Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-11-29 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE • SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, November 29, 2001 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN ADM 01-48.00: Administrative Item (SFCDC, pp 523) Approved LSP 01-37.00: Lot Split (Baker, pp 558) Approved LSP 01-38.00: Lot Split (Wilkins, pp 221) Forwarded LSP 01-31.00: Lot Split (Guisinger/Sager, pp 325) Forwarded LSD 01-34.00: Large Scale (Farm Credit Services, pp 325) Forwarded LSD 01-42.00: Large Scale Development (Karstetter & Glass, pp 402) Forwarded LSD 01-40.00: Large Scale Development • (Sunbridge Center, Lot 9, pp 290) Approved PPL 01-8.00: Preliminary Plat (David Lyle Duplex, pp 569) Forwarded LSD 01-25.10: Large Scale Development (Cliffs phase III P.U.D., pp 487) Forwarded LSD 01-41.00: Large Scale Development (Steele Crossing II, pp 212) Forwarded • MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Don Bunch Lee Ward Sharon Hoover STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Keith Shreve Kim Hesse Eric Schuldt Tim Conklin • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 2 Ward: Good morning, welcome to the meeting of the Subdivision Committee Today is Thursday, November 29, 2001. We have ten items left on our agenda this morning. Item number 11 has been pulled, this is the large scale development submitted by Glen Carter of Carter Consulting on behalf of Brian Dandy for property located on the southwest corner of Fletcher Avenue and Rogers Drive. That item has been pulled this morning but we still have ten other items on the agenda so lets keep this thing rolling if we can. ADM 01-48.00: Administrative Item (SFCDC, pp 523) was submitted by Cherry Pearson on behalf of South Fayetteville Community Development Corporation for property located at 19 E 4th Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.16 acres The request is to build a single family home on a non -conforming lot. Ward: The first item on the agenda this moming is ADM 0148.00 which is an administrative item submitted on behalf of South Fayetteville Community Development Corporation for property located at 19 E 4th Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately .16 acres. The request is to build a single family home on a non conforming lot. Are you going to take this Sara? Edwards: Yes. You should have a map in your packet. This property is located on 4th Street. Currently it is a vacant lot. They are requesting to build a single family home. Pursuant to the non -conforming use of structures code section "With the approval of the subdivision committee, anew single-family dwelling or an addition or repair to an existing single-family dwelling may be constructed in all residential zones in keeping with the existing standard in the neighborhood." That is so long as the interior side setback is not less than 5'. Any variances should be obtained through the Board of Adjustments. As far as I know, there are no variances being requested. Our only condition is that they comply with the current R-2 setbacks. Ward: Ok, do we have the applicant here this moming? Please come forward and give us your name and presentations if you have any. Jones: My name is Manual Jones and I'm the acting director for the South Fayetteville Community Development Corporation. We are wanting to build an affordable house here. The lot was donated by the city last year and we wish to build an approximately 1,300 sq. ft. home. Ward: Sara, what makes this non -conforming? Is the lot too narrow? • Edwards: Yes, the lot width. I believe it is 50'. Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 3 Conklin: 60' is required in R-2. Hoover: What is an R-1 setback? Conklin: 25'. Hoover: What is the R-2? Conklin: The same thing. They are all pretty uniform. Hoover: So it would be the same for R-1? Edwards: I believe that the rear setback for an R-1 is 20' and in R-2 it is 25'. That is the only difference. Hoover: Would that make any difference? I don't see why they have to have an R-2 setback. Edwards: You're meeting the setback requirements right? I've seen the plan. Jones: Yes. Conklin: I don't think it is an issue. This is one of these areas where you can look at this map right here, the lots were created historically and we have a zoning ordinance that states for single family it has to have 60' and all lots are 50'. Ward: Is there anything to do with parks on this? No. Ron, do you have anything? Petrie: No Sir. Ward: Keith, on sidewalks? Kim? No. At this time I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone who would like to make a public comment on this particular item? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. Motion: Hoover: I would like to make a motion to approve ADM 01-48.00. Ward: Do I have a second? Bunch: I'll second. Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 4 Ward: Jones: I'll concur. Thank you for coming. Good luck. Thank you. • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 5 LSP 01-37.00: Lot Split (Baker, pp 558) was submitted by William Greenhaw on behalf of Wilma Jean Baker for property located at 1391 and 1393 Farmers Avenue. The property is zoned RS, Residential Small Lot and contains approximately 0.71 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.32 acres and 0.33 acres. Ward: Our second item on the agenda this moming is LSP 01-37.00 submitted by William Greenhaw on behalf of Wilma Jean Baker for property located at 1391 and 1393 Farmers Avenue. The property is zoned RS, Residential Small Lot and contains approximately 0.71 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0 32 acres and 0.33 acres. Tim, are you going to handle this one? Conklin: Sure. The rezoning request from R-1 to RS was approved by the Planning Commission and has gone to City Council. The City Council did approve the rezoning on December 5, 2000. The proposed split will meet the frontage and lot area requirements in the R-2 district. There are legal non -conforming structures because construction preceeded zoning. There are three dwelling units on the plat currently if you'll look at your plat survey. Two of the structures are on the south lot that is being created and there is one single family home on the north lot. The back structure behind the one on the south lot is currently being used for storage. We are recommending approval at this level. There are standard conditions of approval included. That is all we have on this one. Ward: Do we need to put anything into our motion about that always to be used as a storage building or they will have to set up separate access or something to it? Conklin: We have not really addressed that because it is an existing condition. We wanted to make sure each lot met zoning requirements for lot area, lot width and have not looked at limiting how the property is currently being used since it is non -conforming already. Ward: Are these all set up on separate utilities now? Conklin: I'm not sure. Petrie: The two on the one lot is served on that lot. I have a letter from their lawyer that explains how it is served so they are all individually served by lot and not by house. What the letter says is that was originally an apartment for the lady's mother and since her death the building has been uninhabited and used only for storage. It is metered offofthe existing house in the front. • Ward: Ok, is that on city sewer? • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 6 Petrie: Conklin: Ward: Yes. Based on that letter and that the structure has now been converted to storage we probably would have to do a second dwelling unit in the future if it is converted back because physically the use inside the structure has been changed. Ok, any other comments on this one? Anybody on the staff? No comments. At this time I will open it up to the public. Is there anybody that would like to make public comment on this particular lot split? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee for motions or questions. Motion: Bunch: I move that we approve LSP 01-37.00 at this level. Hoover: I'll second. Ward: I'll concur. • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 7 LSP 01-38.00: Lot split (Wilkins, pp 221) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Gordon Wilkins for property located on Sassafras Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 7.15 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 5.65 acres and 1.5 acres. Ward: Item number three on the agenda this morning is LSP 01-38.00 submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Gordon Wilkins for property located on Sassafras Road. The property is in the planning area and contains approximately 7.15 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 5 65 acres and 1.5 acres. Who is going to handle this one? Conklin: This request was heard at the Subdivision Committee in November of 2000. It was tabled due to a concern that the lot splits did not go through the city or county development process. We ended up with two lots currently This one already exists It has been sold twice. It never went through our process. We've been trying to clean this up for some time now. We've been working with Mr. Wilkins. For your information, Mr. Wilkins recently passed away and we would still like to go forward and try to clean this up and get everything approved. It has been somewhat controversial. Some of the residents are concemed with the number ofhouses that will be utilizing this 25' strip ofland that provides access to this piece of property. We are recommending approval of this layout. Several conditions will need to be addressed. The applicant is requesting a waiver of § 166.08(F)(a), which requires that each lot in the planning area shall have a minimum of 75' of street frontage on an approved street. Condition two, that we're going to state that no additional lot splits will be allowed This note will be added to the plat which will reflect this and number three, all water meters on this property shall be relocated to the west end of the property adjacent to the public right of way. The main issue is typically on a tandem lot in the city we don't allow one tandem lot behind another tandem lot. The county regulations require a minimum of 30' access back into this property and they only have 25'. The reality is we don't have county zoning. They went out and built homes as long as they could get septic systems they didn't have to split the property. That was the concern of the neighbors of Mr. Wilkins building additional homes out here without having to split the property because you can build more than one house as long as you have room for septic. We're to the point now of working with George Butler at the county and county planning and going out there and having meetings here at City Hall with this layout. This house exists, it was built just this past year, it is brand new. This house exists, we have two houses and two lots and that will be it for this piece of property. Ward: Ok. The main issue here is the 25' easement in and out? Conklin: Yes and not having street frontage. • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 8 Ward: Both houses are already there? Conklin: Both houses are there, they are both on septic, they are both on city water. The neighbors aren't really happy. They are concerned. I don't think we're going to go back and have Mr. Wilkins tear down the house, so we have two houses. This is the best solution staff could come up with including Washington County Attorney, George Butler and the County Planner, Celia Scott Silkwood. This is where we're at today. Ward: Ok, Chris, do you have any comments? Brackett: No, that is pretty much it. Ward: Ron, do you have anything? Petrie: No Sir. Bunch: Are both houses occupied at this time? • Conklin: This one is occupied; I'm not sure the status of this one that Mr. Wilkins recently built. • Public Comment: Ward: At this time I will open it up to the public. Would anyone like to make any comments on this one? McClenathan: My name is Jim McClenathan and I live directly in front of this place. He built that house that is there and I'm satisfied that it is going to be there. I dust don't want any more houses built out there. He did go ahead and install a water line back there because he intended to build another house back there. They metered that in trying to bypass this property. Ward: Ok. McClenathan: As long as it is restricted that no more houses can use that driveway. Ward: When this passes it will definitely be restricted. It is going to have to go through the full Planning Commission, but once it goes through that there won't be any other lot splits there. Any other comments? Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 9 Edwards: I would like to add a condition that no additional homes be constructed, just to make sure that they can't build there. Ward: Do you want to put it on the plat? Conklin: Tied to the water line either. Edwards: Yes, we can add that to the plat. Ward: Ok. I assume that if they ended up with other access into the property, since it is 5.65 - acres, twenty years from now there may be a road there and they could come back then? Edwards: Right and they could do a subdivision with this restricted lot split. McClenathan: There is another way in there and I explained that to Gordon. Ward: It is going to be a long time. It would have to be a subdivision so it would be a long planned thing before we would look at it again. Any other questions? Motion: Bunch: I'll move that we forward LSP 01-38.00 to the full Planning Commission with the additional condition that no additional homes may be constructed. Hoover: I'll second. Ward: I'll concur. Thanks Chris. Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 10 LSP 01-31.00: Lot Split (Guisinger/Sager, pp 325) was submitted by Chris Brackett ofJorgensen & Associates on behalf of Paul Guisinger and Louise Sager for property located north of Porter Road, east of Deane Soloman, and west of Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 24.78 acres. The request is to split into 1.02 acres and 23.76 acres. Ward: The next item on the agenda this morning is LSP 01-31.00 submitted by Chris Brackett ofJorgensen & Associates on behalf of Paul Guisinger and Louise Sager for property located north of Porter road, east of Deane Soloman and west of Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 24.78 acres. The request is to split into 1.02 acres and a 23.76 acre tract. Tim, are you doing this one? Conklin: Sure. The 1.02 acre piece of property was rezoned to C-1 on October 8th of this year. The remaining 24.76 acres was heard by the Planning Commission just this last Monday and will be forwarded to the City Council for approval, that included the C-2 and the R-2 that you recommended. The 1.02 acre parcel is being split off in order to facilitate the sale of the property. The large scale development is on the agenda, your next item which you will be reviewing. We're recommending you forward this to the frill Planning Commission. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the requirement to construct sidewalks on the 23.76 acre tract at this time along Mt. Comfort Road, Deane Soloman and Shiloh, that the requirement be deferred to the time of future development. Number two, the applicant is also requesting a waiver of the sidewalks along Shiloh on the 1.02 acre tract at the time of the lot split. The large scale development is the next item on your agenda. Number three, the applicant is requesting a waiver that the 8" sewer line be extended to the 1.02 acre tract. They are proposing to extend the sewer line at the time of the large scale development. Staff is proposing that a letter of credit be established to guarantee the sewer line extension until it is constructed, approved and accepted The rest are standard conditions of approval. Ward: Conklin: Ok, we have a lot of waivers here. They are not wanting to do construction until they... Until the development occurs on tract 2 and tract 1. I'm not sure what their plans are for tract 1. I'm pretty confident that Farm Credit will be in tract 2 and we'll get those improvements. Brackett: The waiver for the sewer is just to enable the sale of this property to Farm Credit Services before the sewer is installed and the sewer will be installed along with the large scale development. It is just to keep from having to wait for the sewer to be installed to be able to sale the property. • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 11 Ward: Ok. Basically when this comes through large scale it is all going to be done anyway, right? Brackett. Yes. There is a development proposed for lot 2 which will be serviced by this sewer. It will be installed with this large scale which is on the agenda this morning. Conklin: We'll probably want to put a time frame on the letter of credit and sewer extension in case Farm Credit decides to go somewhere else, that way we're not sitting out there with a lot and a letter of credit forever. Ward: What's normal on that, a year or three years? Conklin: Six months. Edwards: Nine months. Brackett: Well, the large scale is approved for a year so you might want to tie it to that. We have to begin construction of the large scale within a year of its approval. • Conklin: Yes, your letter of credit only goes up to a year and then we're going to have to either call the bank and walk down there and get the money or do a new letter of credit. We can work it out. I won't go into detail. • Edwards • I want to make sure you understand that on number one, they are requesting a waiver of the sidewalks for that large tract. It is somewhat consistent with the view that we're taking on with not requiring sidewalks on lot splits Hoover: We couldn't just defer like it is never going to be there? Edwards: Right, it will be there when this develops. Ward: It is kind of hard to put in sidewalks and not know where the curb cuts are going to be. Edwards: It is a very large piece of property with frontages on both sides. Ward: Keith, is there anything under sidewalks that you want to discuss? Shreve: This falls under the legal opinion of our City Attorney about not requiring sidewalks for lot splits. • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 12 Ward: Ok. Thank you. Ron? Petrie: No comment. Ward: Kim, as far as landscaping? Hesse: No comment. Public Comment: Ward: At this time I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone who would like to make a comment on this particular lot split out on Shiloh? Kneese: I'm Ken Kneese, Manager with Farm Credit. In lieu ofa letter of credit what Sara and I had discussed, and I'm in the process ofworking on it right now, is escrowing the money with a third party which I think will serve the exact same purpose. Ward: Ok, we'll let you work that out with the staff as far as one or the other. Any other public comment on this particular item? Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. Bunch: I have a question for staff and the developer. We don't have any sewer access further up on Shiloh. Is there any way we can at least get an easement, a utility easement that would go all the way across tract 2 or possibly across the north side of tract 1 to accommodate any future expansion? Also, since sewer is not available on Shiloh further up, I think that is aproblem we ran into with Williams Tractor and the expansion there, they actually did not have sewer available. Brackett: When this develops this is the start of the sewer for this whole property. When this develops sewer will be extended. Bunch: If there are problems with development and it takes a long time, I want to at least get a utility easement so that if someone further up wants to extend the line they have the ability to do it. Brackett: The only problem with that is, if you extend an easement along here, there's a low point here and I don't know, I haven't looked at it myself, but I'm pretty sure you're not going to be able to drain across this low point. Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 13 Bunch: Either that or an easement across here. Ron, do I remember correctly that that whole section of Shiloh is not served by sewer lines? Petrie: That is correct. The Williams Ford Tractor that we saw had a septic. Chris, could we get an easement on the north side of tract 2? Conklin: How big of an easement Ron? Petrie: I'm just asking. Brackett: That's the point that I was getting at. Right there on Shiloh, just north of here is that low point. I don't think you could service across that. Petrie: This is the low point in the property? Brackett: Yes, this property sits up and it is kind of the high point, it drains down to the north so you would be going uphill there. I don't know, I think it will be addressed when this is developed. I just don't know where and I don't know how they are going to connect, depending on how this develops. When this develops there will be sewer that you can get to from Shiloh but you can go up the middle through here and over somehow. Ward: Do you think they'll have to have a lift station? Brackett: I don't believe so, I think we can probably get gravity flow; well that is just offthe top of my head but I know that this will probably go through the middle of this property and in between the C-2 and the R-2 zoning. Through that we'll be able to stub out up here but I don't believe it can go this way I think it is more likely to go that way. I would hate to set this easement in here not knowing. Bunch: Could we run an easement from here along the north edge of tract 1? You know, as it develops, if we need to relocate the easement or vacate that easement and put a new one in, then it could be done at that time. I hate to leave it undone on the split knowing that we need one. Conklin: What do you think Ron about putting an easement along the north boundary line? Petrie: Of tract one? Before I can give you a good answer, I need to look at the elevations out there. • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 14 Bunch: This has to be forwarded to the full Planning Commission so we can have that as a condition. You and Chris can look at it and then get with the owners and see. Ward: You might want to put the sewer between the R-2 and the C-2 zoning, right along the line. Bunch: There are several options but I would like to at least get it in the process so that we're aware of it. Brackett: Ok. Ward: Any other questions, comments or motions? Motion: Bunch: I'll move that we forward LSP 01-31.00 with the additional condition that the Engineering Division and the applicant get together on additional sewer and utility easement as we discussed and forward it to the full Planning Commission. Hoover: I'll second. Ward: I'll concur. Thanks Chris. • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 15 LSD 01-34.00: Large Scale (Farm Credit Services, pp 325) was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Farm Credit Services for property located west of Shiloh Drive, east of Deane Soloman and north of Porter road. The property is zoned C-1, neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 1.02 acres with a 3,208 sq. ft. building proposed. Ward: The next item on the agenda is LSD 01-34.00 submitted by Chris Brackett ofJorgensen & Associates on behalf of Farm Credit Services for property located west of Shiloh Drive, east of Deane Soloman and north of Porter Road. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 1.02 acres with a 3,208 sq. ft. building proposed. Tim, are you doing this one? Conklin: Yes, this is the lot split we just looked at Here is a large scale development for Farm Credit Services. The proposal is for a 3,208 sq. ft. building. They have 19 parking spaces. This is in the overlay district. We're recommending you forward to the full Planning Commission. The Commission will need to determine compliance with our Commercial Design Standards and Overlay District Regulations, elevations are up on this board. Dumpsters at the location shall be added to the plat and shall be screened and the location shall be approved by the Solid Waste Division. Brackett: They're not going to have a dumpster. They don't have one currently and they don't show a need for one. Conklin: All lighting shall be shielded and directed downwards. Lighting shall not trespass onto adjacent residential property and shall meet all requirements ofthe design overlay district. Screening shall be provided along the southem property line to screen the nonresidential use from adjacent residential properties. The rest are standard conditions of approval. Ward: Ok, thanks Tim. Our main thing this morning would be the commercial design standards and so on and signs etc. Ron? Petrie: One ofthe things to point out here is this grassland swale shown to go over that waterline. Just looking at your grading plan, you will have to cut over that water line about a foot and a half. That may cause you some elevation problems and we want to maintain that 3' cover over that waterline. It is something that can be worked out later in the construction stage but I need that addressed. Brackett: Alright. • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 16 Petrie: The easement shown around the manhole on this property, if you could make that 10' around the manhole, that would apply to your lot split too. One thing that I want to point out to the Commissioners, on this future expansion, there is a 20' setback required on this line, high water mark. It would fall within this future expansion so I really don't know how to address that other than when they come in for a building permit to do an expansion, they are going to need a waiver of that requirement or they need to relocate the pond. Ward: Ok, any other comments? Did you understand those Chris? Brackett: Yes. Ward: Ok, Keith? Shreve: They are proposing construction of a 6' sidewalk along the frontage which meets the requirements. Ward: Kim, is there any landscaping concerns? Hesse: No, their landscape requirements are pretty typical as mentioned at Plat Review. They have done a good job of meeting all the requirements. Edwards: I have a question for you Kim, there is screening required on this south side and they have some trees there, are those trees adequate for screening? Hesse: Yes. Edwards: Is that a condition of the landscaping plan? Hesse: We'll have to look at that when we get to that last stage. It will be just a matter of when they come in for a building permit. Schuldt: Just one comment if I could. I would like to thank Chris and Keith with the Sidewalks Division for moving the sidewalk to the western edge of the right of way so it would allow for a future trail if possible. Ward: Ok, thanks Eric. At this time I will open it up to the public, is there any public comment on this large scale development for Farm Credit Services? Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 17 Bunch: One of the first things that we need to mention is on the monument sign. Conklin: Thank you Commissioner Bunch The ordinance allows up to 75 sq. ft. with a maximum height of 6' tall. Bunch: Also, on the front and side elevation I guess the full Planning Commission will need to have that tied into the drawing so we can actually tell what is the front and what is the side. Conklin: I would ask that applicants start labeling their elevations, north, south, east, west. That would be helpful for staff and the Commission. Edwards: He did label the other two sides on the black and white drawing. They are labeled west and north. Bunch: What we have here on the color prints, what is shown is the side elevation is actually east or it appears to be? Brackett: Yes. Bunch: The front would be southerly? Hoover: Do we have equipment screening requirements in the overlay district? Edwards. Yes, I mentioned all of that to them at Plat Review and they were in agreement. Brackett: Yes. Hoover: Where is it going to be located on the ground? Brackett: I do not know that. Hoover: We need a note that mechanical equipment needs to be screened. Conklin: Electric meters on the wall, that type of stuff. Ward: It looks like it is brick with EFIS, is that what it is? Key: That is correct. I'm James Key, the architect for Farm Credit Services. The structure is • going to be brick with split face block and EFIS to accent our gables and trim. • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 18 Conklin: Jim, do you know where you're going to pull the utilities in the building? Key: Ward: It is my belief that they will all come in on the west side, actually it is approximately a northwest side along the side submitted it will be dimensioned m there. I assume, I've not actually seen the actual development plan, the actual service will come in from that side of the building. Ok, thanks Jim. Let me see if there is anyone from the public that would like to make a comment on this particular item. Jim, I'm not closing it to you but I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. Bunch: One other thing on lighting, I see three flagpoles, are you going to use some sort of flag lighting in addition to sign lighting? Conklin: Yes, that,is correct. Bunch: Sharon, you're on the lighting committee. Hoover: You don't want to know. Conklin: Today they could do it. We may have an ordinance that will stop up lighting. Hoover: We won't have an ordinance that quick though. Bunch: That is going to be quite a ways from anything so we won't have anything there. Hoover: It won't be and we can do a site observation right next to residential. Conklin: I'm not sure how large their U.S. flag is going to be but we can't regulate that. Bunch: When it comes to the full Planning Commission can we have some sort of statement about what type of lighting is anticipated for the monument sign? Conklin: I think they can get those. Hoover: Is there parking lot lighting? Edwards: They stated to me at Plat Review that they were going to use flood lights at the building that • they were just going to point down. • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 19 Hoover: I guess we need to move faster. Conklin: Yes, we have that meeting coming up. They need to be shielded and directed downward. Brackett: That is a condition. • Conklin: We have that as a condition. That is something that we're looking at in our committee, the use of flood lights because when you use a flood light it is kind of difficult sometimes to shield and direct it downwards because the idea is to flood the entire lot. Hoover: This is R-1 over here? Ward: South is all commercial. Conklin: South is residents in the county, where the fireworks stand is located. I'm working on trying to get them annexed in. Bunch: It is R-2 to the west? Brackett: R-2 to the west and commercial to the north. Motion: Hoover: I'll make a motion we forward this to the full Planning Commission, LSD 01-34.00. Bunch: I'll second. Ward: Ok, and make sure we do get the mentions of the monument sign and the elevations. Brackett: Would you like them relabeled or can we do this? Ward: Why don't you relabel them if you can or take these and just label them and make sure we have that, the side elevation doesn't need much. It looks like a nice project. Thanks Chris. Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 20 LSD 01-42.00: Large Scale Development (Karstetter & Glass, pp 402) was submitted by Steve Clark on behalf of Doris Ann Glass for property located at 2530 Wedington Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.76 acres with a 1,240 sq. ft. shop expansion proposed. Ward: Item number six on our agenda today is a large scale development submitted by Steve Clark on behalf of Doris Arm Glass for property located at 2530 Wedington Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.76 acres with a 1240 sq. ft. shop expansion proposed. Tim, are you going to handle this? Conklin: Ok, this is a large scale development 01-42, Karstetter & Glass. The original structure is a legal nonconforming use This was built 40 years ago. The expansion somebody began without any building permits, when I say expansion, there is a structure currently out there that is a metal building, it is partially done. A stop work order was placed on this expansion because there was no permit. When we looked at our zoning map, it was zoned R-1, the land use plan showed at that time it not being commercial. Last year when we looked at our 2000 revision to our General Plan I did grab this piece of property and Marinoni's and made this shown as commercial. We brought a rezoning through, we rezoned it, it is in the overlay district. Therefore, they have to go through large scale development. The site has many issues. The applicant has requested several waivers because it is very difficult to meet those Overlay District requirements and I'll go through those. Wedington Drive was widened from two lanes to four lanes. The Arkansas Highway Department has gone in and built sidewalks and curb cuts. We've got parking lots that barely function. I've been working on this for four or five years. I've talked to elected officials who are no longer on the council about this. I've talked to Mayors that are no longer in the city about this and I've talked to current people about this. We're to the point where we're trying to figure out how to allow either them to finish up what they are doing through this process or they are going to have to tear it down. I've been trying to work with them to find a solution to this. Conditions to address: Determination of compliance with our commercial design standards They are requesting several waivers below. One of them is the waiver that requires that curb cuts be a minimum of200' apart. The Highway Department built the curb cuts, they are there. They are asking for a waiver of the 25' of landscaped area along all public rights of way with one tree per every 301 . Their parking lot is there. It is impossible to do landscaping in front of this building without relocating the entire parking lot to a different location on the site. The applicant is requesting a waiver that buildings shall be constructed out of wood, masonry or natural looking materials. What you see in this photograph, this is the addition, it is a metal building. The reason why they are doing this addition is this is a paint body shop. They currently have a paint booth facility or area and there is inadequate ventilation. They need Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 21 to comply with the ADQ, they need to have a better facility and that is where we're at on that. We have a building existing there that is behind Karstetter & Glass, one of the things that concerned me a little is right across the street we have Constien's preliminary plat that is currently being developed. We do want to make sure that we make this area as nice as possible. Number two, Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver which requires that driveway widths not exceed 39' from one way in and one way out or 24' for one way in and one way out. The applicant is asking to leave what the Highway Department built. Planning Commission determination of the waiver which requires entrances, aisles shall not exceed 24' in width, the applicant is asking for a reduction of 21' to 23'. Number four, Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver for required right of way dedication along Wedington and Futrall. The requirement along Wedington is 55' from centerline. Cunently, a varying amount of right of way exists from 40.53 feet to 44.31 feet and the requirement along Futrall is 25' from centerline. Currently, 15' from centerline exists. We have a very nonconforming situation that started many years ago and they want to get their building permit. I have met with them and talked with them about landscaping a small area on the northeast or southeast corner in this location. I talked to them about putting a solid wood fence on their entrances into the back and that is about it, where we are at I would encourage each of you and the Commission, maybe on tour, to go out there and look at it. The alternative is going to require a complete redesign of the site to meet the ordinances. Edwards: Dust wanted to add that I do want to add a condition that they do get a variance approval from the Board of Adjustments for their existing building which is not meeting setbacks. Hoover: I have a question on this existing house. Ward: It is all owned by the same person. Conklin: Ms. Doris Glass, her husband started Karstetter & Glass, she has lived there 44 years. She lived out there when the bypass wasn't even on the ground. It was in the country and everything has developed around her. The shop is out there, she does own this whole piece of property. We did rezone this entire property to C-2. The question is really, you've got an existing facility, they're trying to build a paint booth, they got caught because they didn't have a building permit basically. That resulted in years of talking to them about "I can't issue a building permit because you have to get it rezoned; I can't issue a building permit because you have to have large scale development, you're in the overlay district; You can't have a metal building because you're in the overlay district" and to this point where I'm going to need your help, as a Commission, to decide how much we do. These Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 22 were my recommendations with the fence and the small little area of landscaping without completely redesigning the site. Hoover: What is the zoning next to it, adjacent? Clark: R-2, I believe. Bunch: All the metal for the building is already purchased? Siding and everything? Clark: Yes. The main frame is up, the siding is on the side. The only thing lacking is the roof and the finish out inside. Conklin: It is rusting, it has sat there for years, the steel frame. Clark: The frame itself because it has not been protected from the weather, it is not to a detriment, it will be sanded and repainted to stop the rust but the business owner is not Mrs. Glass. The business, Karstetter & Glass, was purchased from Bill Karstetter several years ago and that was when the new owner wanted to get his paint booth brought up to standards. You know, he is grandfathered in on the existing paint booth but it is still a health hazard. It discharges the volatiles and he wanted to bring it up standard. Unfortunately, he made the mistake in getting started before he got his building permit in place. Bunch: He owns the business but not the property? Clark: He owns the business but not the property. That is why the application is in Mrs. Glass' name. Ward: Ok. Any other questions? Ron, do you have any questions as far as engineering? Keith, the sidewalks have already been done by the Highway Department? Shreve: Yes. Ward: Kim, have you got any other ideas as far as what we could do to kind of spruce up the front of this building as far as some flower boxes or some more green areas or so on? Hesse: Well, it is already covered by asphalt and concrete, there is really nothing to do. Flower boxes would probably be an open target for cars because basically it is all open, you can just drive in anywhere. Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 23 Clark: There is a little short section that is curbed. What we actually have instead of having 80' of opening, we have two essentially 39' or 40' wide curb cuts. You can see there is a little short section of curb that falls in the middle. It is very limited. That is the result of course, back when this business first started, they had many more feet out to the road, there was a 20' or 30' greenspace with open ditch and driveways that came in. Through the subsequent right ofway acquisition by the Highway Department when the bypass first went in and then again whenever Wedington Road was widened, the right ofway has shifted and moved to within about 30' of the building. Conklin: Part of this, I think we all need to do a better job working together with the Highway Department because we're in a situation here. When I took the Crown Vic out to look at it, I had to back over this little sidewalk just to turn around without having to back into Wedington. That is how bad the situation is once the road was widened. If I was the property owner and worked with the Highway Department, I would say "Look, you're creating a very dangerous situation for me here." Clark: But we all know how much the Highway Department listens to those objections by the property owners. Conklin: I'm not criticizing the Highway Department. Clark: Absolutely, the highway had to go in, the improvements needed to be done Unfortunately, it has created a difficult situation as far as a development related issue. Ward: What about the old building, is that concrete block? Clark: Yes, painted block. Ward: Ok. We're building a metal 24' building right behind it is what we're trying to do? Clark: Attached to and behind it, yes Sir. The building itself, if you look at the different views is really only visible from one side and that would bejust east of the building. As you move further east down the road there are some apartments that have been constructed that kind of obstruct the view. When you look at it from Futrall there are the trees and landscaping and the little side building which is actually the paint booth at this point, where you can kind of see through the trees a little corner of the building. From the front it is essentially no visual impact, at least dead on from the front. As you shift to the east a little bit, you will see some. • • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 24 Ward: Right. One thing, where it is very visible I guess would be the east side, if it had been the same theme of concrete block used, it would be a lot easier to take. That might be something that we will have to look at, you can't use metal on that side. It is in the Overlay District which does not allow metal buildings. If it was done twenty years ago, it wouldn't have made a difference, it would've been grandfathered in, but it has not been done. Those are some issues that I would have with it, especially these sides that you can see from the road. Bunch: Really the side that is most obvious is going to be that east side which faces away from the overlay district. Ward: If it had been done exactly like the existing then that is one story but it doesn't even do that. Clark: I understand. Ward: Anyway, that would be one of the issues that I would have with it right now as far as allowing the finish out. I don't think I would allow metal in the overlay district. That is just one person's opinion. At this time, I would like to open it up to the public, is there any public comment on this large scale development for Karstetter & Glass? Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. I -las anybody got any other ideas or comments? Bunch: Since this one is on the issue of the metal building. It is kind ofa combination of extreme circumstances that it is winding up being a metal building. It was probably purchased before the Overlay District went in. Conklin: No. Bunch: Was the metal actually purchased subsequent to the overlay district? Conklin: I think so, I've been dealing with this for four or five years and the overlay was in 1994. C lark: I think it was within the first couple of years after the Overlay District came in, but I believe it was afterwards. Bunch: I was wondering if we could use a combination of some architectural treatments and painting and maybe wains coating or something like that to just throw some ideas to the applicant. I'm not trying to design it at this point, but just to break up that east side and Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 25 keep it from looking like an unarticulated box like structure and to minimize the effect of the metal siding. I think we have allowed some metal siding in the Overlay District where it had like a wood grain. Ward: Where it is nonvisible Bunch: Where we had some rock pilasters or some different treatments to minimize the effect of it. Ward: One thing you get involved in is a 60x40, you're getting a 60' wall back here that is basically unarticulated, it doesn't meet our commercial design standards. As far as these other waivers, as far as sidewalks, it has all been done. It doesn't make sense to go in there and bulldoze them up and start them over again. The building at one time had plenty ofparking. Now because of the Highway Department, the frontage is getting smaller and smaller. Bunch: The issue of landscaping on the front, I hate to even consider it because of the short throat distance of all the driveways where it would create a safety hazard. It would be nice to have landscaping to help screen. But at the same time, the screening would create a safety hazard. Clark: Right. Ward: Sharon, do you have any comments? Hoover: Is this your dumpster on the sidewalk? Clark: That is where it exists today, yes. Hoover: Where are you proposing that it would go? Conklin: We haven't talked about that Sharon. You know what? I'm going to start talking about dumpsters more and more. That is a very important issue. Hoover: I'm going to have to go out there and look at it. I'm having a hard time trying to figure out the parking lot here and then where people are actually parking on the site. Conklin: All over. • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 26 Clark: Right now they generally park in the front. There are two or three spaces in the front and then along the fence line between it and Mrs. Glass' property they park vehicles. Hoover: So is this the little patch of landscaping proposed? Clark: Yes, everything else is paved. Hoover: What is this, is this a driveway? Clark: What they have explained to me, is that late at night when there is an after hours accident and the wrecker service brings a vehicle in that needs to be secured, they will back it up and into there through that secured gate. Some of the tow truck drivers have keys to that particular gate and so they will bring a vehicle in there. That is the reason for maintaining that access. Conklin: Let me just make one statement. As long as those cars are being worked on, that's ok. If they are using it as an impound lot that is not ok. • Clark: No, I don't think they have ever. Conklin: Ok, just for the record because I will have phone calls three hours from now. Clark: No, that is not the case at all. Hoover: I'II have to go over there and look at this metal building. I'm more interested in cleaning up the front space. I mean if this is way off in the distance, we're proposing a fence along there. I mean if there is actually a fence; You're saying a fence along this whole side property line? Conklin: Yes, and honeysuckle I suggested. Hoover: Oh, it would go along where the chain-link is now? Conklin: Honeysuckle. Clark: There is something else that is not quite as aggressive as honeysuckle I think that we may plant but we'll work with Kim on that. • Conklin: Honeysuckle is my idea. • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 27 Clark: Honeysuckle is so aggressive. Conklin: I thought it just might take over; green up the site. Hoover: As far as the Overlay District goes, I'm more concerned about the street frontage and that space because I think the side will be hid. Ward: You're thinking about screening the dumpster, a little bit of landscaping if possible on the south. Hoover: Fin just trying to figure out in the parking lot if there is away to get alittle more organized. Hesse: That little patch of landscaping, you know, it is good that we proposed that. I do believe it is going to be very difficult to get anything to grow in there. I imagine that is all compacted clay with gravel upon layer upon layer of gravel. They are going to have to dig a big deep hole and what will happen is that it will fill up and hold water. Even if they excavated with soil and other material, it would probably hold water. • Clark: It's not a very good spot but it was the only spot available and we're trying to make every effort to cooperate. Hoover: I certainly don't want to hold the project up any longer. Conklin. I'm dust thrilled to death that it is before you today. Ward: Any other comments or motions? I'm sorry we haven't done a very good job of telling you what we're interested in. Clark: It is a very difficult situation and I came in after the fact. I want you to know, I didn't cause this one. Bunch: Another thing we might look at is some additional screening on the west side, like some plants or something like that thinking ofthe Overlay District issues and site lines from I-540 and from Futrall. Conklin: I talked about that with Ms Glass and the issue was she really didn't want anymore plants in her yard. • • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 28 Glass: I get all of the plastic bags and trash from the street and it gets tangled in shrubs and everything. Conklin: I thought about that, since it is her house to plant a bunch more shrubs to try and hide it. Clark: With the tree cover that they have, at least when it is in bloom and it is leafed out, you know, it is pretty well obscured. There is of course, times in the winter when the leaves fall. Bunch: We are looking at something that has been grandfathered in for many, many years. A lot of us have trouble trying to remember when it was not there. Clark: I haven't been in Northwest Arkansas long enough to have that memory. Ward: I think I had one of my first cars worked on there in 1964 so it goes way back. Motion: Hoover: I'm going to make a motion to forward this to the full Planning Commission, LSD 01- 42.00. Bunch: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Clark: Do you want us to bring back some ideas on trying to dress up that east side? Ward: I think what we're looking at is screening the dumpster.. . Clark: You know, anything that is going to be awains coating is probably not going to be visible because once the fence gets the boards on the gate and gets the vegetation on it, any wains coating is going to be actually money thrown away because it is not going to do anything. You mentioned some kind of pilasters, if we did some kind of EF IS pilasters to try and break that up a little bit. Would you think that would work? Bunch: Clark: Some colored down spouts or something. You're not looking for a painted effect are you? • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 29 Ward: Clark: Something to break up that long surface, that's one thing that we're required to do is large blank, unarticulated wall surfaces, we have to break those up by doing different materials, different colors, things like that. From a cost effective thing, if we could do some type of painted effect to it, I think that would be the most cost effective thing for my client, if you think that would be acceptable to the Planning Commission. Bunch: Why I had mentioned Wains coating and painting is because you could develop a theme to carry around the building or possibly; and also on that west side, like a painted wains coating with a band on the top of it or something. Clark: It is going to take somebody more artistic than I am, you know, being the dull engineer. We'll come back with a couple of proposals and suggestions. Thank you. • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 30 LSD 01-40.00: Large Scale Development (Sunbridge Center, Lot 9, pp 290) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen ofJorgensen & Associates on behalf of Keating Enterprises, Inc. for property located on Lot 9, Sunbridge Center. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 1.24 acres with two office buildings proposed. Ward: Item number seven on our agenda this morning is LSD 01-40.00, Sunbridge Center submitted by Chris Brackett ofJorgensen & Associates on behalf of Keating Enterprises, Inc. for property located on Lot 9, Sunbridge Center. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 1.24 acres with two office buildings proposed. Tim, are you going to handle this one? Conklin: Sure. This is a request for two office buildings containing 10,100 sq. ft. each, 45 parking spaces. The building materials are compatible with other buildings in the area and include the use of red brick and a green shingle roof. We are recommending that you approve it at this level. The only thing that you need to consider are the Commercial Design Standards and this is the correct elevation up here. Ward: Ok, I guess this is in with all the other developments they have done, the same materials, • the same theme? Brackett: Yes, actually the commercial development, this is R -O, the commercial development next to it has a different color roof, it's red. Tim didn't like it so we didn't use it again. Ward: Any other comments Chris? Brackett: No. Ward: Ron, any comments from Engineering? Petrie: No. Ward: Keith? Shreve: Sunbridge is kind of unique We've got a 5' sidewalk and a 5' greenspace. This development is going to continue that theme. They've also provided bicycle racks. Ward: Ok, thanks Keith. Kim, landscaping? • Hesse: Landscaping aisles are ok. Tree preservation, they are meeting all the requirements. • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 31 Ward: Ok, thank you. Is there anyone in the public that would like to address this large scale development for Sunbridge Center? Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. Chris, you might tell us a little bit about the building itself, materials and colors and that kind of stuff. Brackett. It is a brick building which is similar to the other developments that Mr. Keating has done along Sunbridge. It does have the green roof which is the same as what is further to the west. The other office space that he has there. I'm not an architect, that is pretty much all I know. It is similar to what he has done in the past. Ward: Similar to what we've approved several times in the past? Brackett:- Yes. Ward: Ok, any other items or comments from the other members of the Committee? Bunch: I have a question for Chris. Right here, this sidewalk on the deal next to it, is there any reason for that to just stop and not connect to anything? Brackett: That is for the access into this building for these parking spaces. It is not, and we didn't want to bring it up through the trees and all that. Bunch: That is just a question I had, that is parking space right in there? Brackett: Yes, that is just parking. Bunch: There is no need for it to tie in with the rest of it. Brackett: No. Hoover: What is our usual landscape greenspace? Edwards: 15' but in the design overlay it is 25'. Hoover: That street was done before all.. . Brackett: It is a 50' right of way with a 31' street so it is.. . Edwards: Are you talking about that side that is with the sidewalk? • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 32 Hoover: Yes. Edwards: It's 10'. Brackett. This piece of property will connect the sidewalk for the Steele sidewalk all the way down. Hoover: It will finish it up? Brackett: Yes. Ward: I think the whole Sunbridge Center itself has been a very nice addition to the city so I feel like it meets all of our commercial design standards. Bunch: One question is the location of the bicycle racks, is that in a landscaped area? Brackett: Yes, it is, I don't believe it will be concrete, it will just be the grass with the pole. I showed the area just as far as the clear zone around it, that is why I have that box around it. Bunch: I was wondering if that were a paved area, it would make it difficult to maintain a rest on it. That' sJust the concept. Sharon, are the dumpsters adequately screened? Hoover: Yes. The mechanical equipment is behind the building? Brackett. Yes. Bunch: Do we need to have the mechanical equipment screened on the north end of this 3,600 sq. ft. building? Conklin: I don't think those are going to be visible. Brackett. I don't think you're going to be able to see them from the street. Bunch: Only from the bike rack if you're parking your bike. Conklin: The idea is from the public right of way. Bunch: We can approve this at this level? • Conklin: Yes. • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 33 Motion: Bunch: Does anyone have any more comments? If not, I'll make a motion to approve LSD 01- 40.00 at this level. Ward: Do I have a second? Hoover: I'll second. Ward: I'll concur, thanks Chris. Brackett: Thank you. Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 34 PPL 01-8.00: Preliminary Plat (David Lyle Duplex, pp 569) was submitted by Shawki Al-Madoun, PE ofNorthstar Engineering Consultants, Inc. on behalf of NW Investments of Springdale, Inc. for property located on Hwy. 16 east. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains. approximately 6.91 acres with 20 lots proposed. Ward: Number eight on our agenda this morning is the preliminary plat for David Lyle Duplexes submitted by Shawki Al-Madoun ofNorthstar Engineering Consultants on behalfofNW Investments of Springdale, Inc for property located on Hwy. 16 east. The property is zoned R -O and contains approximately 6.91 acres with 20 lots proposed. Bender. I'm Mike Bender with Northstar Engineering. Ward: Tim, what can you tell us about this? Conklin: This is south of the David Lyle Subdivision, comprised of single family residential homes. The property is zoned R -O, it does allow for duplexes as a use by right. R -O allows for single family and duplexes by right. The applicant has dedicated an additional 15' of right of way along Huntsville Road as required by our Master Street Plan. The property to the north is zoned R -S, to the east is zoned R -O and to the west and south is zoned R-1. We are recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. Condition one, the street names on the plat shall be changed from Colonial and Falcon Roads to Colonial and Falcon Drives. The Park and Recreation Advisory Board recommended that previous park land dedication as part of David Lyle Phase I and II be considered as a required dedication for this phase. Additional park land beyond that was required by ordinance was dedicated as part of the previous phases. Basically, they are getting credit for the land they dedicated in the past and will not have to dedicate any more or pay parks fees. Is that correct? Schuldt: That is correct. It is kind of a complicated issue. Mr. Bayyari dedicated 6.98 acres according to the deed in Phases I and II where 3.83 acres was required. He dedicated above and beyond the required. That was in 1995. The Parks Board minutes state that he donated the extra land in choosing a name. I also wanted to point out the deed says that 6.1 acres covered the 253 single family residential lots that were developed in Phase I and II. We took this issue to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and they felt that Mr. Bayyan, even though he didn't request the banking in 1995, he was unaware of that opportunity. They felt for this particular development he had gone beyond what the call of duty was as far as park land dedication requirements and is requesting to you that the land dedicated in 1995 be accepted as his requirement for this Phase III. After you take in land that would be required in Phase I, II and III, there still is a small surplus there. The • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 35 Parks Board would like that land not be considered as land banked and used in future and this would be done as far as park land requirements. Ward: Ok, thanks Eric. Conklin: I'm sorry, we're a little off track here but it is a little complicated and I wanted Eric to explain the rest of it. Number three, a note shall be changed on the plat to read "Access shall be prohibited from Huntsville, Colonial and Falcon." What we're asking for is that access to these lots not be off of Huntsville Road or these two streets that go into David Lyle Subdivision. Edwards: You just have "No access shall be prohibited." You just need to remove that word "no". Conklin: The plat shall be revised to show a 30' building setback from Huntsville Road in the R -O zoning district. The rest are standard conditions of approval. Ward: Ok, so what we have is R -O zoning which allows duplexes to be built by right. • Conklin: Yes. Ward: They proposed how many lots? Conklin: Twenty. Ward: Twenty lots? Ok. Ron? Petrie: I have a question for the applicant. Have you looked at this existing easement that shows up on our atlas map? Bender: The one on this north end here? The surveyor has been looking at it and couldn't find the description of it. Is there something that you have on record that we can use to put on there? Petrie: We need a legal description and what we have won't be enough for that, unless we can find it, unless we have a copy of the document. Bender. The legal description is what we're having problems getting, it is actually platted on there. • Ward: What kind of easement is it? Is it a sewer easement? • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 36 Petrie: I don't know, all I know is that it is a 15' wide easement and it is located just to the east of Cants Drive north, somewhere in that area. Ward: The main thing we've got to do is locate the thing. Petrie: Right, making sure that nothing needs to be vacated. That is all that I have. Ward: Ok, Keith, anything on sidewalks? Shreve: I've got a few items here. Mike, on lot number 12, on the west side, just on the drainage swale, I want to make sure that there is some structure there to let the water go under and that there is not water on top of it. Bender: Yeah, there will be a concrete structure over it. Shreve: Ok, that will be fine. Also, along the drive, the sidewalk that is running along the south side of lots 15 and 16, we'll want a passover on Colonial so we can continue the sidewalks through there. We will also need two ramps on the street corner there south to Huntsville Road on this side. Also, we may do a ramp configuration on Falcon Road at the intersection of Huntsville. We requested a 6' sidewalk and a 6' greenspace and this is on about a foot of sidewalk out ofthe right of way and into the utility easement. From the Sidewalk Division, we don't have a problem with that, we want to maintain a 6' greenspace. Bender: The owners are wanting to keep the sidewalk in the right of way. We would have a 5' greenspace and a 6' sidewalk Do we have to get a waiver for that? Shreve: It would require a waiver, it requires a 6' greenspace and we usually require a 6' sidewalk in a R -O zone. Either it is going to take 6' right of way or since this is surrounded by a utility easement.. . Bender: If the utilities don't have a problem we could go the 6', I don't see a problem. Shreve: We want 6' greenspace and a 6' sidewalk. Ward: Ok, is that all? Kim? Hesse: The size and shape ofthe lot along with existing road alignments have affected the flexibility • to save three significant trees however several quality trees will be preserved. Three • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 37 significant trees are proposed for removal but several native trees are being preserved. I show approval. Ward: Ok, thank you. Mike, do you know what size duplexes are going to be built on this? Bender: I don't know the exact size, we don't have that information yet. Ward: Ok. Would anyone from the public like to make comment on this particular issue for this preliminary plat and please give your name and any comments that you might have. Caldiero: My name is Andre Caldiero, I live at 4318 E. Lawndale. In January of 1998 my wife and I visited four homes under construction in the location that is now David Lyle Addition. We were impressed with what we saw and contacted Danny Williams of Williams Construction and Mozark Realty about building. Mr. Williams informed us at the time that the subdivision was developed by Mr. Fidel Bayyari and named David Lyle as a tribute to his son killed in an accident. We were also told that the area, 100 acres to the north was under a 35 year moratorium and that nothing could be built except for the City of Fayetteville park in a 6 acre area set aside for that purpose. Additionally, we were informed that the area immediately south of the subdivision and bordered by Highway 16 was set aside to be used exclusively for office park. There would be no strip mall type operation. Mr. Williams also informed us that there was a registered covenant and we were shown a copy. At this time we selected a lot and contracted with Mr. Williams to build a home for us. In February of 1998 our home was the fifth home under construction. Now, all but one of the available lots either have homes on them or have homes under construction. All, as per the covenants, are single family residences. I find it astounding that now, after the subdivision is almost sold out, Mr. Bayyari has chosen to change his mind and sale off the additional land as duplex rental property. Had I of been aware of this at the time, I would have never entertained the thought of building here and I'm certain that the vast majority of my neighbors feel the same way. In addition to that, we have 15 signatures of additional homeowners in the subdivision that object to this building and that was only since 8:30 last night. We were out of state over the Thanksgiving holiday. I do also have the registered number for the covenant if there is any question about it. Ward: Patrick: Ok, thank you. Would anyone else that would like to make a comment? My John Patrick, I live in David Lyle Phase II, I feel the same way as Andy does. I do not want to see any duplexes. I came from a place where duplexes and townhouses and I just don't want to see it because I know what happens. It doesn't help the subdivision. Our subdivision is nice and we have some nice homes and it is very nice. They won't Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 38 contribute anything, they are just going to make us a lot of problems because I know that for a fact because we lived in an area. That is why I built our home, our home was the second home in Phase II and I do not want to see duplexes. Ward: Ok, any other public comment? Yes, Ma'am. Caldiero: My name is Judy Caldiero, I'm the wife of Caldiero, I live at 4318 E Lawndale and I wanted to support what Andy said and reiterate some of the concerns. The number of people would be probably from a low of 80 to maybe 160 plus because we know that they are going to rent those out to U of A students, they have done that before in our subdivision in some of the rental homes they have had six students in. You've got six cars sitting in front of everybody's driveway. There would be an increase in crime, we know that happens Obviously, an increase in traffic congestion, we've got a hundred sixty cars plus everybody else in the subdivision trying to get out of one road at the same time. We know that our property values would decrease. I know you talked about the trees remaining but we've been Tied to about trees on property where they have taken them down anyway. We've got a clear cut of trees with that property there and all the rental homes in our area, they have not been landscaped. Even though the covenants say four trees and sod, they've just been left there. We've even talked to the managers of these rental properties and they said well, they are not going to do it. Therefore, you are going to have an aesthetically unappealing entrance. Our builder, who is a close friend of Fidel Bayyari, assured us that only doctor's offices, banks and the likes would be allowed there. This, I feel'is false representation. We would not have built a home there if we would have known that duplexes were