Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-11 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, October 11, 2001 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSP 01-30.00 (Wetzel, pp 475) Page 2 LSP 01-16.10: Lot Split (Golden Corral Corporation, pp96) Page 3 ACTION TAKEN LSD 01-9.10: Large Scale Development (Golden Corral Corporation, pp96) Page 5 LSD 01-33.00: Large Scale Development (Country Inns & Suites, pp 402) Page 17 PPL 01-5.00: Preliminary Plat (Heritage East, Phase II, pp 565) Page 23 LSD 01-32.00: Large Scale Development (Lewis Street Townhomes, Phase II, pp 403) Page 30 MEMBERS PRESENT Don Bunch Lee Ward Sharon Hoover STAFF PRESENT Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Keith Shreve Kim Hesse Eric Schuldt Tim Conklin Tabled Approved Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Approved MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Hugh Earnest • • • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 2 LSP 01-30.00: Lot Split (Wetzel, pp 475) was submitted by Libby McDonald on behalfofBrad Wetzel for property located on the north side of Dot Tipton Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 4.32 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.31 acres and 2.01 acres. Ward: Welcome to the Subdivision Committee meeting of October 11, 2001. It looks like we have six items on our agenda for this morning. We will go ahead and get started The first one will be LSP 01-30.00: Lot Split (Wetzel, pp 475) was submitted by Libby McDonald. Tim, what can you tell us about this? Conklin: This is a lot split. It is located within our planning area. We are recommending approval at the Subdivision Committee level. Subject to the conditions that are listed below. Condition number one is that the lot label proposed lot split 1.71 acres does not have access to public water line. The water line shall be extended prior to filing the lot split or any deeds at such time the line is completed, inspected and accepted the lot split may be filed What we are talking about is this lot that is to the west that currently doesn't have access to a public line. Ward: Does it not have road frontage? Conklin: It does have road frontage, the water line currently is located at this southeast comer of this tract. The line will need to be extended up to this so it will have access to the City of Fayetteville water supply. Ward: Ok, then you put a meter in and so on? Conklin: Extend the line and I'm not sure about a meter. Ron, would they need to put a meter in at this time or just extend the line? Petrie: In order to put it safe out. They would have to and then layer it. It is more economical to put it in that way. I'm not going to say they have to. Conklin: Condition number two is that the applicant shall obtain Washington County planning approval prior to the filing of the lot split. Those are the only two conditions that we have with the proposed split of this property. Ward. Ok, is the applicant here? Not yet. Do you want to table this for just a minute? Edwards: We can table it and I'll call them. Ward: Ok, why don't you call them and see? We want to get this done if we can today. Let's table that for the time being until hopefully they show up. • • • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 3 LSP 01-16.10: Lot Split (Golden Corral Corporation, pp 96) was submitted by Robyn Wilgus of Freeland -Kauffman & Fredeen on behalf of Golden Corral Corporation for property located at the SW corner of North College Avenue and Johnson Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 13.23 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of9.74 acres and 3 49 acres. Ward: LSP 01-16.10: Lot Split (Golden Corral Corporation) submitted by Robyn Wilgus of Freeland -Kaufman & Fredeen on behalf of Golden Corral Corporation. Tim, what can you tell us about this? Conklin: This is a request to split approximately 13.23 acres into two tracts of 9.74 acres and 3.49 acres. It is zoned C-2, there is no additional right of way that is required by the City of Fayetteville. The northern boundary line of this lot split and Main Dr. or Johnson Road is located in the City of Springdale at this location. We are recommending approval at the Subdivision Committee level. Conditions to address and discuss are as follows: Number one, sidewalk contribution in lieu ofthe required improvements in the amount of $7,802.64 for tract one for the sidewalk along College Avenue. The sidewalk along Main Dr. will be required with large scale development which is following this lot split. That is the only condition we have on this. Ward: What is the reason for the donation contribution instead of putting a sidewalk in? Conklin: I will let our Sidewalk Division go over that. Shreve: In this location if we build a sidewalk along College Avenue it basically would dead end that creek or we could bring it back and double mount into that high amount of traffic on College Avenue. Weiust felt like this small section would not be beneficial at this point in time. We could use the funds to build sidewalks in other areas. Ward: Ok, we have a master sidewalk plan for College would it be on that side ofthe road or the other side or how would you see that? Shreve: The master street plan would require sidewalks on both sides of the street. At some point in the future we will have sidewalks on both sides. Ward: Ok. Is the applicant here for this? Ok, why don't you sit up here? Also, Eric, do you have anything about Parks and Recreation? Schuldt: No. • • • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 4 Ward: Petrie: Ward: Hesse: Ward: Wilgus: Ward: Conklin: Ward: MOTION: Bunch: Hoover: Ward: Ron? No comments. Kim? No. Robyn, do you have anything to say about the sidewalk contribution since it is a part of that lot split? No, our client does not have any problem with donating money in lieu. We agree with the City's recommendation. This off of the terrain right now at that location is not conducive right now to sidewalks. I'll go ahead and open this up Is there anyone from the public that would like to make a comment on this lot split? Seeing none I will close it to the public and bring it back to our Commissioners. This property is already zoned C-2 and it is out there in our commercial area. They are creating this lot to build a Golden Corral restaurant and they have adjusted and actually enlarged the lot, this is the second time they have submitted to the City to help meet the tree preservation ordinance requirements and they've actually acquired additional land to do that. Any questions or comments? I move we approve LSD 01-16.10 at the Subdivision level. I second. I concur. • • • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 5 LSD 01-9.10: Large Scale Development (Golden Corral Corporation, pp 96) was submitted by Robyn Wilgus ofFreeland-Kauffman & Fredeen on behalf of Golden Corral Corporation for property located at the SW corner of North College Avenue and Johnson Road The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3.49 acres. The request is to build a 10,330 sq.ft. restaurant. Ward: The third item we have is LSD 01-9.10, Large Scale Development for Golden Corral Corporation. Tim, what can you tell us about this? Conklin: This is a large scale development that will be located on the lot that we just approved. It contains 3 49 acres. The request is to build a Golden Corral Restaurant, 10,330 sq. ft. The City of Springdale is requiring right ofway improvements to Main Dr., also known as • Johnson Road. Once again, the road is located in the City of Springdale. The City of Fayetteville city limits is south of the road right ofway so we