you specify the waterline is private. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 10 Alexander. Ward: Alexander: Conklin: Alexander: Conklin: Ward: Conklin: Yes. We've agreed to that. I've been out of town and I didn't get this until this morning. He'll fix that. I don't have any trouble with the conditions although the language says the structure may never be converted to residential use, I don't have any plans to do it. We are wanting to sell the building, they want it for an office building. Ten years down the road they may have a good argument to the City. Couldn't this say that it couldn't be converted without application to the City for a variance. The City could turn them down if they wanted. Personally I'm a proponent of downtown living and in ten years there may be a reason that that could get converted. Was this residential at one time? Actually the building was a boarding house residence, yes. We actually came in there and did three buildings. We considered doing -a residence back there initially and because of the frontage requirements, we then ended up doing an office, as you know is a higher standard. This is an office. I don't want to not make it an office. I would prefer that say "cannot be converted without application to the City". I just don't want to restrict the subsequent purchaser from coming in and saying "That was a long time ago." They may have a perfectly good argument in ten years from now or additional land could be acquired behind it. How about "not being converted with City approval"? You would have to get a variance of the minimum lot width for a residence. So, without a variance for the minimum lot width. I just don't want to restrict whoever buys it. I don't have a problem with the conditions. That will work without a variance. What about parking on this building, what's the ratios? I don't have that available. When we did the permitting on this structure, we worked hard with Richard Alexander to make sure he met the parking requirements. To my knowledge they are meeting all those requirements. These are two existing buildings, this one was renovated and this one was brand new. We did this administratively to get this parking lot built and work with the applicant. Just one question, this access easement you are showing, what is that easement is that the entire parking lot? Alexander: Yes basically. Subdivision Committee Meeting • March 29, 2001 Page 11 Conklin: Alexander: Bunch: So both of them are sharing this entire parking area? Basically this lot is giving this property an easement to turn down here and this lot is giving this property an easement. Both lots have an easement to come in and out of here. We would have more parking but Kim made us put landscaping, which we didn't object to, that's fine. Since this is going to be a lot split and needs to be sold independently, the parking lot on this drawing only shows handicapped parking by the building to the west, is there any handicapped parking for the building on the east side, since there will be separate owners? Alexander: We can put handicapped parking there if that's the requirement. We could dedicate that. It needs to be dedicated on here. I'm not an expert on ADA but they are sharing the parking lot together. The ADA does require to be in close proximity. The ADA parking that's shown is next to one of the buildings. Bunch: • Conklin: Ward: Alexander: Ward: We also have the building next door and we have ADA parking right there. We own this property and we are not seeking to separate it. There is ADA parking right here that we own. We need to dedicate handicapped parking if it's required. Alexander: I don't mind doing that. If we need to do it we will be glad to do it. Ward: Keith, do you have any questions on the sidewalks? Keith Shreve - Public Lands Maintenance Shreve: There is an existing sidewalk along West Avenue that's in good condition. We have no further requirements. Conklin: Once again, this has all been developed. It's been permitted and developed a couple • of years ago. Everything is in and all we are doing is putting on paper, lines to transfer • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 12 title. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: Is there anyone from the public that would like to make public comment on this particular project? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Ward: Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee for questions and all motions. MOTION: Bunch: I'll move we approve Lot Split 01-13.00 with the restated condition on item one to read "The structure shall not be converted to residential without lot width variance granted by the City" and also to specify the private waterline easement and address handicapped parking issues for the building on the east side of the lot. Ward: Do I hear a second? Hoover: I'll second. Ward: I'll concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 13 LSD 01-6.00: Large Scale Development (Hanna, pp 643) was submitted by Chris Parton of Craft, Tull & Associates on behalf of Burt Hanna for property located at the northeast corner of Armstrong Road and Borick Drive. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial and contains approximately 46.47 acres. The request is for an 1,739 square foot boiler building and a wood -fired steam boiler. Ward: The next item on the agenda this morning is LSD 01-6.00 submitted by Chris Parton of Craft, Tull & Associates on behalf of Burt Hanna for property located at the northeast corner of Armstrong Road and Borick Drive. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial and contains approximately 46.47 acres. The request is for an 1,739 square foot boiler building and a wood -fired steam boiler. Tim? Conklin: This project originally was approved as a large scale development on September 28, 1998 for Hanna's Candles. When I say this project, I'm talking about the existing warehouse building on Armstrong and Borick Drive. The original request was for a 673,750 square foot building to be used for warehousing. The applicant is now proposing to convert the existing structure to manufacturing as well as warehousing. The applicant is being required to submit a large scale development for this boiler building and wood fire steam boiler due to the requirement that all potential odor emitting facilities are processed as large scale developments. A conditional use is also being requested to convert the existing warehousing use to candle manufacturing, that's all under use unit 31. We have an existing site, staff has been to the site and toured it with Fred Hanna, the Fire Marshal and Fire Chief and Building Inspector. Currently the building is being used for warehousing and office use. They do proposed to place this wood fire boiler on the south side of the building, it's not going to be attached to the building, it's stand alone. That is going to house a wood fire boiler. The proposal is to bring in saw dust from Love Fox Company on truck trailers and put that into a silo and have that sawdust brought into the wood fire boiler through an auger system. It will generate steam to generate electricity and heat for the candle manufacturing process. Conditions to address and discuss this morning include: Number one, the sidewalk shall be continuous through the driveway. Number two, the cul-de-sac at the end of Borick Drive shall be constructed. At time of the 1998 LSD approval a condition of approval was that the cul-de-sac be completed. I have attached those minutes in your packet this moming. At this time the cul-de-sac has not been constructed and the City has not issued a final Certificate of Occupancy due this matter. We are placing condition number two on this project that was a condition of approval for the original project, the cul-de-sac needs to be constructed. • Ward: We are talking about down here on Borick Drive and Borick Drive is all up to City • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 14 standards, as far as you know? Conklin: Except for the cul-de-sac. Ward: That on the east end of the property is supposed to be a cul-de-sac shown there? Conklin: Yes. If you flip four pages back, we do have those minutes of the Planning Commission of September 28, 1998. Condition number one was "Clarification of the developer's intent and the Planning Commission determination of any improvements to Borick Drive. The drawing indicates an extension of approximately 550 feet with a standard cul-de-sac. The City has recently overlaid Borick Drive to Combs Park. Staff requests that the developer provide the cul-de-sac shown on his drawings." If you go through the minutes, page three they talk about the cul-de-sac and it states - "Discussion ensued regarding the cul-de-sac." Little: "The cul-de-sac was a request from the solid waste division." Odom: "The cul-de-sac is shown on the plat." Basically we discussed it, it's a requirement and staff is placing that condition on this current large scale development also. Number three, parking figures have not yet been provided. The project engineer must provide the square footage and parking ratios to be used and must meet the minimum number of spaces required prior to PC Approval. That's pretty minor, we just want to make sure that any additional square footage, that the parking is being met on this site. They should be able to handle that. Ward: Is the whole building going to be tumed from warehousing to manufacturing, is that what they are trying to do? Conklin: I'll let the applicant respond to that. Hanna: I would like to respond to it. What the plans are to move the present manufacturing facility, which is 110,000 square foot building on 15th Street to move all of that down to Borick Drive. This will be a process that will take us approximately a year to move the machinery and not to disrupt our operations. We can continue to manufacture on 15`s Street but as you know we've had some complaints about odors and things like that from the smaller building. We feel like moving a mile further south, we are another mile away from any residential property and also in a bigger building We are going to have a better opportunity to control the odor. It's kind of like putting rose in a small box or big box. Obviously it's going to contain more odor in a small box. This is part of the plan to totally combine the operation at least as much as possible. If we keep growing we will probably still use some of the buildings that we are manufacturing in now for storing equipment in. All of our production and employees with exception of • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 15 Ward: our machine shop, which will stay on 15' Street, will be moved down to the facility on Borick Drive. Do we need to designate, you are talking about 670,000 square feet of warehouse space down there now, right? Warehouse and office, are we going to designate all of that to be manufacturing because that changes a lot of ratios. Can't you Just say 1/4th of the building? Conklin: That's a really good question. If we can get those numbers. Hanna: I assume, that if it's necessary to put it down, we will not use 50% of the building for manufacturing, the other 50% will always be for shipping and warehousing. Of course that's what we are using if for now, for office. Probably it will be more accurate even to go 40/60 but I don't know how you are going to ever actually determine that when you get inside there. Ward: Is this cul-de-sac need to be used? Hanna: We are willing to build a cul-de-sac if it's required. You refer to those notes, which took place in meetings in September 1998. On October 2, 1998, we received a letter from the Engineering Department regarding the cul-de-sac. I have a copy of it here. "After further review the cul-de-sac for Borick Drive is not necessary." That's because it wasn't going to be big enough to tum the trucks around down there. Now then, Superior has grown, they've enlarged and I talked to their manager the day before yesterday, he wants to buy 5 more acres from the City of the 14 that's left to the east of that and put in parking. Are you aware of that Tim? Conklin: Yes, that's how I discovered that this cul-de-sac wasn't built. I met with Superior Industries and they asked a question with regard to the cul-de-sac and there was some issues, SWEPCO was at the meeting with the guy wires for their overhead electric. When I grabbed the files for Hanna's Candles and Superior Industries, I discovered that there was supposed to be a cul-de-sac constructed as part of this development and that's when I started researching about why that didn't get built. That's why we do have that condition of approval on here, to make sure that it does get built. Hanna: If you build it now, it's going to be at the beginning of that parking lot. It's going to be in the wrong location. Then it will also interfere with the access of the back nine acres, if they buy 5, there's 14 acres there that belong to the City Industrial Park. You can't cut it off. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 16 Conklin: They don't have the plans for their expansion. One of the things that they were looking at is doing a property line adjustment and acquiring land back east of their plant and not along the street. I'm not sure how far you want the cul-de-sac to go to the White River. There is this remaining tract of land back here, a lot of it up here on the west side is out of the 100 year floodplain and that's where Superior is looking to expand some parking. I'm not sure you want to extend that cul-de-sac any further than where it's shown. Hanna: My point is I think it might be practical to wait until they finish their parking lot project to see what access they need. They will basically have to tear it out. Conklin: That was not the plan. The plan was to utilize their internal drives to expand their parking lot out. Hanna: That doesn't give you the room to go back to the other nine acres. Conklin: I'm just sharing with you the conversations we've had with Superior Industries to do a property line adjustment, use their internal drives to expand their existing parking lot and it doesn't really deal with extending the street that much. The only reason I'm bringing this up is, it came up about the cul-de-sac, I researched it and it wasn't done. The Planning Commission put the conditions of approval on these projects and I don't believe staff has the authority to take those conditions off projects. Ward: Do you see in the future that this road will be extended? Conklin: Talking with the Chamber of Commerce and others, you end up in the White River, a cul-de-sac typically you have access to properties at the end of the street and lots of people turn around and I just can't imagine you can extend it much further to the east. Bunch: How far does the pavement extend at this present time? Are we talking the turnaround at the very end of it could be built? Does the pavement extend past the property line for Hanna's? Venable: This is been a long time. As I remember the cul-de-sac was supposed to be built a long time ago as part of the overall project for the industrial area. When Superior went in they put up some money to extend and in 1998, I think the City went in and extended the road to the end of the cul-de-sac. It's extended as far now as the cul-de-sac is, I think the end of the street. I think that's as far as that goes now. We used their money to extend the street down there. • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 17 Ward: Let's get back on track. Conklin: It was important to discuss because it was a condition back in 1998. Bunch: If that condition were to be removed then it would be a variance in order for it to be incorporated in with another project then when this goes before the full Planning Commission it would require some sort of language to address that? Conklin: Yes, you need to remove that condition from 1998 if you don't want to require Hanna's Candles to build the cul-de-sac. Ward: What kind of money are we talking about in case we wanted to do in lieu of? Parton: I don't know an exact dollar amount on top of my head. Hanna: Somebody gave me a figure somewhere, I can't remember who it was but it was $10,000. • Conklin: Condition number four, approval shall be subject to the approval of a conditional use allowing for a wood -fired steam boiler and candle manufacturing at this location. That's a Use Unit 31 Facilities Emitting Odors and Facilities Handling Explosives. With regard to condition number four, we will have a separate staff report for a conditional use. Staff is currently researching wood fire boilers. We went on a field trip with Fred Hanna and Charlie Venable to Travis Lumber Company and looked at their wood fire boiler and how that's operating. I can report to you this morning that it's very efficient, the one down at Travis Lumber Company. I really can't see anything, they had two boilers down there with two stacks and you can't see hardy any smoke or anything coming out of the stack. They burn at 1300 degrees Fahrenheit. As long as you have the right fuel, the right amount of oxygen going in and temperature, you are fairly okay with regard to what's being omitted from the actual stacks ADQ will have to permit this facility. They do permit the facility down at Travis Lumber in Mansfield, Arkansas. That one, it's my understanding that there hasn't been any complaints or violations with ADQ They do have monitors on top of the stacks to check the opacity of smoke coming out. Once again, it's a very efficient operation down there at Mansfield. Bunch: Is that the sawmill at Mansfield? Conklin: Yes. They have conveyor belts that move the sawdust into the boiler building and it • operates 24 hours a day. They shut it down once a week to scrape the ash from the • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 18 Ward: bottom of the boilers. When they do fire it back up, about 30 to 40 minutes, it does take some time to get the fuel, oxygen and temperature mix correct to stop the smoke from being generated. About once a week they do have stuff that comes out of the stacks that you can smell and see for about 30 to 40 minutes. As a Planning Commission, are we supposed to allow a conditional use for this type of thing? Is that something we should be worried about or is that something City Council should be more involved in? Conklin: Four or five years ago they passed an ordinance, and that's on page two, that requires all facilities emitting odors and facilities handling explosives shall be a conditional use in the I-2, general industrial zoning district subject to the following conditions: A. Notice. Notice shall be given as set forth in § 157.04 B. 5. Notice has been given. B. Inspection. Before a conditional use permit is issued for a facility emitting odors or handling explosives, the building must be inspected by the Fire Marshall and Building Inspector to assure compliance with the Arkansas State Fire Code and to assure that no significant safety hazards exist. No conditional use permit shall be issued for a facility emitting odors or a facility handling explosives if the building does not pass inspection. C. LSD Review. All facilities emitting odors or handling explosives shall be subject to the large scale development review process. D. Reasonable Satisfaction. The Planning Commission shall be reasonably satisfied that the permitted use will not generate generally offensive or noxious odors or create an unreasonable hazard to the public. This is the finding that you will have to make at the Planning Commission with regard to the conditional use request. That is the standard and the only standard that I could find in the code book with regard to what the criteria you need to use with regard to what's being emitted from the facility. Hoover: How will we determine that if it's not built? Conklin: Staff will be placing conditions of approval on that conditional use. We are doing lots of research. I'm trying to educate myself on how you make candles and on how wood fire boilers are constructed and operated. I'm meeting with ADQ this afternoon and talk with them. Before the City had this ordinance, ADQ was the regulatory agency at the state level that regulated air emissions. This is our first facility that's being brought under this ordinance. It will be a learning process for staff, the Commission and, of course, the applicant. I looked to place lots of conditions to make sure that you are reasonably satisfied that it's not going to generate generally offensive or noxious odors. • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 19 Hoover: Can you just clarify, what is a wood fire steam boiler actually for? In the lumber company it does one thing but in the candle company it's going to be doing something else. Hanna: It will be used to heat the building, steam will be used to keep the wax melted and it will have a co -generation plant attached to it and will be generating electricity. We anticipate that it will generate 40% of the electricity that we'll use in that building when we are in full operation. It will be running 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. At the times that we are not, that electricity will go into the power grid to be sold to consumers. It is a biomass burner which is one of the things approved by the Green Power Network behind solar power and wind power. You've got to keep in mind, our alternative is to burn fossil fuel which emits hydrocarbons out the stack. You can't see what's coming out of the stack. We've got boilers now, Superior Industries has boilers and furnaces, you can't see anything coming out of the stack but there are hydrocarbons and other emissions. The biomass burner does not do that. Any ash that's inside that burner, firing our boiler, is circulated and sensed by sensors and it's burned totally up. It has this brick that turns red like these ventless heaters and so forth. • Conklin: They have a multi clone thing that's spinning in the stack and as ashes come up in the stack it spins the ash back down and throws it back down into the boiler which helps incinerate it more. • Ward: Bunch: It sounds very interesting. Does it have afterburner systems to burn off stack gas that use natural gas or anything like that? Hanna: It won't use natural gas. Conklin: The one at Travis Lumber Company they start their boilers with paper. Hanna: It's real easy to start. Bunch: You currently have gas fired boilers on site? Hanna: Yes. Bunch: When this one say shuts down for a maintenance cycle, you would revert to your gas fired boilers? Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 20 Hanna: The maintenance cycle varies on these things. That's just to keep your boiler clean. They are running two boilers where Tim looked and we are only going to be running one. They estimate that it would use 55 gallons of ash every two weeks. You just rake that out and you don't shut down very long. As far as the heat and wax is concerned, we won't be shut down long enough to have any material affect on that. There will be a regular maintenance schedule. Hoover: Just one more question on number four, does this conditional use, the steam boiler and candle manufacturing on one conditional use, I'm seeing that I might have a problem with combining these two. Conklin: Staff is going to write the report with two separate motions. I don't believe they will have the wood fire boiler down here without the candle manufacturing because you want to generate the electricity for the candle operations. They kind of go together but yet, my interpretation one has a potential of emitting smoke through the stack and the other has the potential emitting the odors and fragrances of the candles. Once again, with regard to the candle manufacturing process, I haven't talked to Mr. Hanna about this but I probably need to go tour your existing facility on 15`s Street to see how exactly those candles are being manufactured and what we can do to help mitigate some of the odors from escaping that facility. Ward: Ron, is there anything? Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie. No comment. Ward: Keith, I see that the sidewalks should be shown continuous through the driveway, is there any other concerns? Keith Shreve - Public Lands Maintenance Shreve: No sir. Sidewalks are existing on site. Ward: We have a little landscaping here, as far as tree protection fencing and so on showing on here, does Kim have any other? Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 21 Edwards: Her only comment included they are going to relocate some trees that they are grading over but they are small enough, she felt they could be relocated and they did put a note on there so she was satisfied. There are some existing trees, trees in disturbed area are to be relocated to undisturbed area Ward: Good. There is going to be a silo, how tall will that be? Hanna: 35 or 40 feet. Bunch: It says 76 feet. Parton: 76 feet. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: Is there anyone else from staff I need to talk with? Any public comment or questions from the public? Is there anyone that would like to address us at this time? Gaston: My name is Colene Gaston, 3270 North Rom Orchard Road. What's the BTU rating for the boiler? Hanna: 28,692,857 BTU per hour. Gaston: I thought I heard Mr. Hanna say there will be no emissions? Hanna: There will be very little. It won't be absolutely zero. It won't be as much as you get from fossil fuel. Gaston: You are going to have a cyclone? Hanna: It has a built in blower system, blowers above and below the boiler to circulate the air back. It has a sensor to tell you how much is in there, it throws it back through. Is that the way you understand it Tim? Conklin: The one at Travis Lumber had that multi clone system where it spun that ash back down in there. That's something that we'll place a conditional of approval on to make sure the particulate matter gets blown back down into the boiler. • Gaston: Are you going to get design drawings for the emissions people? • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 22 Conklin: We do have drawings. This is a piece of equipment that's located in Memphis. We've contacted Memphis, Shelby County and talked to their environmental office and also have the actual equipment specifications. We are working on that. Once again, I'm trying to educate myself on how to control particulate matter and odors coming out of the stack. The one at Travis, we need to make sure this one operates in the same manner. Ward: Thanks Tim. Is there anyone else with questions? Gaston: No thank you. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Ward: At this time I'll go ahead and close the floor to public comment and bring it back to the Committee for questions and motions. Bunch: Is this 40 foot stack height correct? Hanna: Yes. Bunch: In addition to the cyclone separator, are there any type of scrubbers or anything to help move particulate matter and other affluents? Venable: I don't believe there are any scrubbers. I don't think it will be necessary and if they are, they can be added. This has to be whatever ADQ comes up with on this. I don't believe there are any scrubbers. Hanna: I don't think so. Bunch: On types of fuel, as long as Love Fox stays in business you have a fuel source primarily saw dust, what about altemative fuels like pelletized wood scrap or slab wood, any sort of plastics to have the capability of burning those and do we need to consider that? Hanna: I don't think you can burn plastics in there. I guess if you wanted to, the doors aren't big enough. You don't have a place to put slab wood in, the boiler would have to be rebuilt to do that. Bunch: You can run chip wood in it but not large chunks of slab or anything like that. Would it • have like a force feed system that blows the sawdust then burning grate? I know a lot • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 23 of the waste heap recovery systems in existing are using various types of pelletized woods. Conklin: One of the things that Travis Lumber did tell us when we did go down there was that it is important that the material that you have is consistent and, depending on the moisture content if it's green sawdust or dry sawdust, if all of a sudden you are auguring in something dry and then you have something wet going in there, it could change it up enough that it could cause some smoke to be emitted. Hanna: You have to try to keep consistent the type of fuel used. Bunch: One of the reasons that I ask about the maintenance cycle, you are showing here multi- zone underfire grates and underfire air, those things have to be shut down occasionally to be cleaned otherwise you don't get your proper air mixture. That really plays havoc with the efficiency of combustion if you don't have the proper amount of air coming up through your combustible material. Hanna: They will shut down once or twice a week and then once a year you have to close it down for general maintenance to clean your boiler and all of those grates and everything. I believe that was dictated by ADQ. Conklin: I'm not sure if that was a requirement. Travis shut theirs down once a week, they rake the ashes and they actually take the ashes and sell them to fertilizer companies so they are even reusing that. Bunch: Do you know what pressure this will be operating? The state requires, once you get over a certain size boilers, you have to have licensed boiler operators. Conklin: They will be required to have a boiler operator licensed. Today, once again, I'm meeting with Jay Ellis with ADQ to find our more information on wood fired boiler and the candle manufacturing, the type of permits that they'll need for this facility. Also, I'm doing research across the country to see what other communities have done and we'll have a more detailed report at Planning Commission on the 9th. Hoover: I'm not familiar with industrial design, does it usually require a mechanical engineer? Who actually designs the systems and make sure that all this work is good for air quality and all of that? • Bunch: They've already hired an engineering consultant company that does all that on the • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 24 setup. Usually on the operation and maintenance of the boiler doesn't necessarily require an engineer, it requires someone with boiler experience and states licenses. As far as having an in-house mechanical engineer, that's probably not a requirement. They have professional engineers doing the design of the building and they are buying a system that is approved. Hoover. Kind of like a prefab system that's already... Venable: Everything meets standards. I think 125 pounds per square inch is what it is. Bunch: You are not going to be run any super heat, it will be 125 pounds saturated? Venable: Yes. - Hoover: The same thing for the candle manufacturing? Bunch: A lot of places use steam heat and use steam for various reasons. When you get into lower pressure classes the requirements are not as stringent. He is saying will be 125 pounds saturated steam, there are various classes and this is in one of the lower classes that requires less expertise in operation and maintenance. You start getting up into the thousands and high temperatures and high pressures, it requires considerably more attention. Conklin: It's going to be important for the applicant to operate this facility efficiently. When I did contact Memphis, Shelby County, they have had problems with wood fire boilers, the older types where they are not controlling the amount the fuel and oxygen and temperature and their location near residential neighborhoods, it can be problematic if you don't run them efficiently. My understanding is, you do have to have a licensed boiler operator at the site operating the boiler. ADQ, Travis Lumber stated that they do surprise inspections or unannounced inspections to make sure they are operating and they also have routine inspections. There are meters up on the stacks to see how much particulates and smoke are coming out of the stacks. I expect, when you do get your staff report, we'll have a lot more information on the type of conditions. With this being the first one coming through the process, I just don't have a lot of that information this morning. Bunch: Just for clarification on those boiler operators, it's not just one in-house, it's one per shift. The whole time it's operating there has to be one. They don't have to be in constant attendance but there has to be one on site with periodic inspections and • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 25 checking the controls to make sure the failsafe and backup systems are working properly. There is a person involved with it that does know how to override automatic systems. Ward: I would like to have either a motion or recommendation. Bunch: I would like to ask a little bit more before we do that. On the air handling systems inside the facility, since the odors or fragrances are an issue, do you have some sort of exhaust system or any type of air collection systems? You are talking about the size of the facility being a factor. Hanna: The boiler itself will be sitting outside. Bunch: I'm talking about in the facility, one issue is the boiler issue and the other issue is the manufacturing portion and the possibility of odors emitting from that. You are talking about having it in a larger facility, do you have any sort of monitors or any anticipated cleaners or precipitators or anything on it? Hanna: We do try to control it. The way you really have to control it is to not keep your doors open. Bunch: Is the facility air conditioned? Hanna: Yes. Bunch: You'll have some sort of in-house air handling to be recirculating your air and going through filters as opposed to, a lot of times in hot environments there is just a direct exhaust to the outside but you are using a closed facility? Parton: I couldn't really tell you to be honest with you. Conklin: I'll include in your packet for Planning Commission, I encourage you to read through those permits from ADQ for their current facility on 15th Street. Within those permits, they do have limits on how much of volatile components escape ADQ is regulating how much of that fragrance can escape from the building at this time. I'll include that in your packet and we can discuss it more. Bunch: And any information on how that transfers. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 26 Conklin: MOTION: Bunch: Hoover: Ward: ADQ is regulating Hanna's Candles on 15' Street with regard to their compounds and stuff they use for the fragrances at that facility and how much can be escaped through the process. I move we forward LSD 01-6.00 to full Planning Commission with the conditions and discussions from public, staff and Committee. I second. I'll concur. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 27 LSD 01-7.00: Large Scale Development (Lot 9 Millennium Place, pp 177) was submitted by Steve DeNoon of Jordan & Associates on behalf of Kirk Elsass of L & E Equities, Inc. for property located at lot 9 of Millennium Place. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.63 acres. The request is to build two office buildings, a 2515 square foot building and a 3153 square foot building. Ward: The next item on the agenda is LSD 01-7.00 for Lot 9 Millennium Place submitted by Steve DeNoon of Jordan & Associates on behalf of Kirk Elsass of L & E Equities, Inc. for property located at lot 9 of Millennium Place. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.63 acres. The request is to build two office buildings, a 2515 square foot building and a 3153 square foot building. Conklin: This is the fourth large scale development submitted for the Millennium Place Subdivision. The applicant is requesting two office buildings with 19 parking spaces proposed. The applicant is providing screening for the property to the north, which is a single-family home, by planting a row of evergreen trees. The applicant is also requesting a setback reduction which may be granted by the Landscape Administrator with the provision of additional landscaping. A stub out has been provided to lot 8 on the west. There is a drainage easement on the east side of this property. We are recommending approval at this level. Conditions to address and discuss: There are no existing trees on site. The applicant is required as part of the Millennium Place Final Plat requirements to plant 4 inch caliper trees along Millennium Drive. Number two, the parking lot aisle width is not meeting the 24 foot wide requirement. The applicant is showing a total pavement width of 64 feet for the aisle and two parking spaces. Each parking stall must be 19 feet deep with a aisle of 24 feet. That's Just basically adding those numbers up, they don't add up. Let's add them up corrected and get the proper dimensions. Thus the total of 19, 19, and 24 equals 62 feet. Therefore staff is recommending that the overall dimension be decreased to 62 feet and the amount of paved area be decreased by 2 feet. Number three, Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards including signage. The applicant is proposing buildings to include a split face block base with red brick walls and vinyl siding for the gable. Two monument signs are being proposed Those are the conditions that you need to address, the rest are standard conditions of approval. Ward: Ron? Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: No comment. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 28 Ward: Keith? Keith Shreve - Public Lands Maintenance Shreve: This just requires six foot sidewalks continuous through the driveway. Ward: Is that shown on the plat? Shreve: It's shown on the plans correctly. Ward: Steve, do you have anything to add to this? DeNoon: No sir. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: We've seen a couple of these buildings come through so you kind of know what we and how mean we can be. At this time, I will go ahead and open up to public comment or questions from the public. Is there anyone that would like to address this issue? Conklin: Just one thing I discovered. On your monument signs, we allow one sign per property and I apologize for not bringing that up until this time. That's something that if you want two signs, you would have to seek a variance or split the property. DeNoon: There was one thing Tim, on our request to lift all the future conditions of approval Conklin: That's on your agenda also the last page, item number eight. They would like to remove the condition that all the lots come through large scale development. Staff was concerned that if we didn't have them come to the Planning Commission, even though they are less than an acre, that we couldn't get our common design theme. I think we've established a theme at this time considering Steve DeNoon has been the architect on all four projects now and something we can reflect back on make sure that when permits come to our office that we can make sure the design theme is carried out through the subdivision. Staff has no problem recommending that conditions be lifted and let the remaining lots go through the administrative cycle. The last item, if you could take care of both of them now, number eight. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Subdivision Committee Meeting • March 29, 2001 Page 29 • Ward: Seeing no comment from the public, I will bring it back to the Commission. As far as we are concerned, we have been looking at each individual lot as it's been brought to us with Perfect Partners and all the other buildings that have been approved already, right? Conklin: Yes. Ward: Basically what the developer was required to do was to provide a color scheme, material scheme for all the buildings we are going to have similar type of scheme to it, right? Conklin: That's correct. They've incorporated gabled ends and these columns on a lot of their projects. I feel fairly comfortable in doing this administrative process. Typically, if it's under an acre, they don't come to the Planning Commission. We've required all of these to come to the Planning Commission to make sure it's going to get done properly. Ward: I will say that some of the things we've allowed or not allowed mainly is the siding that the developers want to use. We've been pretty forceful using block or brick and so on instead of the vinyl in places, especially where it can be seen. I guess those are things I still want to see having because that's a very high impact area. Conklin: I plan on holding them to the fire on these and if they disagree with me, they can appeal it to you. Ward: Any other questions or motions? Bunch: Ron, are you fully satisfied on all the drainage and everything on this? Petrie: Yes. We were able to set up the whole subdivision because we knew how the subdivision is going to drain. It is complying with how we set that up. MOTION: Bunch: I'll move for approval of LSD 01-7.00 at this level. Hoover: I'll second. Ward: Let's get on this monument sign, you asked for two. Let's go over that again. It's not 11111 going to be allowed unless he splits the lot. You understand that, right? • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 30 DeNoon: Yes. Ward: I'll go ahead and concur on that particular motion. Subdivision Committee Meeting • March 29, 2001 Page 31 FP 01-4.00: Final Plat (CMN Business Park II Phase II, pp 173, 174) was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Nanchar Inc & Marjorie Brooks for property located south of NWA Mall, north of I-540. The property is zoned C-2, R -O, Thoroughfare Commercial, Residential Office and contains approximately 86.84 acres with 7 lots proposed. • • Ward: The next item on the agenda today will be a Final Plat for CMN Business Park I1 Phase II submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Nanchar Inc. & Marjorie Brooks for property located south of NWA Mall, north of I-540. The property is zoned C-2, R -O, Thoroughfare Commercial, Residential Office and contains approximately 86.84 acres with 7 lots proposed. Tim? Conklin: This is the final plat for CMN Business Park II Phase II, we are considering today. Phase I of CMN Business Park II will be coming at a later date, that was not ready for this meeting today. CMN Phase II of CMN II is bounded by College Avenue on the east, is directly south of the Spring Park Subdivision which includes Home Depot and Goody's among other commercial developments. Mall Avenue has been constructed to continue south from the Spring Park Subdivision to the intersection on Mall Avenue and Shiloh Drive. A portion of Shiloh has also been constructed as part of this phase from the intersection of Mall Avenue to the boundary of this phase. A twenty foot trail easement is being dedicated for the multi use trail. That was agreed to back at the time of rezoning. Staff is recommending this plat go to the full Planning Commission. Conditions to address and discuss include: The developer shall contribute funds for the equipment and materials for the five stop lights proposed by Ernie Peters traffic study in the amount of $150,900. There is a letter from Tom Jefcoat. The agreement made at the time of preliminary plat was for the developer to provide the equipment and materials. The City will require money to be placed in escrow at this time. These funds may not be refunded and are not subject to the five year expiration of the standard escrow account. What we are saying there is we will have the money and that when the traffic lights are needed, we will buy that equipment and get them installed. Number two, waivers have been granted to include: tree replacement is the responsibility of individual tract developers; overhead electric line from SW corner of Wal -mart westerly along Mud Creek within floodway to remain as constructed; and a waiver to construct sidewalk on the Northern side of Shiloh Drive only. Number three, the applicant shall pay $35,000 for off-site improvements for Phase II. At time of preliminary plat it was determined that $140,000 would be assessed for the entire 309 acres. With regard to that $140,000 figure, there was a range I think it was $135,000 to $140,000, we are asking for the maximum amount. The applicant is proposing that 25% be collected at this time as outlined in the attached memo. Number four, a final design theme for the entire subdivision shall be provided prior to Planning Commission Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 32 approval. The preliminary covenants have been provided to staff. We have attached those that talk about the common design theme and appropriate materials to be used within this development. These will be required to be recorded pnor to signing of the final plat. All lots will be required to go through the large scale development process. Number six, The 40 foot easement on lot 17 shall be amended to 40 foot right-of-way dedication that connects the "fly -over" to Shiloh Drive. That is one change that I'm making as Planning Director, requesting on their preliminary plat they showed an easement for the potential fly -over off of College Avenue. I thought it was important that if the fly -over ever does get built that we actually have the right-of-way as shown on our Master Street Plat. So they are actually dedicating right-of-way where an easement was shown on preliminary plat. It's my opinion that we are getting more protection to make sure that's saved in the future. They are showing that area dedicated where we had that fly -over discussion back at the preliminary plat level and that will be deeded to the City of Fayetteville. Number seven, a 20 foot trail easement is shown and is required to be dedicated by separate easement document. Our land agents have been working with Milholland Engineering and the property owners to get that paperwork complete, it's done. Number eight, a note shall be placed on the plat indicating that road improvements and or assessments for offsite improvements may be imposed by the City at time of lot development pursuant to current regulations. Number eight is a reference that, yes we are getting $140,000 for off-site improvements at this time but we are also going to keep the ability open that when the individual Tots do develop that we can assess off-site improvements with regard to our current regulations. Just an understanding by the developer and future developers that there may be additional improvements required of their developments. The rest are standard conditions of approval Ward: Ron, do you have any comments? Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: Conklin: Petrie: On note number four, if you can remove the end of that having to do with who is responsible for maintaining all of the drainage and at the end it says "in compliance with the section 404 permit." This has to do with the drainage of the whole subdivision. A lot of this doesn't have anything to do with 404. If you take the end of it off. How do you want it read, Ron? The individual lot owner period. That applies to everything. Jim Beavers has requested if you would please change your floodplain and floodway delineation line. Those are • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 33 very hard to read. Just some other line that's more solid. Milholland: We'll come up with something Ron. Petrie: You may just need more dots or something. Milholland: We'll do a pattern and get it to you and see if he likes it. Petrie: Milholland: Petrie: Conklin: Milholland: Bunch: Petrie: Conklin: The one item that Engineering has requested all along is that Shiloh Drive be completed at this time and this connection be made when this phase is opened up. What we would request is it would show the right-of-way and give an instrument number so we know this right-of-way will be dedicated at this time for Shiloh Drive. You want us to dedicate Shiloh Drive all the way out to the west boundary? Yes. I don't think it needs to be shown but I think you need to clarify that it is being dedicated. It can be dedicated with a separate document. Does the Subdivision Committee understand what we are requesting? We are concemed about doing a final plat on phase II with the only access through Mall Avenue Phase I is not done to the point where we can bring that forward. Kohl's wants to open up on the 20. Shiloh Drive is complete over to where it currently connects to Greg. We need to get a separate instrument dedicating that right-of-way and opening that street up to the public along with this phase I1 final plat. That's what Ron Petrie is asking. If we approve this we also want a separate instrument dedicating that street to the City. When the street has been constructed and tested. It's basically a paperwork item to get that dedication so that street can open in time for the store opening. Right. One of the things we discussed the other day was up at McDonald's and Joyce, they are doing a lot of work with storm water drainage and the street widening, if this final plat gets complete and the building gets their occupancy there may be some problems up at Mall and Joyce without having another access. My staff is looking at that. Subdivision Committee Meeting • March 29, 2001 Page 34 • Petrie: Barricades will be added at the western entrance into Kohl's on Van Asche. Milholland: We can do that or at the end of phase I. Petrie: I would prefer it not be at the end because that will just leave a section in there without any way to turn around. Make sure you stop the traffic at the entrance. Then we would also add the barricades on Steele Avenue just north of the Shiloh Drive intersection. Milholland: We'll take care of that. Petrie: I believe we have a letter from the engineer and there is an item that they are requesting to be bonded. I believe, is this the only item? Milholland: Yes. Petrie: They are requesting that the fire hydrant and valve adjustments that we requested at final inspection be delayed until the sidewalks are in place. On this particular situation, the water line and fire hydrants were put in fairly early stage. Of course when all the road is in and the sidewalks are graded out, the fire hydrant heights need to be adjusted. They are okay how they are sitting now but they are visible so once the sidewalk is built and the sidewalk won't be built now, they will have to be adjusted. This is an item that is not allowed by ordinance if it does require some action for Planning Commission to allow that. Edwards: Will they still have fire protection? Petrie: Yes. Milholland: Some of them, they don't know for certain if they have to be adjusted at all. Some of them are real close. We are talking about a specific grade to the edge of the sidewalk and then back down or back up to where it's at. We've got them roughly close. They are operable right now, there is fire protection there. They will just be able to assure them that whenever we do the fine grading behind the sidewalk we will do those and the only way we knew how to do it was to guarantee it. Mr. Beavers agreed to that. It was his suggestion we do this. Ward: Do you have some kind of ratio, how many hydrants there are? • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 35 Milholland: It's listed in this letter. Petrie: They show 9 fire hydrants, $120 each and 13 gate valves at $40 each. Milholland: They are in place. The fire hydrants may not have to be moved. I know three of them are in real good shape. Bunch: That is basically a punch list item? Petrie: It is, but it's an item that's hard to enforce until we know a sidewalk is installed. Milholland: We are not asking to bond any other thing like landscaping or surface the street, that is all complete. This is the only item we have. Petrie: It says landscaping. Milholland: Well, it's actually seeding and strawing stuff that goes between the sidewalk and the curb and behind the sidewalk. We went ahead and seeded it but when he goes out to put the sidewalk in, he's going to scrape up the seeding and move it over on top of another area and we are going to have to come back in and reseed it. It's actually re- seeding this. It's not under the technical term landscaping. Conklin: With additional work. Milholland: It's actually under erosion control. Ward: Ron, is there any reason we shouldn't allow this bonding? Petrie: No sir. They way we guarantee. They are fine now. We can leave it along but if we get another developer in there and there is some problems, we can't really see now. Milholland: It is our intention to go ahead and build the sidewalks for both phases all at one time. Conklin: Are you actually bonding or a letter of credit or check? Milholland: It will be a check on all of this. Conklin: So we are going to get cash? • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 36 Harrington: Do you need a letter of credit as well? Conklin: Well, if it's a bond, just because of the timing issue, we do need a couple of days to give it to the City Attorney's office and have them go over the bond language. I ran into, on other projects, we had the building permit sitting there and got the bond document. Harrington: It won't be a bond document. It will either be cash or letter of credit. Ward: Anything else Ron? Petrie: No. Ward: Keith? Keith Shreve - Public Lands Maintenance Shreve: On the same letter they are guaranteeing correction of any sidewalks that are in place. Ward: You are going to go ahead and finish sidewalks anyway, is that what you are telling me? Milholland: We will after the final plat is final. We won't wait for someone else to do it. Ward: Okay. Landscaping, Kim? Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: What they are referring to on the plat note number five, they don't even have tree replacement on this phase. Milholland: It's the same note on the preliminary plat. Hesse: For phase two you didn't remove any trees. Replacement isn't even a factor. Milholland: You just want to leave it on here. It kind of enlightens the dividers of those lots. Ward: Yes. Just leave it on there. • Milholland: I can take it off if you want to. It's up to you. I thought you and I discussed it and that • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 37 was what you wanted. Hesse: I was thinking we were talking about the other phase. I think it might confuse the issue if it's on there. Milholland: Leave it on or take it off? Just take it off? Ward: Yes. Why don't you remove number five? Conklin: I do want to make sure you are aware and I've tried to make sure the Commission was aware all last year too, we did adjust the boundary for phase II to include all of lot 15 and originally it came down this line north to south This is a change. This was a lot split that occurred which allowed this development to go forward. I think everybody is aware of that but I don't want anybody to say anything later on about why the Commission wasn't aware why that boundary line has changed. Ward: Any other staff comments? Bunch: That's the only boundary change? Conklin: Yes, from phase II, is that correct Mel? Milholland: Yes. I believe you covered one of your comments, the bike path we worked real close with the City and the bike path easement has been filed. Ward: Conklin: Is there anything else we need to talk about? We have it as condition number sixteen, a standard condition and I do want to make sure the public is aware of it and the Commission. That is, the floodplain information reflected on this plat is not an official FEMA boundary. What they did was to work with consultants to do the flood hazard analysis study to look at how the bridges and improvements impacted that floodplain and floodway. In trying to coordinate the timing of the Corps of Engineers flood hazard study with the City of Fayetteville, in correspondence back and forth and calling them, I do know they coordinated all this information. That information will come forward and will be adopted by the City. It's the best information we have, it's better than the original study. It's actually using this data on this plat will benefit the people developing because it's a higher quality of data. • Milholland: They did coordinate that with the Corps. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 38 Conklin: Unfortunately when I called them last December, I wrote them a letter asking them to make this their priority for Fayetteville, they've done about 60% of the City. When I talked to them in December they, for some reason, changed their minds and now we have the tributaries of the West Fork and the White River over by the airport coming to us first. This is a future phase of their project down at the Corps of Engineers to finalize that and they will hopefully have that done this year sometime. Milholland: Those boundaries Mr. Beavers requested probably had a different designation than what you see there, larger line for the floodway boundary. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: Why don't I go ahead and open it up to the general public for comments and questions. Milholland: We approve of all staff has requested. Ward: Is there anyone here that would like to address us on this item? Gaston. Colene Gaston. A couple of questions, first lot 15 shows the owner as JDN Realty Corporation, the last time I looked at these documents Fayetteville Exchange was the owner, has there been a transfer? Milholland: That is actually, we've corrected that. We sent a copy of this to JDN and that is called Fayetteville Exchange, LLC. JDN is a managing member of Fayetteville Exchange, LLC. So, when the next plat that comes out it will have Fayetteville Exchange, LLC as the owner. They'll have to sign off on the plat too, we've already made provisions for that. We've got three different locations on the plat to be changed. They called us and corrected that the other day. Gaston: On the notes, number one, it looks like the overall the floodplain work that has been done by the subcontractor needs to decrease the size of the floodplain. Until that's accepted by the Corps will the requirements for the 100 year floodplain be based on the density maps? Edwards: No. We have the option of having the new information adopted by the City Council. Gaston: Is that part of this proposal that's going before the Planning Commission? • Conklin: In the condition we say that "This information cannot be used for a develop purposes Subdivision Committee Meeting • March 29, 2001 Page 39 • • until adopted by City Council". Gaston: That's what you are proposing. Conklin: That's what I'm proposing, to take it to City Council to adopt that floodplain information or we have to use the official FIRM maps. Gaston: The Corps and FEMA, no one has reviewed the subcontractors work at this time? Conklin: I'm not sure if that's a true statement. Petrie: They've approved all the work in the subdivision, they've approved all the H&H studies for the bridges. They did all that work in the wetlands. To say they haven't looked at their work, I don't agree with that. Gaston: I don't know. I'm lust cautioning the City against approving a determination on the 100 floodplain if it hasn't necessarily been reviewed by anyone other than the developer or contractor. Conklin: We will, under our ordinances, have to use the old data. We can show both sets of data on the plat too if the Commission and everybody thinks that's the best way to go about it. Edwards: The issue is the base flood elevations. If we go with how it's delineated now with a zone A, I can't have them elevate their structures, I don't have any way to determine that but if we use this information then I've some numbers to go by which is their information. Typically what we've seen, correct me if I'm wrong, is that once this is submitted to the Corps they pretty much make few changes, if any. You do have a point too. Conklin: I'm relying on Garver Engineers, because I'm not a P.E., certifying that it's correct when they did this study. I've also been working with Mel and the Corps to make sure they are