Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-05-03 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, May 3, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSD 01-8.00: Page 2 LSD 01-12.00: Page 10 FP 01-1.00: Page 16 LSD 01-10.00: Page 31 Large Scale Development (Target, pp 212) ACTION TAKEN Forwarded Forwarded Large Scale Development (City of Fayetteville (Lewis Street Soccer Fields), pp 406) Final Plat (CMN Business Park II, Phases I, pp 173, 174) Forwarded Large Scale Development (Joyce Street, pp 176) Approved MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Lee Ward Sharon Hoover Don Bunch STAFF PRESENT Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Keith Shreve Kim Rogers Jim Beavers Kim Hesse Perry Franklin STAFF ABSENT Fire Chief Cheryl Zotti Bert Rakes Jim Johnson • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 3, 2001 Page 2 LSD 01-8.00: Large Scale Development (Target, pp 212) was submitted by Christopher Rogers of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Target for property located on the northeast corner of Steele Blvd. & Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 12.89 acres. The request is to build a 124,767 square foot retail store. Ward: I would like to bring the meeting to order. This is the Subdivision Committee meeting, Thursday, May 3, 2001, at 8:30 a.m. We have four items on the agenda this morning. We'll just go ahead and get things started. Real quick, is there anything we are going to pull? Edwards: No. Ward: The first item on the agenda is LSD 01-8.00 which is a large scale development submitted by Christopher Rogers of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Target for property located on the northeast comer of Steele Blvd. & Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 12.89 acres The request is to build a 124,767 square foot retail store. • Sara Edwards - Development Coordinator • Edwards: This development is a Target store and it's 124,767 square feet and two shop buildings with a total of 7,700 square feet with 621 parking spaces. This development is on lot 7 of CMN Phase I. On April 24, 2000, the Planning Commission approved a large scale development for Steele Crossing which is LSD 00-5.00, which is located on lot 15 adjacent to this. As part of that development, an approval was granted for a joint tree preservation and greenspace plan for both of those lots. This project has complied with that original approval They did make some minor modifications to that plan: a. The entrance of the store has been moved from the west side to the east side of the building. b. The building has been moved approximately 26 feet west in order to work around three existing trees that were previously approved for removal. c. A new curb cut and service drive was added to service the shops designated as "Shop A". d. The width of the rear service drive was decreased from 30 feet to 24 feet as required by code. e. A new shop building was added between Target and Shop B resulting in an additional 2100 square feet. f. The parking lot setback along Shiloh Drive has been increased to 25 feet in order to meet the Design Overlay District requirements. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 3, 2001 Page 3 g. The spaces along Shiloh Drive were changed to compact spaces. h. A screen wall for the truck docks and screening for dumpsters and transformers were added. i. Bike racks were added. j. Two additional parking spaces were added in order to provide ADA spaces in the rear of the shop buildings. Sidewalks shall be continuous through the drives. The curb line shall be removed through the sidewalks at the driveway approaches. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Design Overlay District regulations and Commercial Design Standards. The applicant is proposing to use the same materials approved for use at Steele Crossing. The materials are outlined on the elevations provided. The applicant is requesting a waiver of 161.21(D)(5)(b), "One wall sign may be installed per business", in order to provide two signs on the south wall of the Target Store. One sign will portray the Target logo and the other will read "pharmacy". Staff is in support of this variance. Most stores, WalMart and grocery stores all have that signage. The future outlots as shown on this plan will be required to meet the tree preservation and greenspace requirements independently of this large scale development. Planning Commission determination of a variance request from Section 169.06(C)(4)(e) of the Grading Ordinance which states, "cuts adjacent to public rights-of-way shall be setback a minimum of 25 feet, excluding driveways or access roads." The applicant is proposing a 3 foot cut adjacent to Shiloh Drive to be located approximately 15 feet north of the right-of-way with 3:1 cut slopes. The other conditions are standard. Ward: Thanks Sara. Ron? Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: That proposed cut is adjacent to Shiloh. It's only a three foot cut, it's set off the right- of-way about 15 feet. The main reason that it's in the ordinance, one is most utilities are adjacent to roads. Once you start getting cuts adjacent roads you start running into problems with water, sewer, electric, phone and all that. The other reason is, obviously you don't want a drop-off next to a road, it creates some safety problems. At this particular case, it's setback far enough, it's a 3 to 1 slope, it's only 3 feet. We really don't have an objection to the variance. On your easements, you show the fire hydrants on the front parking lot, you'll need to add some easements to cover those fire hydrants, 20 feet wide. You show a valve on the fire line in the rear of the building, that should be moved or add another one, your choice, that separates that public main to the fire line. You got it pushed back to that fire hydrant, it needs to be moved. Other than that, just all my Plat Review comments still stand. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 3, 2001 Page 4 Keith Shreve - Sidewalk and Trails Shreve: On the driveway approaches to Steele Boulevard, the area between the sidewalk and the street is showing as heavy duty asphalt. That's required to be concrete. That's all I have. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: As Sara mentioned the tree preservation plan was approved by Planning Commission last year. I have no additional comments. I do support the moving the building to the west to save three trees and we are still going to work on construction methods for the building in order to save trees. Bunch: Kin, when we went through this before, the combined plan with lot 7 and 15, wasn't there some determination on the outlot to the north of the store that there was specific trees that were slated for preservation or wasn't there some consideration for that. I didn't see it on this drawing, maybe I overlooked it. Hesse: There are. Bunch: My concern was to make sure that's all the drawings while this was through the process so it doesn't get lost. That was part of the one of the agreements. I don't remember specifically what trees but there was some action taken. I missed that when I was reviewing it. I just wanted to make sure that was called out. Hesse: We are watching those trees as we bring utilities in. They have made changes to the grade on that back row. To protect one of the large trees on the Target property line, we are definitely going to protect all the trees on the adjacent property. Kim Rogers - Parks Development Coordinator K.Rogers: No comment. Ward: Do you all have a presentation you would like to make? If so, I would like you to introduce yourself. I think that some of the things I feel you need to go over a little bit it, on your type of materials and how you are going to line it out. Edwards. Let me say that I think that was the original and they have revised them. Subdivision Committee Meeting May 3, 