don't go the center of the road. The entire road is Springdale at that point. As you drive to the west you eventually get into Johnson. There is a small area that Springdale comes up against Fayetteville at that location. The improvements include widening the street to 18' from centerline with drainage improvements, Main Dr., once again is in the City of Springdale. There is currently 45% of the site existing tree canopy. The applicant is proposing 33%ofthe tree canopy. The requirement is 15% tree canopy. The request is for the 10,336 sq. ft. building, 152 parking spaces are requested, 5 bicycle parking racks are also being provided as required by ordinance. Staff is recommending this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. Conditions to address and discuss this moming are the following: 1) The applicant is requesting an additional use for 90 additional parking spaces. Sixty- two parking spaces are allowed by code, 152 parking spaces are being requested. There is an attached letter from the applicant addressing their parking needs. Staff is in support of the conditional use request and will making that recommendation to the Planning Commission. Once again, as you are aware, the Planning Commission did recommend modifying our parking requirements for restaurants to one space for four seats plus one per employee. The City Council did not approve that amendment that was recommended by the Planning Commission and therefore we are still using the requirement of the one space per 200 sq. ft. We have routinely granted those conditional use requests for restaurants. Those numbers do not work in our code. City Council felt that we should look at it on a case by case basis and in this situation the nature of the restaurant, being a buffet type restaurant, and looking at similar restaurants in Fayetteville, particularly Ryan's, they have a 10,065 sq.11. building, they have 201 parking spaces, I have not verified how many are being used but I can tell you every time I drive past there on a Friday or Saturday night that entire parking lot, from my observing it, looks full. I think the parking is needed and justified on this restaurant. 2) Compliance with our commercial design standards including • • • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 6 signage. Staff would like to bring to the Commission's attention that neon is proposed to be used and according to the photographs provided by the applicant, and we can go over those once I get through the conditions, a pole sign is being proposed which is 26.6 feet tall and approximately 75 sq. ft. in area. In order to meet the setback the sign must be relocated to meet the 40 feet on both the north and east sides. Staff is recommending that the north elevation of the building, the side facing Main Dr. be redesigned to incorporate elements found on the south elevations. This is a fairly unique situation. Typically everybody is trying to put their parking in front of their building along the street. This building has been pushed up to the comer of Main Dr. and College basically creating three facades that are facing the street, three fronts. There are some issues there that we can discuss this morning. They have gone back and have modified their elevations based on staff comments already. Subdivision Committee will need to take a look at that and see if there are any additional elements that need to be incorporated on that north facade. Truck burgs shall be screened by an architectural wall. A new elevation shall be submitted which details the length, height and appearance ofa screened wall, all utility equipment located on the ground shall be screened by vegetation. The rest of the conditions are standard conditions of approval and once again, it is up to you, ifyou would like us to talk about the elevations right now we can, or ifyou want to go talk with other staffand public and then come back to that we can do that. Ward: Lets go ahead and talk to other staff and public and then come back. Conklin: That is all that I have. Ward: Keith, what about the sidewalks? Shreve: The sidewalk is in the Springdale city limits and we are yielding to Springdale's requirements which is a 5' sidewalk. Ward: Do you all understand that? Wilgus: Yes. Petrie: The one thing that we will need is we need to make a condition that we need written approval from the City of Springdale on the water and sewer connections. They are actually using the City of Springdale's water and sewer in this situation. Ward: So they need a letter? • • • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 7 Petrie: Yes, I need it in writing that they have approved that and accepting their terms. We are still waiting on the permit to be signed by the actual owner of the property. The other request is the drainage easement that is requested and shown to be extended to the south which would go through the south parking lot. Ward: What are you talking about? Petrie: Everything drains from the street, it is shown in here in the space there. We want it to follow this creek on down just through here twenty foot wide. Ward: Any other comments? Petrie: No Sir. Ward: Eric? Schuldt: No. Ward: Kim? Hesse: No comments other than what has been submitted. We have talked over issues as far as the canopy on the trees. Ward: Is there any trees that they are having to save that are unique that we are working around? Hesse: We are going to save a large black oak, an arch, and several sycamores. Hoover: What about grading in the canopy? Hesse: This is in a creek. Robyn, I went out there but you really can not tell that the trees are getting to the side of the creek. I am sure that there has got to be some flat rock in there. Ward: Ok, thanks. It looks like you did a good job getting this before it came here. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: Is there anyone from the public that would like to make a comment on this particular issue? • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 8 Ward: Seeing none I will close it to the public and bring it back to the applicant and the Commission. Bunch: They show this pylon sign in the northeast corner as well as a pole sign midway down. Wilgus: This is an elusive term and it will be removed. Bunch: What about solid waste pickup? Wilgus: The way Golden Corral typically does it is they hire a private contractor to come m. They have a trash compactor here which is 20' of roll offdumpster that is self contained so that they put their trash in there. It comes with a lid and has got a drain at the bottom, it is attached to the sanitary sewer system with a grease trap and they hire a private contractor to come in and haul that off. Bunch: How does this fit in with the City of Springdale? Since they provide water and sewer, do they have the first crack at the solid waste? • Conklin: No, this is in our city limits. On commercial, I think in the city at least, we have allowed private haulers but I will mention this to Gary Dumas, our Utility Services Director and I think the city is looking into providing services too. I'm not sure if it fits this need but the city may want to look at providing service too. • Hoover: Can somebody mark on here what elevation is what, North, South, West? Conklin: Sure. Ward: The front of the building is going to face south right? Bunch: The front is south, right is east. Also, we need to have your truck docks because these don't show anything but the truck burg down on that end. Where are they going to have that at? Conklin: That depends on where you are coming from, Springdale or Fayetteville. Ward: Let's discuss the commercial design standards. Let's go ahead and get that out ofthe