HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-08-30 - Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, August 30, 2001 at 9:00 a.m.
in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN
FPL 01.700: Final Plat (WHM Investments, pp 439) Forwarded
Page 2
LSD 01-30.00: Large Scale Development (Commerce Park II, pp 175) Forwarded
Page 24
LSD 01-31.00: Large Scale Development (On Deck, pp 138) Forwarded
Page 33
ADM 01-33.00: Administrative Item (Lindsey Sign, pp 174) Approved
Page 39
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Don Bunch
Lorel Hoffman
Lee Ward
STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT
Tim Conklin
Sara Edwards
Ron Petrie
Keith Shreve
Kim Hesse
Eric Schuldt
Hugh Earnest
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 2
•
•
FPL 01-7.00: Final Plat (WHM Investments, pp 439) was submitted by Mike Anderson of Engineering
Design Associates on behalfof Hayden Mcllroy for property located on Rupple Road south of Wedington
Drive. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, R-1, Low Density Residential, R-2, Medium Density
Residential, C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 90 acres with 7 Iots proposed
Ward:
Conklin:
Ward:
Conklin:
Good morning. Welcome to the Subdivision Committee meeting on Thursday, August 30,
2001. It looks like we have four items on our agenda this morning and we will get started
right away we're running a little bit late. The first one will be the final plat for WHM
Investments submitted by Mike Anderson of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of
Hayden Mcllroy for property located on Rupple Road south of Wedington Drive. The
property is zoned A-1 Agriculture, R-1 Low Density Residential, R-1.5 Moderate Density
Residential and R-2 Medium Density Residential, C-1 Neighborhood Commercial and
contains approximately 90 acres with 7 lots proposed. Tim, are you going to handle this
one?
Yes, I'll handle this one.
I'II let you do the findings. It looks like there are several pages of findings here.
Sure, you may recall back in March we had a preliminary plat that was brought to the
commission and that preliminary plat was a requirement from the Planning Division. We
wanted to make sure that this subdivision of land went through the proper planning
process. Sara Edwards and I did check on lot splits and did make the finding or
determination that we did need to do the preliminary plat, final plat process. The reason
we brought a preliminary plat to you and now we have a final plat at this time is that the
Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club in working with the City of Fayetteville in our park plan
which as part of this subdivision plat are locating their new facility on this piece ofproperty.
In order to create the lots and approve the lots that have already been created, once again,
we are doing a preliminary plat and a final plat so that is a two step process that we are
looking at Tract four if you look at your preliminary plat or your final plat that we have,
tract 4 is currently owned by the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club, tract 6 is owned by the
City of Fayetteville and tracts 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 are owned by WHM Land Investments.
Tracts 4, 5 and 6 will be the future site of the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club which kind
of initiated this entire process ofpreliminary and final plat. Tract 5 will be given to the city
to meet the future park land dedication needs for development within this parks quadrant
that has already been approved by the Planning Commission and that was approved last
year Tract 6 was already deeded to the Boys and Girls Club or I mean, excuse me, tract
6 was deeded to the city as a park land dedication requirement for Meadowlands
Development. Our master street plan is requiring right-of-way dedications for future street
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 3
•
•
expansions on Wedington Drive, it is classified as a principal arterial which requires 110
feet of right-of-way 55 feet from centerline. Rupple road is classified as a minor arterial,
90 feet ofright-of-way is required and Persimmon Street, classified as a collector street
requiring a total width of 70 feet or 35 feet from the center line. Back in March the
Planning Commission approved the preliminary plat without requiring any improvements
to be installed for this subdivision. The City of Fayetteville has agreed to build Rupple
Road and that agreement has been made, the Street Committee has looked at actually the
design of Rupple Road and so the City of Fayetteville Planning Staff is not asking you to
make any of those commitments for the city for Rupple Road That decision has been
made. In order to honor the past discussions and agreements at the time of preliminary
plat approval, the Planning Commission did make a variance and did make a finding to
allow this plat to come forward without street, construction, water, sewer typical type of
public improvements that you would see as a preliminary plat. So that is where we're at
today. Since March staff has been working with the applicant's representatives and
looking at bringing forward a final plat with the following conditions and I'll go over those
this moming and that starts on page two. Condition one is a minimum ofa 25 foot wide
utility easement will be provided for Meadowlands Drive located in Meadowlands phase
I and II to the Rupple Road right-of-way that's coming off of Meadowlands Drive here,
that will allow for water, sewer and other utilities like electric to come from Meadowlands
phase I and II over to the Boys and Girls Club. Number 2 is at the time of development
of tract 7 the developer will be required to improve, build or be assessed for the
construction ofhalfof Persimmon Street along the southem boundary line of tract 7 based
on current ordinances. Tract 7 is this tract just south of Meadowlands 1 and 2 and they
will be required to improve halfthat street based on our current ordinances. Number 3 is
that the final plat shall show the right-of-way dedication for Rupple Road, Wedington
Drive, Persimmon Street as required by the Master Street Plan. They are showing that on
their final plat, they will be dedicating to us the right-of-way for a principal arterial on
Wedington, a minor arterial for Rupple and the right-of-way for the collector street for
Persimmon Street, the dedication up on Wedington, we'll need to receive a Warranty
Deed, State Highway Department requires Warranty Deeds in order to dedicate right-of-
way to them to give to them in the future. Condition 4 is a note will be placed on the plat
indicating that lots 1, 2, 3 and 7 may not use Rupple Road right-of-way for access until the
street is completed, fines may be assessed to property owners by the city if damage to
road work occurs prior to completion. Once again, this is a city project to build the road,
and when we're building the road there may be situations where people that own these
tracts of land may want to use that for access and we're putting them on notice that it will
not be allowed for them to damage our road work as we're building it. Number 5 is a
note that we're making and that is water will not be available to tracts 3, 4, 5 and 6 and
sewer will not be available to tracts 3 and 4. Water and sewer shall be extended to these
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 4
•
•
Ward:
tracts at the time of development for each tract. So as each tract comes in through large
scale development or preliminary final plat, ifthey don't have water or sewer or both, they
will be required to extend those facilities at their cost to those tracts ofland. Number 6 is
that all utilities shall be placed underground. There may be a timing issue with regard to
providing electrical service in order to start construction of boys and girls club. That
condition is stating that we will allow them a 24 month period for overhead electric to
come from somewhere in order to get to the site. Number 7 the condition is the city has
agreed to build Rupple Road classified as a minor arterial in order to provide access to the
proposed Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club, staff is recommending the developer pay based
on the rational nexus formula impact fee for proportionate of the cost of Rupple Road as
a minor arterial based on the formula, the applicant will be assessed $176,724.25 fora
road impact fee. This impact fee was based on projected future residential developments
of tract 3 and 7 that will be used in Rupple Road. What we have done is look at tract 3
and 7 and estimated working with the applicant how much development is likely t occur
on these tracts. That's what we're looking at, these two tracts. We do not consider tracts
1 and 2 since they have direct access on Wedington Drive.
Let's go back to day one, you know I wasn't involved in this way back there again, but
was this something that was going to be done, everybody knew about it from the very
start?
Conklin: With regard to?
Ward: Well, the city was going to put in Rupple Road was all of my understanding right?
Conklin: Yes. Well, there has been a lot of discussion about that, yes, the city is building Rupple
Road, that agreement has been made.
Ward: Ok. So if I'm the developer, I'm thinking in my mind that the city is going to sale the Boys
Club the land or whatnot they're giving to them, and the city is going to build a road down
there, then how come all the sudden we're coming asking for money or impact fees?
Conklin: Ok, I will get to that. Let me go through this and I will explain how we arrived at this.
Because it is a change from what you saw at preliminary plat, and we're trying to base it
on capacity for Rupple Road. As I go through here I'll get back to it, let me go through
the money and then I'll explain how we calculated that and why its staffis recommending
that fee for this developer to pay. At the time the Boys and Girls Club meet all
requirements to obtain the Reynolds Grant, WHM Investments shall pay that entire
$176,724.25 if the city council approves construction of Rupple Road as a four lane street
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 5
•
•
with curbs, gutters and storm sewer. If the City Council approves construction of a two
lane street with plans for future widening and at the time the Boys and Girls Club meet all
the requirements to obtain the rentals grant, the developers shall pay to the city $100,000,
this will be non refundable and not dependent on any development of any of these tracts
within the subdivision. B. Provide the city a letter of credit in the amount of$76,724.25
with additional principal to be added each year based on the increase in the Consumer
Price Index during the previous calendar year so the letter of credit will be increased for
the additional, the 76,000 that is not going to be paid up front. Such letter of credit will run
for a term of 6 years from the date when all conditions are met for the Fayetteville Boys
and Girls Club to obtain the Reynolds Grant and will be due upon the city completing the
widening of Rupple Road to 4 lanes with curbs, gutters and storm sewer. In the event
Rupple Road is not improved to such standards within 6 years the letter of credit shall be
allowed to expire. What we're saying here is that if we do not build a 4 lane road after 6
years, this guarantee is not going to be in perpetuity, it's not forever that the formula was
based on a 4 lane road and we're collecting money based on a 4 lane road, and if we're
not going to build a 4 lane road at some point in time, we're going to give some of this
money back, now the $100,000 isn't returned but the guarantee for the $76,000 is
retumed. I am going to go through condition 8, I would like to go through the rest of the
conditions and then I' II go back to the rational nexus formula.