all talking to each other and making sure it's correct. Ron is talking about their hydraulic analysis being done on the bridges. There is always that chance, Ms. Gaston. I understand. Our intention is to take that study to City Council and have them adopt it so we can start using it. Gaston: Will that be a separate item on the agenda from this? • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 40 Edwards: Yes. Conklin: The Planning Commission doesn't have to approve that. For example, we took tributaries of Town Branch to City Council to get those adopted. Just to educate everybody here, the Corps said it was going to be done a year and a half ago, the entire City. I wrote them a letter and said "Please, because this is an area growing faster than south Fayetteville, please look at the north side of Fayetteville", and they said "Sure". Then when I call them in December and ask "Where is it?", they said "No, we didn't do that. We did the tributaries of the West Fork and the White River." Now we are sitting here and we have better data that was generated, actually looking at what's out there versus the USGS 7 %2 minute clock sheets back when they did the original studies. If you looked at those, the floodplain boundaries go up hills and over hills, this is much more accurate and should be used, in my opinion, to permit development. I'll get their study and bring it forward. Gaston: It says on item number one, the last sentence, "the data will be utilized by the Corps of Engineers", I think that's pretty ambiguous and I'm not sure why it's in the notes. • Conklin: Your statement is that it is unclear? Gaston: To me it is. Conklin: I think it's a true statement. Talking with the Corps of Engineers, they plan on utilizing that data. That's what they told me too. Gaston: Number three says "No wetlands lie outside of the deed restricted areas, as determined by others", I'm not sure what that means either. Who are others? Milholland: The others are EGIS which we have a letter here from them. We hired them as the environmental professionals. They've delineated all the wetlands, designed the mitigation, submitted to the Corps of Engineers which we have a copy of. All that mitigation is taking place. Petrie: I would just recommend that be removed "as determined by others", use the word subcontractor if you need it. You are the engineer of record. Just clarify it. You could either clarify it by saying who it's going to be by or you can use their name. I think that's a very good comment. Either say EGIS or take it off. Ward: • Conklin: Subdivision Committee Meeting • March 29, 2001 Page 41 • • Gaston: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Gaston: Milholland: Conklin: If the City has essentially given it's seal of approval, approves this final plat, do you really want to say that "no wetlands he outside of the deed restricted areas"? We have seen recently in the past where someone has made a determination on wetlands and then a few years later it has been found to be incorrect. The objective of the statement is to the fact this client has offered to go to the Corps of Engineers to mitigate the entire 300 acres. Once it's mitigated, the Corps says "We don't want any more wetlands outside of our deed restrictions", we are required to put a deed restriction around it. It encompasses the wetlands and all the other classes of the mitigation process. The intent is when someone buys one of these tracts, they know they don't have to worry about wetlands outside the deed restriction. Is it true Mel that the Corps permitted all 309 acres and that this mitigation plan is for all 309 so when a developer buys one of these lots, their wetland issues have been mitigated already? The deed restriction are even filed on phase III already at the courthouse. I think it would be fair statement to say that all future development must comply with the deed restriction and the mitigation plans. It's just a comment. I'm wondering whether the City wants to give their seal of approval with them saying there is no other wetlands on this property. That's the purpose of that statement because the Corps says we are not going to come back and ask for any more wetlands. Why don't we put EGIS on there "as determined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District, mitigation plan". Whatever language we need to put on there to say that. 1 don't think the City is certifying this. We don't approve wetland mitigation, the Corps of Engineers does. Milholland: They are not wanting to come back on any of these lots outside the deed restriction area and ask for any more mitigation. That's the purpose. Why don't you put, instead of "others", put EGIS. He's already taken care of that. Go ahead and put the Corps of Engineers in there because they are the ultimate Conklin: Ward: Bunch: • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 42 authority. EGIS makes a preliminary survey to give them, don't they? Milholland: As delineated by EGIS and approved by Corps of Engineers. Conklin: Gaston: Conklin: Milholland: Gaston: Conklin: • Milholland: • Gaston: Ward: Conklin: Ward: Hesse: Yes. I'm not sure that permit says there are no other wetlands on this property. I guess when the definition changes, there might be more or less. I don't know how long those permits are valid for either. Five year maintenance on it, on mitigation and things outside the boundary. It is checked annually, at the end of every year for five years. Somebody might just want to check with the Corps what their schedule is. I will do that. I think that is a good comment that you are making. Their protection, I understand, is the restrictive deed which has been filed and they have copies of it. Number five, this is my main area of concern, I know that you deleted "tree replacement deferred, etc." I am concerned that this entire plat does not show a tree preservation plan that was approved in 1998 and there is no recognition of the fact that there was a tree preservation plan so that future developers are aware. No matter who buys the property and comes to develop it, they've got to go through all of the same tree preservation ordinances and so on that's required by everyone now. I'm not really sure that's anything that would be changed one way or the other. Kim is responsible for the administration, enforcement and interpretation of that ordinance. It's her call what she wants on the plat. I think when you put it in there, even make a note on it that tree replacement, it's noted on the site already. It just sends up all the flags I need. It starts pointing out replacement. On this phase there weren't any trees. That note doesn't mean anything. To me it's more damaging. I would rather have it off. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 43 Ward: Gaston: So we are going to delete number five on the plat. We agreed on it earlier. I think that helps with some confusion but as you all know there has been a lot of confusion and disagreement about this. I know that this is something the Tree Ordinance Committee discussed, the fact that there was a successor in interest in terms of tree replacement has been overlooked. The way Kim is talking, it's still somewhat not taken into consideration. I am dust asking the latter in order to avoid future problems that there might be some note we could put on this that would refer to the 1998 tree preservation standard for the entire CMN development that would at least make future developers and owners aware of that issue. Not fudging how it's going to come out but just as a matter of notice. Harrington: Micky Harrington on behalf of CMN. I understand Ms. Gaston's point and she has made this point continuously since they have gotten involved in this project. However, prior to that there is documentation in your minutes as early at 1998. I know that there is disagreement as to how this was submit and what will be the result. That tree replacement and tree compliance issues would be to the individual plats. Ms. Gaston and Mr. Fulcher will disagree with my interpretation of that and that would indicate that Mr. Fulcher doesn't have any evidence of that but we have minutes and meetings and discussion in meetings from 1998 about that. It's on the plat for a reason. I think the intent was most talked about the tree preservation plan for CMN so much as a deferral but those issues to individual plats. Regardless of whether Mrs. Gaston's clients agree to that or not, that is what was decided in 1998. For the reason that's on the plat in the first place. I don't mind seeing it not on the plat but I would certainly like putting something affirmative on the plat that is contrary to what the intent was and what the decision was in 1998, before Mrs. Gaston's clients got involved. Gaston: First I don't have any clients, I'm here on my own. Mr. Fulcher does or did. As Ms. Harrington said there is disagreement with what the past notes said, I read through those and my characterization of them is that they do not say that everything including tree preservation is deferred into development. I think if you look back through them and actually read the discussions between the Planning Commission members, you might come to the conclusion what was put on some of the plats, this same statement about tree replacement, that was done by the applicant. I would disagree that it is consistent with the discussion in the Planning Commission and so forth. Again, without dredging up all of that past history, I'll just conclude that there is a reasonable difference of opinion on this and in order to avoid the same mistakes or same problems in the future, I'm wondering if there is some way of putting on there that there was a tree preservation plan approved in 1998. I'm not saying what you do with it but just putting • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 44 on notice that there was a tree preservation plan approved for CMN, the entire development. Harrington: Just as Mrs. Gaston would like to clear up in favor of her interpretation, I would be happy to clear it up in favor of our interpretation. I talked with Mr. Milholland about doing that and putting on there that we and many believe was the way it was intended at that time when Ms. Gaston was not present and I agree with Mr. Milholland that there is no sense in trying to push our affirmative view of this by putting something on the plat beyond what was put on there before. We decided not to try to push it and change anything at this point, even though we do believe strongly that is the case. I would think that there is no more reason to clear it up in favor of Ms. Gaston's interpretation than there is in favor of my interpretation, if you want to call all things even. Let's leave it as it is and Ms: Hesse and the City will take these issues one at a time as the plats come through. The good news is there aren't many trees out there on the lot so it shouldn't be coming up very often. As a matter of fact I think there is only one left that there are any trees on. I would very much object to putting any affirmative language on there in the direction she is recommending. If any of you would like to do that, I would rather submit my own affirmative language which would be completed in the contrary. Ward: This goes to full Planning Commission anyway so we are not going to make any decisions today, I'll tell you that. We'll let our staff look into it a little closer. We can probably kill this duck three different ways and still not have a consensus of the way it should happen. Jim, do you have a question or response? Jim Beavers - City Engineer Beavers. Before you finish I have something. Ward: Kim, have you have any other take on this? I think it's something we can discuss a little bit. Hesse: I wonder if we are not confusing phase I and phase II. Ward: What we would like to have at the full Planning Commission meeting is your interpretation, either in person or in writing... Conklin: In person. • Milholland: Should I leave that