way right now as far as we view it as The back ofthe building is going to be facing Main Dr., is that right? • • • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 9 Wilgus: That is correct. Ward: Ok. What type of materials are we using on this building? Wilgus: I have photographs, I know they usually use siding. These are all pictures and we will make copies of these for you to have in your agenda packets for Planning Commission. Shaw Ward: I want to make one general comment. I'm Brian Shaw with Erwin Saviers Company and we are working with both of the landowners and Golden Corral in this process. I think, just so everyone understands why the building is where it is and why it faces where it faces, because along the creek there are a lot of trees and an attempt was made to preserve those trees and being if those trees are preserved, if the building gets pushed back under a more typical scenario, the building in back and the parking in front, it would be difficult to see the building from the road. In an attempt to save the trees they pushed the building up to the front so it could be better seen from the road and with parking in the rear, which I think as you drive by will actually give a better appearance, you're not looking out over a sea of parking, you are actually seeing the building and the landscaping around the building which also makes a challenge in how you position the building, where is the front, where is the back and trying to dress both of those sides up. I just wanted you to understand why the building was positioned where it was In my case, the only problem I'm having so far is just taking a quick glance. The front of the building and the east side are fine which is facing North College. The back of the building which is on Main Dr., the problem is the front of the building is going to have a problem with leaves and yet all of the cars are going to be parked in front of it. Even the west side is going to have a lot of exposure to parking lots, driveways and cars driving up and down Main Dr. I would like to try to keep an articulated wall. Right along Main Dr. is something that we have got to look at real closely. To me some of the things that can help change this would be using some different materials like split face block, combination brick, a combination ofE.F.I.S., some different materials with some different color lines or something. I can't tell you how to design it but the back of the building which is on the Main Dr. is going to be super visible, it is going to have to be built up some. You can do that with some colors and some different materials. Hoover: What material is the building on right now? Wilgus: I believe it is mostly siding. Ward: It looks like some type of siding. • • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 10 Hoover: There is some brick or something on parts of it? Wilgus: We have not had extensive contact with the architect. Hoover: On this photo it looks like brick and siding. Wilgus: I would suspect it is either a brick or a split face CMU. It is hard to tell from this. Hoover: Also Lee, besides the north elevation, the west elevation, when you have that big storage service area which you are going to need to show the material and what kind of enclosure it is and how enclosed it is. I am looking at this like a restaurant pattern on a strip center that you are in the round so you have got to be completely all the same materials all the way around. Like for instance, Chili's, they are usually in the round and you can't really tell where the service area is because it is the same material as the rest of the building. Ward: This is going to have tremendous exposure really from all sides. It is important to get a nice looking building on all four sides. Bunch: Another question, this backup picture that we have are obviously detailed from a different overall design. The question, you talked about having some stripped neon, is that going to be here? Wilgus: The neon would be solely on the sides and basically along the eaves. Hoover: Is it on here? It looks like it is on the gable end. Wilgus: It is shown on the gabled end there. Bunch: On the east elevation you might say the front and back of the building as well as on the gable for the entryway? Wilgus: Yes. Bunch: That also seems to carry over to the west elevation? Also all full gable? Wilgus: Yes Sir. Bunch: We don't know what this elevation is going to look like because we don't have those truck • burgs described. • • • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 11 Hoover: Tim, what does when you say all utility equipment located on the ground should be screened by vegetation mean? Wilgus: I think he is talking about units. Hoover: Ok, that is what I was wondering, are there anymore than that? Wilgus: This is the only row the units are on. Hoover: Don't we usually require that air handlers be screened like ifthey are on top ofthe building, is vegetation enough to screen them? Conklin: We have allowed vegetation. Ward: Vegetation will block them. Conklin: We've used trellises and different things. Ward: What you might do Robyn, when this goes to be approved, you might find out and give us a sheet ofthe materials that you are going to use and the color. If it is siding you need to express the color of siding it is going to be, the brick so it will be pretty close to what it is going to look like. Hoover: Can you get the revised elevations by Monday? Wilgus: I hope so. I will be in contact with the architect. Ward: We have an extra week. Hoover: Oh, that is right. Ward: Any other questions about commercial design standards? Lets go to the next thing before I let you loose. Let's talk about the free standing Golden Corral sign post. In the past we've kind of stayed away from sign posts, we've i iced more like monuments and also lots of signs on the buildings themselves. I'm not against having a pole here because I basically look at this as being Springdale. All the buildings around there, across the street and up and down the street all have sign poles so that is the way I view it. It looks like it meets all of our requirements but that is only my input Where is the sign pole going to be, do you have a final? • • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 12 Wilgus: We will have to move it. It is currently located 40' from the eastern property line. We are going to have to move it south to make it meet the 40' on the north property line. One reason that our client specifically does prefer a pylon sign as opposed to a monument sign is because of the terrain. College Avenue is several feet higher than the land that we are going to be building on and a monument sign would be invisible. Ward: Ok, I think you have a good chance to get that through. It is just a matter of normally we look very hard at things and prefer the way monument signs look. I will definitely be in favor of a pole sign in this particular case because I feel like it would be almost unfair competition with all the other commercial buildings out there having pole signs. Hoover: What is our ordinance then on signage right there? Conklin: This is not in an overlay district, they are allowed a pylon sign however, commercial design standards always state that a sign can't be out of scale with development. Staff is in support of the pylon sign too, since LocoMotion has a pylon sign. All this development across the street does. I kind of go along with your rational. This one business probably should have the same similar signage as what we've allowed other developments and what Springdale has allowed across the street. Bunch: On top of the hill, up towards the country club, the