Ward: Let me go back in my mind. We're not going to go ahead and build 4 lanes immediately?
Conklin: Well, right now the discussion has been for 2 lanes, but that is still open.
Petrie: The street committee prefers to offer a 2 lane street open shoulder on both sides
Conklin: That's right.
Petrie: Now the street committee has not presented this additional money at this time, that was
never on the table for them to discuss. So my guess is we'll bring this back to them and
let them make another decision on exactly what they're doing.
Conklin: Because now we're collecting additional money from this developer based on a 4 lane
street and if there is opportunity to collect money from other areas, I'm not sure where
those areas may be, but, I mean if we can do the 4 lane street, that's what we're going to
try to achieve. This is a city policy, adopted by the City Council on December 18, 2000
when we adopted our master street plan, that this is a minor arterial street, a 4 lane street,
it carries 14,800 vehicle a day. It serves more than just this development and goes all the
way from Highway 62, Sixth Street, all the way up to Howard Nickel Road. So, the
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 6
•
•
design of the street is a road that allows someone in Fayetteville to go from one side of
town to the other side of town. So that's kind of why the difference that we're looking at
with regard to the fee is that the city has agreed to build a two lane street which provides
roadway and passage.
Ward: And was that from the very beginning right?
Conklin: That's from the beginning. Yeah, that's what we have always talked about.
Hoffman: Can I just ask a question? I'm confused. I want you to finish with the rest of the
conditions. I thought I remembered on the preliminary plat that there had been a sum of
money to I guess Mcllroy for the construction of the road. Is that not the case on the
preliminary plat?
Conklin: No that wasn't the case, we looked at requiring him to build an additional lane along each
tract. However, when you look at how the road is going to function, and this is just a
different way of looking at it, since March we have been meeting a lot on this issue and
trying to determine how to come up with the best way to deal with this issue. The city is
building two lanes, the additional two lanes provide additional capacity for a minor arterial
street. And so, the city is building two lanes now, the additional capacity for the minor
arterial for 14,800 vehicles, we thought that would be a better way to look at it and base
it on a formula. So, that's how we're looking at it.
Hoffman: So, I guess back to the preliminary plat, usually, i f I remember right during subdivision,
either a developer will pave the half ofthe street or the all of the street that his land touches
and to city standards or can put up some money for half ofthe street if it is not needed to
be constructed at that time which was the case on the preliminary plat.
Conklin: On the preliminary plat was to require half street improvement at the time of development.
Hoffman: Of a two lane?
Conklin: Of a lane, a one lane.
Hoffman: I mean yeah, but of a two lane street, half of a two lane street.
Conklin: Yeah, yeah.
Hoffman: On Rupple and Persimmon both.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 7
•
•
Conklin: But going back to the idea, and this is unusual and that's why we made the finding at
preliminary plat that we have a subdivision final plat where no improvements have been
installed. The city is not typically building streets. But in this case, the city planning division
required WHM Investments to file a final plat in order to approve these lot splits and
create these pieces of property for the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club and there are no
plans at this time in our office to develop any of these other lots. So they had a selection
committee and they selected the site, the site was located here and in order to get down
here, the city said we'll build a street and I required WHM Investments and this 90 acres
to come through this process.
Ward: Ok.
Conklin: Let's see, where was I now?
Ward: Getting ready to get to 8.
Conklin: Ok, the project future developments, tracts 3 and 7 are 81 single family units, 28 duplex
units and 260 apartment units. Tracts 3 and 7, tract 3 is zoned R-2, 260 apartment units
is the number that we worked out with the applicant, tract 7 is 28 duplex units, 81 single
family homes. If during the six year period indicated above in condition number 7, ifa
development is approved by the Planning Commission in excess of any of the above
indicated units, the developer will pay an additional impact fee for each unit in excess of
he above as follows: 1,1! go through these and explain why there are two parts to each of
these.
A. For each excess single family unit $231.30 in cash and a letter of credit for $154.20,
the total being $385 after the payment that will be. The total amount shall be paid if the
road is 4 lanes
B. For each excess duplex unit $141.64 in cash and letter of credit of$94.43, the total
being $236.07. Once again, the total will be paid if it is 4 lanes and,
C. For each excess apartment unit, $320.51 in cash and a letter of credit for $213 67 for
a total being $534.18, if it is 4 lane, the total on that will be paid. This ratio of impact fee
cash that will be paid and letter of credit is based on what the applicant has stated he
would give towards this road at this time which is $100,000 cash and $76,000 in letters
of credit, that is approximately 60% of the total cost once again, to be honest with
everybody and there is no secrets here, the issue is we want to make sure it is a 4 lane
street if we're collecting money and so the agreement was $100,000 no strings attached
but we want to make sure it is a 4 lane if it is not a 4 lane in six years then those letters of
•
•
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
August 30, 2001
Page 8
credit expire. So that's why a, b, and c are drafted with that language.
Ward: Ok, but that is only if when they get ready to lets say build tract 3 they decide to put in 320
apartment complex units instead of 260 then that would kick in.
Conklin: That is correct. So number 8 is in the event it is above the densities that we talked about
earlier then additional money will be given. A cash impact fee and letter of credit will be
delivered upon the Planning Commission approving the final plat or large scale
development. Any letters of credit received during the six year period from the date Boys
and Girls Club meet all requirements shall be returned back to the developer if the road is
not widened to 4 lanes with curbs, gutters, storm sewers during the six year period. We'll
be getting the cash and keeping the cash during that six year period for any excess units but
the letter of credits will expire. If after the six year period the developer presents a
preliminary plat to the Planning Commission in excess ofthe projected units, the developer
will pay an additional impact fee for each unit in excess of the projections based on
whether or not Rupple Road is completed at the time and the 4 lane road curbs, gutters
and storm sewers, what we're saying there is after six years and the units are above what
we agreed to they will still be paying a fee. It will either be the reduced fee or it will be the
full fee if it's 4 lane with curbs, gutters and storm drainage. So that doesn't expire, that is
for a long time. If completed, the total amount will be paid for each excess unit, if not
complete, the cash amount indicated above will be paid for each excess unit. Ifduring the
six year period indicated above, the developer has a final plat approved for less than the
projected units indicated above, the $76,724.25 letter of credit will be reduced for each
unit less than the projected units indicated above. A developer will receive a reduction for
each unit less as follows:
A. For each less unit of single family in tract 7 a reduction letter of credit of $154.20.
B. For each less unit of duplex in tract 7 a reduction letter of credit of $94.43, and for
each less unit of apartments in tract 3, a reduction letter of credit of $213.67.
What we're saying there is we have agreed on amounts of units for each tract if it goes
below that and we approve that, they should get a credit, they shouldn't have to pay more
than what's agreed to. Number 9, on the Boys and Girls Club meeting, all requirements
to obtain a rentals grant all onsite and offsite improvements for any development within the
subdivision shall be based upon the above provisions and terms, the above provisions and
terms will apply to WHM Investments and any subsequent assignees. Basically, we're
trying to tie down what the requirements are on Rupple Road at this time for future
developments. Number 10, in the event the Boys and Girls Club fails to meet all
requirements to obtain the rentals grant and is not constructed within this subdivision, all
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 9
•
•
Ward:
onsite and offsite improvements for any development on tracts within the subdivision shall
be based on current ordinance requirements at the time of development approval If they
fail to get the rentals grant and it doesn't go there, all bets are off, we're not building the
street when WHM investments or future owners bring plats in, I think you understand.
What's the chance of the um...has the City Council made the final commitment on,
somehow I had in my mind the City Council had made a final commitment on building a 4
lane road, I don't know why I thought that, they were even talking about one time building
a boulevard down through there.
Conklin: The City Council, Hugh, why don't you go over what they approved a couple of weeks
ago? I mean they approved an agreement to build a road for the Fayetteville Boys and
Girls Club.
Earnest. That's correct, sometime, I guess two weeks ago there is a contractual agreement now
between the City of Fayetteville and the Boys and Girls Club and one of the conditions is
to provide and or pay for access road and hall road to the site. Your point is valid and we
first got started in this and I want to interject after Tim gets through a few remarks
explaining why we're where we are, but there was conversation dealing with a boulevard,
dealing with 4 lanes, but the only formal action as Mr. Petrie said is a 2 lane road that was
approved conceptually I should imagine sometime in April?
Conklin: Yeah, since April.
Ward: But this was before all of this occurred, so, we're hopeful that we can have some positive
discussion.
Petrie. All those options that you just mentioned were presented.
