Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-08-16 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, August 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSP 01-26.00: Page 2 LSP 01-27.00: Page 6 LSP 01-28.00: Page 8 LSD 01-19.10: Page 11 LSD 01-27.00: Page 24 LSD 01-28.00: Page 30 LSD 01-29.00: Page 35 ADM 01=35.00: Page 41 Lot Split (Ashby, pp 101) Lot Split (Russell, pp 240) Lot Split (Robinson, pp 398) Large Scale Development (Hometown, pp 524) Large Scale Development (First Church of the Nazerene, pp 253) Large Scale Development (Marriott Courtyard, pp 212) Large Scale Development (Fayetteville Public Library, pp 523) ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Tabled Approved Forwarded Forwarded Administrative Item (Mcllroy Bank, pp 401)Forwarded MEMBERS PRESENT Bob Estes Sharon Hoover Don Bunch STAFF PRESENT Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Keith Shreve Kim Rogers Kim Hesse Tim Conklin MEMBERS ABSENT Lee Ward STAFF ABSENT Fire Chief Solid Waste Bert Rakes Jim Johnson Perry Franklin Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 2 • • LSP 01-26.00: Lot Split (Ashby, pp 101) was submitted by Dawn Ashby for property located at 5234 Butterfield Coach Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 40 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 37.28 acres and 3 acres. Bunch: Good morning, welcome to the August 16, 2001, meeting of the Subdivision Committee of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. This morning we have nine items on the agenda, however, one item has been pulled. That is, item number nine an administrative item dealing with the sign for the new Lindsey office building. If any of you are here for that item, we have pulled it from the agenda. We have Commissioners Sharon Hoover, Bob Estes and I'm Don Bunch. Before we start I would like to make an announcement that there is a special meeting of the Planning Commission this coming Monday at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 to deal with the proposed revisions of the tree preservation ordinance. The public is invited and we would like to solicit comments. That's 5:30 Monday, August 20th, in room 219. The first item on the agenda is lot split 01-26.00 submitted by Dawn Ashby for property located at 5234 Butterfield Coach Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 40 acres The request is to split into two tracts of 37.28 acres and 3 acres. Is the applicant present? Anderson: I'm the representative. I'm her mother, Sara Lee Anderson, we are the owners of the 40 acres. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: This is out in our growth area as you said, north of Zion and east of Butterfield Coach Road They are dedicating some right-of-way, according to the Master Street Plan, along Zion and Butterfield Coach Road, however, we do have another Master Street Plan street on the north side of this property which the requirement is for 35 feet from centerline be dedicated along both tracts A and B. If they are in agreement with dedicating that, we would like to recommend approval at the Subdivision Committee level. Conklin: Anderson: Conklin: Anderson: It's currently not shown on your survey. You are talking about the part between the 3 acres and the end of our property there? Across this way. I think you put it on the three acres. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 3 Conklin: I don't see it on there. Anderson: Is that the new one? Edwards: Yes. You are okay with that? Anderson: Yes. Bunch: Keith? Keith Shreve - Sidewalk Division Shreve: No comment Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: No comment. • Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: No comment. PUBLIC COMMENT: Bunch: Is there any public present who would care to comment on this? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Bunch: Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Estes: Tim, where is the 35 foot right-of-way dedication? Conklin: To the north. Estes: It's not marked on our plat, is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. Estes: So, we get a 35 foot across the north and that's both tracts A and B? • Conklin: That's correct. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 4 • • Estes: Conklin: Estes: Edwards: Estes: Anderson: MOTION: Estes: Hoover: Bunch: Anderson: Conklin: Anderson: Conklin: Anderson: Conklin: That's for the purpose of what? That is a proposed collector street on our Master Street Plan. That's Howard Anderson Road? Yes. The applicant is in agreement with that 35 foot dedication? Yes. I would move for approval of lot split 01-26.00. I'll second. I'll concur. Do we need to file anymore? We'll need a corrected survey showing the 35 foot right-of-way dedication with a collector street for Howard Anderson Road. When you get ready to transfer title, the deed will need to reflect that 35 foot right-of-way, your legal descriptions need to be revised to reflect that. Do we need to file with you or just file it with the County? We need to stamp your deeds prior to filing. You need to bring those in along with the corrected survey. Contact Sara Edwards if you need some additional information how to complete the lot split process. Basically you go back to Bleaux Land Surveying, have them draw this on, whoever is going to prepare your deeds for transfer of title of that property, the legal description will need to reflect that right-of-way has been removed prior to filing that deed. We'll review that when we stamp the deed for final. One copy? Yes. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 5 Scott-Silkwood: Actually, I need a minimum of three plats. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 6 LSP 01-27.00: Lot Split (Russell, pp 240) was submitted by Norma Russell for property located at 6203 Wheeler Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 9.76 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 3.00 acres and 6.76 acres. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is lot split 01-27.00 submitted by Norma Russell for property located at 6203 Wheeler Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 9 76 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 3.00 acres and 6.76 acres. Are you the representative? Reid: Yes, my name is Allen Reid, I'll be representing Ms. Russell. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: As you said, this is in the growth area, they are splitting into two tracts, 3 acres and 6.76 acres. This is on the southeast corner of Wheeler and Clark Road in the Planning Area. They have dedicated additional right-of-way to meet our Master Street Plan requirements and they have met all staff requirements. The only condition is prior to filing this split they must obtain approval from Washington County and we are recommending approval at this level. Keith Shreve - Sidewalk Division Shreve: No comment. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie. The eastern house, the service line and the meter comes off of Mount Comfort Road? Reid: That's correct. Right at the northeast corner there is a water meter. Petrie: You show two meters on the western house. Reid: I think one goes to the house west of the county road. Petrie: I just wanted to make sure. Thank you. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: No comment. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 7 PUBLIC COMMENT: Bunch: Is there anyone in the audience that would care to comment on this? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Bunch: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee for discussion. MOTION: Estes: I would move approval of lot split request 01-27.00. Hoover: I'll second. Bunch: I'll concur. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 8 • LSP 01-28 00• Lot Split (Robinson, pp 398) was submitted by Donna Treat of Coldwell Banker Faucette on behalf of James & April Robinson for property located at 1245 N. 515t Street. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and the northern 50' is in the Planning Growth Area containing approximately 3.02 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.29 acres and 0.73 acres. Bunch: The next item on our agenda is also a lot split 01-28.00 submitted by Donna Treat of Coldwell Banker Faucette on behalf of James & April Robinson for property located at 1245 N. 51' Street. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and the northern 50' is in the Planning Growth Area containing approximately 3.02 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.29 acres and 0.73 acres. Treat: I represent James and April Robinson. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: If will remember last Monday we heard a rezoning to rezone this property to R-1 which will permit this lot split based on the minimum square footage and frontage. The number one condition that needs to be placed on this is that Council approve the rezoning from A-1 to R-1 so this lot split will meet our zoning requirements. Other than that, they have met all of staff's requirements. They do need to get approval from Washington County for that north 50 feet prior to finaling this lot split. We are recommending approval subject to those conditions. Keith Shreve - Sidewalk Division Shreve: In this location we are recommending money in lieu of construction for the sidewalk. Mr. Robinson, at one point, he may want to construct the sidewalk rather than contribute money. I would just like to advise that that ordinance is under review at this point and we are recommending to go ahead and pay the money and, at some point, it might be refunded, it might not. Treat: I think they are willing to do that, at what point do I need to give the money? Shreve: For tract 2, the lot split, that needs to be paid before it can be filed. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: I would like to clarify the easements along the street there. You call that a 25 foot • setback and utility easement and there is a 10 foot from the sewer easement which Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 9 overlaps part of that 25. It Just needs to be labeled whatever it is, a 30 foot utility easement the whole width, you can have Glen Carter do that. You have it called out as a 25 foot utility easement along the frontage and then you also call out 10 feet for the sewer line. Just call it out as a 30 foot utility easement or whatever it is. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: No comment. Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator Rogers: There will be fees assessed in the amount of $470 for the additional dwelling unit. They will not be due until the next house is being built. Treat: That will be the owner's I guess, not the buyer of this property. Rogers: The seller, $470. • PUBLIC COMMENT: Bunch: Is there anyone in the public that has a comment on this item? Blakemore: James Blakemore. I own the property next door to the Robinson's. I really hate to see a lot split and have houses built everywhere. I know these are large lots but, right now it is a housing addition. If we just start building houses everywhere, the property value will go down and I'm just opposed to it. Celia Scott-Silkwood - Washington County Planning Director Scott-Silkwood: This will need to go through the Planning Board. You need to call our office and get that scheduled. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Bunch: I'll bring it back to the Committee. MOTION: • Estes: 1 would move approval of lot split 01-28.00 contingent upon rezoning from A-1 to R-1 by the Fayetteville City Council, Washington County approval and the 30 Subdivision Committee Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 10 foot utility easement, as requested by City Engineering. Hoover: I'll second. Bunch: For clarification, on this 108 feet on the frontage for tract 1, how does that deal in relation to the City's requirement for 70 feet of frontage? I know that quite a bit of that is actually in the County, does that have any impact on our City regulation for requiring frontage? Conklin: The lot is partially in the City and part in the County. Our ordinance requires 70 feet of lot width for R-1, in the County it's 75 feet, it meets both standards. Bunch: It does not matter that part of it is in the County and is actually not zoned R-1? Conklin: No, not in my opinion. Bunch: I will concur. Subdivision Committee Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 11 LSD 01-19.10: Large Scale Development (Hometown, pp 524) was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Associates on behalf of Hometown Development for property located on the southwest corner of Fletcher Avenue & Rodgers Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.50 acres with 12 dwelling units proposed. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is a large scale development 01-19.10 for Hometown Development submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Associates on behalf of Hometown Development for property located on the southwest corner of Fletcher Avenue & Rodgers Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.50 acres with 12 dwelling units proposed. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: If you will remember, this property has right-of-way existing for Center Street running directly north of it and they are proposing not to develop that right-of- way but to access their driveway from Fletcher Avenue. We've seen this before. A request was before the Planning Commission on April 23, 2001, where they requested not to provide the required street frontage for lots in an R-2 zone. Approval was granted subject to large scale development with a limit of six units on this lot. They are proposing twelve units and requesting that the Planning Commission rehear that item and basically allow 12 units instead of the 6 that was approved. The proposal is 12 units, 10 two-bedroom units and 2 one -bedroom units. They are providing 22 parking spaces. We do have some conditions we are recommending you forward to the full Planning Commission so that this item may be heard with the other items. Conklin: The first item will be the administrative item you first heard with regard to allowing a development to come through without the required street frontage. That administrative item limited the density to 6 units on this half acre of property. Without amending that condition, you can't hear the large scale development, in my opinion. That will be the first item. The second item will be this large scale development which, depending on what you do with the first item, if you agree to amend that condition, you hear the large scale development and decide whether or not it meets all ordinance requirements and either deny it or approve it. If the item is denied, the property owner/developer has requested that you hear an administrative item for a waiver of our minimum street standards in order to develop Center Street off of Fletcher and the street would give him frontage and the property is zoned R-2, the first item which was no street frontage goes away and they meet zoning ordinance requirements with regard to street frontage. There will be three items on that agenda. One, no street frontage, two, Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 12 • • large scale development and three, how you build the street and get variances for minimum street standards. Bunch: Which meeting is this? Conklin: The 27th. Edwards: The first condition, from out Traffic Superintendent, when he was out checking sight distance, he feels the sight distance will be adequate as long as the trees along the right-of-way east of this proposed drive are trimmed to provide adequate sight distance. That will be prior to the final certificate of occupancy. Those trees, he says it's difficult for him to tell if they are right-of-way trees or on this property. It's probably a combination of both. The developer will be responsible on his property and the City will be responsible for those on theirs. The second condition is, all efforts shall be made to eliminate the need for a public lift station for this site. The use of a public lift station must be a last resort option. I will let Ron explain that when we come around to him. The third condition is, any electric lines provided to serve the lift station shall be placed underground. The other conditions are standard conditions. Conklin: This item was brought back through the process because they did change the large scale development configuration of the parking. They have actually, on this latest plan that we did receive, are showing a lift station that is actually located partially on this property and partially on a property to the east owned by Brian Dandy. Based on those changes, l thought they were significant enough to make them go back through Plat Review, Subdivision and Planning Commission process. That's why it is back before Subdivision Committee. There were changes that had been made, it's a different project that you are looking at from what you originally saw with the six units. Keith Shreve - Sidewalk Division Shreve: No additional comments. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: In regards to this lift station, just as it says, there is some maintenance costs associated with a public lift station. We want that to be a last resort. There are other alternatives and they involve off-site easements. We want to make sure that's a last resort. In regard to that additional conditions, if this is a lift station, the area that's fenced needs to be deeded to the City. Two, we need access to it. I Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 13 don't know if it means taking out parking spaces or what, but we need some type of driveway to get back there to it. There is a $4,300 feet to buy and install the SCADA system for the station and we would need a 20 foot utility easement that covers the force main leading from it. My other issue is something we discussed at plat review, that was because of the reconfiguration I need to know the changes in impervious areas from what we accepted on the preliminary drainage report. Carter: We calculated those and the impervious area dropped. Petrie: I would like to have that in writing. Carter: I thought we turned in a new report to you. Petrie: That's all. Carter: It showed that our calculations for flow are conservative. The new resulting flow with this configuration is less than it was before. I'll show that in the report. Petrie: There is one other thing that wasn't originally listed in the last condition of approval, that has to do with improvements to Fletcher Street. Planning Commission should make that determination. They are showing widening Fletcher Street adjacent to the site 14 feet from centerline with curb and gutter. That is a determination Planning Commission does need to make. Carter: We don't have a problem with that. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: No additional comments since the last meeting. The only addition we had was a parking change, an island was added for parking lot landscaping. Glenn, I just want to make sure that is 8 foot wide to give the tree room to grow. Based on our current requirements they've met the additional 8 large trees. As we said last time they are to be hardwood species 2 inch caliper. You are giving at least enough room as shown on the plan. Estes: • The discussion has been that because condition of approval number two is all effort has been made to eliminate the need for a public lift station at this site. The use of a public lift station must be a last resort. Commissioner Bunch raised the issue that on the drawings that we have, they are not complete regarding lift stations. There is just a little notation "lift station, pig launch structure", and Commissioner Bunch was suggesting we table this. My thought would be that the Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 14 • • condition of approval is that all efforts be made to eliminate. I would like to ask Ron, if it develops at some time that the lift station is necessary than you are going to be involved in this process, are you not? Petrie: Yes sir. It will have to be designed before we approve the construction plans and they start building the apartments. Estes: Carter: I would like to go ahead and take public comment. This is a contingency, it may be necessary, it may not. I would imagine the applicant is going to make every effort possible to illuminate the need for the public lift station because of the intended expense. I would ask that you not table it at this time. We just found out about this requirement at this meeting. There is no way we could prepare for that. We do understand in general that lift stations need access and we can provide that. I don't see any problem with rearranging the parking to make that happen. There are a couple of other issues, is this the first time you have seen this with this configuration? Estes: This is the first time I have seen this. Carter: I wanted to make a couple of general comments on behalf of the client. We were asked to come to Plat review, back to the beginning of the process and Subdivision Committee because, as Tim noted, the change in the parking and the change in the configuration. 1 just wanted you to understand that was a change that was required by Planning which we accepted and we made adjustments to. Also, I just wanted to point out also this issue about condition of approval that the Planning Commission heard with the stipulation of six units. We were thinking not in hard fast terms of units and numbers, we were thinking more in common sense fashion. We were kind of hoping the common sense aspect would come into play here a little bit. If six units as approved in the Planning Commission, there would be 24 residents on the property. When we came back to Plat Review and Subdivision Committee the first time we had seven units which was an increase to 28 and we were told by Planning, at that time, we would be denied approval for 7 units. At that time, because of those changes and because of the comments, we redesigned and reconfigured to try to come closer to their compliance and actually come into a less dense situation than was approved by Planning Commission to begin with. Whether you call it six units or twelve units, the point that we are making is we are actually dropping below the 24 residents that would be there, to 22 residents, we are just reconfiguring how many different actual units you have. If that's a big factor, I guess that's just a big factor. I Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 15 • • would appeal to your thinking on that, in common sense terms, we are trying to reduce the density and we are trying to comply with the spirit of the approval that was given to begin with. I just wanted to make that comment and, as far as the lift station access goes, we could easily comply with that I believe. We would ask you to not table us at this point and bring this to the Planning Commission. Conklin: I'm not sure but, I always thought that ADA would have a requirement for ADA parking spaces and I don't see any on here. I'm not sure why you don't have any shown. Carter: We discussed that in either this meeting or Plat Review meeting, maybe it was with Perry Franklin that was here. Conklin: You don't think ADA requires you to have any spaces for this project? It's federal law. Carter: I would have to look at the comments to see what the comments were but I thought someone said that we wouldn't require it for this project. I don't know. We probably need to look at the minutes and see who made that comment. I thought it was someone from the City of Fayetteville. Conklin: I need to take a look at federal law and see what it requires versus our Plat Review minutes. Carter: It's not a problem, if we need ADA then we'll make ADA spaces. Conklin: It's going to reduce your parking spaces. Carter: The comment concerned these slopes and whether or not it would be safe to have ADA space down there. If it's a law, it's a law. PUBLIC COMMENT: Bunch: I will now open the meeting to public comment. Please identify yourself for the recording. Davison: My name is Sharon Davison and I do live here in Fayetteville. I've been spending time on this as we've been forced to. My first comment is, look at the empty chair. It's empty because the developer does not want to be here, we all know why. He sent his guy here to give us new numbers, new figures, new things. We've spent over five months because they do not do the right thing from the start Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 16 • • and every time they come in it's a stall tactic to see if they can push through something on this. They come out with "We have tried to comply, poor us." Let's get that straight. They have not tried to comply, they've been made to comply because of their actions. They have not come forthright, everything has been changed. The first meeting that these men were at, their lawyer sat up front, they sat in back. When Commissioner Estes asked if the people were there, they didn't speak up, their lawyer got up. I think these men know exactly what they are doing. The whole point is, why are we having to spend all this time when they are coming to us wanting favors and variances, wanting to do something negative for the neighborhood and not being forthright in their plans and then put it back on us? I think that's pretty low. I think there should be something where we can say "Come back in a year. We are not going to spend five more months on this." We, as a collective group in our neighborhood, have had to spend five months going to meetings that get postponed, get put off because these gentlemen don't have it together and that's how they approach you. How can we not say enough? Come back in a year when our city sewer can handle it, come back when you know what you are doing and maybe want to do something for us all. That's the other issue, they are going to keep building this up where they say "We have invested so much time and money in this, you have to let us do it." My opinion, that's the dirty dog card because they started out that way. We are spending a lot, collectively as a group of people, time, money, effort. We have millions to lose compared to their money to make. It gets down to the issue, speaking only for myself, I have no money, I owe student loans but, this is Fayetteville, I know a lot of lawyers. Force me, we'll have to do what we can to stop you when the City's hands are tied while you try to force this development down our throats. Havens: My name is Jerry Havens and I live at 809 Lighton Trail. I have two points, both are requests for clarification. I went to the last meeting and I registered a concern about the capacity for the sewer system, can it handle this? In that regard, I noticed that there is a statement here, a condition of approval that approval does not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available. My question is, did someone look into more definitively the question about how this will exceed or not exceed the sewer capacity, what did you find out? Petrie: I did and prepared a report to the Planning Commission and it's in this file. There are two different systems on the mountain. One system that comes around back to the north that has a history of capacity problems, overflows. That system is not being connected to this development. I should say on that system we have over a million dollars in our capital improvements project to replace that system next year. That's scheduled to be done. I can show you this on the map. What they are connecting to is this line that comes up. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 17 • Havens: That one is adequate? Petrie: Yes sir. It is adequate and it does not have a history of overflow. Havens: I assume that the lift station we are talking about is a sewer lift station, a lift station to the sewer line? Petrie: Yes sir. Havens: My second point was the principal concern of everyone here last time. The way I understand is we are shooting at a moving target right now but, apparently a decision will have to be made, regardless of what kind of finding there is here. A decision will have to be made as to how to deal with the requirement for a street waiver. At the last meeting there was considerable detail about the waivers that would be required. I don't see those here. What I remember about them was that it would require a number of waivers that seem to appear to be severe waivers. They weren't even close to the requirements and it would require a real substantial change and waivers. We felt like those would impinge strongly on public safety and traffic safety. My comment is to ensure that those situations are still being addressed by the Planning Commission. Bunch: Jerry, that was addressed in the comment Tim made at the onset of this, this particular portion of it deals with access from Fletcher and that had to do with access, if this is denied, their request for access from Center Street. Havens: I had a hard time understanding. Bunch: That's an administrative item that will be on the agenda. Havens: What that boils down to is that is going to be considered should it become a situation that has to be considered in the future? Conklin: If they want to build the street, they cannot meet our minimum street standards and, therefore, a variance would have to be granted. Once they build the street they would meet all zoning ordinance requirements. It was zoned R-2 in 1970. That's the whole issue why we are here, if this lot had frontage on Fletcher Street we wouldn't be here today, a permit would be issued as long as they complied with all ordinance requirements. Havens: I guess the only thing that I'm concerned about is, this has gotten so complex that • I don't really know how to