statement as is? • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 45 Hesse: My comment won't change on that. Ward: It doesn't make any difference to me whether you delete it or leave it on there. I'm not sure. It was definitely going to be the responsibility of whoever bought the lots. As far as I knew that was all 1 was interested in. Conklin: Eventually we will have a tree preservation protection ordinance and I'm not sure if you have discussion with regard to what property it's going to apply to but I'm assuming that ordinance will apply to this property even though this was brought in under the old ordinance. Individual large scale developments, which you have a different tree preservation plans for. Milholland: I would like to leave it on there at least for Planning Commission. After the fact it was approved and everything back then, this way or this way to add language to it, I would like to leave it on there for balance in the middle. We could leave it out after discussion at that point. Ward: I don't have any problem with it either way. Conklin: In the end, everything is going to come back to you as a large scale development and you are going to have to use those ordinances and make those decisions like you have on other developments today. Even with that note on the plat, you are still going to have to make those decisions as a Planning Commission to approve those tree preservation plans. Bunch: Was this road deleted at one time or was there ever a road there? Conklin: There was a street on the Master Street Plan that was not a requirement as the preliminary plat, through this 2000 update, I corrected that and removed it off of there since this is what was approved Planning Commission back in 1998. Bunch: I remember at one time one of our documents showed a continuation of Shiloh all the way through and I wanted to clarify and have it on the record, if there were any discrepancies and why. Milholland: The only thing is the approval of preliminary plat, the only thing that's changed is this 40 feet along 17 has been changed from an access easement. Conklin: I think it's important if you bring a fly -over, we need a right-of-way. We are not going Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 46 Ward: Beavers: to fly -over and go into a parking lot and exit onto Mall. Jim? Ron and I didn't have a chance to talk this morning but we have more information on the punch list, I'm in support of him bonding out of some real minor things left to be done but the letter you gave Tim in incomplete. Ron was telling me that you were going to have everything done by then. We've got a lot of other very minor issues that I don't know if you can have those done by the 9th or not. I'm just saying that this letter asking the Planning Commissioners and also telling I fully support whatever we need to add to this list is incomplete. We have some minor grading issues and stuff that we haven't, in my opinion, fully addressed, specifically north of the culvert on Shiloh and other areas. Milholland: My intent was to take care of everything with the contractor prior to the 9`h except for that. I will get back with the. contractor. Beavers: Milholland: Ward: Gaston: Milholland: We don't even have all of our lists yet. I never saw so many people at a final inspection. You don't have enough information to furnish this letter yet, in my opinion. That's no problem. I thought we had a final list out there but if you have some more, that's fine. Any other comments from the public? Number six on the notes says "...insure that the spirit of the 404 permit from the Corps of Engineers will be complied with...", I think the words "the spirit of' need to be deleted. I'm not sure if whether that's supposed to be broader or narrower but we basically need to comply with the 404 permit, not with the spirit of the permit. The intent behind that statement, that was not the requirement when the preliminary plat was approved but Mr. Beavers had made comment that he is going to somehow or another enlighten whoever purchased a lot that although the permit has been complied with, the Corps has accepted all this, that each individual lot developer understand up front that they can't go down there and just do anything they want to inside that deed restricted area like dumping contaminated water or whatever. It's actually a red flag to the individual lot developer adjacent to those. They still have to go through the City with all this anyway and the Corps. If they dump something in across the Corps property, they have to get a permit from the Corps to do it. This is just a red flag to say they have to comply with the 404 permit anyway. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 47 Beavers: Since Mel mentioned my name, I would like to say neither Ron or I like the wording of these notes and I think Ron made a comment earlier we would like to visit with Mel about that. Ward: I do think it's important Mel, what you've done on the notes to at least put up some flags. That's what these notes need to do is keep people informed in the future of what was thought about and talked about Pursley: Ron Pursley. I've heard this is phase one and this is phase two, so I want clarification because I don't know if I heard you right, the tree preservation plan for both phases I and II were considered jointly? Conklin: The project came separately to Planning Commission. Kim Hesse was here and she just started working here for phase II, she was here a couple of weeks prior to that approval and prior to that it was six months earlier or something for phase I. Milholland: October 6 and February of the next year was the second phase. Pursley: A question on sidewalks, will they be completed by the time the roads are dedicated or will that be happening at a later point? Conklin: Our ordinance will ask them to guarantee those and those will happen at a later time. Ward: You might explain to us why we allow that to happen. Conklin: In the past, there was some concern about construction on the lots damaging the sidewalks when you put them in ahead of time. Therefore, that's one of the items you can guarantee to install at a later date. You have all the construction going on and the grading for the parking lots and detention ponds. You can do that at the end of the actual project development. Beavers: 270 days is all the ordinance allows that to be delayed. Conklin: You are going to construct them already, right? Milholland: We will construct our sidewalks. Pursley: The area that will be becoming sidewalk, will that be considered public property at the • point that it is dedicated or is that still considered private property until the sidewalks Subdivision Committee Meeting • March 29, 2001 Page 48 are built? Conklin: I've notified our Police Department and told them that the right-of-way dedicated is public property. If you are standing on there, I think you'll be on public property. Beavers: That brings up an interesting point. When we were out there for final inspection, Kohl's has got 100 cars in the parking lot and there is cars flying up and down the road while we are trying to have our inspection, I don't know how you can have those people out there and tell anotherr citizen you couldn't. I think that would be a dilemma. Conklin: I have talked with our Police Department to make sure they understand what streets are public and what streets are private in case there are individuals that would like to walk around out there. Just keep in mind, phase I hasn't come through the process so public streets are going to be Mall Avenue, Shiloh Drive and a small segment of Van Asche. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: • Ward: At this time, I will close it to public comment and bring it back to the Commission. What about this on number three, "The applicant shall pay $35,000 for off-site improvements for Phase II. At time of preliminary plat it was determined that $140,000 would be assessed for the entire 309 acres. The applicant is proposing that 25% be collected at this time as outlined in the attached memo." Milholland: There is a letter attached that we sent to Tim on the 3`d. I think on phase I preliminary plat they said 55% of the $140,000. That should be said to be $70,000 at the table, I think it's $55,000, just to give Tim a new figure here. Phase II, when you approved the preliminary plat of phase II there is no percentage given. Phase III has not come forward. So we did this by acreage and actually phase I was real close to the percentage of acreage, a little bit more I think. We just put the balance of that between phase II and phase III. We requested this to pay $35,000 now and $77,000 with phase I and $28,000 whenever phase III does come through. Phase III has to be, the way it was approved, there is a street that has to be constructed over Van Asche to Greg once 70% or 75% of phase I is sold. When I say phase III, when that street is constructed it will be phase II, I'm pretty certain. At that time we would like to pay the $28,000. Conklin: Micky Harrington has corresponded with our office on how we are going to be notified • of lot sales in order to determine when this 70% number of lots are sold to extend Van • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 49 Asche Street to Greg Street. We will be tracking that to make sure that condition is complied with. Ward: Is there any other comments by staff. I'm looking for some type of motion. Milholland: In Phase I approval there was determination made that there was some off-site streetlights and on-site streetlights, five total that would have to be paid for by the developer. Since we are going with phase II first and phase I is right behind it, my client will be paying that all up front, cash. MOTION: Bunch: We have things to be reworded and restructured prior to submission to the full Planning Commission. I will move that we forward FP 01-4.00 to the full Planning Commission with the appropriate conditions, comments and statements. Hoover: I'll second. • Ward: Do we need to make any kind of form of approval here about the letter of credit or • anything? Conklin: I don't think so. Just move it forward and we'll put the appropriate conditions on there. Bunch: I left it open like that because we have so many that we are discussing, some that may or may not be conditions of approval. We'll to allow staff to sort through all of that and place them appropriately. Ward: I'll concur. Thank you. Milholland: Thank you very much. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 50 Preliminary Review of commercial Design Standards for the Pack Rat to be located at the southeast corner of Gregg & Sunbridge. Ward: Our final item on the agenda this morning is a preliminary review of Commercial Design Standards for the Pack Rat to be located at the southeast corner of Gregg & Sunbridge. Tim? Conklin: I appreciate the Subdivision Committee hearing this item. This is a situation where we have a new building going in on Sunbridge. The actual construction of the building is a log structure. It's very difficult to read our Commercial Design Standards and show how it's compatible with the adjacent buildings when you typically don't have log structures being built in commercial areas. Before they went too far and spent a lot of money and get all their plans set and ready, I thought it would be appropriate to bring it to at least the Subdivision Committee and get your input and ideas on if you think a log structure will work in Sunbridge Center. I personally don't have a problem with it, I think it's fairly unique and it will be on Gregg and Sunbridge. Jim Key is the architect. Key: My name is Jim Key. I'm here representing the owners, Scott and Carolyn Crook. Mr. Crook is here today with us if you have any questions that need to be directed to him. Also, with my office Tim Closney and Mr. Morgan Hooker the contractor who has been selected by the Crook's the build the new facility. Due to the nature of this building and the product we are hoping to build, we've got a fairly long lead time and we need to make some commitments and some decisions here in the very near future to be able to proceed with this and do this in a time frame that's desirable to the owner which is hopefully to construct this building later this year and occupy it late this year or next year. We are on track right now to submit this through the Planning Commission process on April 9th which would mean it would come back to the Subdivision Committee on May 3rd for a formal presentation and render drawings and all that. We aren't expecting a commitment or anything of that nature today. As we stated in our letter of request for this meeting here today, we just wanted to get some input from the Commission. We are proposing a 15,000 square foot log structure located on lot 20 of Sunbridge Center. I think you are all probably familiar with this site, I brought a small copy of the original plat here. It's the southeast corner of Sunbridge Drive and Gregg Street. There is currently an old portion of paved drive that cuts across the middle of that lot that used to go to the original Meadowship Estate and the new school and laboratories there. That drive will be removed, it's not going to be utilized and there will be no access off of Gregg Street. We are looking at a drive that aligns with the drive into the White Oak Station development. I know you are all familiar with the area but this is a view looking into as you come in on Sunbridge off of Gregg this is the view • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 51 Ward: Conklin: Ward: you see with the White Oak Station and the office building directly to it's east. If you are standing at our drive looking north, you are looking right at the drive and entrance to the White Oak Station The site itself is a fairly level terrain, a slight slope to the south. We got a floodway and creek that runs along our south and southwestern property line. This is a view of the site from across the street looking back at it. It's our intent to build our building here along this existing building that Keating Development has got on the lot 16. As Tim had commented, one of the questions was the feelings about a lot structure per se and it's my understanding that we met with the City staff last week and Tim presented initial site plans. Mr. Keating came in for another meeting and I think from his feedback that the adjacent property owners didn't have any problem with what we were proposing to do. Sunbridge is in a platted subdivision and we had certain building materials and schemes and so on that were required in here, is this one of those lots in that subdivision or not? This is in that subdivision. Would we need to get all the property owners in Sunbridge a release from these restrictive covenants? Conklin: I'm not sure if there were covenants filed in that subdivision but we have required the buildings to be compatible and held them to a standard. That's what kind of worried me about this structure. I guess one of the things that is maybe a little different, this lot is zoned C-1 up in the corner and the remaining is R-0. It is on the corner so it's not like a log structure in the middle of the office development. Key: I'm not sure the actual footage and acreage. I believe it is close to three acres. Crook: There were restrictive covenants on there and it stated that the building had wood, stone or masonry construction. Key: We've talked with the City about trying to work with some of the colors and features of the other buildings, they all, for the most part, have a green architectural shingle type roof, we have not finalized our selection of materials yet. Something we will do when we come back to you, before there were several discussions of a simulated shake, something that's durable, maybe we will look at a green architectural shingle to match if that's what the condition of the Committee if they feel that's appropriate. As Mr. Crook stated, we are looking at the conditions of one of the covenants on the materials that we are complying with that per se, we are looking at a wood exterior. Most of the Subdivision Committee Meeting • March 29, 2001 Page 52 • buildings in the shopping center are brick. You are all, I'm sure, familiar with it. Bunch: Are you looking at a debarked log structure or one with bark and chinking? Key: We are looking at a debarked that is still a natural form with chinking. The tops and bottoms of the log are actually cut and formed together with a gasket and seal. Depending on the actual shape and figuration of the logs, we are hoping caulking will suffice as opposed to the chinking. There will be a manufactured unit we are looking at a company out of Montana, log homes provide the product for this. It is all harvested naturally and obtained environmentally friendly processed. It is stripped bark log construction. I have some information on the company, I failed to bring it with me today. It is just a natural log, it is not square cut. The ground floor is intended to have a couple of leased spaces in addition to the main space for the primary tenant being Packrat with the potential for, as the needs and the growth of their business continues to occur, they can expand it to some of the adjacent tenant space. They have similar tenants. The elevations are the main thing that I know we are concerned, we are looking at a large floor area of 72 by 142 or 138 with a second floor that encompasses a little over half of that area. The exterior we are looking at a log structure that with a continuous porch facing west, Gregg Street. The front facade is intended to face Sunbridge will be full glass all the way across the north facade. I do have a photograph here on another product brochure that shows a style similar to what we are looking at, this is a debarked log. We just wanted to see if there was a strong objection. The adjacent property owner's haven't seen the actual drawing per se but they will be informed of the submittal to the City. Ward: I don't see any problem with it at all. In fact, I think it would be a unique setting. You've got a little strip center to the south of there and I guess the new school to the east and so on. 1 think it looks like a fantastic idea to me. I think we need to make sure that there are not covenants that there are in place and not complied with. Sometimes those covenants, you have to get percentage of approval from landowner's in that subdivision to change something like that. I have no problem with it. Hoover: No, I don't. Ward: Some of the ideas you had about maybe there being a design theme, a certain color roof like what Coach's is or some of the other office buildings in there, you might kind of try to incorporate that in there. • Bunch: Just on the other side of the White Oak Station there is park area with a dedication, so Subdivision Committee Meeting • March 29, 2001 Page 53 • • Key: this would kind of lend itself fit into the park area down along the creek. Since it's at the very corner and it is a unique location as well as a unique building, I think there are some other factors to be looked at on the tie-in. About the other buildings, we've got three different roof colors in direct proximity to us. We've got green on two buildings directly adjacent, Coach's appears to be a gray further to the north and there is a red in between there. Hooker: It's my opinion, kind of the way this building will situate on the site, it almost kind of lends itself to make it seem it's own little development. Bunch: White Oak Station, in a sense, is it's own little development because it really doesn't lend to everything else. To the north of it is a park like setting, to the south of this -lot with a creek. To me that would be a good transition. Key: It's kind of the nature of what these two comer lots are, C-1. There is a distinction between them and the adjacent property directly to it's east. Here you can see, that's a view of the site from the northwest corner closest to Sunbridge and Gregg. This is a picture of the site standing in the drive looking towards where the building is going to be. We are actually going to be in further to the appearance of that comer, in terms of blocking some of the sides of the little green houses that were part of Barbara's Garden that are now a different business and some of that in back of that cul-de-sac that is to the southeast. Bunch: What are we looking for here on this preliminary review? Key: Just what we got on it. You commented and you didn't have any strong objections to it and you didn't see it as a problems. Bunch: I've seen structures that this group has been responsible for and watched the transition of Pack Rat from lease property to ownership of property and they have done a very good job in the community and I have no real problem with they are planning here. Key: I think they set a good standard at their present location and it's influenced what's happened in this part of town. I think this will be a continuation of that. Bunch: It also shows a diversity even though we have common themes in certain areas, it doesn't preclude a certain amount of diversity and still attempting to blend in with the themes that are coming from a different approach. Subdivision Committee Meeting • March 29, 2001 Page 54 • • Key: Ward: Key: To clarify what I said earlier, the reason for coming here was, there is about a three month minimum time frame to secure and prepare the materials. We are hoping to get this thing right in before the snow falls in November and December. If we waited until after Planning Commission meeting in May to make that commitment to this company to begin the process, we would more than likely be forced to look at building it sometime over the span of the winter. We would prefer to make a commitment to the company to begin the process while we parallel at the same time doing our review process with the City. Unless there is some kind of covenants. We will specifically review those and make sure that we are in compliance with any restrictions that do exist on this lot and come back to you here in about a month and a week. Thank you. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 55 Millennium Place removal of condition to require large scale developments for all lots within the subdivision. Ward: Let's go ahead and discuss again this number eight. Removal of condition to require large scale developments for all lots within the subdivision. I guess we can have a motion at this level? Conklin: That's what I'm looking for is to remove that condition of approval. Bunch: Will that have to go to full Planning Commission or can it be done here? Conklin: We have done that at the past at this level unless you feel like it should go on. Bunch: I don't remember where that condition got put on this, Subdivision or full Commission. Conklin: It was at Planning Commission because it was a preliminary plat. I guess it wouldn't hurt for us to put it on consent agenda. Do you have any permits that you are trying to get in the next couple of weeks? DeNoon: Yes. Conklin: April 9th going to kill you? DeNoon: No. It would be nice to approve it at this level if you could. Ward: The problem is, it was approved by the full Planning Commission. I think Don is right, we need to take that before final approval. Conklin: We'll put you on unless a Commissioner has a problem. MOTION: Bunch: I move that we forward item eight, removal of the condition to require large scale development on all lots within Millenium Place Subdivision, to the full Commission and it be placed it on consent agenda. Hoover: I'll second. • Ward: I'll concur. • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 29, 2001 Page 56 Bunch: Do we need to put any sort of conditions on there while we got it in front of us? I think we pretty well established the pattern. Conklin: Staff will be using that. Bunch: Use that pattern as a guideline on subsequent developments. Conklin: That's correct. Ward: Thank you.