Ward: Right.
Conklin: The condition 11 is standard condition of approval. Now going back to the formula so I
can go through this so everybody has a clear understanding of what staff is doing, I don't
have these numbers, but if you go to the spreadsheet, if you're looking where it says single
family 81 total dwelling units, the number ofunits we're charging to pay for Rupple Road
is actually 40 and a half and the reason for that is if you look at this plat and you look at
tract number 7, there are opportunities for future connections within the subdivision, this
is a minor arterial, most likely we would not allow direct access for homes fronting the
street. Therefore, we have assigned half the traffic to use this existing road. So that is the
•
•
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
August 30, 2001
Page 10
assumption that we made. It seems valid to me in my opinion that when you tie in with this
subdivision in multiple points that you're going to have the opportunity for traffic to go
north on this road Tract 3 was 100% used in Rupple Road. That's the difference there.
Bunch: Is there a traffic signal at Rupple and Wedington?
Conklin: No.
Bunch: There surely will be.
Ward: We suspect.
Conklin: So your trips, ok, so we have 40 and a half units for their duplex, 28 was proposed, we
assigned 14. Apartments, 260, we based it on 260. The trips, if you'll look at the next
3 pages, these are directly out ofthe institute of transportation engineers, trip generation
software, that's not something that we made up with regard to how many trips are
generated per single family duplex townhouse and apartments. This is scientific information
of how many trips are generated. The next page after the trip generation is our master
street plan cross section stating vehicles per day. The vehicles per day, once again, the
minimum is about 12,000 to 12,200 vehicles per day we assigned the assumption we used
was the higher number, 14,800, so that's where that number comes from, once again, it
is not just pulled out of the air from staff, I mean this is adopted city policy. Ok, getting
back to the spread sheet, ifyou plug those numbers in and we have for single family homes
9.57 trips, for each unit 5.86, for each duplex townhouse 6.63 trips for each apartment
unit, total trips has been calculated based on the number of units once again and in order
to get the dollar costs per trip, we took the estimated costs of this facility, the estimated
cost ofwhen 1 say facility, Rupple Road, that's about 1.2 million dollars, 1 million 192
thousand 500 dollars. We divided that by 14,800 trips per day. This is a capacity
approach formula that we're looking at. This development generates trips, the road is
designed a certain number of people through town, how many trips is generated from this
development is about $80.57 per trip, you times that by total trips and that generates the
fee and so you can see for single family a total fee of $31,227, for the duplex town house
a total fee of $6,609, apartments a total fee of $138,886.57 for a total of $167,724.25.
So that kind ofexplains how the fees were calculated. It is a different approach from what
we originally proposed but once again, the city is building the street, they have agreed to
build the street and the street is being built to provide access to the Boys and Girls Club
which provides that capacity and so the additional lanes of capacity that we have should
be based on the minor arterial which is the adopted city policy. I kind of went through why
the fees are different for the excess units basically again we took the $100,000 that has
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page I 1
•
•
been offered and divided that by the 176 and it is about 60%. So that is where you get
the 60% within, so the 40% will be paid within 6 years ifwe do a 4 lane road. That is the
cost of the trips. I know that is a lot of information this morning.
Hoffman: Well presented, it was very well put together.
Conklin: Thank you, we worked pretty hard to come up with a fair approach to deal with this
development since the city is involved in building infrastructure.
McCord: Mr. Ward, I would like to interject just a little bit. It is apparent obviously that there is
considerable change from what this commission approved in March of this year and I want
to commend Mr. Conklin for the excellent work that went into the preliminary plat
discussion in March 26th. Despite that, after that point, there was some confusion and
misunderstanding between representatives of Mr. Mcllroy and the city, and the reason I'm
here at the table is that Mr. Conklin and I were tasked with the obligation if you will to sit
down and discuss, and I want to commend Mrs. Sexton and Mr. McCord for what is the
end ofa long and at time difficult conversation and we have come up with what we think
is something that is fraticated on a fair assessment of costs for this road. Now there can
still be some points of disagreement and discussion about this but we think and it is the end
of as recently as 5:30 last night we were still working on some of he verbiage and so what
you're seeing is our numbers provided frankly for the cost of the road by the city and
agreements in principal from representatives of Mr. Mcllroy as to how this can work
because the objective that we've all worked towards is to achieve the construction ofa
Boys and Girls Club at this location and to that end I think we have been successful. I
want to say one more thing, it is very important to me at least that we honor the master
street plan and the master street plan requires a minor arterial and any developer and any
engineer that we've talked to believes that the constructing this road at 4 lane standard is
going to be appropriate for the long range future of the city so, and we're hopeful that
between now and September the 10's that we continue to address positively how we can
get this road constructed because quite frankly Mr. Conklin is very concemed, I am
concemed and everybody's concerned that we're setting up a process of letters of credit
that we would prefer to deal with as directly at a one time payment, that's the objective
that we still maintain on our side of the table. We don't know ifwe can work that out.
Ward: At this time I'll go ahead and turn it over to the applicant Deb or Jim, either of you all want
to say anything? Make sure you get in your name if you do.
McCord: They have us pegged as a lead counsel, I'm just a consultant's officer.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 12
•
Ward:
Sexton:
Ok Debbie, what's your take on all of this?
It's true, we've worked long and hard to reach this agreement and believe this would be
beneficial for everybody.
Ward: Ok, and this is something that will be acceptable to the applicant as far as you know?
Sexton: I certainly believe it will be.
Bunch: I have one question for Tim, on condition number 4, which says that tracts or lots 1, 2, 3
and 7 may not use Rupple Road right-of-way for access until the street is completed.
What is the time line for completion at the city's best estimate?
Conklin: I'll have Ron Petrie answer that question, he's designing the road.
Petrie: It is my understanding that the facility has to be opened August of 2003. I would say
August of 2003 is the time line to have the street completed.
McCord: Let's just make sure that 1 understand. Let's assume that some developer whether it's
WI -IM or a buyer wanted to develop tract 3 and put x number of apartments on tract 3,
does that mean Rupple Road can not be used as access for that development?
Conklin: This doesn't exist right now, that's difficult to track down.
McCord: Could I use a dirt road? Is that what you're saying? That's the way I read it, I just didn't
want to misread it.
Petrie: The idea is that we're gonna be in there working.
McCord: Yeah, I understand, thank you very much.
Ward: Is there any other things we need to consider on this particular final plat?
Petrie: I think what's been said is this gives us another option. This gives us the option of putting
in 4 lanes by doing it this way.
Ward:
Ok, Eric, you have no comment? Ok. I would like to tum it over to public comment, is
there anyone here from the public that would like to speak on this issue? I see, and now
I will close it to the public.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 13
•
•
Feinstein: One other little item, Ron, we had a little difference on item 5 as it appears, the agenda is
correct that we don't, we do have sewer service on tracts 5 and 6, my note reads that we
do not and that must have got past me as well. It should be a nonissue since the entity
involved in these lots is aware of that whole situation.
Petrie: Since this report is filed, you may want to change that to make it correct that it does have
water and sewer so available, it won't have both, it might have one but not the other.
Feinstein: Alright, I think that is taken care of. That was all that I had.
Ward: Ok, is there any other discussion, any comments questions9 Ok Don.
Bunch: On item 6 refresh my mind what you said about the overhead utilities. Was that the
temporary overhead and then permanent would all be underground?
Conklin: Temporary, yeah, the Boys and Girls Club is going to take 3 phase power. In order to get
3 phase power underground, you have to have something to drive on and there may not
be anything to drive on immediately so they're going to look at it, maybe they can get it in,
maybe not.
Feinstein: The impression I got yesterday was that he would like to bring it in underground from the
get go.
Conklin: Yeah, get go, and there may be an issue there with our road construction and what it takes
to get that type of facility in and that condition is there just in case they need to have power
overhead to this site.
Bunch: In the event that tract 7 develops who pays for Persimmon Road9
Conklin: They're paying for half of the street.
Bunch: Tract 1 and 2 are not included in the formula?
Conklin: That's correct.
Bunch: Is there a note on this plan, I don't see it that there would be no access to Rupple Road
from tracts 1 and 2, I mean if there is access allowed from tracts 1 and 2 then they should
be figured in.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 14
•
Conklin: Well they have access to Wedington
Bunch: Access to Wedington, of course it would be preferable to have access off Rupple Road
lessen the traffic in the, to improve traffic flow on Wedington. I question the elimination of
1 and 2 from the figuring of the formula because there will be some access and they will
create some traffic.