understand or have a good feeling about what the • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 18 alternatives are that we would be looking at depending on whatever action is taken at this particular meeting. I realize it might be a request to repeat something that you've already said but that's the concern I have. Bunch: The action that will be taken here will be whether or not to forward it to the full Planning Commission. If it is forwarded to the full Planning Commission, there is an administrative item for the widening of Fletcher and this item, first we would have to hear the administrative item on the changes to Fletcher and if that passed, we would hear this. If this did not pass, we would look at the one with all the street changes on the waivers for Center Street Havens: Does this body have two options, either to deny it or to forward it to the Commission? I assume if it's forwarded, that simply means it's forwarded not with recommendations or anything? Bunch: That's correct. One other item on the sewer, this item 8 that you were referencing is a standard condition that we put on all these types of developments. It has to do with capacity of the sewer system as a whole but we also have the situation Ron described on Mount Sequoyah where their lines are inadequate. I think that standard statement applies more to the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant than it does to the specific situation on Mount Sequoyah. Petrie: You have a copy of my memo in your packet. Jansmen: I'm Harriet Jansmen and I live 900 Lighton Trail. Has the question of the pond, it encroached on the adjacent property in the last plan, been addressed? Petrie. Yes, it has been addressed and how they are proposing to meet the setback requirements for the grading is to install a wall along the south and west sides of that pond. As long as the revised numbers that I get with regard to impervious area and how it compares to the report that was accepted, if that is appropriate and looks okay I would say yes, it has been addressed. Caulk: Clark Caulk, I live on Missouri Way. I'm very happy to hear that they are not going to be hooking up to the sewer that comes on my side of the hill, we couldn't handle it I'm sure. My real concern about this one is, anything that's done up on the hill that has the potential of increasing traffic. In my case particularly Missouri Way/Oklahoma Way corner. It is quite a dangerous corner that causes me great concern. While where this is located it won't necessarily increase traffic up there a great deal, it has potential increasing it 24 or 22 people up there increasing traffic and that is a real concern to me. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 19 • • Bunch: Is there anyone else? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Bunch: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Estes: I have several questions. Ms. Hesse, what determination was made regarding the prior tree removal, has that issue been resolved to your satisfaction? Hesse: I conferred with the City Attorney's office. In another situation we fined the applicant and their sentiment was that they prefer to replace the canopy. I conferred with the Attorney to make sure it was an either/or situation either a fine or replacement and he felt it was, you can't do both. The public appeared to want canopy replacement. What the canopy replacement is, the requirement plus 10%. Assuming those trees reach close to maturity, that's only 8 large trees. That's what we have asked them to plant and make room for. They have met the minimum space. Estes: The previous proposal was six units, is that correct? Carter: Yes. Estes: How many bedrooms were going to be in that six unit complex? Carter: 24. Hoover: On the lift station, I'm looking at Tim's plan, is that the property line that's showing in the water line on the legend? Conklin: The red line should be the property line. Hoover:. I guess I'm concerned about, before Planning Commission, will the lift station issue be resolved? It looks like it is a major issue with how it's going to sit on this property if that's the property line. Right now it's over on the other side. What are the alternatives to the lift station? Petrie: Before we get the elevations and design, it's hard to say exactly what the options are. I can tell you what I think. There is an existing line on Olive Street, it would involve quite a bit of pipe to get from Olive Street and run it down Fletcher. The problem is, there is a low point in Fletcher between the existing sewer line and this. I guess they have a problem with elevation and getting it over here. They • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 20 either are going to have to come back up the hill and go around that low point or come from Olive down below. Those are really the two options I see. They both involve obtaining off-site easements. Hoover: Can this lift station be positioned on here to work? Petrie: With the driveway and maintenance? Hoover: Right. And getting it within the property, are there any setback requirements for the lift station on this property. Petrie: Not that I know of. We get the deed for that property. If they can get a driveway in there, I'm not sure. Conklin: How can we have a lift station on someone else's property, these are two separate pieces of property, two separate large scale developments? Has Mr. Dandy signed anything giving the authorization to put a lift station on the property to the east? Carter: He's given verbal. Conklin: Can we have that in writing? My whole issue with this development, once it's two separate developments, no grading, no infrastructure improvements across property lines. The whole issue was this was going to be two separate developments, less than an acre, now we are planning infrastructure improvements on someone else's property. That bothers me. Hoover: There is probably something going to be developed there, does this mean this other property would then get it's own lift station? Petrie: That's what we would like. We would like it to be their lift station and their lift station and not the City's lift station and have the public main out here on Fletcher and they can pump the private lift station into this public main, so we are not responsible for all this. Hoover: You would rather it be a private lift station. Petrie: Yes. Hoover: What are the requirements for that? Petrie: That becomes a plumbing question that I'm not familiar with. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 21 • • Hoover: As far as the City requirements, it's within their property. Petrie: The items that I went over, it would get deeded to us and we have access to it. Hoover: I guess what I am confused with, is it possible that by Planning Commission to have this further resolved so we know what's going to happen? It's a tight site, if it was a larger site with a lot of room, but it's not, they are going to have move. Carter: Estes: Petrie: If I understand Ron's comments correctly, the reason we went to a public lift station, we didn't want to do that, they are a lot more expensive than private. The problem we have is this low point that Ron mentioned on Fletcher. We were just going to put a manhole here and let gravity flow down to this other and just do a sewer main extension, that would have been great. The problem is, it goes down and then comes back up. Because of that grade and elevation problem we have to put a force main down the street. Because we have to put a force main, that can't be private. The state law with the health department won't allow us to do that. If we could find a way to do it, we would love to do that. We don't want to put in a public lift station. We haven't found an option to that. Condition of approval number two is that all efforts shall be made to eliminate the need for a public lift station and now we are talking about a private lift station. Do I understand correctly that there is two ways to avoid that, one is to run a line to Olive and what was the other way? It involves the existing line on Fletcher, instead of following Fletcher going down the street with it, it would actually have to cut back to the east to get back to the hillside a little bit and kind of go around the low point in Fletcher. Estes: Both of these are going to require easements, is that right? Petrie: That's correct. Estes: You say go down Fletcher, which direction? Petrie: Right here. Estes: They can either go to Olive... Petrie: This is the existing line in Fletcher and this is the site here. The low point sits about right here in the street. Instead of running it straight down the right-of-way to get it to the site, they would have to actually come back and either cut the Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 22 • Estes: Petrie: Estes: Petrie: MOTION: Estes: Carter: Estes: Carter: Estes: Carter: Estes: corner here or possibly come back here on this line. That would require going across the existing fee simple property which would require taking an easement. Right. The other option is Olive Street which requires the same thing. Mr. Petrie, is it a fair statement to say that it's more likely than not that we are going to be looking at a lift station? I'm afraid so. That's what I fear. With that said, let me say this, one of the things that we are charged with as the Subdivision Committee, is not to send incomplete work to the full Commission. To me, Commissioner Bunch you are exactly right in your opening remarks, that is a very salient issue. If Mr. Petrie is saying it's more probable than not, he can certainly correct me if it's a misstatement, that we are going to look at a public lift station or a private lift station, I want to see that work before I send this on to the Commission for any reason or for no reason at all. If you can't tell by the tone of my voice, I'm a little upset that we've burned up all of this time and effort and there hasn't been full disclosure