restaurants up there I think have pole signs. We have permitted some even in the overlay district in Fayetteville like right next to the gas company I think because of visibility problems, terrain and trees and that sort of thing. Conklin: Like Panera Bread. Bunch: I'm more in favor of monument signs myself but because this is a transition from an area with very large out of scale signs it would create an unfair disadvantage so I won't hold out for a monument sign at this location. Ward: The next issue, about neon, what are your thoughts about that Sharon? Hoover: Do we have an ordinance against neon? You can do neon? Ward: Yes, as long as it is not way out of line and I don't think it is going to be. Conklin: We are trying to make you aware because on Fazolis we weren't aware of that until they • opened up and by that time we just let it go. • • • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 13 Hoover: I'm sympathetic to night visibility. Bunch: Will the red cause any problems because we have had some people come down with more vibrant reds. Conklin: I don't think that is going to be a problem. Hoover: That is in developments where there is supposed to be a theme going on. I don't think there is any theme going on at this site is there? Ward: Any other comments? Bunch: On the parking lot, will just that curb go around are these stone blocks with the drainage coming in between them? Wilig: It has the build up on the perimeter so it should drain off. Ward: Asphalt parking lot with just the edge coming out and stopping right by the wheel box? Ward: Ron, was there any problem with velocities developed on the drainage since it is currently a creek but it will be channelized the north to south drainage where the easement will be in the middle lot? Petrie: The velocity is something that we will look at in final design. It is something that is definitely going to be addressed. Bunch: Have we had any kind of problems with that sheet drainage coming into Clear Creek? Petrie: No. They have concentrated spots, we'll have that too. If you can sheet flow it then you get the filtration through the grass to the creek and that is really a preferred method. Bunch: That is the existing tree line down along the creek. Is there any sort of landscaping to accommodate that since that is going to have a lot more flow across'there than naturally exists now? Wilig: The slopes on the parking lot are not very steep, they are about 10% so we should not be seeing a big increase. There is extensive vegetation and that is tangled under brush. • • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 14 Bunch: One of the questions I always hear about a parking lot is materials that don't need to be in the creek washing across. Without the time factor from it being slowed down and the filtration from the vegetation. Are any of those things being considered? Wilig: What we are doing is preserving that existing, we have designated that area south of the parking lot as tree preservation area, we are not going to be grading at all in there. There should not be any issues as far as that. I don't know if I've answered your question. Bunch: You have answered part of it. I just wonder if anything is going to be added where the sheet -metal comes in fairly close and mainly to keep the oil and transmission fluid and everything else from draining off the parking lot and getting on the trees over there. Wilig: Right. Bunch: It would give them a little better chance of surviving. One other thing, on tree preservation data you have the summaries and since this is probably going to be revised with the truck burgs and stuff it might not hurt to have a table for the other Planning Commissioners to see the tree preservation, we usually look for it on the drawing and it is not there Also, on the parking summary, it is kind of hard to tell what is there. Usually, we have the minimum required and maximum allowed and whatever the overage is, ofcourse that will go along with your waiver request. That makes it a lot easier for us Planning Commissioners to see that information when it is tabulated like that. Ward: I kind of missed what you are talking about. Are you talking about something like the plant schedule? Bunch: No, the percentages. Ward: Ok. Bunch: They are in the verbiage, we didn't have those until we got this today but usually it is in a tabular form on the drawing. Ward: Tim, is there something else we need to go over? Conklin: No, I think we've covered everything. I just want to clarify on the elevations you are recommending to the applicant that they come back and do something different on this elevation? Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 15 Ward: I think some tree preservation, just this first go around. Conklin: It is our recommendation too. I just don't want to have any misunderstandings between now and Planning Commission meeting, what we are looking for, I have my own ideas of what can be done and each of you have your own ideas too. There are many things that can be done. Ward: It is the back of the building but it is still facing. Hoover: I would prefer to have the architect. Ward: We can't design the building, we're not architects but we do know what we like and don't like. Wilig: I can say that at one point I think Sara had maybe suggested that they gable the back of the building and that is one option. However, most of the utilities are roof mounted and screened by aparaphat wall. They would have to go into a great extent and change their prototype. I don't think they would be adverse to adding different materials or otherwise dressing up the back of the building. Ward: Maybe even more landscape. Something to just kind of break it up. Wilig: We do have a lot of trees back there. Ward: When you make your presentation that will be important to us Wilig: We certainly would be agreeable to adding more small ornamental trees like dogwoods or redbuds. Ward: Do you understand what we're trying to get? Hoover: I just don't think we should be talking about the back. That is really slight, I mean this north elevation. I think that confuses the issue when we keep saying this is the back, I just don't want it to seem like that. Ward: You're not going to go in that door. Hoover: No, but that is not the rear. This building has no rear. It is like a restaurant pad in the middle. Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 16 Conklin: Ward: Hoover: Bunch: Hoover: Ward: MOTION: Bunch: Hoover: Ward: That is the only thing 1 wanted to bring up, as staff we have been talking to the applicant about it and as always, we are trying to make sure that we are telling them what we believe they need to do to get their project approved. That is our goal here, to get their project approved by the Planning Commission. I don't want to get to Planning Commission and have a huge debate over this issue and just to make sure the applicant is clear that something is going to have to be done. I don't think, I personally have no problems with the parking, and I don't think anyone else will. I think 152 parking spaces are appropriate. These type of restaurants do also bring in a lot of busses and vehicles that require a lot of parking. I will support the extra parking because the parking is on the side and rear. There is nothing really at this time for shared parking, it is kind of by itself. That is true. I think the adjustments for elevations, if you come back and it looks like this I can guarantee you everybody would be approving that. With the way that this is I would not be advocating this for the street face of the building. Surely they have a prototype for in the round, I've seen them where they've been on restaurant pads that went around and that is another option. Any other comments? I move we forward LSD 01-9.10 to the full Planning Commission with comments. I second. I'll concur. • • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 17 LSD 01-33.00: Large Scale Development (Country Inns & Suites, pp 402) was submitted by John Wary of Morrison -Shipley Engineers, Inc. on behalf ofNWA Hospitality LLC for property located at Lot 5, Wedington Place. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.80 acres. The request is to build a 12,665 sq. ft building with 65 units. Ward: Our next item on the agenda this morning is LSD 01-33, Large Scale Development for Country Inn and Suites submitted by John Wary. Tim, are you going to handle this? Conklin: Sure. This a large scale development for a motel. The property is zoned C-2 and contains 1.8 acres. The request is for a 12, 665 sq. ft. motel with 65 units. The property is located north of McDonald's on Wedington Road. The northeast corner of Steamboat and Wedington Dr.. On November 30, 2000 the Subdivision Committee approved a lot split subject to the curb cut for this lot being directly across the street from the approved large scale development for the grocery store There are no existing trees on the site. Seventy- two parking spaces are being provided for this motel. Staff is recommending that this project be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. Conditions to address and discuss are the following: 1) At the Planning Commission determination with compliance of commercial design standards and design overlay district requirements. This is within our design overlay district. A. The applicant is requesting a waiver from the requirement of one curb cut for every 200 feet of frontage. The property has 322 feet of frontage and the applicant is proposing two curb cuts. A first curb cut is approximately 105 feet north from McDonald's curb cut to the south, two curb cuts on this property, the two curb cuts on this property are 200 feet apart, as part of the lot split which created this lot a requirement was placed that the curb cut would be directly across from the curb cut ofthe approved large scale across to the west of Steamboat. B. The applicant s requesting a waiver from the requirement that only one wall sign be permitted per business. The applicant is requesting four wall signs, one on each side of the building. Staff is in support of this waiver due to the proximity ofI540 and the location of the building. This building kind of sets back offof 1540, they have gabled ends when we take a look at the elevations. They would like to put the name of their motel in those gable ends on top ofthe building on each side. I think staff does support it and thinks that it would help people find the Country Inn and Suites, if you are driving down 1540 you are going to see this north elevation and east elevation at different times. You have the Holiday Inn Express right here so just having it on one elevation on the east it may be difficult to see. That is why staff is in support of that waiver of request of the overlay district standards We did grant a waiver for McDonald's to have signs on all four sides of their building also for visibility reasons C Parking lot lighting shall be designed and located in such a manner to preserve the scenic appearance of the corridor. Lighting shall be shielded and directed downward to the parking lot and light spread shall not reflect into the adjacent neighborhood. Lighting shall not exceed 35' • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 18 in height and shall utilize sodium lighting fixtures. All outdoor storage material and equipment shall be screened with natural vegetation. Those are the only conditions we need to address today, the rest are standard conditions of approval. Ward: Lets go back over these curb cuts real quick. I didn't understand them. Conklin: The applicant has requested to be allowed to have two curb cuts into this motel parking lot. The reason is that they expect that it would be difficult for large vehicles, trucks and trailers to negotiate through this parking lot and get turned around and exit. That is something that we have talked about. Steamboat Dr. dead ends into a single family neighborhood to the north, to the east is an already developed apartment complex and to the west is the senior apartment project. Steamboat Dr. is not going to function as a collector street. It is a dead end street. The traffic on this is going to be low in my opinion and I really don't have a problem with the issue of the two curb cuts for those reasons. Ward: Is the applicant here? Wary: I'm John Wary. • Ward: Ron, any comments? • Petrie: The only thing I would request is that John get with me later and work out the water. The way it is fixed the fire flow line won't work. You can get with me later and work that out. Ward: Go back over that with us again. Petrie: It is the way the water is proposed and the fire line for the sprinkler system. Ward: This water line. Petrie. No, it is an extension. Ward: Any other comments Ron? Petrie. No Sir. Ward: Keith? Shreve: No comments. • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 19 Ward: Eric? Schuldt: No comment. Ward: Kim? Hesse: No comment. Ward: Let me open it up to the public. Is there anyone in the public that would like to make a public comment? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the commission. Tim, I see you have a board there of materials and so on. Conklin: Yes, I was concerned that just looking at these elevations you may have some concerns on how bright they are. Hoover: I like the color. Conklin: You like the elevations? • Bunch: This is the overlay district. Conklin: Here is what is proposed. There are materials that they are supposed to use. These colors are on that list or closely match that list. As you can tell, the elevation colors and what is actually going to be built out there are a significant difference in color. They have proposed to use the brick down below. They were talking about concrete block and they have switched plans to do that so they are putting the brick and they are using this forest green type metal roofing system. I did express some concern that you may ask questions about that. Just for the record, with regards to McDonalds and the beige or tan roof around that, I did give them options to pick different colors and they did choose that color in case that ever comes backup about why their whole building is tan. I am in support of the materials and colors on this project, I think it will be a good addition for Fayetteville. Ward: Do you have any comments that you need to make or any presentation that you would like to make? Wary: I don't think so. Ward: I will say that I was involved in the sale of property to this particular developer so I will be • asked to recuse at Planning Commission but I feel like I can at least chair the Subdivision Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 20 Hoover: Wary: Hoover: Ward: Hoover: Committee and then it is going to be forwarded anyway to the full Planning Commission. I don't want to have a lot of input in as far as whether I like the design. Do you have extra landscape items in here? Extra? Yes. Doesn't this look like more landscape in the parking lot than usual? It looks like it. Is there? Hesse: No. Hoover: I guess that is because there is that sidewalk through there that we usually don't get. There is this landscape area here in front where the flagpole is. • Conklin: There is one extra up front. Hoover: This little island here and then this here. It looks like it is going to be