Conklin: Well, tracts 1 and 2 are zoned C-1, neighborhood commercial, so the traffic that will be
going to those will be generated from the neighborhood residential development within this
area. That's how I look at it, and they don't generate traffic on their own, the traffic is
coming from Meadowlands from tract 7 from tract 3
Bunch: And looking at the future when Rupple Road gets extended to the south and whatever
develops on this marinoni of McBride land to the south, those people would most likely
avail themselves with whatever commercial enterprises are on tracts 1 and 2, it seems like
they should be a contribution to tracts 1 and 2 because they will be helping promote traffic
flow, now whether it is not actually generated on that site, in a housing development, but
they are going to be participants of that flow, it seems like they should share in the
responsibilities of, if the road is going to be there to make it easier for their commercial
ventures, then there ought to be a contribution that says ok, if we're going to benefit from
it, we need to if we're going to have the privilege we need to have the responsibility of
coincide with that privilege.
Conklin: Once again, I look at it for the people that are driving home to live in that house, are driving
already, the traffic is already generated, it doesn't generate traffic on its own. It's a gas
station or a convenience store or something.
Ward: People that are living here, if they are using this up here, let's say this convenience store
up here, it has already been paid for once.
Bunch: I understand that, the people that are living down in here
Conklin: It's difficult...
Bunch: In other words, commercial doesn't theoretically doesn't generate traffic and therefore
doesn't commercial developments don't have to build roads.
Conklin: I think that's probably too broad ofa statement. No, that's why I looked at the zoning and
• pointed that out, it's neighborhood commercial. The idea, if you look in our general plan
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 15
•
•
is to provide services to serve the residential development within this area
Bunch: I don't understand that, but when we have commercial subdivisions, commercial
subdivisions are also required to put in infrastructures, and, even though we had multiple
zonings here, this is in a sense, a commercial subdivision on this edge of it and this is
residential subdivision, but it is still a subdivision regardless of whether it is commercial or
residential and it seems like most of the commercial subdivisions we've seen lately, the
developers were responsible for putting in infrastructures.
Hoffman: Can I break in and kind of astound on your question and 1 think put it in a different
perspective if y'all don't mind?
Bunch: That's fine.
Hoffman: 1 have worked with this rational nexus formula before in the traffic document I understand
it, and it is quantifiable, you know, this is you know, a well accepted standard in many
different parts of the country. The question that I have in applying to this development
which is a different development than we normally see because of the land contributions
that are taking place in the city's already having entered into a contract in order to get the
foundation ran. When we just had our library meeting, we said are we playing on the same
kind of field that we play with everybody else, with regard to the tree ordinance. It
appears to me that we are taking certainly an accepted national standard and applying it
to this development which would exclude you know, I think they're correct, that excludes
those commercial tracts, but in the past, when we have developed here, we have done it
according to the part of the land that touches the road, they have to put in the halfofthe
road and they have to pay the money that would have been the case on the commercial
tracts and that would be still the case that's happening down here on Persimmon. So
we're going from a cost per lineal foot determination which was what we always looked
to our engineering crew for to a rational nexus formula. I certainly understand that it works
for this developer, but my question is is it legal to do that when we just recently say passed
a Lindsey development and used the old formula? Is there any kind of notice that needs
to be made or an ordinance that needs to be passed to do a different financial
determination as we go forward? Do we need to do anything to change the rules in
midstream?
Conklin: I don't think so.
Petrie: I think all of our recommendations are based on rational nexus.
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
August 30, 2001
Page 16
Hoffman: Because when we have done these things in the past, 1 remember talking about costs per
lineal foot, roads and stuff like that and that's not entered into any of this discussion and
that if rational nexus was what we were calling it I think.
Petrie:
Hoffman:
Conklin:
The cost for road thing?
The places on Cobbler and stuff like that, paid that amount.
Our impact fee consultant, when they did their preliminary report stated that if we do a
road impact fee we may actually be stepping backwards somewhat because we may be
getting more based on this formula than we should. So, that's in writing, to give you an
idea, I mean they're saying that you....I mean this is a Supreme Court case tested standard
can't require the developer to do more than his proportionate share, the city, this is not a
typical development that we have, the city has agreed to build a road out there. That's
done, that decision is made. We're building a road, so now we're asking him to
participate in the additional capacity. Now is it fair...
Hoffman: Are you saying that he would be paying more then than what was originally paying on the
•
preliminary plat?
Conklin: No, no, I'm not saying that, but we're asking him that if he has to build the additional lanes,
that's increasing the road capacity to 14,800 vehicles per day and he is only generating this
x number of trips.
Hoffman: I understand that.
Conklin: Ok, and so I think in this case, in answer to your question, I don't think we have to have
an ordinance or that, at preliminary plat we ran into variance and the last sentence in the
staff report talks about why we did that. It is going to be in the staff report for final plat
too. We typically don't see plats that look like this, but from the very beginning the
selection committee selected this site, how do you create those parcels to get down here
and transfer them to the city and the Boys and Girls Club, I said you need to do
preliminary plat, the city said they're building a street and now I'm looking at the
proportionate share for each lot. I don't think we have to get an ordinance passed.
Hoffman: So if, I mean, you know, if the city is applying financial assessment or whatever you want
to call it to a developer and they change from one month to the next the formula by which
that amount is calculated, you don't think we need to go through any special...
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 17
•
Conklin: Every developer that we deal with we tell them if they want to come up with their own
formula they think we're asking for too much, that we'll review their method of calculation
of what their proportionate share of infrastructure is. Typically, developers agree with the
methods that we use, we have had a few where...
Hoffman: Have you ever had them do it this way? I mean I don't really recall one at this time, and
I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to just say you know if it's a road with trees like on
the library, are we doing the same?
Conklin: I wasn't involved with Joyce Boulevard and College Avenue and...but I know the mall
participated in that, Cleary Development participated in those intersection upgrades, but
we have done other feats. I'm just not sure how those were all calculated out there.
Hoffman: Right. And I know that the city has and the City Council has at its option and has chosen
at this time to participate in whatever amount of you know, road to be built that there is.
Conklin: That's probably the biggest point that needs to be made.
Hoffman: So part of my question didn't really have so much to do with this development in particular
but it seems to me that there should be standardization application ofa formula for road
building or infrastructure improvement.
Conklin: We've hired a consultant to do that.
Hoffman: To do that?
Conklin: The report will be out mid-September. We have hired a national firm, I mean a firm that's
done impact fee studies across the United States and they're one of the things they are
looking at are roads and we hope to standardize ifthe City Council decides to go with the
impact fee system to standardize how we look at capacities over and beyond a local street
that serves more than this development. That's what we're looking at with this impact fee
consultant. I'll make sure I get the Planning Commission that information.
Ward:
But what you're looking at quite frankly, is a precursor of what impact fees would look like
if adopted as the policy of the City of Fayetteville or any other city and this is exactly as
you well know, this is how it is calculated what varies the calculation and the cost is the size
of the area that you apply the formula to, and that's what impact fees are.
• Conklin: And with regard to like the time, the amount of time, six years is not an unreasonable
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 18
•
amount of time to expect a good capital improvement to be installed. When we do collect
impact fees we can't keep that money for 50 years.
Hoffman: No, didn't we have an automatic expiration on Faukner that we were close to coming
back to putting the street in and we actually extended so they could...do that
Conklin: It's 5 years and that is set up by case law too. I mean if he city is saying that we need a
4 lane street out here, we're going to take money from the developer. We take that
money and put it into our accounts
Ward: And we've done that forever.
Conklin: Yeah, and we can't do that.
Ward: We've always had kind of impact fees, one way or the other. You can call them anything
you want to.
Conklin: Sure. I mean, some states don't even use the term impact fee because they're using some
other term, it's a fee.
Hoffman: It's a cost participation or whatever for the development. Ijust think that it would be...let
me ask this. Is it possible for when this goes to Planning Commission to have the
traditional method of calculation that we've used in the past and surely we have records
for costs of streets and what developers want, take in the Lindsey project for an example
and have a comparison chart with this.
Conklin: We did that, actually, we did that for Emad Damen didn't we?
Petrie: And we can do that but the calculations to determine the total are exactly the same.
Hoffman: Just so people will understand. It's not like this road has got a 500 foot long piece of
property here and we're gonna build half the street, it's not that?
Petrie:
That's my recommendation a lot of times, we've got one set of calculations. I'll look at
it, look at the size of it and just estimate and say put some collateral instead ofjust getting
a two foot strip or whatever. Let's put in a curb and gutter and if the developers agree on
that, we don't actually get into the hard calculations, we will just look at that and say that's
a close comparison to what the formula would've given us.
• Hoffman: So you're saying the numbers really aren't going to be that different based on the price of
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 19
Petrie:
putting in a half of street verses this duplicate production.
Well, what I'm saying is if! give you this rational nexus calculation and we use the formula,
the way it was calculated to get this total amount would be the same, completely the same.
What's different here is we don't know what's being built, we're guessing at that, that's
the difference here. We've set the limits and we say if you go above that you gotta put on
more money, but that's the part that is difficult from what we normally do.
Conklin: Based on a 4 lane street, curbs, gutters, storm drainage.
Petrie: I can go back to the like The Cliffs, where we're dealing with 4 lanes and that Wedington
Place all that happened on Wedington before the 4 lane came through, we assessed all of
that with rational nexus and this is exactly the same way.