of that issue. With that said, I move to table LSD 01-19.00 and the reason for that motion is, it appears that based upon the advice of staff, it is going to be more probable than not that there will either be a public lift station or a private lift station and that is going to certainly impact this project. I am not prepared to forward this on to the full Commission without that information. I feel like we've done everything we can do. Let me ask you this, is there going to be a public lift station? Yes. Why is it not on the plan? It is, right here. • I'm not an architect and I'm not an engineer but what I see there sure doesn't give me any definition. We've got an engineer and an architect here and perhaps if I Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 23 • • am wrong, they can correct me. Hoover: I'm confused when it's on another piece of property, the lift station for this property. Bunch: The only access that I can see to is right there in the tree restoration area. We don't have any of those issues addressed which means we are even more incomplete. Estes: If this was a courtroom and I was the lawyer and you were the Judge and you sanctioned me and held me in contempt, I don't think I would have a very good defense. Don't bring stuff like this to us. Hoover. I'll second. Bunch: I'll concur. Subdivision Committee Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 24 LSD 01-27.00: Large Scale Development (First Church of the Nazarene, pp 253) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of the First Church of the Nazarene for property located at 2857 N. Old Missouri Road. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 2.96 acres with a 20,527 sq.ft. building proposed. Bunch: The next item on our agenda is a large scale development 01-27.00 submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of the First Church of the Nazarene for property located at 2857 N. Old Missouri Road. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 2.96 acres with a 20,527 sq.ft. building proposed. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: This is located on the southwest corner of Oakcliff Drive and Old Missouri Road. They are proposing 74 parking spaces, that is within our requirement. They are not asking for any waivers or variances. Therefore, I am recommending approval at the Subdivision Committee level. The only issue is, they do have to comply with Commercial Design Standards. Keith Shreve - Sidewalk Division Keith: It's meeting all the requirements. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: No comment. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: I have no comment. I can explain my memo since we are going below the required canopy. They started out below the canopy. They brought me on this project early on and I'll point out where there is a couple trees that we couldn't determine were rare by the current definition. There is one that's located below the existing building pad I don't know if you've been to this site but it drops off. The other one is a pine tree located there. It didn't come across this right off the bat to remove those trees, there is another tree that doesn't meet definition in the rare. It's not 24 inches but it's a tree of substantial size. The problem is, what they really have to do is work as much as they can to try to save those trees. I think you gave me four or five conceptual designs and you looked at the grades and what would entail. I don't think it would be good planting judgement to Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 25 • actually do that. What we ended up with by trying to save a couple of trees was they had to leave this part of the site alone but to get the size of that building on that slope, there was a retaining wall that went from here to here and even partially into here. Really from Old Missouri you wouldn't see that much of the building, you would see the roof of the building, the retaining wall is pretty tall. That would force most of the parking over here, to grade that parking in there they would need another retaining wall to keep these trees preserved. They reconfigured, turned the building and redid a lot of different layouts to try to save these and it Just was an impractical way to design the site. It kind of restricted the site and any plans that the church might have for the building and parking. It eliminated some availability. I felt it was a recommendation to approve what is shown here, we are to save all of these trees. Why the numbers show so low is that we typically don't include any tree preservation in a utility easement. These utility easements were already existing and the trees are there now. There is not going to be any additional construction in the tree area. The numbers are small although none of these trees were being removed. The only change to the tree line would be right in this corner. I recommend approval based off of this plan and based off a lot of research to try to save the trees. Bunch: Thank you Kim. Chris, could you identify yourself and do you have any presentation? Brackett: My name is Chris Brackett with Jorgensen & Associates, I'm here representing the owner, Chris Gwen is here for the church. I don't have a presentation. I would like to say we did everything that could possibly be done to try to save the trees. The church would have been down in a hole and you would have seen the roof from Old Missouri, it would have been unattractive even with saving the trees. I say we made every effort we could. PUBLIC COMMENT: Bunch: Is there any public comment on this item? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Bunch: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Estes: Sara, the Commercial Design Standards, can we approve those at the Subdivision Committee level? • Conklin: You have approved them in the past. • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 26 Estes: We have one elevation, is that correct? Gwen: Yes. Conklin: How do the other two sides compare to this? Gwen: The same. The back side doesn't have the arch windows, it has square windows. This is the front that you are seeing. The end with the cross is facing Old Missouri. Bunch: The side with the square windows toward the tree line on the back side? Gwen: Yes. Hoover: They are the same materials all the way around? Gwen: Yes. • Estes: I've never approved Commercial Design Standards with only one elevation. What does the west side of the building look like? • Gwen: It looks just like this except there are no doors. Estes: The east side drops off here to what? Gwen: They are exactly the same on the east and west except for the doors. There is no cross on the west side. Estes: Is there another door? Brackett: There is two doors here and there are no doors on the west side. Gwen: The south elevation looks just like that except the windows are square. Estes: With regard to Commercial Design Standards, what does our signage look like? I don't see any elevations of our signage. Brackett: Bunch: It's the existing signage, they are just relocating what is already out there. All access from Old Missouri is being removed? Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 27 • • Brackett: Yes. Bunch: That will make for better traffic flow. Ron, on this south side where the drainage from the east parking lot goes underground and looks like it resurfaces, is this flow across the parking lot? Brackett: It flows back into the parking lot which goes down to a low point that goes into the detention pond. Bunch: We are draining this whole top side of this hill? Brackett. Mainly this parking lot right here. This whole side goes down to that, from this point over goes into the pipe and back into the parking lot. Bunch: You don't think with a large rain that it would overflow and you ran all those calculations? Brackett: I haven't sized this but we will before we get our construction plans when we submit our final drainage report and we'll study that to ensure that this curve can take the water. Bunch: You will see all that, right Ron? Petrie: Right, they'll have to run the calculations for the 100 year storm to make sure it won't be detrimental to any adjacent property owners. Bunch: Does the natural drain on the west end, does that run all the way across the property? Brackett: Yes, there is a ditch here. Bunch: There is a ditch but it looks like it comes down through here. Brackett: It does, right with the contours. We are not discharging into that ditch. We are going to discharge all the water from this site right before it enters the drainage. Bunch: Brackett: I was concerned about it coming out over here, it might go into that. We'll ensure it doesn't do that. That's the whole idea behind the drainage, to keep it out of that ditch. Subdivision Committee Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 28 Bunch: It's going to be a good trick to get that water to flow all the way down this driveway and make that 90 degree turn and not go out in the street. Brackett: It's a lot of work. Bunch: Good luck to you on that one. Are the grades that are shown on this drawing that we are looking at, these are existing grades on the lot? Brackett: Yes. Bunch: That was one of the things that was confusing me because I couldn't tell. The unbroken ones are the proposed grades? Brackett: No, this isn't the grading plan. We do have a grading plan that shows the finished grading that we submitted to Engineering. This is all existing there are no finished contours on this. Hoover: Is there a dumpster? Brackett: They are currently on carts and plan to stay on carts. Hoover: I'll say we usually do have the elevations for all sides but given the footprint, the way it's drawn it looks like it's a totally symmetrical building. As long as they agree the same materials are going to be used all the way around. Gwen: I should clarify, on the south side does not include the rock. Hoover: Maybe we better clarify exactly what the materials are. Gwen: It's dryvit, all dryvit. Estes: The side that backs up against the Lazenby Apartments is square windows, dryvit, no stone. Bunch: The arch is not there? Gwen: No. Bunch: What about the door? Gwen: There is a door on that side. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 29 Bunch: Brackett: Conklin: Brackett: MOTION: Hoover: Estes: • Bunch: • It's backing up to apartments and there is also a retaining wall. Yes and we are going to have screening from the residential. You would see that if you were behind the building, not because you are driving down the road. Put yourself on Old Missouri or Oakcliff, I don't think you can see the south side of the building. It's not sheet metal. I'll make a motion to approve LSD 01-27.00 subject to our discussion and the agreement that the elevations are what we verbally talked about. I second. I do like to see elevations before I approve Commercial Design Standards, I've never done that before. Based on the representations that the building is symmetrical and the oral representations regarding the materials, I'll second. Before I concur, I want to say good luck. It's been a long time coming, you've had a rough way to go. Good luck to you and I will concur. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 30 • • LSD 01-28.00: Large Scale Development (Marriott Courtyard, pp 212) was submitted by Andy Feinstein of Engineering Design Assoc. on behalf of Marriott Courtyard for property located on lot 17 CMN Business Park Phase I. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.95 acres. The request is to build a 108 room hotel. Bunch: The next item on our agenda is large scale development 01-28.00 submitted by Andy Feinstein of Engineering Design Assoc. on behalf of Marriott Courtyard for property located on lot 17 CMN Business Park Phase I. The property is zoned C- 2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1 95 acres. The request is to build a 108 room hotel. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: As you stated it is 108 room, 5 story building. This property is located south of Proctor & Gamble on Plainview Avenue, across from the Fire Station. It's completely surrounded by C-2 zoning. Plainview is on the Master Street Plan as a collector. The applicant is dedicating the required 10 feet of additional right-of- way for that. Cross access is being provided to the north and there are no rare or landmark trees on this site. Due to some waivers, we are recommending that this is forwarded to the full Planning Commission. The first condition is, they are requesting a waiver of Commercial Design Standards to reduce the required 15 foot landscaped area along the front property line. They are requesting a 10 foot reduction and are proposing to provide only five feet of landscaped area. There is a letter from the applicant. We are in support of this waiver because at the time the subdivision was developed, Plainview was not a collector on the Master Street Plan. Therefore, the adjacent property where Proctor & Gamble is, did not have the 10 foot of right-of-way dedication. In effect, because the street is built, what you are going to see from the street we are lining the sidewalk up to the property to the north. There is going to be 15 feet of greenspace, 10 is going to be dedicated right-of-way but that is a waiver. The second item is large scale development shall be contingent upon approval of the requested vacation of utility easements on this site. This item was heard at the August 13, 2001, Planning Commission and was recommend to City Council for approval. They are also requesting a waiver of parking requirements. The requirement is for one parking space for every room plus one additional space per employee. There are 108 rooms and 6 employees which makes the requirement 114 parking spaces. They are requesting to provide 109, which is 5 fewer than required. Number four is Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. The rest are standard conditions of approval. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 31 • • Keith Shreve - Sidewalk Division Shreve: As Sara said when this street was originally built it was a local street with 6 foot greenspace between the sidewalk and the curb. This is the last lot to be built on in the area. All the other sidewalks have a 6 foot greenspace. Item number seven says 10 foot greenspace, we would recommend 6 foot between the curb and sidewalk, an additional greenspace behind like the proposal. We would be agreement with that. One other small item on the driveway, you are showing curb through the sidewalk, we would like that changed so the sidewalk is continuous through the curb. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: They are proposing a water main extension that is going to service a fire line and domestic service. That line needs to be 10 feet from the easement or provide additional easement. It's drawn probably about five or six feet. Also, you show it 15 foot wide where it comes back to the south, that needs to be 20 feet wide. You show the valve by that fire hydrant, it should be on the south side of that branch to the north. You show a size to be determined, just for the record, the minimum size would be 8 inch. The last comment, if we can get the revised vacation that was requested and approved by the Planning Commission. What's shown on the plan is the old request Feinstein: We'll get that. The valve on the hydrant, you just want to move it to the other side? Petrie: Yes. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: Pull the trees closer to the curb line of the parking lot, further away from the waterline. No additional comments. Feinstein: Andy Feinstein with Engineering Design Associates. I see that I've added an extra tree aisle, I forgot to put a tree in the island, that will appear on the new version. I don't know if it's really an issue but, in this project description on the letter, you say on behalf of Marriott Courtyard, really we are working on behalf of Long and Cox Properties. PUBLIC COMMENT: Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 32 • • Bunch: Is there any public that has any comment on this project? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Bunch: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Feinstein: I think the intent was to have signage on more than just the front facade. On the front elevation it says Courtyard by Marriott, there will be one on Plainview and perhaps on the south elevation. You will be able to see this over Lewis Ford on College. Hoover: That's a monument sign? Feinstein: There will be a monument sign at the entranceway. Hoover: Do you have a drawing of that? Feinstein: No, I will get that to you. If you need revised elevations I will get them to reflect more accurate signage on it. Hoover: Sign elevations and sample board. Feinstein: Okay. I know there was some question on the roof color, where do we stand on that? Conklin: I made a suggestion they would want to look at the other projects out there and the metal type roofing systems they have used. Not that everything has to match North Hills Medical Park but there have been other buildings that have incorporated that theme in CMN Business Park. Bunch: On site coverage, is this a typographical error where it's showing the building covers 82%? Feinstein: I think it's correct. If I understand the ordinance, the issue is really just the building footprint. Edwards. Are you looking for the open space? Bunch: Right. Edwards: Open space is 17%. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 33 Conklin: There is a building area under C-2 that you were giving us that number for. Bunch: What is the open space requirement for C-2? Edwards: 15%. Bunch: We are meeting that. Is there any way on this parking situation have a request for a fewer number, is there any way to have shared parking with people in the close neighborhood? Feinstein: We had a meeting with the Proctor and Gamble on that particular subject, their expansion plans were approved that they don't have any to spare, if they do consummate their expansion. They were willing to grant some of that. They said that there are very few occasions when the lot is full, most of their people are field offices. Conklin: I think the question was shared though Since people are sleeping here at night and people are working here during the day, having some type of agreement where after 5 p.m. the hotel customers can use the parking. Bunch: I was thinking of weekends, now that we have five home football games in Fayetteville and these types of things where we usually have full occupancy in the hotels on certain weekends out of the year, this seems a little inadequate considering that. I understand during a normal business week there will probably not be 100% occupancy. Maybe some arrangements for times that we know are traditionally max occupancy. Feinstein: I will investigate that and pursue that. Conklin: That won't impact their parking calculations for their expansion. You have to sign a form saying you are not sharing this same space at the same time. If you can show that they leave at 5 or 6 o'clock on the weekdays and they are not working on weekends, you can use those spaces. Feinstein: We probably have to create cross connection for pedestrians. We have a retaining wall existing on their side along a lot of that parking area. Have sidewalk up in there. Is that a recommendation or a condition of approval? Conklin: It's a suggestion. • Bunch: It's a suggestion that would help since you are five short and to avoid having to Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 34 • • MOTION: Estes: build. If we have parking lot spaces that are not being utilized, why not share them and that way you can have more greenspace and less asphalt. Also usually with occupancy rates with hotels, the maximum occupancy in this town is traditionally at time when Procter and Gamble may not be fully utilizing their lot. It makes sense. I can't speak for the other Commissioners but in your request to have fewer than normal required parking spaces, that would go a long ways in meeting that request. If there is no further discussion, I move that we forward LSD 01-28.00 to full Planning Commission subject to all staff comments and subject to attempted arrangement of shared parking agreement with Proctor and Gamble. Hoover: I'll second. Bunch: I'll concur. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 35 • • LSD 01-29.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville Public Library, pp 523) was submitted by Garver Engineers on behalf of Fayetteville Public Library for property located at the southwest intersection of Mountain Street and School Avenue. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and contains approximately 2.43 acres with a 88,750 sq. ft. building and parking deck proposed. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is large scale development 01-29.00 submitted by Garver Engineers on behalf of Fayetteville Public Library for property located at the southwest intersection of Mountain Street and School Avenue. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and contains approximately 2 43 acres with a 88,750 sq. ft. building and parking deck proposed. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: This property, 1 think everyone is familiar with. They are meeting their requirements on the Master Street Plan, 219 parking spaces planned for their parking deck, 9 spaces are being built on West Street and 5 spaces on Mountain. They are requesting some waivers so this will need to be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. Number one, Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver from Section 172.01(D)(3) Parking Ratios. The requirement is 1 parking space per 1,000 square feet of floor area, for a total of 89 required. The proposal is 219 spaces. There is a letter documenting other facilities somewhere that have more than 219. Conklin: Since they have hired professionals to design this, to look at what really is needed for libraries since we don't have too many built often in Fayetteville. We thought it would be better for the architect to go ahead and give us numbers. That's what they have done and that's attached for you to read. Edwards: Number two, they are requesting a waiver from Section 169.06(C)(4)(e). The requirement is that "cuts adjacent to public right-of-way shall be setback a minimum of 25 feet, excluding driveways and access roads." Engineering is in support of this waiver Number three, Planning Commission determination of required off-site improvements. On the first sheet of the large scale development, they have outlined their proposed improvements. Rather than outlining it in my report, refer to this. Mountain Street, they are moving the centerline 1.5 feet south, they are reconstructing the street to a 26 foot from back of curb to back of curb. They are providing one 11 foot travel lane each way with additional width for several trailer parking spaces along both sides, 5 on Mountain. School Avenue, there are no changes proposed, they are dedicating additional right-of- way. Rock Street, they are moving the centerline 2 feet to make additional right- Subdivision Committee Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 36 of -way, reconstruct street to 26 foot back to back. West, they are retaining the existing 12 foot travel lanes and adding parallel parking along the east side of the street and dedicating additional right-of-way. Conklin: On School Street they are making a book drop-off and that's shown on your site plan. Edwards: We need to determine compliance with Commercial Design Standards. Conklin: As probably everyone is aware, we went through a very involved public participation process, the architect meeting with many individuals to discuss the design and they had their final design presentation Monday night at Town Center. We do have a very nice building designed by a very well known architect and I it will be a tremendous asset for downtown Fayetteville. Keith Shreve - Sidewalk Division Shreve: On School by the book drop-off, is the sidewalk continuous on the west side? Norman: Yes sir. Shreve: What they've done here meets our requirements. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: Let me comment on the waiver request in the grading requirements about the setback, one problem in this area at these intersections it's straight up. There is a sight distance from almost every one of these intersections along this. The one thing that's being proposed will eliminate that problem, cutting back, put the building in will eliminate the sight distance problems due to the topography. It certainly is one big reason we support that waiver request. Other than that, I have no other comments. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: My memo states my recommendation to approve. The biggest issue of the number of trees, the percentage is dust the number of large trees. The first sheet on your drawing shows the tree preservation plan and a lot of those trees are in poor health. I inventoried them as well as an Arkansas Forestry Commission representative and she recommended removal of several of those trees because of the hazard. Not all of them are healthy. Of the trees that would have been a • • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 37 problem to preserve, we are having to remove because of this retaining wall. They sit on top of this retaining but the only way to make this a safe ingress and egress is to take that retaining wall and grade that down. Norman: That's one of those sight distance issues. Bunch: What was the original canopy on the site? Edwards: They stated 49%, preserved was 10%, 41% replacement. Bunch: On the 41% replacement canopy, how does that calculate? It looks like it includes every tree, all the parking islands, everything in the right-of-way, rather than just the site the way we figure for other locations. Conklin: The 49% was existing canopy. 10% is going to be preserved. The number you are looking at is percent of total site area preserved plus replacement of 51%. Hesse: We figured per tree, calculations on current ordinance it gives you a square footage number per tree. When they are grouped trees you get a full canopy. Bunch: 41% seemed rather an exaggeration in that it looked like it included trees that were in easements that normally are not considered in this calculation. I wanted to try to get a feel for it. Norman: Probably but I think that goes both ways, trees that were hanging over into easements before were counted. Bunch: Not so much hanging in the easements, actually in the easements. What I'm trying to do is get a feel for how this compares to the way we look at other sites and use a consistent methodology. When we start talking percentages some places we say they only have 10% but they might have a considerable percentage in a deed restricted area. On this one we are calling out a tremendous percentage but in looking at it, it doesn't appear that it meets that percentage. Conklin: I agree with you, I think we need to have a percentage that shows. Clearly I don't think 50% of the site is going to be covered with canopy. Canopy is calculated based on square footage of the site. If we can calculate it the way we calculate the developments we looked at earlier today, so the public knows the true number. I think that's important. Hesse: We can refigure. We will figure the total site minus what's in rights-of-way and • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 38 easements. Norman: Does that go both ways? There are trees in the right-of-way that we counted as removal. Hesse: That does go both ways. Conklin: As a City project we need to be consistent the way we calculate it and I think it would be beneficial. Bunch: One real dumb question, on the southeast corner where you have the curb portion of the building sticking out. I'm assuming that's for some sort of passive solar benefit as well as for looks, some sort of solar heating benefits? Norman: It's more for looks. We are minimizing the solar gain through there. We are doing what we can to minimize the loss of energy. Bunch: That's on the southeast corner, primarily on the south side. My question is why do you have pine trees so you would not get a solar gain in the winter to get the net affect of solar heat. If we are looking at energy consciousness and I think that's one of the things that was tallied for this project, usually evergreens are not placed on the south side of buildings so you can take advantage of solar in the winter time. If they were hardwoods, you would definitely save air conditioning in the summertime by having the foliage but in the wintertime. Norman: That's a place for deciduous trees as opposed to evergreens? Foster: The curve shape, the dramatic view we have toward the mountains but the amount of exposed window is carefully adjusted as you go from west toward south and back to the east to limit the amount of sun that comes into the building. Of course the main concern, as far as the issue of conservation is the sun would come in from the west exposure. It's more of a concern of maintaining as much view as we can but keeping the direct sun out of the library plus counting on the sun for winter warming the space. Norman. What are the heights going to be of those trees? Travis: They are pretty tall. They are not a real dense canopy. Bunch: It looks like they are densely grouped. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 39 • • Norman: If they are tall then there won't be much view. Bunch: There is a combination of blocking the view and also blocking the benefit of the structure on the south side. Hoover: Does this have anything to do with Commercial Design guidelines? Bunch: No, we were in the tree section is why I was asking. Since we still have our Tree Administrator here, I was wondering why we had pines. We can move on. Norman: David Norman, Garver Engineers. I'm here to answer questions you may have. This is Jim Foster. Louise with the library and Travis with landscaping. We will answer any questions you have. Foster: We would like to know what you wish to have at the Planning Commission as far as the project, it's been a widely presented project and is a very detailed presentation. Our full presentation is very detailed. We've certainly been through the public. PUBLIC COMMENT: Bunch: We'll take public comment and bring it back to the Committee and if we see anything that's not included that Commissioners feel that we need. Conklin: Maybe you would like the architect to go over the elevations and materials or do you want to do that after public comment? It's important for you to understand the four sides of the building and what materials they are using. The architect can do much better than 1 can. Bunch: At what time would you like to address the Commercial Design Standards? Hoover: I think since this is going to go to the full Planning Commission, maybe a short overview today but they probably do need to have samples at full Planning Commission and some type of presentation and the model. Jansmen: Harriet Jansmen. I sit on what they call the Exterior Spaces Committee for library planning. In response to your comment about the percentages of tree canopy, although you may not want to count the trees in the easement they are very important to the total impact of the building on the site. The height of the building on the west and north side is going to be felt by residents across the street. The heat coming in from the western sun is really going to be mitigated by those trees Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 40 and I think they are very important and even though you may not want to count them in the percentage of tree canopy, I think that design should be credited for the plan. Bunch: We are definitely going to recognize the trees are there, we just want to be consistent in the calculation that we applied to other, so we know we are a level playing field. Jansmen: I think the team has worked very hard. Bunch: In order to hold the City to the same standards as other commercial developers and such, we need to speak the same language and have the facts presented in the same manner so we can make an accurate comparison. Any other public comment at this time? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Bunch: Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. • MOTION: • Estes: I move that we forward LSD 01-29.00 to the full Planning Commission and request at that time, the presentation include a material board, model and a brief 5 or 10 minute presentation for the benefit of those who have been living in a cave Hoover: I'll second. Bunch: I'll concur. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 41 • • ADM 01-35.00: Administrative Item (Mcllroy Bank, pp 401) was submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton, Tull, & Associates on behalf of Mcllroy Bank for property located on the northwest corner of Wedington and Salem. The request is to revise the building materials of large scale development. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is an administrative item submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton, Tull, & Associates on behalf of Mcllroy Bank for property located on the northwest corner of Wedington and Salem. The request is to revise the building materials of large scale development. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: Chris called me and they are proposing to take out most of these bricks and replace it with EFIS or dryvit. Here's how it was originally approved and you have elevations of what they are proposing now. You are not changing the sign? Parton: No. Edwards: The request is to change the brick to dryvit. We felt this was not something we wanted to do administratively with Commercial Design Standard, we wanted to see how you felt about that. I did bring some elevations of different projects around there including Arkansas National Bank. Bunch: Wasn't this one that there was a common theme? Edwards: It's not in Wedington Place. Estes: We are in the Overlay District? Edwards: No. It's on the corner of Salem and Wedington. It's going to be directly across Salem from Arkansas National Bank, the new bank out there on Highway 16 west. Parton: It's on the northeast corner of Salem and Wedington, on the east side of Salem. Hoover: The view looking toward Highway 16, which is that? Parton: In your packet it will be the bottom one that says Arvest. Conklin: Are these areas for signs to go in? Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 42 • Parton: Yes. Once these are finished out, individual tenant signs. They don't know how much of the business is going to occupy. This is obviously the south end of the building with Arvest entrance on either side. Bunch: What are these marketing banners? Parton: It's a scheme that has been taken out. They presented two schemes. Bunch: These are the alternatives? Parton: Yes. These are both the south elevations facing Highway 16. This is now the preferred option which is the strict Arvest signage facing Wedington. Estes: So remove the marketing banner elevation? Parton: Yes. Conklin: I'll give you my opinion, I like this one better than that one but I think they both meet Commercial Design Standards. Hoover: I think the end elevation are improved. From that elevation to these, are much more articulated. Conklin: I like brick better. Bunch: Is this the proper shade of red on the roof Tim? Conklin: Yes. Estes: Our function is not to impose our personal taste but to apply the Commercial Design Standards and I won't tell you which I prefer. I think either one of them meets the Commercial Design Standards I am not so sure these marketing banners would comply with sign requirements but they are history anyway. Bunch: When this was approved previously was it approved at this level? Parton: Full Planning Commission. Bunch: Does it need to go back to full Planning Commission for approval? • Conklin: We have been doing a lot of this at this level. I will do whatever the Commission Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 43 • Bunch: Conklin: MOTION: Estes: Hoover: Estes: Hoover: Conklin: wants. Since it was a decision by the full Commission, should that not be the proper place? The ordinance on large scale development talks about minor modifications. When that ordinance was drafted and adopted, that was way before Commercial Design Standards but it talks about those revisions going to Subdivision Committee and being approved. Using that theory and that ordinance, I think you have the ability to approve these changes. I think that it's substantial design changes. I don't know that I would recognize the previously approved Mcllroy Center if I was asked if it was the same Arvest Court again, it's not our position to impose our personal taste but to apply the Commercial Design Standards. What I would like to do is make a motion to forward administrative item 01-35.00 to the full Commission and the reason is, I think it's substantial design changes. I think that they both meet Commercial Design Standards but because it is such a substantial change I make the motion to forward it to the full Commission. If we are not having to approve any waivers and all we are looking at is Commercial Design Standards In the past, Tim's correct, I've been here when we have approved changes. Yes, they are significant changes but I don't see any problem with the changes that they have made. Do you feel really strongly about that? I don't see any problem with the changes they have made, the reason I made the motion is it was the full Commission that approved the Commercial Design Standards for this. I just don't feel good about serving as the full Commission at the Subcommittee level, when it was the full Commission that approved it. Unfortunately, I believe we have done that in the past. If you think we shouldn't be doing that? Give us direction. If it's been approved at Planning Commission level and it has to go back to Planning Commission, we'll start doing that. • Estes: I think the salient issue is whether or not it's substant to design changes. I think it is. I think they both comply with Commercial Design Standards, I just don't feel Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 16, 2001 Page 44 • • good about serving as full Commission. Hoover: I'll second. Edwards: Do you want to have it presented at this meeting first or take it to Planning Commission? Estes: I think it's appropriate to bring it here first. My comments would have been entirely different except that if you laid these two sets of elevations out in front of me, I would think they were two different projects. That's how substantial the changes are to me. Bunch: Chris, is this setting the theme for other portions of the development or is this a stand alone deal9 Parton: This is stand alone deal on one lot but it is very similar to what Arvest is doing in Northwest Arkansas. Bunch: What I was concerned with is, as this body is opposed to the full Commission, sometimes one of the considerations is the surrounding area If this was part of a development that had common themes and that sort of thing. It's not part of a greater group of a commercial development? Parton: It is a stand alone development on it's own lot, however, in the elevation in front of you it is directly across the street from Arkansas National Bank. Bunch: This is not setting the standards for adjoining developments? Edwards: There is at least one other lot will be between this and what we set for Wedington Place. Bunch: I will concur with your second and motion. Is there any other business? Hoover: On the signage, is it going to stay the same material? Parton: Yes. Bunch: Is there any other business? We are adjourned.