going to be planned in that area. Isn't it ironic that they wait until all the homes are built and just about sold? We would like to know what we can do as a subdivision to stop this development. What would you do if this was happening where you live? Ward: Ok, would anyone else like to address us on this? Hancock: I live at 770 S. Liberty and I feel like it would depreciate the property in time. Ward: Ok, what's your name Sir? Hancock: Joe Hancock. Ward: Thank you Mr. Hancock. Would anyone else like to make a comment on this9 This issue will be forwarded to the full Planning Commission if approved here. There are other uses for this property for valuable things other than office buildings. Normally, against • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 39 residential homes, a buffer is usually considered something like duplexes would be abetter buffer than commercial or even office buildings. My way of thinking is that these are allowed and I'm not sure that we have any right to stop them from being allowed, is that the type of duplex, the size of duplex is the main ingredient as to whether the property values are increased or decreased. We have certain areas that a lot of duplexes sale for a lot more than most homes do. They are very, very nice. That is my take on this particular issue at this time. This still has to go through a lot of stages before it gets final approval so we will be looking at a lot of these issues and I really appreciate all of your comments. Caldiero: What is our recourse as far as this? Can we get a petition and have people sign it, is that going to make any difference or are we just beating our head on the wall? Ward: Well, I think it is important for all ofthe Commission to understand your concerns and some of your concerns are legitimate. I don't think that a lot ofthe concerns are legitimate, as far as detrimenting purchase values and you don't want renters out there by you and these types of things or it is all going to be university partying going on out there. A lot of those issues are, I don't think, things we can consider. We try to look at the full picture. This property is allowable to put duplexes on there. Caldiero: What is our responsibility if the covenants say that there is going to be only office buildings under the covenants. Is there anything that we can do to enforce those? Conklin: The city does not enforce covenants. Once again, the R -O zoning does allow duplexes. If you have restrictive covenants that say that there are not going to be duplexes in there, you as a home owner's association, can go after that issue through the courts that there is a violation of those restrictive covenants. Specifically, the city is not involved with that. The covenants are a legal agreement between the home owners within the subdivision. If someone violates the covenants then you can file suit and go forward. What I have to do, I'm Tim Conklin, City Planner. I have to tell our Commission what they can consider or not consider. The issue of whether or not they could do duplexes or not duplexes, that decision was made back when It was rezoned and it allows duplexes. They can't consider the use of the property. What they have to consider is is it meeting our subdivision regulations, are the streets being installed are the plans what is required by ordinance, are the lots the right size, are the setbacks shown, sidewalks going in, fire hydrants, is the transportation system adequate to handle the traffic, those types of issues. With whether or not it should be duplexes, they really can't consider that. Land use is established by the City Council through zoning. I think the best thing to do is look at the covenants and if • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 40 there is something in there that says this can not be developed as duplexes, I would encourage you to seek legal counsel and see where you can go from there. Caldiero: We have covenants for David Lyle, does that include all the phases, it does say single family residences. Conklin: You need legal advice. I can't answer that, my guess is that typically covenants follow subdivision boundaries. I can't tell you whether or not those covenants include this phase Caldiero: If they put it in as Phase III it sounds like it wouldn't because they're calling it Phase III. Conklin: Not necessarily, each phase normally has a separate set. Sometimes they have one set of covenants for all of the phases but I've seen in many cases where they have covenants for each phase. Caldiero. Ok, in our subdivision we're in we have all brick. Theoretically, you could approve it and they could build it and all the sudden we could have all duplexes that are all platform, vinyl, whatever and they don't have to plant trees and it is something that I'm sure you wouldn't want in your neighborhood either. We have no recourse as far as what they build there and how it looks and what they plant there. Conklin: You're right and we've been through a long debate on our tree ordinance and private property rights and how far does the municipality of the city go with telling someone how their house has to look. We haven't gone that far here at the city. Some people think we've gone too far and some people think we haven't gone far enough with regulations. We do regulate our commercial buildings. We have not set what people's homes are going to look. Yes, if someone wants to build something out of vinyl siding, they can do that. If you have restrictive covenants and developers are doing with the public in many cities across the United States, home owner's like the restrictive covenants because they offer them protection that the city can't. You have architectural review boards and standards and that is your protection but as we go outside of the subdivisions, there really isn't any protection. In the zoning district you have are for the people. I have University Heights neighbors meeting with me today to talk about the research they're doing to figure out how to enforce that ordinance better. It is an ongoing process. The university is going to expand, we're going to have more students we would like to talk about rezoning areas for apartments and people are concerned about apartments. It is an issue that the city is going to have to deal with and we're working on that I guess the best thing you can do is look at your covenants and see how they can be enforced. If you have more than four unrelated people in a house, give us a call. • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 41 Caldiero: We are well aware of that. We're trying to actually right now, get enough signatures to the covenants to revise the covenants to address that we will follow the occupancy that the City of Fayetteville allows. That is something that we've not accomplished yet. We do know that because of our location, now with the cut through off Sixth Street right to Huntsville Road, we have a direct shot to the university. We have numerous people in our subdivision that are employed by the university. Many academicians that live in our subdivision and we know that we're going to bring college students the same way to any duplexes. It will be a complexity to our area. Conklin: That is an issue that every university town is facing. In order to continue working on that we have provided the definition of family. We're going to be looking at what other cities have done to help protect neighborhoods. There will be probably more to come with that because with other areas that have universities, hopefully, we can come up with something that will help prevent people from parking in front yards and parks. Hoover: Has the neighborhood tried to contact the owner of the property? Caldiero: I have talked to Mr. Bayyari in the past on numerous occasions and problems that we've had. Though he has to my face told me yes he understands and will take care of it, he has turned a deaf ear to us. Caldiero. Is Mr. Bayyari the person to contact to get the actual plans? Bender. You can contact Northstar Engineering, I'll give you a card here. Caldiero: We would really like to see what the plans are. You're right, a duplex or triplex can help the property, especially if they are designed to bring in people who, let's say university professors and whatever. If they are not designed for that, then you know. Bender: Also, you could get to us to know what is needed. Caldiero: Also, Mr. Bayyari was going to put a sign up there, we don't have a sign but we've got brick, that is a six to eight month ongoing thing. Hoover: We encourage that for developers to meet with the neighborhood and work out a lot of these issues before they get here. Bender: We'll do that. We can try to do that fairly quickly. I will meet with these people after this meeting. • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 42 Ward: Bunch: Ok, I'll close it to the public comment and bring it back to the Committee. I have a question on this access. If we deny all access for Falcon Road then there is no access for lots 1, 2 and 3. Conklin: That's a very good point. Bunch: I just realized that we had a double negative that we needed to correct. Conklin: Thank you for catching that. Bunch: I guess maintain access to lot one from Huntsville Road and permit it from one, two and three from Falcon Drive. Conklin: Yes, it needs to read that way. There is one other issue on the right of way, this cul de sac down here Mike, 1 want you to show the right of way, 50' right of way going all along the property line, a rectangle so future extensions can incur. Right now it looks like your property lines come around the entire cul de sac. Bender: Ok. Bunch: Is Phase III the last phase of this development or are there potentially more phases? Bender. I believe it is the last phase. Bunch: It has to do with my concem on conditions or statements on banking the remaining park land dedication if there were other phases of this particular development, you know, not carried on to other developments. Schuldt: I want to clarify that. The Parks Board says that any additional land that would still be left over, their recommendation to you is that account for the name of the park which is Bayyari Park. Bunch: Ok. Schuldt: That little bit that is left, that would account for the park being named Bayyari. Bender: The owner is aware that any other development being part of David Lyle or not, he will • have to go through the Parks fee or land dedication. • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 43 Hoover: Somewhere on the map can we show the subdivisions and the streets and how they connect? Bender. Yes. Hoover: Ok, I'd appreciate that because I didn't know there was a subdivision on the other side. Bunch: I had the same comment and also the west fork of the White River. Ward: Do we have a motion? Motion: Bunch: I have a comment before making a motion. I would again, encourage the applicant and the neighbors to get together and to look at these covenants and the designs and that sort of thing and in the meantime we can forward it since this is a preliminary plat and will have other opportunities for public discussion to move to forward to the full Planning Commission, PPL 01-8.00. Hoover: I'll second. Ward: I'll concur. Thank you Mike. Bunch: This layout could also be conditioned to single family residences too. I don't want to hold up the engineering work but there could be other types of residence placed on the same lot configuration. • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 44 LSD 01-25.10: Large Scale Development (Cliffs phase III P.U.D., pp 487) was submitted by Jerry Kelso ofCrafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalfofCliffs Phase III ltd. Partnership for property located south of Cliffs Blvd. and east of Happy Hollow Road. The property is zoned R -I , Low Density Residential and contains approximately 36.77 acres with 288 units proposed. Ward: Our ninth item on the agenda this morning is a large scale development for the Cliffs, Phase III, it was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Grafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Cliffs, Phase III, Ltd. Partnership for property located south of Cliffs Blvd., east of Happy Hollow Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 36.77 acres with 288 units proposed. Who is going to handle this one? Conklin: Sara is going to handle this one. Edwards: If you remember, back in August we received the Cliffs through Subdivision and it was forwarded onto Planning Commission because we do have to specifically grant a density bonus on this as part of a P.U.D. This is an expansion. The reason that they are bringing this back is it is essentially the same plan. They've added this greenspace right here between unit one and fourteen and two and thirteen and three and twelve. They wanted separation between those buildings which is the reason they're moving it to the north, which encroaches on the Phase II tree preservation area. They are requesting to remove that tree preservation area and replace it with a tree preservation area here at the corner of Cliffs Blvd. and Happy Hollow Road. Really, that issue because this is coming through a second time, along with granting the density on this site is the only issue. Kim did write a memo which is the fourth page of this report. Ward: Kim, would you like to go ahead and address us on that now? Hesse: It's on the fourth page, basically we are moving a .48 acre tree preservation to .50 acres. We've got the same coverage of canopy. You know, what was offered in the other section was we did have that screen between the road and the apartments but we do have that additional trees here. This is a pretty thick area of trees. My support is that it is better canopy and the better quality of trees here verses here. Also, I support the redesign. We are getting the same amount of canopy. Edwards: They are adding to the grading plan, hedges and trees all along that roadway so we will be getting that. Ward: Ok, thanks Kim. • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 45 Hesse: Just for your information, the new ordinance, this comes prior to that going in. Ward: Ok, thanks Kim. Ron, do you have any comments on this particular item? Petrie: No, it doesn't change anything that we would be concerned with. We've approved the construction plans and all of this is under construction. They moved the location of the water line but that is it. Ward: Ok, Keith on sidewalks9 Shreve: No comments. Ward: No changes or anything at all? Shreve: No, there are existing sidewalks. Ward: Eric, I guess everything has been taken care as far as parks? • Schuldt: They are required to pay parks fees in the amount of $180,000. 