Hoffman: Ok, I didn't, I wasn't aware of that, I thought we were doing it the other way. Like
making people bill the total amount that their property touched.
1111 Conklin: I think the difference is when we have an existing 2 lane street, which we're building a 2
lane street, correct me if I' m wrong Ron, there's not too many areas you drive past and
the street turns into 4 lanes and then goes back into 2 lanes. We have very few ofthose.
Very few ofthose where we go ahead and build additional lanes, you know, you're driving
down he road and there's 4 lanes then it goes back to 2. Typically it is based on the
formula that Ron Petrie works up and gets into the staff report.
Hoffman: I understand that, usually we wait for the property across the street to develop and then
get the formula.
Conklin: And I think at preliminary plat time when we talked about half the street in this case if this
tract developed nght here you would have a two lane street with an extra lane right here
and this may not develop for a long time. So it would be very problematic according to
Ron Petrie here to do something like that with that method, and plus, we're looking at
really the additional capacity created by two additional lanes serving the region, this area,
not this development.
Ward:
And all we gotta concern ourselves with is I think is making sure tract 3, 21 acres that 260
unit apartment complex would be pretty normal. I mean it's not like it is way over
calculated or way under calculated.
• Conklin: I've looked at that, I've looked at Jim Lindsey's projects and I provided that information
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 20
•
•
to Ms. Sexton and her client and those numbers are very realistic. I actually think they
probably will be less in some cases.
Ward: If that's the case, we've been fair.
Hoffman: Yeah, see, I just want to be sure we've been fair to what's gone before in the recent,
certainly recently you know and make sure we haven't....
Conklin: We're building a street in this case, that's the difference, we're building the street.
Hoffman: Thank you for answering those hard questions
Bunch: One question please
Conklin: There ya go.
Bunch: On I guess item 7 or whatever it may be, what about street lights and fire protection? It
says in here that the city will be completing on the widening of Rupple to 4 lanes, curbs,
gutters and storm sewers.
Conklin: The fire protection will be the developers expense when they extend the waterlines and
they typically extend the waterlines to have fire hydrants on them, that's the standard.
Bunch: The Boys and Girls Club is to be served off of existing water line on Persimmon
Conklin: No, they're coming through Meadowlands.
Bunch: Ok, so...anything up through here, so this waterline is gonna come across here down and
so anything that comes down this way, this way, and this way, all that fire protection will
be put in by the developers?
Conklin:
Bunch:
That's correct.
I can't speak for the city on what will happen to the north, I've heard some discussions
about trying to loop back out to Wedington up Rupple, do you know where we are on
those?
Petrie: Ask me that question, I didn't follow.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 21
Bunch: From where we're bringing the water line in from Meadowlands, are there plans to extend
it back to Wedington north on Rupple Road?
Petrie. Not that I'm aware of.
Conklin: The developer has to put the water in for the project anyway so the fire protection will be
there.
Bunch: The fire protection for the Boys and Girls Club in tract 3 will develop, my concem would
be on who is going to tie the line in from here, I'm assuming there is an existing line up here.
Who would be tying that in? I just wanted to get that nailed down and on the record to
see whose responsibility it is. You know, so it doesn't come back later and say well we
thought you were going to do it and we thought you were going to do it.
Conklin: That never happens.
Bunch: What about street lights coming down Rupple Road?
• Conklin: We're responsible for Rupple Road.
Bunch: All the way on Rupple?
Conklin: Yes.
Bunch: Ok, it didn't seem clear in here as to whose doing it.
Conklin: As Hugh Ernest has stated as a city we need to meet our standards.
Bunch: I understand that, but 1 think that's something that probably needs to be more specific.
Ward: We'll add that.
Conklin: I'll add that.
Bunch: So that people do understand that uh...because it would be a shame trying to get to a Boys
and Girls Club to pick up your kids at night and have a total dark road Another thing, on
sidewalks and trails, we have of course included in our packets the standard 90 foot deal
for minor arterial. Has there been any consideration to friendly sidewalk and trails to be
• built again, if some of these places do not develop out, we want kids to walk, run, ride
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 22
bicycles, skateboards, whatever to the Boys and Girls Club, how are they going to get
there? Who is going to build them and when?
Petrie: The plan that went to the street committee again, was a two lane street that was only
charged with a 10 foot trail on one side of the street, that's what they recommended.
Conklin: And we're going to have discussion later on I think too about our master street plan and
what the requirements are.
Bunch: There will be a trail.
Bunch: And that there is you know, some concern about whether or not the 4 lane is built in 6
years and that sort of thing and my concern is in 2 years or 3 years when the Boys and
Girls Club opens that there is safe access to it. That's why the question is whether the city
is building it or the developers are building it, that it is built and it's on the record that it is
the responsibility and needs to be there for the safety and the operation of the complex.
What about the haul road? Did I mention in here who was responsible for the road?
• Conklin: We're responsible as I mention in there. That's part of the agreement that was approved
by City Council a couple ofweeks ago. Ron Petrie is designing the road, he's going to be
designing the Hall road.
Bunch: Is that an extension of the Meadowlands?
Conklin: That hasn't been determined.
Bunch: At one time there was talk of when the haul road came in from the Meadowlands to access
the Boys and Girls Club while Rupple was under construction.
Conklin: That will be finalized prior to Planning Commission. I mean, ok, there will be a haul road,
we're not exactly sure where it's going to be.
Bunch: I figured that there would be a haul road, but to nail it down on the record publicly whose
responsibility it is because there has been a shifting...
Hoffman: This is real off the wall, but there's a map in here identifying the property in the wrong
location.
• Conklin: You know this morning, I put that in there and didn't even look at it, I looked at WHM.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 23
•
•
You're correct.
Hoffman: and it's probably not the final plat.
Conklin: Sorry about that. I grabbed the file, put it together and threw a map in.
Hoffman: So for Full Planning Commission, I like the explanation, I think it is important to try to go
through an agenda session of this method and I suspect that you may get some questions
from other commissioners about the old verses the new way.
Conklin: I would expect that, I would be disappointed if I didn't get those questions.
Hoffman: If we can be prepared for that, it would make for a shorter commission meeting I'm sure.
Ward: We expect that.
MOTION
Bunch: Quite a bit of information here that we've had to look at on a short term basis and I realize
one of the responsibilities of this subcommittee is to take a look at these and you know
kind of nitpick it and so there is a lot of detail to be taken care of before it goes to the full
commission. We do have a lot to digest on a short period of time, so we may not be doing
that much ofa service to the full commission by having such a short time to look at some
of this, but I will go ahead and move that we forward to the full commission understanding
that we have received information and very short time to look at it, not much time to digest
it.
Hoffman: I'll second.
Ward: And I'll concur.
Ward: Yeah, agenda time would be a real good time to call for this, everybody to go through this,
because this is a lot to put in this morning.
Bunch: You know ifthere is any way to get some of the packets to other commissioners prior to
discussion so that they have an opportunity to look at it and digest it because you know,
we walk in today and here's our packets. You know, the normal procedure is if either
there's not much in the packet that's not, or there's not that much in the presentation which
we find on Thursday mornings that have not been on the drawings that we've seen but
today there was substantially more information. So we might look at having some advance
•f
•
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
August 30, 2001
Page 24
notice to other commissioners if we are going to look at these type of things on agenda
session.
Hoffman: One of them is going to be gone for agenda session, so you might want to get with them
you know, and get them up to speed I guess.
McCord: Point of information, when is the agenda session?
Conklin: It's next Thursday at 3:30 in this room, no, excuse me, 326 upstairs. Thanks guys.
Feinstein: What do you need from me before agenda session?
Conklin: We have connected plais, so nothing I can think of.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 25
•
LSD 01-30.00: Large Scale Development (Commerce park II, pp 175) was submitted by Atkins
Benham Inc. on behalfof Dixie Development for property located at 2091 E. Joyce Blvd. The property
is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 4.78 acres The request is for a 4,185 sq.
ft. restaurant and a 21,469 sq. ft. office building.
Ward:
Second item on the Agenda is LSD 01-30.00: Large Scale Development (Commerce
Park II, pp 175) submitted by Atkins Benham Inc. on behalfof Dixie Development for
property located at 2091 E Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office
and contains approximately 4.78 acres. The request is for a 4,185 sq. ft. restaurant, a
21,469 sq. ft. office building. Sara, you want to handle this one? Thanks.
Edwards: This is an expansion of if you remember when the development to the east came through,
it was called Dixie Development but it was the first phase part one. Planning Commission
approved that on November 13, 2000, this is an expansion of that large scale
development. That original project was on the southwest corner of Old Missouri and
Joyce, this is immediately west of that, cross access is being provided to the first phase of
this project, the applicant is granting the right-of-way required by the master street plan.