2001 Page 5 C.Rogers: Ward: Hoover: Edwards. C.Rogers: Bunch: C.Rogers: Bunch: Ziada: Bunch: Ziada: Bunch: My name is Chris Rogers, CEI, on behalf of Target. To my left is Bassam Ziada, Project Manager involved with the project. We'll go ahead and start with the building. At the previous meeting there were some comments about the aesthetics of the exterior. The architects made some changes to help break up the front wall, I think that was one of the biggest concerns, and also the side wall to add some features to break up the look, the size of the wall was quite lengthy and that was the intent there. Some screen walls were added in the back for the transformer and the truck dock. The shop space, the look of it was changed by the original architect that was working on Kohl's and their shops, he's actually doing the two shops facing adjacent to Target, it basically matches exactly what was previously approved since we are using the exact same architect for those shops. I really haven't had a chance to view all this personally, so I'm hoping some of my fellow Commissioners have. From what I can tell it meets, for the most part, our Commercial Design Standards. I don't think I have any issues. The Overlay District splits this building? Yes. As Sara mentioned, we are using the same materials to match the other buildings. Which one is shop "B"? Is that the east or west? East. Where we were moving things over to accommodate the tree preservation area? That's correct. We added 2,100 square feet of additional building east of Target, in order to move the building 26 feet to the west to save the three trees. That's the only change that we made. There were three trees more to the north? Yes. They would be behind these shop areas? I was wondering if we move the whole building to the west and now we are putting another one back in, in it's place. • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 3, 2001 Page 6 Ziada: No. These are the three trees that we are planning on saving. C.Rogers: You can see on this elevation how far back we are behind the building. The parking behind the shops are well away from the trees too. Bunch: We don't want all the work that has gone in to be nullified. I understand that now. That's not that deep. C.Rogers: No. It's 70 feet deep. They are actually going to match, or be a continuation of the other shops that were approved in the other lot, lot 15, so you'll see... Bunch: The ones that haven't been built yet? C.Rogers: Yes. It will be the continuation of that building with the same look and so forth. Bunch: This one accesses on the south side? • Ziada: That's correct. C.Rogers: We've added the parking and kind of extended it from the other shops that are built on that lot to carry on and we added the handicapped to the code and so forth. Ward: On the monument sign, I didn't get a chance to look at that. Where is the monument sign going to be placed? Edwards. Right here. Kohl's is right there and it will be across from that. Ward: It meets all the criteria as far as size and height? C.Rogers: Yes. Bunch: What is going to be the signage on these shops "A" and "B"? Nothing out by the road, no monument sign? C.Rogers: I don't believe it was allowed in the original plan. We are just basically adding the monument sign for Target per the original Unified Development Plan Bunch: In addition to signage that calls out a wall sign, the sign that calls out everything in the • shopping center? • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 3, 2001 Page 7 Edwards: Bunch: Ziada: Edwards: Ziada: Ward: Edwards: Ward: C.Rogers: Joint identification. Is there going to be one of those for these shops or just huge wall signs? Just wall signs. If they did want to add the shops name, they would have to incorporate it into this monument sign. Which we will not. I see staff is in support of putting an extra wall sign of the pharmacy on there. Did we allow Walgreen's to have that? Yes. This is a really large building. Do you have any other concerns before I turn it over to the public? I appreciate the staffs effort with us trying to make some minor adjustments to the plan in the best interest in saving the trees. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: Moorman: Ward: Moorman: Ward: Edwards: With that I'll turn it over to anyone that wants to make public comment. Please come forward and say your name and any comments or questions you might have. Barbara Moorman. I just have a question. Can you, members of the Subdivision Committee, identify the trees on the tree preservation plan as they compare one by one with the trees in the 1998 CMN tree preservation plan? Personally, I cannot. Can you take tree 31 and show me in the original 1998 plan and show me where it is on the present plan? I will refer that to Kim Hesse, our Landscape Administrator. Do you have a copy of that Barbara? • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 3, 2001 Page 8 Hesse: Moorman: Edwards. C.Rogers: Edwards: Moorman: Hesse: Ward: It's supplied with the original tree preservation plan. Even the year 2000 plan. I've got that. What have you guys done? I can tell in this area which ones are which because I've read the numbers up here. You just left out some over here, right? Yes. Those were off our property so we didn't show the trees that were saved for Kohl's specifically. I can identify these three. One of the reasons I asked, when they went from the 1998 plan to the 2000 plan, at that point the 2000 plan happened after the lot lines changed. The lot 15 line went way over to the west on what was hypothetically Target's property at that time. When that sold the line now goes right through tree number ?? and it used to be ?? My question has to do with phase lines, what phase is 15 in and what phase is that tree preservation plan in? My question really has to with the change in map and technique that make it very difficult for the layman to see exactly what trees we are talking about when. It took me a long time to figure out which those three trees were. The numbers have been completely lost and the design of the three has changed totally. I think it's even possible that there is a minor discrepancy in the exact depiction of trees on the map. As you go from 1998 to 2000 to 2001. My question simply is, can you, the people who are making the decisions, tell how the trees compare as you go from one layer of preservation to the next one? Concerning the 1998 plan, 2000 when we went through the approval, I've walked that site many times, I know the trees that are out there. We went back and renumbered all the trees. Those tags are still on those trees. What the engineer for Target has done, they went back out and re -surveyed everything on the site and they've gotten the limits of canopy which is what I've requested that they do. Anyone else like to make comment concerning this item? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Commission. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: MOTION: Subdivision Committee Meeting • May 3, 2001 Page 9 • • Hoover: I would like to make a motion to forward to the full Planning Commission LSD 01-8.00 subject to the additional comments from Ron Petrie and our Keith Shreve. Ward: Which is to add easement for the fire hydrants and use concrete on the sidewalk. Bunch: I'll second. Ward: I'll concur. This will be forwarded to the full Planning Commission May 14th, 2001. Subdivision Committee Meeting • May 3, 2001 Page 10 • LSD 01-12.00: Large Scale Development (City of Fayetteville (Lewis Street Soccer Fields), pp 406) was submitted by the Parks & Recreation Division on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property owned by the University of Arkansas located at 1515 North Lewis Avenue. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional and contains approximately 27 acres. The request is to develop 7.73 acres with parking for soccer fields. Ward: Our second item on the agenda this morning is large scale development 01-12.00 submitted by the Parks & Recreation Division on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property owned by the University of Arkansas located at 1515 North Lewis Avenue. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional and contains approximately 27 acres. The request is to develop 7.73 acres with parking for soccer fields. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: Currently there are four existing soccer fields and 134 parking spaces at this complex. The request is two additional soccer fields and 264 additional parking spaces. There are no Targe trees on this site that are being affected. There is a neighborhood to the east, zoned R 1.5. There is existing vegetation along this and they are also adding a berm to the east side of this parking lot to help protect that neighborhood. The Parks and Recreation Division has provided a letter explaining the need for additional spaces. Based on that letter outlining the number of occupants, we are in support that this meets our parking ratio of the 264 additional parking spaces. That's based on 1 space for every 4 occupants. They are requesting a variance of the interior landscaping requirement. They are requesting not to provide the landscaped island for the parking spaces on the edges and the requirement is for one landscaped island for every 12 parking spaces. They are proposing to plant these perimeter trees. I'll let them go over that. They are also requesting a variance to allow for a greater driveway width. The standard is 24 and they are requesting 3 additional feet to bring that to 27 feet. We are in support of that variance. We grant this variance quite often. We are working on our curb cut standards right now. Everything else is standard conditions. Ward: Ron, do you see any problems here? Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie. No, as a matter of fact this is something that the Engineering Division designed. I'll take your comments to make sure it gets changed. • Ward: Keith, anything about the sidewalks? • • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 3, 2001 Page 11 Keith Shreve - Sidewalk and Trails Shreve: Everything is as designed. Ward: Kim, I guess you are the one we need to talk to about all this, asking for variances and all. I haven't had a chance to read letters or anything. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: There is a drawing in there. This variance has been granted in two other situations. They way I look at it, they rewrote the parking lot, landscaping aspect to try to mitigate the effects of all this paving and that's why we are spacing things out. That's what I'm looking at. When it comes to these perimeter rows, if we increase the number and allow a larger tree, we are going to get more coverage of the paved areas. Typically in an island, the island is so restricted there is not a whole lot of root area, area for the roots to grow on a large tree. By allowing this to go through, the roots have further to go and we can get larger trees. You can go from 2 trees every 12 spaces to 3 trees, basically you have 3 trees every 8 spaces with a larger tree. I support this variance. In this situation it works better because there is no utility easements to worry about. Bunch: What species on all these trees? Hesse: We are kind of leaving that open. A lot of those will probably be planted from the tree farm. They are required to go in parks. We've got lots of red oaks and walnut. We have to plant them late this year and put a lot on the site. Bunch: This is the latest plan on the species diversification? Hesse: Yes, actually I did this layout and I'll work with Parks. Ward: In so many parking lots that we've done for schools like Holcum, we didn't put any islands in because we wanted to reduce the parking lot for playgrounds. Is there a chance you would ever want to do that with this parking lot? Rogers: No. Too much traffic. We would like a better canopy for shade. For the wider entryway, we are asking for 3 feet wider for a variance on that because we have a lot of kids coming in and playing soccer with SUV's. • Ward. Does the University of Arkansas own all this land? Subdivision Committee Meeting • May 3, 2001 Page 12 Rogers: Yes, they do. We lease it from them. Ward: What term is the lease? Rogers: It's a 25 year lease. We are working on buying the land or exchanging it for another piece. Bunch: What about irrigation? Rogers: Kim, do you know what Lisa's planning to do? Hesse: We talked about that with Jim Beavers. We talked about installing conduits so we can later irrigate. Terry with the Parks Department can install irrigation. At this point we're looking at a manual system. It really won't be on an automatic tuner, it will be a hand turned on system. Rogers: The fields are also irrigated so there is always maintenance out there to turn it on and off. Hoover: Is there lighting? Rogers: No. No lighting is proposed. Hoover: They time of play would end at? Rogers: Dusk, depending on the summer schedule. Hoover: By any chance have you talked to the neighborhood to get their input? Hesse: I've talked with the neighbors. They were most concerned, they thought the parking was going further south of Mount Comfort which is a heavily treed area. All the calls I got were in relation to that. They didn't know where the parking was going PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: I'll turn it over to public comment. Is there anyone that would like to make a comment about this soccer field? • Meredith. My name is Doug Meredith, I own the property at 1505 Deane Street which abuts the Subdivision Committee Meeting • May 3, 2001 Page 13 • northeast corner. I have three concerns, I faxed them over yesterday. The first has to do with the property lines. My property line goes past where my actual fence line is and encompasses most of that tree line. My main concern is that tree line not be altered at all and I just wondered when the most recent survey was done and if there is still pegs out there and if there is any risk to that tree line from this development? Edwards. They are not planning to do anything with that tree line at this time. Ron, do you know about a survey at all? Petrie: We didn't perform a survey on that. Rogers: It's been a while since I've known it's been surveyed. Ward: We might just check on that to make sure we don't have any kind of line problems. What else? Meredith. My next point has to do with noise control. With the existing soccer fields, when they put them in the City planted cedar trees, I'm wondering if that line can be extended and make another berm put in to go all the way out past my yard to block noise from any new soccer fields that are going to go in now? Hesse: I don't know the decision is mine. Rogers: The decision is not really mine either. Hesse: I don't mind making that request to the Parks Department. We have the resources to put in the trees, but I don't know if we have the resources to create the berm. Meredith. I don't know how much difference it makes, anything would help. I love the idea of having a park back there. Once in a while there is quite a bit of noise. My third point, I don't know how the Parks Department manages the curfew hours but quite often they are still playing late at night with a lot of crowd noise. The worst has been Sunday mornings, it's quite often there is people there really early. I don't know when they are supposed to start but I'm wondering if they could implement a no earlier than 9:00 a.m. on Sundays or something along those lines, as part of this. Rogers: I'll talk to Connie Edmonston, the Director of Parks and Recreation. I'm not sure about the noise ordinance, what time it starts in the morning but I believe at night it is 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. They should be done by then because it's