288 units at $375 each. • Ward: Ok, thank you. Jerry, do you have a quick presentation that you would like to make? Kelso: Yes, let me just make a quick presentation. Did everybody get this packet that the Underwoods sent you? I think on page 3 you can tell the difference in the trees that were saved verses the ones that we are looking at trying to take out. Let me just show these two drawings right here. This area here is what was previously approved. You can see how the buildings are all kind of in a line and it is all just everything right there in that corner. With this new layout you can see how we've spread things out. We've turned the buildings, I think it will be a whole lot better aesthetically pleasing and we can plant a whole lot more trees in this area too. This is the area that we're replacing tree preservation. We're going to save all these larger trees in this corner and the scrub trees and things that were here that were previously approved by Phase II. Of course, we'll come out and we'll plant some new nice oak trees to make it screened in that area. We will still have 25' of greenspace between the parking lot and the sidewalk there. Ward: Kelso: How far did you have to move it? I think we ended up moving it about 30' to 40', so we have a pretty good space in here now. • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 46 Ward: Kelso: Ward: • Ok, thanks Jerry. Do you have any other comments that you would like to make? That's it. 1'!! open it up to the public. Is there anyone who would like to make a public comment on this large scale development for the Cliffs? Ok, please state your name. Underwood: I'm Craig Underwood and with Cliffs III, our primary objective in this was to make it more aesthetically pleasing to match what was going on with the rest of the development and setting this up as we laid out the apartments, we realized later that they had too much of a regimented look to them. This is cnticism that we've heard some city officials mention that they would like to get away from and in trying to obliterate this regimented look we discovered that we could expand that area in between those buildings 1, 2 and 3 and the buildings behind them, matching the shallow curve of Cliffs Blvd. I took some photographs that are in your packets. The natural area there is mostly scrub brush and vines. The area that we were going to trade off and preserve is much larger mature trees. Also, with that, the area that we're eliminating is only natural vegetation area between apartment buildings within the overall Cliffs development. The area that we're going to expand and have the larger trees that we're going to preserve is going to expand the natural barrier between our property and adjacent property owners. I think for several reasons it is going to be a much better and much more pleasing alternative. Ward: Ok, thanks Craig. Would anyone else like to make public comment on this? Seeing none, 1'!! close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. It looks to me like it is a win win situation as far as what is being done and what is being saved and what is being added to the way you redesigned it all. Don, do you have any comments? Bunch: Yes, with this relocation of a parking area, Tim, does that cause any problems with the P.U.D. setbacks. Do we need them to put a waiver in so that we can get it all written up now before it goes to the full Planning Commission? Conklin: Not in this situation. The P.U.D. setbacks we looked at, since this was already the P.U.D. up here, and I know it gets complicated, this is probably more of an interpretation that I have made that there was not a setback for this since this was already developed as a part of this P.U.D. as an expansion of this P.U.D. The setbacks we were looking at were on the west and the south property lines. Bunch: Internally then it doesn't matter the setback on the Cliffs. • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 47 Conklin: Bunch: Kelso: Bunch: Kelso: Bunch: Conklin: Bunch: Conklin: Bunch: Kelso: Bunch: Underwood: Bunch: Yes, I made an interpretation that this is an extension of part of that phase of the Cliffs. Another question, I brought this up the last time that this came through and 1 don't see that they've been relocated, some of the bike racks. Ok, I thought we relocated those. They have been relocated where they are more centrally located to access more buildings, at least this one hasn't, possibly the one on the north part. You could move this one down and over closer to the building. The ordinance does call within 50' of the entrance of the building. We understand that we're not going to be able to satisfy that condition but at least get the bike racks closer to the point of use. Sure, we can move these two. Another question, Tim, did you get a chance to look at the dumpster screening on the other phases when we brought that issue up? No. I'm taking Sharon with me after this meeting. When this one first came through it was up on the hill where they were visible. I'm just Joking about the dumpsters. It is serious, I'm going to go with Hugh and Sharon and we're going to go out and look at dumpsters. Another thing I noticed, as nice of a development as this is, it Just seems a shame that a lot of pavement is broken up, it detracts from the value of people wanting to live there. You drive into a real nice development and all the concrete is broken up. As far as some of the existing phases? Some of the existing phases up on the hill. It looks like it could stand a little maintenance on the concrete and possibly look at the design. Is that in Phase I? I don't know what phase it was Bill, but it was up on the, as you drive in from 265 it would be to the north of Cliffs Blvd. up on the hill. • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 48 Underwood: I was not aware of that. We'll look into that. It shouldn't be, this is new. As new as it is it shouldn't be breaking up I wouldn't think. Ward: Any other comments? Motion: Hoover: I would like to make a motion to forward this to the full Planning Commission, LSD 01- 25.10. Bunch: I'll second. Ward: I'lI concur, thank you. • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 49 LSD 01-41.00: Large Scale Development (Steele Crossing II, pp 212) was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf ofJDN Development for property located between Van Asche Drive and Shiloh Drive east of Kohl's. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 6 33 acres with 37,075 sq.ft. of retail space proposed. Ward: The last item on the agenda is LSD 01-41 .00 submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf ofJDN Development for property located between Van Asche Drive and Shiloh Drive east of Kohl's. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 6.33 acres with 37,075 sq.ft. of retail space proposed. Tim, are you going to handle this? Conklin: Yes. This is part of Steele Crossing, we're calling it Steele Crossing, Phase II. It includes the leasable space and a major tenant directly east of Kohl's. It includes a stand alone building just south of this additional development east ofKohl's. Their proposal is for 18,875 sq. ft. building for a major tenant and two buildings for retail shops on either side ofthe major tenant in the building totaling 9,800 sq. ft. There is an additional 8,400 sq. ft. shop building, which is a stand alone building, out front. That was on ofthose future out parcels. I believe the plan is not to split that off at this time? Milholland: Conklin: Hoover: Conklin: Right. Ok, that is just going to become part of this development. They are providing the required number of parking spaces and an area for greenspace. We are recommending approval at this level. Conditions to address and consider are commercial design standards. These buildings, ifI can find the Overlay District line. These buildings are within the Overlay District so that is something to consider when you are looking at commercial design standards and we've included the standards for you including our Overlay District standards. The rest are standard conditions of approval. As you are aware, we have worked on this site for many months and these are just additional buildings going forth. I did ask that these be included as part ofa new large scale development because they did make some changes from what was approved. You did see these buildings back in Steele Crossing Phase I. However, because there were some changes, I just wanted to make sure that you were aware ofthose changes and reapprove this part ofthe project. Really, the new part is the stand alone shop building out front. We have already approved this? You approved all of this. • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 50 Milholland: Bunch: Hoover: You approved all of it, everything except this part here. I think we approved some east and west of the Kohl's building itself but I don't believe we had the major tenant. It was just a row of small shops. If that part falls fully in the Overlay District then you can't have the rear of the building facing the street in the overlay district. How could we have already approved that? Milholland: We had a major tenant there on the other in Steele Crossing Phase I and II. Conklin: _ . Edwards: Hoover: Conklin: Hoover: Ward: Conklin: Hoover: Conklin: Ward: Milholland: I'm not sure, it was on there the whole time. The elevations were there and everything. We approved Kohl's and all of the accessory buildings with it? Yes. Oh, that's why I voted against it. That's why you voted against it. If you recall, there was some controversy with this development. We focused so much on trees, unfortunately, sometimes we don't look at some things in as much detail. We have an opportunity, we're starting fresh with these buildings and this building out here and I asked them to come back forward, even though we've looked at this and to look at this building so that is why we're looking at it today. Ok, so we're doing a LSD for all of these buildings? For this and that. It is your second chance on this right here. Do you have anything that you would like to add? I don't think so. We have worked with Tim and the rest of staff real close on this. It is a good plan for that area Ward: Ok, thanks. Ron, is there any comment that you need to make? Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 51 Petrie: No, the mass grading and drainage is already done. It was originally approved for the whole site. Ward: Keith, is it the same way? Shreve: The sidewalks are existing and there are no additional requirements. Ward: Kim, your favorite project of all times. Hesse: The tree preservation is for Steele Crossing I, I think the only additional change would be the additional landscaping for the two shop buildings and trees will be approved. The additional tree removal, part of what we had improved and I don't know if it was at the back of the building but we did require them to put larger trees along the back and those are there if you want to drive by and see how that looks. Conklin: You don't have an architect with you today to walk through these elevations for the Committee. Ward: Ok, is there any other staff comments? I' 11 open it to the public and see if there is any public comment first. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Hoover: I have a question. On building E, which is the elevation, I don't know right, left, rear and front. Is front facing the street? Milholland: They will have a front to the west is where the major entrance is going to be to the left. The front, they did some extra architectural renderings at Tim's request. Hoover: Which one is that? Ward: The right elevations. Conklin: They've added those arches. Hoover: The rear is the east? Conklin: Yes. • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 52 Hoover: That can be seen from the road? Is our overlay ordinance is it a front? Basically what it is saying is that if you have a pad like this and you can see it from all around you really have no rear elevation. Milholland: My understanding was that if you have a building wall that faces the bypass, which is Fulbright has to be on the front. Hoover: I think the road continues on and it would be right here and you would be able to see that right there. Conklin: Here is what the Overlay District states "All structures shall be architecturally designed to have front facades facing all street and highway right of way. An elevation drawing shall be submitted for each side of the building that faces a street or highway." Of course, we've taken that further than the ordinance because we required elevations on all four sides typically. Hoover: Our commercial design standards when we've had a situation where you have a building and that you can actually see the elevations from it if you are on that road you can see it then you're required to make that look like a front. Conklin: We have attempted to dress those up, yes. Bunch: Very recently, the Golden Corral Hoover: Yes. Conklin: They had two fronts. Bunch: We made them change it. Ward: The back of the building was facing a street and they went ahead and put a front type facade on it. Hoover: Their sides also look like the front because they would be visible from the street. Milholland: Is it facing directly to the street? Ward: Yes. • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 53 Conklin: Is your concern that we need to do more with that east elevation to make it look more of a front? Is that what we're saying? Hoover: Yes. Milholland: Put an arch in the middle somewhere. Ward: If that is the design you want to use. Jefcoat: That is actually facing the deed restricted area and unnamed tributary be developed. Hoover: How much space is there between that building and what is going to be developed? Conklin: There is going to be enough space to see it. You'll be able to see it Sharon. Bunch: We'll be able to see it with a flyover. Milholland: I didn't see Target's layout. Do they have a front looking view from Steele Street? Hoover: As I recall, no. Conklin: We worked on it some. I want to treat everybody equally here and everything. Target does not have "windows and doors" on that side but we did have them dress it up and I think, the batting cages, we had them go back and dress their side of the building up. I'm not sure. Lee, you're the chairman and I don't want to take over your meeting. Ward: That's true. We've made pretty much everyone on these commercial developments where there is going to be high visibility from all sides we basically say you have got to make that side not look like the back of a building. Milholland: Initially it didn't have any arches over the door, isn't that right Tom? Jefcoat: Yes. Milholland: That makes it more like the previous approvals on the other buildings. Hoover: What is happening on this east elevation? Is this all service area and are people going to have their trash outside the doors? • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 54 Milholland: Ward: Conklin: Ward: Milholland: Ward: Bunch: Hoover: Milholland: Conklin: Hoover: Conklin: Bunch: Conklin: This is actually just a drive thru area, there is not any parking there at all. That south elevation looks great to me Mel with what you've done there. That really looks great. That works for you? It's much better than what we had in our packets. I remember on Kohl's you wanted to do some stuff like that so we did that on Kohl's on the back. That looks fantastic compared to what we started out with and if we could do the east elevation similar. One of the things on Kohl's, it is just such a long expanse and with these other shops tucked in on Van Asche. This is generally a free standing pad, we have to consider it more like a Chills or something like that and if you have a service area you need to screen those. Electrical transformers, if we're requiring all mechanical to be screened something has to be done for that and I'm sure there is other stuff on the back of this that will need to be back here I assume. We have our dumpsters screened. That is why it wasn't in the Overlay District because the building extended into the overlay district. I have an answer to your question now Sharon, I slipped off the subject. You were wondering how. I was very concerned, that is how it happened. That back of the building was outside the Overlay District before. It was one of the reonentations. I was concerned that I didn't do my job back on this one, I'm sorry that I'm jumping around. • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 55 Hoover: My contention was that if the Overlay District split the building then the whole building should be in it but that didn't happen. Now though, it is fully in there. Conklin: Right. Bunch: Another thing that we looked at was in this Kohl's expansion area, there was actually tree preservation in there until such time that the expansion was complete and greenspace, now it looks more like a paved area. That was something that we didn't think we needed to pursue because it tried to preserve trees in there it would cut down access to everything. Milholland: I think that something we can do in that rear east section, we can put some shrubs. Hoover: Shrubs won't do it. Conklin: On the back of your building Mel, and I want to make sure that we're communicating everything. I think Lee was saying take these arches and do the same thing down this side on building E. • Ward: This front pad because that is going to be visible. Conklin: That is just EFIS, that is not sticking out, that is Just color. Jefcoat: There is some extension there. Conklin: How much, maybe 4-6 inches? Jefcoat: On that side, this would be this side. It is not going to stick out there at all, the facade is still sticking out there. • Ward: It looks like the same material other than putting arches in there and to me that would make a big difference as far as not making it look so box like and make it unarticulated. Hoover: You're also going to have to consider the mechanical equipment, the electrical transformers and any of that where these designated area where it is off the band, that screen. Edwards. I have a comment. The shop building that is next to the PetSmart, is it supposed to look like the elevations of Shop E building? Hoover: Where is shop B building elevations? • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 56 Conklin: Let me say one thing for Mel's benefit because I didn't realize until you asked the question Sharon that pulling this back pulled it all in the overlay district. I assumed we were looking at the same elevations we approved back before, similar elevations. Milholland: This is actually moved back. We made the building a lot smaller. You have actually, here is the back of Kohl's building. If you are driving by it it is going to be hard to see that anyway, you're going to be looking past it is what I'm trying to say. Conklin: I share that with you because I didn't communicate that to Mel and so Mel is probably getting hit for the first time because I was just under the assumption that we had approved it this way. Hoover: You thought the footprint was the same? Conklin: Well, I knew it had changed but I didn't think about that line when we talked about it and that line is there. Milholland: We used the same screening on the dock format as we used over here except for we reversed it. Hoover: You understand the ordinance what it says when you are in the Overlay District and that is facing a street directly. Conklin: I didn't share that with you Mel because I didn't realize where that line was and now we have an ordinance that says it has to look like a front. I'm not sure how the other Commissioners feel but it probably needs to be dressed up better. Milholland: We have this part right here where this other is broken up, you have these little arches just like Kohl's.. . Hoover: But the ordinance reads that it should look like a front. Conklin: Let me read it again, everybody listen. "All structures shall be architecturally designed to have front facades facing all street and highway right of way." Front facades, designed to have a front facade. It is not Mel's fault, I just didn't think about that line until you asked me. Hoover: I'm sorry that line is my life. • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 57 Milholland: My client's approach, which is the same client I had before, we thought we was carrying through the same spirit for the same street next to another building that it is going to look similar to basically. The construction is similar to what we did on the other one and that is where we're coming from. I think on behalf of my client I would respectfully request that you give that consideration that we're Kohl's and this is going to look similar as far as what we put back there. Hoover: I think you would have to get a variance from the ordinance wouldn't you? Conklin: Sharon believes that, I'm not sure about the other Commissioners. Mel, if I was driving down the road and said is that a front ofa building I can't honestly say that looks like a front ofa building. I think you have to make it do something here to resemble that. I think that if you do that, even though you don't have a front door but you put a tower with a sign that says PetSmart on it. Hoover: Then you are going to have to again, prefinished metal gate, I don't think that is going to be considered the front ofa building. I know that it is going to be difficult because you have got a lot of service area back there. Somehow you are going to have to confine it and it can't be just with vegetation because that loses its leaves. Bunch: Another thing to look at from the other standpoint though is to look at the theme because it is a continuation of what is next to it knowing that we're looking at inches. Hoover: So you're saying that we continue the theme ofa backdoor? Bunch: Kohl's. Hoover: A theme is color materials. I don't think you can say theme. Bunch: Continuity of look though. Hoover: What I'm saying is that if people want to approve this I think they will have to have a variance. Bunch: I understand that, I was thinking of ways of approaching the variance because if we dress this up too much then it by contrast makes all the rest of it look worse. Ward: I think they can dress it up with arches. • • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 58 Hoover: I think the other thing with what you're saying Don is that I would be agreeable to is the end pad was more dressed up and as it got closer to Kohl's maybe it became more of a service area like Kohl's, we kind of wrap the comer here so you have a nice view and then it blended in more that way. Jefcoat: So we would leave this more service like and then repeat something like this back there with the arches or something. Hoover: Milholland: Ward: Bunch: Hoover: Milholland: Conklin: Ward: Yes. I'm related to what he said, not with the same restriction but if you dress the back of the building up with the arches, you're going to make Kohl's look less dressed up. What we tried to do in this, we used the same architect and the same format that we used to dress up Kohl's. This is the same type of dress up with the little arches over the doors and the split color in the brick with different tones to make it look similar in continuity to what Kohl's looks like. What I would like to do is go ahead and get a motion, I would like to send this to the full Planning Commission since you're not going to get consensus here. Don is going one way and Sharon is going the other, I can tell you right now. It is not going to happen here. It is either going to get tabled or we can forward it to the frill Planning Commission and my concept and what I think would be very similar, that out building, the arches on the back of the building or something similar to that to break that east side up and on the back of the PetSmart building, definitely some type of them very similar to what is on the front of that is going to have to be done, maybe not all the way across it and not in quite as much detail but something similar. Our ordinance is very clear. The east building of shop building B. 1 think it is right that it does need to go to the full Planning Commission. I know the ultimate is requested and I know why we did what we did. I guess we would be prepared to ask for a waiver if we had to. Can the Planning Commission waive it? They can make findings in the overlay district. It would need to go to the full Planning Commission on that part. I think we will listen to anything you come up with. You've kind of got just three of the nine members. • • Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 Page 59 Milholland: Like Tim said, we worked real close with them and we thought we had everything. We'll go back and tell our client basically what the three of you are saying and from my point we'll do what we can. Conklin: I feel bad. I tried to tell Mel exactly everything and Ijust didn't realize where that line was and you saw it Sharon and it is there. You can tell your client that I didn't tell you very well. Bunch: One more question. Right in this area, is there any sort of edge to the parking lot or anything? It just looks like there is nothing there in between on the east side Milholland: There is some curb and gutter in there. Bunch: We could hardly tell from the drawing if there was any curb and gutter in there, it was just like they fell off. Milholland: We'll put that back on there. That may be sheet flow on that, I don't think so. I think there is a curb across there. Motion: Bunch: I will move to forward LSD 01-41.00 to the frill Planning Commission and let the applicant pick which meeting so that he has an opportunity to address issues that we discussed here. Hoover: I'll second. ' Ward: I'll concur, thanks Mel. Milholland: Thank you very much. Meeting adjourned. 11.00 a.m.