We are recommending this project be forwarded to the full Planning Commission because
of two conditional uses. The first conditional use which is a requirement when requesting
parking in excess allowed by code has not been requested in writing and application has
not been received and due to some miscommunication between the first plan at plat review
and the plan they submitted with this item their table ofthe parking space has changed so
it wasn't real apparent to staff that they were 48 spaces over but they are. So, we realize
this, haven't discussed it with the applicant regarding why they need the additional 48
spaces and if we would be in support of that conditional use.
Ward: One reason is the restaurant. We've always been short on restaurants.
Edwards: Well, that's true but they only have 21 spaces up here at the first building which is going
to be the restaurant is my understanding and then all those additional parking would be
going to office building. So, which is139 spaces where 72 are required and so that's
where the additional come in and it's back in this back area so I'm having difficulty
believing that that parking is for the restaurant. Secondly, the conditional use for a
restaurant in an R-0 district this will be a Planning Commission agenda item. l did discuss
with Kim some yesterday, our landscape administrator that she needed some clarification
on our tree preservation prior to Planning Commission. All of the other conditions are
standard.
• Ward: Ok, you might go ahead and introduce yourself and see if you got any comments to make.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 26
•
•
Gilbert: Thank you, my name is David Gilbert I'm with Atkins Benham and I'll be the engineer of
record for the project. Ijust received Ms. Edwards' phone call. Unfortunately, I was out
of town yesterday and didn't get that until this morning and so I'm sorry I haven't had a
chance to get back with you. Honestly, I don't have an answer to that, this project was
laid out by a land planner in our office, my understanding was that he was going to provide
the minimum parking required but apparently something has changed and I need to find out
what that is. I don't know if the client has made a request with him that I'm not aware of.
In that case we certainly would need to file paperwork for the conditional use. It may be
that someone misread the table and that we've got too much parking which we could
reduce. It is also possible that the square footage for the office building needs to be
checked to be sure that we're ok there. So, I'm sorry I don't have an answer for you right
now, but we'll find out and I'll get back with you. I'll try to see if we can get back to you
this afternoon on that.
Hoffman: You've got an asphalt parking lot shown like it looks like it might be a mistake.
Gilbert. Well, yes Ma'am, that's a drafting error. That asphalt parking lot is existing. This has
been, this was the site of the Evangelical Free Church and then Life Change Fellowship
Church I believe. So that parking lot goes with the old, it was actually originally a house
that's kind of been expanded there, and that is a drafting error. That should be shown as
existing, not as proposed. With regard to the landscape administrator's request, again, I
apologize. I had given instruction to our landscape architect to visit with Mrs. Hesse and
to answer her questions on this and apparently that's not happened. So, I'll go find out
why and we'll make sure that happens. Again, I apologize.
Ward: Ok, Keith, you got any comments on this?
Shreve: The drawing looks fine, only comment I have, 1 would like to see the sidewalks connecting.
Gilbert: Yes Sir.
Shreve: That's the only note I've made here, build a six foot sidewalk, that's the only comment.
Gilbert: I've checked that, it does scale out at six feet but we will have the dimensions, sorry about
that.
Ward: Ok, Ron, any comments?
Petrie: No Sir.
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 27
•
Ward: Ok, Kim?
Husse:
We're not sure if the numbers or the curb direction has changed which is what I was going
to look at. It seems like maybe they didn't count some ofthe, some of the rows of trees,
that's why we asked them if we could look at the numbers. But I could say that of what
the plan I approve ofthe plan regardless of what the numbers turn out, I've been on the
site several times, the trees are being removed right here basically speaking of small locusts
that have grown up probably what used to be an existing fence line, I don't know why
they're all in a line, but they're basically locust trees that have been cut down and stuck up
and cut down and stuck right up. Same with all the trees that are being removed right here,
they're pretty much trees that have been cut down and stuck back up. The trees that are
valued, they're showing preservation of and we need to work to make sure we get around
the drift line of these two trees. This tree is a very nice tree which they're going to work
with for preservation. I would like to see though a slight change if possible. I want to go
back out and look at the tree one more time, but I believe it is a persimmon and if it is, it's
a large persimmon tree. The reason why it is being removed is they've got a big water line
here. I originally asked them to skew the waterline to the east but there is required
separation from an existing sewer line, I'm sure that's your reason.
Gilbert. The sewer manhole that we would be tying into at the northeast corner is existing. The
routing of the sewer line is proposed.
Ward:
Gilbert:
Hesse:
You're talking about this one that's called a two inch black gum?
Yes Sir.
Yeah. I believe that that was from the early spring when we first looked at the permit.
This is your sewer line here?
Gilbert: There is a sewer line that runs, this is on, we're looking on C-6 now and the sewer, the
manhole is right up here near the northeast corner and the proposed surface lines to the
buildings would run through here and be a branch to the restaurant at this point and then
the line for the office building would continue here and then divert over to the office building
itself. We're trying to keep all the utilities and easements along the perimeter. There was
some clutter in the last project and the contractor in particular and the owner were not
happy with where the utilities wound up, so we're trying to keep things a little bit more
spread out on this one.
• Hesse: Is it a possibility to tap into this waterline over here and then tie in to save that tree?
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 28
Gilbert: We can look at that. That's a good idea.
Hesse: That's the only question I have on the tree preservation plans. The persimmon that you
might save.
Ward: You think it is a persimmon tree?
Hesse: Twill look at it again. Either way, even if it is a black gum, ljust need to look at the haif
of it.
Ward: How big of a tree is it?
Hesse: It's about 24 inches
Ward: That's a two foot and this is a four foot perched oak?
Hesse: But 1 haven't measured it.
• Gilbert: We can verify these again. We've had them surveyed and then we've had them measured
again.
Ward: Ok, this appears to say 2 inch.
Gilbert. It does appear to say 2 inch, but I remember that tree being a lot bigger than two inches.
Ward: This says 2 feet, so it might be better to list it all in inches, you knowdust use a convention
that's a little more clear because it is real easy to have typographical errors, errors you
know switching back and forth between feet and inches.
Gilbert: Yes Sir, that's a good idea.
Bunch: One ofthe things that doesn't show up on the drawing and I think Planning Commissioners
will want to look at is the synopsis of the site of the casting percentage, you know, the
existing percentage, preserved percentage and then any other percentage to bring it back
up or you know, whatever the requirements are. It's just it's absent.
Hesse:
That is my one condition to get the information on that. As far as the design, my design
request would be to be reimburse with that, but other than that, I think that they've done
a good job working around the trees.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 29
•
•
Bunch: As far as proposed landscaping, they've met all of those numbers?
Hoffman: Didn't they have the existing asphalt lot? If that's to remain, there's no tree islands shown
on it.
Gilbert: The existing asphalt lot will be removed.
Hoffman. Ok.
Gilbert. Yes Ma'am.
Hoffman: It's actually part of the building isn't it?
Gilbert: Uh, I'm not sure. I don't...yes, the building will be constructed in the area, there is some
earth movement that has to be done to make this site work out of the hole and I'm not sure
that parking lot is in the kind of shape we would want to try to keep it anyway, it would
probably be more difficult to keep it than to take it up and start over.
Ward: I'll open up public comments, is there anyone from the public that would like to comment
on this? Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the committee.
Edwards: You know, let me say one thing. I think on both of these buildings you need to make a
determination of compliance with commercial design standard so please go ahead and look
at the elevation.
Hoffman: Because my question would be these are like they're well articulated on the side we see
and this side is the one that's facing Joyce Street on the office building
Gilbert: Yes Ma'am.
Hoffman: On the restaurant? Although this doesn't look.
Gilbert: Those are the elevations for the two buildings as would be viewed from Joyce Blvd.
Hoffman: Ok, are they similarly articulated all the way around?
Gilbert: They would be similar in character to the buildings on the adjacent site which and I'm
sorry, I'm not an architect, but they were pretty well articulated on all sides due to the
exposures of the property.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 30
Hoffman: Ok, I was just wondering, I didn't want the office building to look on the ugly back ofthe
you know, plain.
Gilbert: There's some gray change there that the people from the office building, the hillside is going
to tend to screen that in any case, but I will pass that note to the architects.
Ward:
we did finally get the, you did get the cross access way back on that end.
With all those office buildings and everything down in this area too, you know, of course
Edwards: I would like to request that you just go ahead and provide elevations for this site ofthe
building.
Hoffman: That's a good idea.
Ward: Probably a roll of material board showing the gutter and type of bricks.
Edwards: 1 do have that.
• Ward. Ok, so you do have that? Ok.
Hoffman: Is this all brick or is it E.F.I.S.? The red.
•
Gilbert: Most of this is going to be red brick, I'm sure there will be some, most of the E.F.I.S.1
believe is the contrasting colors, the medium gray and lite gray, the red portions appear
from my familiarity but our architectural staff's work, I would say that the red portions are
intended all to be brick.
Hoffman: It looks good to me, I like the difference, it looks like the facades are broken up and you
know, you've got a tower and a balcony and stuff, I like that.
Ward: I think the same thing was used in the development just to the east also wasn't it?