dark. Subdivision Committee Meeting • May 3, 2001 Page 14 • • Meredith: Usually they are but once or twice they've gone in the dark. I don't know how they can play in the dark but they do. Rogers: I'll mention it to Connie. Ward: Is there any other public comment on this issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Ward: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Hoover: Do you have a neighborhood association in this area? Meredith: No. It wouldn't be a bad idea. Hoover: I would appreciate it if the Parks Department would get with the neighbors before the Planning Commission meeting and work out issues like this. I think Sunday morning is definitely bad, I certainly wouldn't want that. I know everybody is for parks and playing but if a developer came in and was developing this it's something we would ask them to talk to the neighbors also. I know that... Rogers: Connie may have. She couldn't be here today. Shide: My name is Frank Shide, I live at 1447 Mount Comfort. I had no clue until I got a registered letter last Friday. I was busy that day. I would appreciate a little bit more advance notice. Hoover: We've got a Public Affairs office now with the City that helps deal with the neighbors, for instance I know the cell tower issue on 16, I know that they were involved with that neighborhood and the applicant coming in. I think it would be a really good idea. I'm surprised you don't have some association formed yet. Shide: We did have at one time, unfortunately the people that formed us ended up having marital problems and nobody picked up afterwards. We did have one at one time. Hoover: One way to handle it is to contact the Public Affairs office here because this is what they are trying to accomplish. It's a new program, just starting. I'm sure the Parks Department doesn't know either. We certainly want everybody to be happy about it. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 3, 2001 Page 15 Ward: Anything else? MOTION: Bunch: I'll move that we forward LSD 01-12.00 to the full Planning Commission. Hoover: I'll second. Ward: I concur. Thank you. Rogers: Thank you. Subdivision Committee Meeting May 3, 2001 Page 16 FP 01-1.00: Final Plat (CMN Business Park II, Phases I, pp 173,174) was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Nanchar, Inc. and Marjorie S. Brooks for property located south and west of the NWA Mall, north of Fulbright Expressway, north & south of W. Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 161 acres. The request is for 11 lots. Ward: Our third item on the agenda this morning is FP 01-1.00 for CMN Business Park II Phase I submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Nanchar, Inc. and Marjorie S. Brooks for property located south and west of the NWA Mall, north of Fulbright Expressway, north & south of W. Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned C -I, Neighborhood Commercial, C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 161 acres. The request is for 11 lots. Sara, what can you tell us about this? Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards' About a month and a half ago we approved phase II which has a phase line running between lots 15 and 7. The preliminary plat for Phase I was approved on October 6, 1998. Lots 5 & 6 are zoned C-1 and the remaining lots are zoned C-2. Three waivers were granted with approval of the preliminary plat, as follows: 1.) Tree replacement is the responsibility of the individual tract developers; 2.) Overhead electric line from southwest corner of Wal-Mart westerly along Mud Creek within floodway to remain as constructed; and 3.) Waiver to construct sidewalk on the northern side of Shiloh Drive only. Conditions, the developer shall construct the connection from Van Asche to Gregg Street with the completion of the sale of 75% of the property in Phase I. They are letting us know every time a piece of property is sold, they are sending us a form on it. We think we'll be able to monitor it pretty well. The applicant shall pay $ 77,000 for off-site improvements for Phase I. At time of preliminary plat it was determined that $140,000 would be assessed for the entire 309 acre development. The applicant is proposing that 55% be collected at this time as outlined in the attached memo. The City has already collected $35,000 for Phase I. The remaining $28,000 will be collected at the time the final plat for Phase III is approved. The developer was required at the time of preliminary plat approval to connect the water main for this development to the water main at the NW Arkansas Mall. Since an easement could not be obtained, the developer will be required to contribute funds in escrow for 150% of the estimated cost. An estimate has been approved by staff in the amount of $15,345. All lots will be required to go through the large scale development process. Applicant shall be responsible for the replacement of trees removed along Joyce within 90 days of final plat approval. At the time of preliminary plat this developer was not required to Subdivision Committee Meeting May 3, 2001 Page 17 dedicate the 110 feet of right of way for Joyce Boulevard as required per the Master Street Plan for a Principal Arterial street. Therefore a note shall be placed on the plat stating that lots 2,3,9 &10 will be required to dedicate the additional right-of-way required to bring the total to 55 feet from centerline at the time of large scale development. 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. Everything else is standard conditions. I have added a standard condition that sewer capacity is not guaranteed. I've also, in our standard conditions, along with the project disk, sidewalks and final layer of pavement can be guaranteed, that streetlights shall be installed or copy of the contract. They have actually provided me a copy of that but that's going to be a new standard condition so that we'll get that taken care of. Ward: Ron? Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie. We would request that the you use the same designation for floodplain as you did on phase II. The development we just saw Target show a 20 foot utility easement, have you looked at that? You show a 30 foot on this plat. Milholland: We've looked at that and I think we can probably get by with 25 to accommodate them. I talked to you about the depth of the sewer, it's within a foot or so within what you requested. I would recommend that to be 25 feet rather than 30 because 30 is more than we need by about 2V2 feet and 25 feet would be short about that much. Where is the bottom of the sewer or top of the sewer? Petrie: 25 works with their development? Milholland: Yes, it will. You asked for a 1 to 1 if it's over 10, we got about 16V2 or 17 feet on that. Petrie: Lot 6 if you could show a general utility easement going across that grass, bring that legal. Milholland: The little easement going across the west? Petrie. Along Steele Boulevard. For the gas easement, those lines should continue across that exclusive easement. Since it's an exclusive easement we won't have rights to it unless • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 3, 2001 Page 18 you show it as a general utility easement. Milholland: Their easement was first. Petrie: Also on lot 6, on the west side, you've got a call out for a 20 foot UE, is that from the property line? Milholland: The 20 foot UE and buffer is off the property line and then your 20 foot UE is from the buffer line out into the lot. Petrie. North of the subdivision is what I was referring to. Milholland: You got your natural buffer. That's from the property line, yes. That is a future five feet there. Petrie: That 20 feet from property or 15 feet? Milholland: Your 20 feet on lot 6 and 5 will be from the property line, the future 5 feet will be into phase III, west of the property line, 25 total. Petrie: If you can just clarify all that. It's hard to tell. On that 45 foot