nice. • Conklin: It is going to be nice. I drove across the country, towards Chicago and saw like three or four of these while driving, they are very nice looking motels. Ward: John, do you have any comments? Hoover: It looks like the ADA is done correctly. Bunch: They even have bicycle racks at the motel. Conklin: I'm sure they are going to have a lot of cyclers coming along to use those. Bunch: Is this going to have a restaurant? Wary: No. Bunch: We could have neighborhood kids riding up on bicycles. Subdivision Committee • October l 1, 2001 Page 21 Conklin: You might have employees. I think our bicycle rack ordinance is probably going to be used a lot by employees for these businesses, offices, retail, there are a lot of kids that work in retail and motels and different things. • • Bunch: That apartment complex for that neighborhood there are quite a few kids. Ward: Do you want to discuss the signs any further on the building? Hoover: I didn't have any problems with the signs. Bunch: When it comes to full Planning Commission could we have a better description of the signage? Something showing just exactly what would be in just gable? Hoover: The only thing that is a little worrisome is it says not to scale on here. I don't know if that means in proportion. Wary: Like the side? I will talk to the architect and see if we can get something that would be to scale. Hoover: Ok, there might be. Ward: As far as other commercial design standards I don't think we have any problems? Hoover: No. Ward: Curb cuts? Conklin: Typically we are really hard on developers to limit the number. This is a very unique situation. Hoover: I understand. If you have somebody with a Uhaul truck or tour busses that makes sense. Ward: Coming in in that area is really tough because of that island you've got out there. Conklin: That has been taken care of. It is gone, the city took it out. Ward: Last time I was out there there were flowers in it. Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 22 Conklin: It is gone. I've been out there too many times. It is gone. Tim's been out there, Ron's been out there, it has been taken care of. Ward: If I don't get out there for a month or two, last time I was out there people were having trouble getting in and out. Conklin: The sidewalk was completely busted out. It was not working. Bunch: One question, it probably doesn't amount to much. On the driveways, one of your drawings show on there what looks to be a flagstone entryway? Wary. That is a temporary construction entrance. Bunch: That is just gravel to keep them from tracking mud everywhere? Ok. MOTION: Bunch: I move that we forward LSD 01-33 to the full Planning Commission with the comments from this meeting. Hoover: I'll second. Ward: I concur. Thanks John. • • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 23 PPL 01-5.00: Preliminary Plat (Heritage East, Phase I1, pp 565) was submitted by Landtech Engineering Inc. on behalfofNorthwest Builders for property located between 15t Street and Huntsville Road on the east of Curtis Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 11.4 acres with 44 lots proposed. Ward: The next item on our agenda is Preliminary Plat 01-5.00 for Heritage East, Phase II, submitted by Landtech. Tim, are you going to handle this one? Conklin: Yes, I'll go over this one. This is a preliminary plat for property zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 11.4 acres and 44 lots for single family homes. The site is currently covered with 3% tree canopy. The applicant is proposing to preserve 1% and replace 2%. Total canopy on the site will be 3%. The final plat will be processed prior to any sale of lots and infrastructure will be installed. Staff is recommending that this go to the full Planning Commission since it is a preliminary plat. Conditions to address are as follows: 1) The number of lots have changed due to the addition of a detention pond. The submittal for technical plat review had storm water improvements all the way towards the White River. There has been a change in plans. Now we are looking at a detention pond on the east property. 2) Curtis Avenue needs to be shown on the plat and we will have to determine if there is adequate right of way. Curtis Avenue is located on lots 8, 9, 10 and 11. 3) A note shall be added to the plat which indicates that access will not be permitted from Curtis Avenue. 4) The 100 foot overhead utility easement shall be labeled with a 25 foot general utility easement as requested by the utilities. 5) The table indicating the required sidewalk with green spaces shall be added. 6) A note shall be added to the plat which limits the development of the lots to single family and that shall be a part of the restrictive covenants reflecting that all single families shall be filed prior to the final plat. It is zoned R-2. There are lots that would allow duplexes on them. Staff wants to make sure that the POA when the realtors sale the lots that it is up to them to enforce those covenants limitediust to single family homes. We are trying to protect the City of Fayetteville here too so that if someone came in with a permit our ordinances would allow duplexes. Ward: What is the narrowest width on a duplex? Isn't it 70 feet? Conklin: Sixty feet in a R-2. Bunch: On lot width, and these are all too small? Ward: Ok. • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 24 Conklin: Ward: Hillis: Ward: • Petrie: • Ward: Gabbard: Hillis: Ward: Gabbard: Hillis: Ward: Shreve: I've seen it happen too many times where realtors and home owners come back in and say "Well how can you do this?" I want to clarify that. Standard conditions of approval are typical. That is all that we have. I will go over number nine. Payment of parks fees will be due pursuant to the current fees enacted at the time of final plat approval by the Planning Commission. I am just putting them on notice that that is the time that parks fees will be due. What you will see at Planning Commission will be slightly different than what you are looking at now. However, the roads will be in the same location, just will have fewer lots and you will have a detention pond shown somewhere in this area So you think it is going to be somewhere lots 22 or 23? It will be on the south side between 12 and 13 and 30 and 32. In that area. More than likely we will probably reduce five lots to get it in there. I've got a cleaner design on it. I met with the engineer yesterday and he is going to make some more changes and I'm going to try to make that a little better to predict some of the cuts and the grading to go on the site. Any other comments Ron? The only other comment is there is a detail for the street section on the large scale development is incorrect for a local street. I just want to make sure that we are not approving that. Will the applicant come up to the table here? Good morning. My name is Leonard Gabbard with Landtech. Don Hillis with Landtech Engineering. Ok, so you all are thinking about this detention pond? Yes Sir. He has a preliminary plat that shows it right here. Ok. I'll get the rest of the staff comments as we go and go from there. Keith? My only comments are in the notes there. I just want to make sure that you don't grade out to the right of way line at a 2% slope. • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 25 Ward: Eric? Schuldt: Tim made our comments. Just the fact that the rate per unit for park fees are determined upon the completion of final plat. Ward: What is the normal rate? Schuldt: Currently $470 per lot but that could change by the time it gets through final. Ward: It is per lot so if he has 38 lots or 39 lots. Conklin: Staffhas