Gilbert: This actually I think is a little more broken up than the one to the east. As far as that goes.
Hoffman: What about the signs?
Gilbert: The sign elevation is shown here, it's again, a very similar thing mostly brick, it's a
monument sign, it would be located right here next to the main entrance drive and it's really
pretty subdued. It's not the kind of thing that's going to grab you going down the road.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 31
•
If you're not looking for it, it maybe, it's not going to be real flashy.
Hoffman: Will there be any signs on the building?
Gilbert: Not to my knowledge.
Hoffman: So the restaurant doesn't want a wall sign up on it?
Gilbert: That's not been determined yet, there's not a particular tenant in mind at this point. Dr.
Israel, one of the principals of Dixie Development. His vision for this is that in this area
there is a lot of office space and really no place to eat until you go back to the mall. If
you've been through that traffic at lunch time, it could take you half an hour to get to the
mall and back, even to the, there's a little restaurant on the east side of71 there, so I think
his contention was to put something in here that the office people could have use of, and
actually, try to promote some pedestrian activity, get people to walk over there to lunch
rather than hopping in the car and driving back to town someplace. But I'm not aware if
he has a particular tenant in mind, I'm not aware of it. I would say that again, not being
aware of any signage and not knowing what it would look like, what we probably would
ask to do is to put this through as it is and then if they decide they want a sign later, come
back for that signage if that's acceptable.
Hoffman: They just have to get a sign permit don't they?
Ward: A restaurant built, they would want a sign.
Gilbert. Probably, I've seen developments like this in office parks where they don't have one, but
it again, we'd be guessing at this point if we tried to tell you what the signage would look
like in any case.
Ward:
Bunch:
Ok, any other comments or questions?
Yes, in looking at the parking lot, it appears there's a parking lot between the two
buildings, it would be the shared parking since there's almost insufficient parking in the
vicinity of the restaurant, it doesn't look like there's a full compliment of sidewalks, so if
somebody parks over here and wants to go to the restaurant, the sidewalk is only on this
side.
Gilbert: We have provided, according to our understanding, unless we've missed something, we
• have provided the required parking for the restaurant in the vicinity of the restaurant down
here. I believe that was 21 spaces that were required in that area.
•
•
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
August 30, 2001
Page 32
Bunch: Is that sufficient?
Gilbert: That meets code, that's a good question, of course codes are based on trying to guess how
many people are going to go in one car and that doesn't always work. But that was
provided in that area, what we had envisioned was that the regular employees in the
building would use the rear lot and that this then is more ofa visitor and vendor type lot
than anything else with the restaurant parking down here, and of course, this could be
overflow parking for the restaurant.
Bunch: On this side ofthe parking lot, just came over here like this or something, there's no real,
no real pedestrian access in this quadrant or in that section.
Ward: Yeah, that might want to be something you want to look at.
Gilbert: We'll look at it, we've got some pretty good grades going there, but we'll see what we can
do with that.
Bunch: And my questions for Ron and I guess and Tim, is the opening, is the curb cut sufficient to
maintain good traffic flow on Joyce Blvd? I know that is one of the things we wanted to
look at since this is going to wind up like North College, we'll have you know, good
smooth transition from Joyce into the various developments so that we don't have to lose
the, I can't remember the proper term for it, but lose the traffic flow that Joyce is designed
for by having poorly designed curb cuts. Is this one sufficient to?
Conklin: I think it is, what do you think Ron?
Petrie: It meets your code, that's what the code requires.
Conklin: The radius is probably the biggest thing that was causing us problems, it didn't have an
adequate radius to make the turn, you almost had to stop to make a 90° turn with a 25'
radius It meets that, we revised our codes based on access management principals to get
cars off the roadways in a more efficient manner and eliminate the islands.
MOTION
Bunch: In that case, I move that we forward LSD 01-30.00 to the full commission complete with
comments and minutes.
Hoffman: Second.
Ward: I'll concur. Thank you.
Gilbert: Thank you.
•
•
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
August 30, 2001
Page 33
LSD 01-31.00: Large Scale Development (On Deck, pp 138) was submitted by Glenn Carter of
Carter& Associates on behalf of Charles and Pamela Calloway for property located west of Kee Comer
Plaza on Zion Road. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately
1.4 acres. The request is to build a 18,200 sq.ft. building.
Ward:
Moving right along, the next item on our agenda is LSD 01-31.00: Large Scale
Development (On Deck) submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter and Associates on behalf
of Charles and Pamela Calloway for property located west of Kee Corner Plaza on Zion
Road. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains
approximately 1.4 acres. The request is to build a 18,200 sq. ft. building. Sara, you
wanna handle this one?
Edwards. The proposal is for an indoor batting cage with a gift shop that is 18,200 sq. ft. like stated,
61 parking spaces. Property to the south is zoned R-0 and property to the west is zoned
R-2 which under our screening and buffer yard ordinance does require that screening be
provided. There is an existing tree canopy along the west for screening, it's already
enclosed there, there is some additional screening which we'll get to and discuss in a
minute to the south will have to be provided. They are dedicating right-of-way pursuant
to the master street plan. Currently 13% of this site exists in tree canopy. The applicants
have chosen to preserve 9% and replace an additional 13% which will bring the total onsite
to 22% and the requirement in R-0 zone is 20%. We are recommending that this item be
forwarded to the full Planning Commission based mainly on requirement to get a
conditional use which is requested for a recreational facility to be in a C-1 zoning district
though this is not ause by right but a conditional use that will be part of the next Planning
Commission meeting. The request was made at plat review that was not met and we do
request that they identify the rare and landmark trees on the site on this plan which we can
not find on this plan and the number of the trees screening to the south is shown as shrubs,
shrubs in talking with Kim, shrubs can be affective when used in screening, but they do
have to be specific high growing thick shrub and so that does need to be discussed, what
kind of shrub would be appropriate in there and if trees might be better in this case. The
other conditions are standard.
Ward: Ok, thank you. Are there any other comments you would like to make on this? Please
introduce yourself.
Carter:
Yes Sir, I'm Glen Carter with Carter and Associates, just one comment, I apologize for
not getting those tree types on there, we have done that, but due to some weather
problems and some other problems we didn't get it done in time to get on this plan. We
have all the trees, every tree along here identified by type and size, and we will get that on
the plan in this next revision as it goes to Planning Commission. That was really the only
comment I had, I discussed this with Kim, and we're gonna talk a little bit with Ron about
maybe making some adjustments to the detention pond I tried to pull that up out of that
tree line, that canopy line there, as you see, that pond is just over in the edge of it, at the
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 34
•
•
edge of the drift line there, that tree that is shown is kind of misleading, it's a real big tree
and that's the drift line of that one big tree. So we're gonna, we feel like we could do
away with those other two trees to the north there which are really scrubby unremarkable
trees that we could expand upon to the west and get the same volume, have the same
affect and stay away from the drift line of this tree. So we'll look at that and we'll be glad
to do that and we will call out the tree types here and make sure we get a good screening
type of shrubbery along this, and other than that, I'll entertain any questions or comments
you have.
Ward: Ok, Keith, you got any comments on the sidewalks?
Shreve: No comments.
Ward: Ron, you got any comments?
Petrie: We were talking about the detention pond, make sure you understand, the way it's shown
here, it's not leading to the concrete, you don't show your slope going back down into the
creek. You gonna have to complete the creek so you've got that to work with too.
Carter: Ok.
Petrie: You might have some issues with Kim.
Carter: Ok, we do have some latitude there, if there's any problem with that, I realize, 1
understand what you're saying, we've got some elevation we can work with in the parking
lot itself that we tried to stay of. I think that would be available to us if we needed to, I
don't really see any problem with that, but I understand your comment.
Petrie: I think that's all I have
Ward: Kim, any more comments? I guess we know first of all it's going to be put on the plat
itself. Ok, tree identification, you've already done it, but it needs to be shown. Is there
anything else that maybe you all can get together before we come to an agenda session and
figure out about some of these trees and stuff. Ok, Tim.
Conklin: Dust wanted to explain what parking ratio we're using to calculate parking since batting
cages wasn't specifically within our code book. We used the bowling alley ratio which I
thought was probably similar, and that was six per lane? And we're probably going to
have a group of people come to the batting cage to practice batting and so just for the
record that's what we're using, the staff and it works for their parking.
Ward: Ok, thanks. At this time 1'11 open it up for public comment or questions. Seeing none, 1'11
close it to the public and bring it back to the committee. One thing that I personally would
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 35
•
like to talk a little bit about is the commercial design standards. I think the elevation is fine,
if you look down at the Fayetteville Athletic Center, it's basically split face block and brick
and the side elevations are the ones that I'm kind of, a little bit, I need to look at those a
little bit closer and see ifwe can dress those up a little bit more either by using some kind
ofcolor bands or different materials or something, I think we need to do something on the
two sides because that's, you know, if this was in one part of town it might be a different
story, but out there where it is, I feel like we need a little more articulation on those sides.