off-site UE, submit us documents for review. Milholland: Yes. I think we've already done that but I'll check on that. Petrie: You may have Other comments are, we've changed these notes they have on the plat quite a bit. From previous comments when phase II came in, they have been changed from what's shown on this plat. I don't know if you want copies of those in document form. Milholland: We'll resubmit plans for the Planning Commission. Petrie: The other thing I would like to discuss is condition number one "The developer shall construct the connection from Van Asche to Gregg Street with the completion of the sale of 75% of the property in Phase I", that condition was placed by City Council when they approved the plat. In my mind it was very vague. I've been working with Milholland to come up with a better way to word this so we can straighten this out when we approve the final plat. I want your input on this because when it comes to Planning Commission it's going to be worded in a lot different direction. There is some • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 3, 2001 Page 19 Ward: Petrie. Milholland: Petrie: Bunch: Petrie: Ward: Milholland: question on what they are required to extend, what size street? Who's going to do what? What happens if the City doesn't cost share with that? What I've been able to determine was it would use the same requirements as there was on Steele Boulevard. The requirement on Steele Boulevard was that if the City did not cost share they were responsible to build a three lane street, 36 foot wide I think it would be my recommendation we use that same requirement. What's the length? I'm not sure off the top of my head. I think it's 1,800 feet. That was a requirement for 36. We do not want a 36 foot street here. To confuse things a little bit more, my recommendation would be if the City Council decides they are not going to cost share to make this a four lane boulevard, if they build half of the boulevard and would be responsible for paying the difference between the cost of that and a 36 foot wide street. I think that would be our recommendation. I'm bringing this up for any discussion at this point but that's probably what this will read when itgets to Planning Commission. You are saying that they will put in half the boulevard but then be responsible for remainder of the pavement on those three lanes? Right. Receive money in addition to that construction, the difference. Those costs would be determined at that time. My other issue would be, it says upon sell of 75% of the property, what happens when they reach 75%? Does the street have to be built and completed before they can sell anymore or before we'll process anymore projects? I want to clarify that. I guess what it will read is "no other large scales will be process until it's completed". I bring it up for discussion. What's your take on that Mel? I don't have enough copies to go around, I did give one to Ron yesterday. Let me just read to you, Micki is here and she was with me all the way through phase I. Item number seven "When the property sales in phase I equals or exceeds 75% of the land..." When I say equal or exceeds, when we sell one lot, it may go from 60% to 78% or 80% just because we sell a lot. "...equals or exceeds 75% of the land area of said phase I, Nanchar, Inc., Marjorie S. Brooks or the successor shall at their expense Subdivision Committee Meeting May 3, 2001 Page 20 as set forth within the condition of approval of said phase I the following: a. Said owner shall pay 100% of the design services or design of Van Asche Boulevard extension in a westerly direction to connect with Gregg Avenue nearest intersection with existing VanAsche Street." On Steele and Van Asche Boulevard in phase I, that was the conditions and did happen. The owners did pay the full engineering cost for the full street section, including the bridges. They are doing the same thing here. "Design shall include four lane drainage structure across Skull Creek." Instead of a boulevard it will be a four lane bridge or structure. "All associated drainage facilities will meet the compliance of the City of Fayetteville development regulations and the Corps of Engineers 404 permit issued for the development of the entire CMN Business Park II". That's already been issued, it's already been approved. There is a minor amount of work left to be done when the street goes across and that has to be done. It's in the approved plan on file. "The street right-of- way width and design of street thickness and cross section shall be the same as that required for the boulevard sections in said phase I of CMN Business Park II." Basically what we are saying there is, this design will be paid for by the owners for full size street, so it will be designed as a boulevard. What we understood they wanted was to extend that boulevard all the way out there and not a three lane street. It will have an island like we got now and they'll pay for that. "Said owners shall pay for the construction of the north one-half of said design Van Asche Boulevard and the north one-half of said design Skull Creek drainage structure and all design drainage facilities necessary to accommodate the north two lanes of said boulevard." Ron was saying when this should take place, I started to put the word in here "initiate", "as soon as the 75% is met they initiate the beginning of the design and follow through with construction". What we have not done here, which the owners may agree to if you want to put it in here, they will also go ahead and do phase III at that time, which means it will have lots on both sides of the street. Edwards: What if you don't want to do phase III? Milholland: I think we can iron this down. I think they will just go ahead and do it because it won't require anything else because the water and sewer is in and the utilities are in. Petrie: They would submit a preliminary plat? Before we would allow any additional large scales to come through, is that what you're proposing? Harrington: 1 don't understand your wording. Ron, what are you saying? • Petrie: They would submit a preliminary plat for phase III before we would allow any • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 3, 2001 Page 21 Milholland: Harrington: Petrie: Milholland: Harrington: Bunch: additional large scales for the 25% remaining? And initiate the design and construction. I don't think you are going to allow any large scale developments in that phase anyway, until they submit a plan. When it gets to 75%, what happens to the other 25%? I think you could probably restrict it until we initiate and begin. I think what you are saying, we're required to initiate it and construct it before another large scale comes in? I don't think we want to limit selling the other part but I think you ought to tie it down to complying with the condition in actually start the design. Whether you tie in phase III with it doesn't really matter. The owner would probably agree with that. I would believe that if they initiated and diligently, in good faith, began what they were supposed to begin on the street design for the extension of Van Asche, that there shouldn't be any restriction on them finishing up sales. What if there is three or four sales backed up and people coming in with large scales right then? It would be a little unfair to the buyers to say "Until it's done you can't come in the door", if that's where you were going with that. At the time the City Council added this requirement on, it was at the very end of the meeting and the reason that it got added on was because Mr. Young didn't believe that our clients would ever build these streets period. Some of you were probably there. It was tacked on as an afterthought with no discussion as to how it was going to accord. It has be extended when 75% is sold so that we don't not have that access and my clients is fully intend to immediately