been talking about this issue. I'll throw it out right now. We've talked about also if the developer wants to pay parks fees now prior to the rate changing, if we have the money and we put it into an account they can lock in that original fee, that is what is being discussed by staff. I just offer that. Bunch: It gives them the option to assess interest rates verses increase. • Schuldt: Parks does have master review and that is kind of how it could impact this development. • Hillis: We were advised of that issue at the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting that met October 8, 2001 at noon and I expressed my concerns on behalf of my developer that if in fact parks fees should increase by a tremendous amount and it could cause us to have an unforeseen expense that was non -budgeted and I asked them to give consideration to allowing us to pay it at the current rate before this review process took place and possibly an increase occurred. Conklin: Sorry to complicate the matter but we've been discussing this a lot. Bunch: It sounds very reasonable, it gives people options. Edwards. I would like to make a comment. Could you show your detention pond when you get it worked out where it will be and what lots, could you show it on this plan and I just want you to understand that you will need those lot numbers removed and then where it says 44 Tots, change all that. Hillis: Mr. Petrie gave me some pointers on your grading plan that has caused me to really want to change the configuration at this time. It was very helpful, thank you Ron. I will be doing that. • • • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 26 Conklin: Can any parts of the detention pond be on someone's lot? Like the cut slope coming down? Petrie: The slope can if it is part ofthe storage. Where the water sits it can't be. That is one of the other things that we talked about. Instead ofa twenty foot setback it will need to be shown if it is near it. We will probably need to address the safety concerns since these are so close. These lots back to the south do we require some fencing to be installed? That is not a requirement of the drainage but maybe something that we need to discuss at Planning Commission. It will be a part ofthe conditions. Whenever I say that the layout, typically we have this all resolved before this meeting, this is a very difficult site because ofthe lack of infrastructure on this part of town. We have put a lot of work to get it this far. Conklin: With the detention pond adjacent between two streets and there are going to be sidewalks, are we most likely going to see a rail along the sidewalks? Petrie: Yes. If it is a 3 to 1 slope and setback two feet for sidewalks it is not required. If the slope is deeper than 3 to 1 it would be required. Conklin: Thank you. Ward: Kim, on landscaping, trees? Hesse: They did a pretty good fob. Gabbard: We moved the detention pond here because we understand what you are trying to accomplish here. There will be no trees impacted by this pond. Hesse: Ward: Ok. This plat shows exactly where they put the detention pond in. The reason why we are moving the canopy is because it is next to the street on all shoulders ofthe parking. There is a lot of vegetation on here. A lot of smaller trees and shrubs, we are having to lose all of those for the construction ofthe street. There are a couple of trees here, really only one is of decent health. The other two are not in good shape at all. They have adjusted lot lines to save the trees. Ok, thanks. Any other comments for Kim? I'll open it up to public and see if there is any public comment on this issue. Seeing none I will bring it back to the applicant and the Commission. Leonard, did you get to read over all of those conditions that we addressed, do you have any questions on those? Is Curtis Avenue on a slab? • • • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 27 Hillis: We are going to shift things over to do that. The one comment here in regards to tabling required sidewalk width, etc. I went ahead and added it to the street section to show on sidewalk and green space typically on all streets. If you would much rather have it on a table I guess I can do that. I was just trying to make it clear on the plans. Shreve: It is a lot nicer if we can get a table. It helps people in the main office and it helps us when we pull a plat out for building information usually we can get the information very quickly. I know in this section here they are all the same but in some developments they are very tricky. If we can standardize that we table and on the plans it helps us. Hillis: Ok. Hoover: On these vicinity maps, I think it would be helpful if the streets are shown on here. When I look at this I think ok, Fairlane doesn't continue from here to there and Sherman blocks off. Hillis: Show the proposed streets? Ok. Hoover: We are looking for connectivity and if you show it right there it shows it in an instance. I went back to here and found everything I needed but just in general it is great to have it. You know, if you clarify things everything goes smoother. Hillis: Sure. No problem. Bunch: What do you think of page two? Hoover: I like page two about the engineering and architectural background. Bunch: That is a good presentation. Petrie: Keep in mind those offsite improvements shown on page two are not proposed. Hillis: We found out everything downstream was not capable of handling everything upstream. I finally talked the developer in, I said "Look, you're going to just have to bite the bullet and put in a detention pond." As Ron will tell you, we've met several times and I've been out there walking the field. It has been a lot of work to get to this point. • • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 28 Hoover: Do you think it is possible to do it without having to have that handrail? If the slope, are you saying the detention pond of the slope, if it is over a certain amount we don't need to put that handrail on the sidewalk? Conklin: Yes. If it is a handrail. I think that maybe we need to clarify that. It probably could be chain-link fence potentially. Gabbard: Galvanized railing? Hoover: To avoid it you have to have less of a slope? Conklin: I'll throw that out right now. Bunch: Are you saying you're advocating a chain-link fence? Conklin: No, I said it should not be a chain-link fence. Bunch: Ok, like wrought iron or something. Petrie: I don't really know what these houses back to the south look like but if you lived there and they had this big hole put in the ground you would probably want a fence to separate brick from chain-link. Hoover: I was just thinking along the sidewalk there. Conklin: It is a big issue because every time we've talked about using some kind ofa decorative fence I have to get in a car with a developer and engineer and talk about children getting impaled by the points on a wrought iron fence and you name it, I've spent many hours dealing with this so I don't want to have to deal with it again if it comes up. Hoover: So you would encourage design that doesn't require it? Conklin: Yes. I would rather not have it. Ward: Any other comments or motions? Do you think you can get this all renumbered and accomplished before the full Planning Commission meeting which is the 22nd. You would have to have these in before? • Hillis: Yes. We can do that. There will be no problem having this ready. • • • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 29 Ward: Ok. MOTION: Hoover: I will make a motion to move this to full Planning Commission, PPL 01-5.00. Bunch: I'll second. Ward: I'll concur. Thank you. • • • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 30 LSD 01-32.00: Large Scale Development (Lewis Street Townhomes Phase II, pp 403) was submitted by Dale Schultz for property located west of Lewis Street and south of Deane Street. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential and contains approximately 3 92 acres with 32 units proposed. Ward: The next item on the agenda is large scale development 01-32, Lewis Street Townhouses Phase II. Tim, are you going to handle this one? Conklin: Yes. This is an addition to a large scale development that we looked at this year, zoned R-3, they are adding 32 units. It is across from the Lewis Street soccer fields. There are existing apartments located to the north and south ofthis property. This is the expansion once again, of Lewis Street Townhomes Phase I as approved in January. At that time they saved 20% of the tree canopy and it was dedicated as a tree preservation easement. Schultz: It is called Preservation Dr.. Conklin: Is that why it is called that? Thank you Dale for your efforts in saving trees. 1 really do mean that, Dale is the first to do the tree preservation easement for preserving trees and perpetuity in Fayetteville. They are adding 65 additional parking spaces for these units. Conditions to address, a curb is required around all landscaping islands. This shall be included as a part of Phase I also. The landscape islands aren't being protected. If you do go out there you will note that it is pretty much complete, everything is in and that is something that we saw. Three bicycle parking racks are required to be installed. Planning Commission determination of the required offsite improvements to Lewis Avenue part of Phase I. Improvements were required based on the rational nexus calculation. This was for the street to be widened to 14' from centerline and open ditches were allowed. Based on these additional units Ron Petrie has gone back and is now recommending an underground storm pipe along Lewis Avenue. Ward: How big of a pipe is that? Rudasill: Twenty-four inch. Ward: Ron, any comments on this one? Petrie: No Sir, not on this one. Ward: Keith? • Subdivision Committee October 1 I, 2001 Page 31 Shreve: Just one small one here. On the cross section of the storm sewer, they are showing a 4' green space on the sidewalk back to the curb, we requested a 6'. I wanted to know if that is possible to get a 6' there. Rudasill: A 6' sidewalk? Shreve: I know you widened the sidewalk out to 6' but I would like to have a 6' green space if possible. Rudasil I: It shouldn't be a problem. I think that that was lined with where we put the crossing in the driveway, we may have to adjust, you know come off that and move it over. We are putting pipe in there so we can move that sidewalk wherever it needs to be. Schultz: A 6' green space and a 6' sidewalk? Ok. Ward: Eric? Schuldt: Our comments are listed under standard conditions of approval. Just payment of parks • fees. • Ward: Is this the same type of parks fees that follows a certain amount, $12,000? Schuldt: That is a correct total charge. Ward: Kim, any comments? Hesse: No comments. Ward: I will open it up to public to see if there is any public comment. Seeing none I will bring it back to the applicant and to the commission. Rudasill: My name is Bill Rudasill I am the engineer representing Mr. Schultz who is also here. The curbs, they were forming the curbs around the islands yesterday and got rained out. Bicycle racks are shown on the new plan as requested and also we are installing a pipe along Lewis which is also shown on the plan. We also provided additional dumpster information which I think was discussed at the last Subdivision Committee meeting. Bunch: The dumpster had been right here on this little island. • • • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 32 Rudasill: Yes. We moved it over. We had four extra parking stalls, we've eliminated those four extra and positioned the dumpster pads in those areas so they will have plenty of room to maneuver in there. Edwards: Just a note on that, the dumpsters will have to be screened. Schultz. Ok. They just haven't been screened because the completion of Phase I we started Phase II. Bunch: Is that increased thickness on the pad is that going to show up? Ron, where does that wind up if we approve it at this level? Rudasill: It is a 6" concrete pad already, I don't think it is going anywhere. Schultz: We also put reinforced sidewalks, steel and wire mesh together. Rudasill: They reinforced the concrete in the parking lot which is way above what is required. Bunch: On the bike racks, I found one. Rudasill: There are three of them there. Two in phase I. Bunch: That is what we misunderstood the last time that this came up. There had been a comment that they were going to go under the stairs. Schultz: We can do either or. Whichever is easier. Bunch: Three is required for both Phase I and Phase II together right? Schultz: That is what my understanding was. Edwards: Phase I came about before this requirement so I can't go back and require it but on Phase II there are three required. I don't think it matters if they put some in Phase I. Schultz. I would probably put one more near that pool area. I was planning in the spring I might begin putting that pool in there. I am sure we will need something near there. That is my intention. We did save that big tree Kim, they went around it. The kids in Washington Plaza sat up in the tree and paid a tree preservationist. I got beat by an eight year old. • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 33 Rudasill: We did actually find one very, very large tree once we got all the brush cleared out that we could actually get under there. Schultz. Yes. They can get up there and scream. Conklin: Send me a video tape of that. Schultz: I Just told them that I would leave it, they were trespassing, I was going to turn them into health and welfare at this point if they didn't get out of the tree because then it would have to come down. Bunch: Did they throw apples at you? Schultz: No. Ward: Any other comments or a motion? Conklin: This project can be approved at this level, we are recommending that. Just one note, the • applicant, there was a misunderstanding, they were not here at the last Subdivision Committee meeting, it was tabled. However, it could have been approved at the last Subdivision Committee meeting which is a 27 day process from application submittal to the planning division to this meeting. That includes calendar days which include weekends and everything. Just so you understand that and the public watching. That is 27 days from the first time planning division and engineering sees the project to approval by the City of Fayetteville for large scale development. That is pretty fast. I would Just like to point that out that this is a 27 day process. • Ward: It's a one time only deal is that what you are saying? Conklin: No, we've had other developers with 27 day processes too. Hoover: I thought it looked familiar. Bunch: That is why we went ahead and made the comments so they would have an opportunity to respond to them even though they weren't present at the time. Ward: Ok, can I have a motion? • • Subdivision Committee October 11, 2001 Page 34 MOTION: Hoover: I'll make a motion to approve LSD 01-32 at this level with comments. Bunch: I'll second. Ward: I'll concur. Ward: I guess we still have one item if the applicant is here on the lot split. Edwards: We called them and they weren't able to make it so they asked to be tabled until the next meeting. Ward: Ok, we'll table it for the next meeting. Is there any other business Tim? Conklin: No other business. Ward: Ok, this meeting is adjourned.