Carter: Different materials?
Ward: Different materials or something, I mean, that's what the other, well, we just got through
looking at the one in front of you which is on Joyce Street which is one block over, you
know, they used a lot of brick, a lot of this and that to make it, to articulate it. I'm not so
worried about the back elevation but the side elevations.
Parrish: My name is Jack Parrish, I'm with Engineer Contractor. We have added these columns
with an attempt to break this up and try to make it not too busy and apparently that's not
accomplishing what we had intended. When we were lining this out, we discussed the
possibility of using some raised panels to give that some accent and I guess what I'm
asking is some opinion or guidance as to what you're looking for here. Would it
accomplish more ifwe had some steps in depth, in other words, instead ofhaving our wall
more vertical and divided with the vertical breaks ifwe had it divided horizontally with
some steps and elevation? Give it a more layered look.
Hoffman: You mean like stepping it in on the second floor or something? I'm not sure.
Parrish: Yeah, come up so far and then there would be a step out to make it look deeper and then
come up a ways and then another step. It's a big building with a big wall.
Ward: Yeah, well I mean, we're looking at two sides because the east side will be up against the
restaurant.
Parrish: Yeah, well, the Kee Corner Shopping Center.
Ward: You're gonna be able to see quite a bit of that east side.
Parrish: One side is going to be very visible.
• Ward: It's going to have the parking lot.
Bunch: The west side and the north side is going to have the screening and where it winds up on
the south side.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
August 30, 2001
Page 36
Conklin: I'm not worried about the south side...
Ward: Is there an alley along here?
Conklin: Yes, that's a paved alley with a curb all the way out to the property line.
Ward: So then we are again looking at the sides, cause it will have to be similar treatments if it is
visible.
Conklin: In the past other developers have done it with colors, and we just put the Marriott hotel
the other night that we were using the same material all the way through it and they did it
with color bands.
Parrish: Your talking about E.F.I.S., that metal building or E.F.I.S.
Conklin: Well, in the E.F.I.S. you know, Styrofoam undemeath you can create different elements
to come out, I mean we might want to look at that because that is what the Marriott did
to theirs and they used color to kind of accentuate the different elements and shapes.
Parrish: Let me just ask one other thing here. Now the owner likes the columns and that's why we
ended up there, so if we leave the columns in place and then make the accent color across
the top larger and put some steps in there to make it a little bit more ornate. Is that what
you've got in mind there?
Ward: Well, it needs something besides.'ust the two or three columns you got going down there.
Conklin: This is the restaurant area in there is that correct?
Parrish: There's no restaurant.
Conklin: Doesn't it have a snack bar?
Parrish. There are vending machines.
Ward: I was wondering if you could put any windows on this side. I know you don't want
windows in the baseballs, but up in front here. Just within this, you know when you're
driving down, I'm throwing out a suggestion here.
Parrish: I think that in that area there is a little team room there and that might be a good thing to
do in that area. That would certainly make that room look a lot frillier.
Conklin: I know, l mean architecturally you want to design it in there, the appropriate size window,
maybe that could help just in that area
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 37
•
Hoffman: You could put canopies over the doors that match the front you know, like a little weather
cover that matched the roof. I think Hooker did that on his construction building.
Conklin: I know the applicant, speaking for your client now, he said he would do whatever it takes
to get this where it's acceptable.
Parrish: Yeah, we just gotta get something through the agenda session.
Ward: It's hard for us to make any exact recommendations because that's not our building. It's
just that this particular building if it meets commercial design standards, it's going to be very
visible and in order to do that out there, I think we need to do something good to
accentuate those two sidewalks, they're too long and unarticulated.
Conklin: Where's your mechanical equipment?
Parrish: It will be located on the ground along the south side.
Carter: It's an open field right now, there's an office complex over in this area and then some
across the field.
Hoffman: Is this the one we rezoned?
Conklin: Yes.
Hoffman: Yeah, ok, 1 didn't remember that they had to do a conditional use on top of it, but I still
think it's an appropriate use so you know, and we have to probably put 2 items on the
agenda for the conditional use and then for the thing so we don't, so I don't screw up the
motion next time.
Conklin: Yes. We're gonna make sure we do that.
Ward: Tom January over on Township, I can't remember what we did there.
Conklin: Yeah, he had something like this and then he had some kind of brick of columns.
Hoffman: But he didn't put any color bands on the wall. There have been a lot of complaints about
that I think.
• Conklin: We want to choose something a little higher.
Ward: Rap your corners.
Conklin: Kirk Elsaw on his buildings, his office buildings, we've worked with him to use different
•
•
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
August 30, 2001
Page 38
materials.
Ward: Just something to rap around or band.
Hoffman: 1 think everything looks fine, he needs some work on his design standards but I think we
could defend it on the planning session.
MOTION
Bunch: We do need to have the commercial design standards listed as one of the conditions. I
move that we forward LSD 01-31.00 to the Full Planning Commission.
Hoffman: I'll second.
Ward: I'll concur.
Hoffman: Yeah, I think they need this over there. That's a good idea
Parrish: When we start going to different colors, we want this to be classy without being you know,
too overstated, so we tried to stay with colors that were pretty muted and earth tones used
to be the right word. Anyway, when we start going to different colors, does there need
to be a dramatic contrast or can they be kind of graduated?
Hoffman: Courtyard material, or we've seen a lot of victorian lace and fan stuff.
•
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
August 30, 2001
Page 39
ADM 01-33.00: Administrative Item (Lindsey Sign, pp 174) was submitted by Crafton, Tull &
Associates on behalf of Lindsey Company for property located north ofJoyce Street and south of Stearns
Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 5.85 acres. The
request is for a determination of commercial design standards with regard to sign proposed for the site.
Ward: Our final item on the agenda is ADM 01.33.00 Administrative Item for Lindsey's sign
submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Lindsey Company for property
located north of Joyce Street and south of Stearns Road. The property is zoned C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 5 85 acres. The request is for a
determination of commercial design standards with regard to sign proposed for the site.
Kim, go ahead and introduce yourself I guess.
Fugitt:
I'm Kim Fugitt, I'm the architect for Lindsey and we at our last meeting the issue was the
height of the signage. We were requested, it was requested that we determine the grade
elevation of this sign in relation to the grade elevation of Joyce Street that was
perpendicular to the sign. We have done that and the difference in grade from Joyce to
the position of this sign is 3 feet, meaning that the elevation ofthe sign base is 3 feet higher
than the elevation ofJoyce Street in that location. As a result of that, we reduced the
height of the sign to 26 feet, it was originally 29 feet and we reduced that to 26 feet. The
base ofthe sign is the same, that six foot base so in essence what we've done is reduce the
square footage of the signage to 120 square feet. According to the sign ordinance, the
allowed area of that sign should be 198.8 feet.
Ward: Ok, and everything else is the same type of materials?
Fugitt : Yes, it's the same precast concrete and brick material that will be used on the office
building.
Edwards: Let me just say that we're looking at this on the large scale if approved this sign approval
commercial design team was not associated with this sign, it was referred back to
subdivision, it came to subdivision and we had been concemed about the height and that
if it met the sign ordinance and so now that Mike has said that this sign does meet the sign
ordinance we want to determine compliance with the commercial design team in regard to
the six stories, what is it 5, 7?
Conklin: Six stories or 75 feet tall.
Edwards. Is it that high?
• Conklin: I don't know, it's high for us.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
• August 30, 2001
Page 40
•
Edwards: The sign's in scale. Do they count the covenant thing as being a part of the total height or
not?
Conklin: It says ok Mike McKinley on here.
Edwards: According to Mike he counts all the way to this,
Ward: Any other comments? Commissioner Hoover was the one that was concerned with
commercial design standards and she was considering large and out of scale, and that's
one of the things I think in her absence we do need to make a statement about that.
Hoffman: Ok, well I would say that I would think that this sign is in scale with a large tall office
building and if it meets our requirements.
Ward:
Part of the question that Commissioner Hoover raised was not so much in scale with the
building but in scale with the area. You know, the building was larger than the rest ofthem.
This is set back quite a ways offthe road and it was relocated from the time that we saw
the large scale development. The large scale development shows the signage up close to
the road and this has been moved back into one of the parking islands closer to the
building and if that doesn't make a difference, Dust wanted to make sure that we looked
with consideration to Commissioner Hoover who raised on this with a large and out of
scale as well as the height and we were given a list of the various signs of this type and you
know went and looked at them around town and some of them are larger than this, I think
I have no problem with it.
Hoffman: I don't think she would, you know, it's a setback and what not.
Ward: That was one of her concerns was to compare that to the others and not just you know the
large and out of scale determination was not just in relationship to one building but to the
total area by moving offthe road it is still visible but it doesn't block line of sight or anything
like that, so anoint identification sign, do we have to have a motion?
Hoffman: I already made one.
Bunch: I'll second.
Ward: I'll concur.
• Meeting adjourned