initiate and begin the work that Mel has described, when that 75% mark is hit and to diligently go forward. It's fully expected they will do that in the form of a phase III submission along with the street, etcetera. Does the property owned by the property owners, does it extend all the way to Gregg? Harrington. Yes. Bunch: Harrington: Bunch: It won't be a problem with having to get rights-of-way and that sort of thing? No problem at all All that land is actually phase III? • • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 3, 2001 Page 22 Hoover: Do we have a map of phase 1II on here? It would be nice if you show phase I, II and III. This always comes up at every meeting, we can't quite figure it out. Milholland: It does say future phase III on here. Hoover: Where is that boundary? Milholland: That dark line going around that. Bunch: Milholland: Harrington: Hoover: Petrie: Hoover: Ward: Edward: The project site line kind of obliterates it and makes it unclear. It will make it a easier to understand on phase III. One of the requests that was in the comments that we got earlier from in house review was that Gregg Street right-of-way be dedicated for the future widening. Back two or three years ago when they asked us for about one-third of that when they put the bridge in, I recommended to the ladies and also Public Works Department to go ahead and work together then and take the whole easement and get it over with, they did. They gave the whole 1,900 feet of easement plus they gave a 1,900 foot of waterline easement. That's taken care of for that street. The Corps of Engineers 404 permit covers phase III and the work that's been accomplished as far as the floodway/floodplain and all that with the exception for the drainage structure. That's understood in the permit to be accomplished at that time. Public utilities are 95% to 99% for City water and sewer to all these sites. Your underground utilities for electrical, telephone and cable are already put in. Most of the work is done except for the street and drainage. We can bring another map showing that phase if that will help. I just think it gets confusing when we start talking about all the phases. You could probably take off these old Master Street Plan. That confuses me too. This kind of facilitates them from selling and doing some things, is there a way also we can put some money in escrow until it's finished? How is your escrow account working? We are already putting money in escrow right? • Harrington: The escrow account was agreed upon between the City and these folks back at the • • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 3, 2001 Page 23 Ward: Harrington: Ward: Milholland: Harrington: Milholland: Petrie: Ward: time of the zoning, before I was even in this project, was for phase I and II and it was to complete all streets, etcetera for phase I and II. Virtually at the time those are completed and that also is in an escrow connected with a buyer anyway so that is going to be released here as we finish. That will not affect phase III. There has never been, there was never a mention at City Council or Planning Commission or any other time, until today, about any idea of escrow funds for the Van Asche completion. I would say that you that you certainly have a good pattern of performance with our clients in the sense that they put 13 million dollars in this project and haven't stopped and refused to do that at any point in the line and they will continue to honor every obligation. They aren't going to not build a street just because the funds aren't escrowed. I think it's a little harsh to require them after all that they have extended and all that they are escrowing now, suddenly with no warning, escrow funds for further of Van Asche when they haven't had any warning that is coming or any requirement for that. They will build Van Asche out when they are supposed to. How far along are they with the completion of sales of phase I? They couldn't do anything until we get past May 14`s. Other than the lot 7 and 15 sale, they have literally been frozen in time so they aren't very far along at all. With those two sales, what percentage are you at? Lot 15 is in phase II, the 75% is phase I. Target would be the first one in phase I. They are a long ways from that. It's going to take some time. It's not going to happen within the next 30 days, it's going to be a couple of years at the minimum, I would think. I think what we are equating to is, I heard the word "escrow" for this phase III. Micki already stated very well that our client has been out 13 million dollars. To say take all your proceeds for the next 3 or 4 million dollars and put it in escrow before you start paying off your own debt, I think that's asking too much. I agree with that as long as we have a catch at the end of this that we can make sure it will happen. We won't allow any more large scales to go through. • Harrington: We can always allow large scales that are in the pipeline to go through but to just not • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 3, 2001 Page 24 issue them certificates of occupancy so they couldn't actually get there. What you are going to have is three or four stack up at once and suddenly you say "You become 75% and you that's already under way and has your plans in progress and has your time line and opening dates, etcetera, you suddenly have to stop while a bunch of engineering takes place and the City and Engineering and what's going to go on with that street and decision making." That could really cause an unfairness for someone trying to move forward. Milholland: I think what Ron is getting at and I'm real concerned over is, if you say when 75% of this land is closed on phase I, that we are to initiate the design of a boulevard to the west and follow it up with construction, you are not talking about six months. You are talking about a year at minimum. Are you going to hold up the sale of those other lots for a year or year and half? I think if you put in the word "initiate" and anything else you want to attach to it to see if they are going to continue. Hoover: You were fine on the large scale, holding off the occupancy? Edwards: No. Petrie: The word "initiate" in my mind is too vague. "Initiate" may mean you make a phone call. Edwards: What if at the point of the 75% we could do a letter of credit or a bond or escrow at that time. So, you don't have to do it now but at the point that you sell that, then we'll guarantee it. Milholland: Micki has to verify this with the client but, if you get 75% of the land sold we initiate the work, at that time work out where you can escrow the funds to succeed sales. To go in to pay for this street. Harrington. At a minimum. I think the problem my clients have with escrowing so far in advance is that they have continually performed, will continue to perform and to tie up money at this point is getting a little hard. It's performance that they are going to be making here and there was never a requirement to escrow funds for this purpose. As a matter of fact, I think that most developments that phase would have never been required at all except for the one connection was desired over there. That's when everybody said if there is going to be 75% of these lots functioning here, let's get that connection out to the west of Van Asche. They didn't oppose that and said they would do it but I think we are now thinking of a lot of new things. Yes, we are going to have a year long Subdivision Committee Meeting • May 3, 2001 Page 25 process to get this built, to hold up the rest of the sales would be incredibly harsh. Milholland: I think also, phase I was the only thing on the board at that time, there wasn't a connection to Mall Avenue at that time. They were looking for a third exit. Harrington: Milholland: Harrington: Milholland: Ward: • Hoover: Edwards: Harrington: Milholland: • Or Shiloh. Shiloh was also not at that time expected to actually be built all the way through in a way that would connect up to Mall, that came after. It was only the north and south end tied in and they want a third. We got a third now, so we went ahead and initiated phase II. We've got Mall, Shiloh and Steele. I concur with her, I think we fulfilled the wishes at that time. I think our client has shown good faith on this whole project. What I suggest that we do Micki why don't you talk with your clients and visit back with Tim, Sara and Ron and see if we can't get some kind of recommendation that everybody can agree with I think you need to come up with a couple of options and present it to staff. Let me just say we do not believe that they wont do it but things happen, people die, they go broke, the land doesn't sell. We don't think that they are not going to do what they say. The City needs to be protected against that. My client's concern is here at the last minute there is a lot of major financial things coming up at a point where it wasn't required before. We'll talk about it and get with them. We thought it was okay as it was. We'll get with them and try to address their concerns and be ready for Planning Commission. I would like to address a couple of items on their list. Number 12, under guarantees, final layer of pavement and sidewalks are the only items which may be guaranteed. Landscaping the islands are also allowed to be bonded and we may or may not be through with those. Most of the trees are in right now and they are putting in the irrigation. When we get to Planning Commission level on the final plat we may not be quite through with that but they would like to bond whatever is not. It is bondable. As far as the pavement, we plan on having pavement completed by the time we get there. We don't know for certain but right now we don't have the final layer. I'm assuming • • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 3, 2001 Page 26 Edwards• we may have to if it rains. Hopefully we'll have that done and most of the sidewalk. As of this day all the paving up to Joyce and south side is done, sidewalks up to Steele bridge is done on phase I. Streetlights have been paid for in full for phase II. You have a check coming in for an amount of $75 for off-site and then the bonding. The other items, item number 10 was incomplete? That's just a list of the required sidewalks and greenspaces I think it's a standard 6 foot with a 10 foot greenspace. Milholland: Item 11, sewer capacity is not guaranteed for the lots in this subdivision, that was not a condition at preliminary was it? No. When we run out of capacity, we are shutting everybody off. Edwards. Petrie: Bunch: Milholland: Edwards. We've been doing this verbally for quite a while but now we make sure everybody knows. I might say that my client paid for, if I recall we put some encasements under Steele, the City shared that too. On item number six, Joyce Boulevard, if the statement is correct I think it's not required to dedicate 110 right-of-way for Joyce Boulevard at the time preliminary plat was approved, was the Master Street Plan calling for a principal arterial at the time preliminary plat was approved? It was Really, from what I understand because I wasn't here, I think you negotiated with the City Council on these rights-of-way between the 90 feet and 96 feet and the 110 feet. I don't know how that all came out but I just think inadvertently the 110 on Joyce was left out because the Master Street Plan was in affect and was an omission. Milholland: They came to us when they built Joyce and asked us for 85 feet, we gave it to them and then they came back and asked for 5 more, we gave that to them. We didn't limit that, that was what the City asked for. Edwards: Milholland: Right, I agree with you. Our problem is, we have a proposal on lot 2 and it greatly affects the layout that the potential buyer has in mind. Subdivision Committee Meeting • May 3, 2001 Page 27 • • Harrington: Hoover: Harrington: Milholland: Harrington: Petrie: This change that we didn't know about until after that was already there could affect the loss of the sale actually. How much is the difference? 12 more feet on their side. It won't hurt us on lot number 3 or 9 but number 10 and definitely 2, those are the ones that will really hurt us. We are trying to figure out a realistic likelihood of taking what you've got built on Joyce there and with all the commercial building that is going on both sides of that and actually expanding that into people's parking lots, is there any likelihood that is ever going to happen? Typically dedication, the only way to avoid that is to get City Council approval. Our research has shown that it wasn't really discussed when this was approved. Just like we have a new development on College Avenue now that we have to require the dedication. There's really no difference. Harrington: I guess the only problem is that it wasn't required when we started this. Milholland: Harrington: Milholland: Ward: Edwards: Harrington: Council did approve the plat. That's right, it was approved without that. What we had done before on another location years ago, I talked to staff earlier, was we go ahead and give an access easement of 121/2 feet but not move the building setback, that leaves you both the sites the same area. I don't see any problem with that, personally. Tim and I have discussed this quite a bit. We really feel that Joyce is going to be a busy street and it very well could expand. That's why we want the right-of-way. We don't want to have to go back in 10 or 15 years and have to purchase all of this. If they are saying 12 feet on each side, that's quite a bit. We understand where they are coming from on their current rules. It just causes a problem because it wasn't known until recently that was going to be something that • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 3, 2001 Page 28 would affect these lots. Milholland. I looked back as far as I could and the Master Street Plan did not reflect the arterial all the way across the property at the time. At one time it was changed through Steele. Well it may have changed as part of your development. You are looking at long term, I understand that. Edwards: Milholland: Ward: Any other concerns Mel? Milholland: I think that's it. Edwards: Let me say on that, if you want to make a formal request to not dedicate the right-of- way, you need to request it in writing. Obviously staff is against that and you will have opportunity to be heard. Harrington: We'll look at that. Ward: Keith, anything? Keith Shreve - Sidewalks and Trails Shreve: Nothing additional. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: No comment. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: Moorman: Ward: Moorman: I'll open it to public comment. I would like to know if you have in front of you a tree preservation plan? I don't. Is one required with a final plat? I believe it's in the conditions for a final plat. Subdivision Committee Meeting • May 3, 2001 Page 29 • • Milholland: That's the purpose of the statement to defer it to individual lot owners. Moorman: I believe that in the original tree preservation plan and I do think that if you look at the guidelines as you issue your final plat you are supposed to submit a tree preservation plan. Ward: Sara why don't you look into that and make sure? C.Rogers: Petrie: Ron and I were discussing about changing of the easement for the sewer line for Steele, can we restrict that down to 20 feet along where it's adjacent to the Target building itself? That 25 feet was actually right up to the building wall and on the west side of that building we have an egress door for fire with a landing and ramp and so forth and of course the footings for the wall itself would be encroaching into that easement.: Could we, just for that 60 foot section of wall, narrow that down? I don't think I'm prepared to give you an answer right here. Let me look into it and if you can provide a little more information on what type of footings you are going to have, how close you are going to be to the line. Typically 10 feet is all we require These sewer lines are a little bit deeper than normal, which is why we are looking at a little bit wider easements. That's something I can look into. I don't know. C.Rogers: We'll just propose to you, maybe we'll talk about reduce it down to 20 feet for that section. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Ward: I'll bring it back to the Committee. Looks to me like there are two or three little things that we really need to discuss before this goes to full Planning Commission. Especially about this condition number one. If you will all work on that. MOTION: Hoover: I'll make a motion to move this to full Planning Commission FP 01-1.00. Ward: With all conditions. Hoover: With all conditions and comments from today. Bunch: I'll second. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 3, 2001 Page 30 Ward: I'll concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee Meeting • May 3, 2001 Page 31 • LSD 01-10.00: Large Scale Development (Joyce Street, pp 176) was submitted by J. Steve Clark of Clark Consulting on behalf of Dr. Ben Israel for property located at 2400 W. Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 5 acres. The request is to build four professional office buildings. Ward: Our final item on the agenda today is a large scale development for Joyce Street submitted by J. Steve Clark of Clark Consulting on behalf of Dr. Ben Israel for property located at 2400 W. Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 5 acres. The request is to build four professional office buildings. Sara, I'll let you discuss this. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: This property was rezoned by City Council on August 1, 2000 from A-1 to R-0. The applicant is proposing four office buildings with a total of 40,100 square feet and 134 parking spaces. I would like to say that we've worked hard on this project getting the tree canopy met and they've done a good job of meeting that percentage. This project is meeting the minimum percent canopy requirement. The requirement in an R- 0 zoning district is 20% canopy preservation. The applicant is proposing to preserve 21%. The tree preservation is being provided by a permanent tree easement including 60 feet at the rear of the property and 20 feet along the east and west sides. Really the only issue that we have is they do need to add a striped crosswalk along the pavement for the handicapped spaces to the buildings. We talked about it and they are in agreement with that. You do need to make a finding on Commercial Design Standards. They are not requesting any variances so this can be approved at this level if you like. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: No comment. Keith Shreve - Sidewalks and Trails Shreve: The only comment I have is there is an asphalt trail along Joyce and when they construct their driveway to continue that through the driveway as drawn on plat as doing that. Just a friendly reminder. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator • Hesse: I would just like to commend Dr. Ben Israel on the tree preservation. They've gone • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 3, 2001 Page 32 above and beyond and done a good job. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: Clark: Edwards: Alderman: Alderman: Bunch: Edwards. Alderman: Edwards. Alderman: Is there any further comment? Why don't you let them make a little presentation and we'll ask you some questions. Basically everything has been covered at this point. We have our elevations over here that Richard Alderman has prepared. We have some signs graphics that indicate, the size on it shows 10 by 4'/ , we may change those to stay within the allowable, 6 by 12 or 6 by 111A. The gray squares or rectangles would represent places where individual names would go on the sign for the individual tenants. Do you want to go over materials? These are one story professional offices. We have tried by the use of the working with the entrances in places to give it more interest that's basically brick up with EFIS soffits and detailing over the glass areas. It will be composite shingle roof, pretty straight forward. They will have some accent banding and things in there. It will be pretty much brick and a little bit of EFIS and composite shingle, the sign will match that. Dr. Israel is going to have pressure from his tenants to have individual signage, they would have to meet whatever sign requirements, 4 square feet would be allowable to some of them on there. They would probably be placed somewhere, it's our intention to have them on the front sign. We'll get pressure from tenants to do that and they will meet whatever sign requirements that the City has at the time. They will bring those forward and get a sign permit for those. We have four buildings that look alike. Unless we put building "A". There will be desire to have that. They would come in as the tenant does and they would come over to get a sign permit individually for those. Those will be reviewed on the four square foot. You'll limit it to being in this area. Yes. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 3, 2001 Page 33 Ward: Alderman: Clark: Hoover: Clark: Alderman. Hoover: Bunch: Alderman: Hoover: Alderman: Clark: MOTION: Hoover: How many square feet is the buildings? 40,100. The two back ones are 11,500 and 12,000 and 8,300 for the front two buildings. Is this the whole site? Yes. It's five acres. It's sort of like if you go down towards the Millenium Development, there is another small development of three or four office buildings down a little bit east of there, this is a similarly scaled piece to that one that has the two one-story brick buildings. That's a quarter of a mile east of there down Joyce Street. Is there some reason you are doing a nice rear elevation? I want to know how we get this to happen more often. Especially when it's next to a tree preservation. We intended to take advantage of the tree preservation site. We feel that it will bring people, the bay window effect on the back. If you look at that elevation, whether these on the backside, whether this became a door or a window right there, it may not be doors but there could be a possibility of little terraces out on the backside at the same time. They may be doors but with the bay window piece coming out like this, we think those are going to be very nice offices and that to us is to take advantage of the tree preservation area. 1 certainly think that's the thing to do, it just doesn't seem to happen very often. Thank you. It seems easy now but we've had to work really hard to get to where we are today. It was never a real battle. There were requirements that we had to do and we needed to do it to get it to work. I really appreciate the same material continued around the entire building. I would like Subdivision Committee Meeting • May 3, 2001 Page 34 • • Bunch: Clark: Bunch: Alderman: Bunch: Hoover: Bunch: Ward: to make a motion to approve LSD 01-10.00. 1 see on here tree preservation easement and tree preservation area, unless I'm reading this drawing wrong, there aren't any trees in it. What has happened is that if you look along here, this was a heavily wooded area and there is a dashed line that represents the tree line, the canopy line that cuts across here and here and comes back. Everything that's within this area is heavily treed. I knew this site had quite a few trees on it. I missed that. This was fully treed. The only ones that we tried to come back with to find the key ones that needed to be called out, out of the basic tree area. Everything else is smaller. What was your motion again? To approve at this level. I'll second. I'll concur. We're adjourned.