Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-28 - MinutesSUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, February 28, 2002 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN PPL 02-4.00: Preliminary Plat (Ash Acres P.U.D., pp 367) Tabled Page 2 LSD 02-4.00: Large Scale Development (Danaher, pp 681) Forwarded Page 8 ADM 02-8.00: Administrative Item (Cliffs Ph II Sidewalk, pp 488) Approved Page 16 ADM 02-10.00: Bizy's Neon Forwarded Page 21 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERSABSENT Lee Ward Sharon Hoover Don Bunch STAFF PRESENT Kim Hesse Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Keith Shreve STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin Kim Rogers Subdivision Committee February 28, 2002 Page 2 Ward: Welcome to the Subdivision Committee meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Today is Thursday, February 28, 2002. We have three main items on our agenda this morning. PPL 02-4.00: Preliminary Plat (Ash Acres P.U.D. , pp 367) was submitted by W.B. Rudasill of WBR Engineering on behalf of Rob Stanley for property located south of Ash Street between Gregg Avenue & Woolsey Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.28 acres with 6 lots proposed. Ward: With that we will start off with PPL 02-4.00, Ash Acres submitted by Bill Rudasill of WBR Engineering on behalf of Rob Stanley for property located south of Ash Street between Gregg Avenue and Woolsey Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.28 acres with six lots proposed. Sara, are you going to handle this? Edwards: Yes I am. Ward: Ok, we are very honored here. Edwards: As you said, this is a Planned Unit Development; they have six lots but seven dwelling units. The seventh one is on lot six, it is a detached garage with studio. They are providing a private street, which will be ending in a cul-de-sac for emergency and sanitation vehicle access. The property is surrounded by R-1 zoning. There is currently 40% of the site in existing tree canopy and they are proposing to preserve 29% of the site in tree canopy. We are recommending forwarding this to the full Planning Commission. There are several conditions to discuss. The first one, on a Planned Unit Development the Planning Commission specifically has to grant a density bonus. The property is 1.26 acres and is zoned R-1. Therefore, there are five units allowed by right. The applicant is requesting a total of seven units or a density bonus of two units. In order to qualify for the density bonus, a minimum of 35% of the site shall be preserved in common open space. Right now the 35% they are showing however, the calculation includes some right-of-way that is being dedicated along the north. I need to have them refigure that and make sure they can get the 35% outside of the right-of-way. Approval shall be subject to Planning Commission approval of a conditional use allowing for a tandem lot. The developer of this property purchased a section running down the middle where the street will be, that actually belonged to Joseph Kilgore at the south. That is creating a tandem lot because he now no longer has street frontage. Another conditional use has to be approved allowing for a second dwelling unit on lot six. They are proposing to have a detached garage with a studio apartment. I am requesting that the title Subdivision Committee February 28, 2002 Page 3 Ward: block be changed to say "Preliminary Plat for Ash Acres, a Planned Unit Development." The other comments are standard. Ok, thank you. I think I will start out with Kim first as far as landscaping on this. On the preserved greenspace, is this going to be a dedicated greenspace, a part of the P.U.D., common area, is that the way it is going to be? Rudasill: Yes. Hesse: I have been to the site and there looks like we are taking out a lot of trees, which we are but their health is not that good. They are saving a pretty thick thicket back in there. I think if that is a P.U.D., going in there and clearing that out and saving trees. I have approved it. Ward: On this preserved greenspace, common area, do they have to list the size of trees and name them all and what's in there? Hesse: In the preserved part? Ward: Yes. Hesse: This all came in under the; no, we did the site analysis on it. Rudasill: We did the site analysis on it. The trees are listed and shown. Hesse: What they did on their site analysis was ok. It is just a species mix. Rudasill: The site analysis on a second sheet. Hesse: t don't remember there being anything significant in size. Rudasill: No, I think 12" at the most. Ward: Ok, I do know that a lot of the different Commissioners have expressed an interest in this type of project and concept being done more, especially on infill. Keith from Sidewalks? Shreve: We have got a requirement of a 4' sidewalk with a minimum of 6' greenspace along Ash Street. I don't see it on here. Rudasill: We didn't get it on there but we have no problem with that and we will provide the same. Ward: It needs to be shown on the plat right? Shreve: Yes. Subdivision Committee February 28, 2002 Page 4 Rudasill: There is a fairly steep bank right there off the curb so we may need to work with you as far as what we want slope wise there. We do plan on the sidewalk being put in. There is no question. Shreve: We will be glad to work with you and help you anyway we can. Ward: Ron with Engineering? Petrie: I have several items that have not been addressed since Plat Review. There are twelve items from the drainage report before I can accept that as a preliminary I won't go over every one of them specifically. This project is not ready to be moved forward if you ask me. Beyond that, I don't have a permit application. The plan shows a 6" sewer, it needs to be 8". We probably need to add a condition so you will understand that this private drive will have to be constructed to local street standards, minimum street standards. You show this waterline as going through some of your tree preservation areas, I don't have any numbers. Hesse: Those along the street? That elm tree we do not want to save. It is actually a hazardous tree. Petrie: It is not necessarily a tree; it is back in this northwest corner there. Rudasill: Down by the road. Oh, ok, where it runs right through the west edge, it is up there in that front part. I see what he is talking about, right in here. Petrie: That is all I've got. Ward: Ok, so there are like ten items there that you are saying need to be addressed? Petrie: Right. Rudasill: We will address them. We did move the detention basin out; there were some that were addressed. Not all of them were addressed however. They will be addressed, there is not a problem, I just haven't got to them yet. Petrie: You moved the detention pond? Rudasill: Out of the right-of-way, we had it in the right-of-way before. Petrie: Is it in a utility easement? Rudasill: A proposed utility easement. It borders the right-of-way but we could swap the right-of-way and the detention, we can work that out. We put the Subdivision Committee February 28, 2002 Page 5 detention closer to the right-of-way and then put the utilities on the backside between the house and the detention. Petrie: It does not need to be in the utility easement, that is not acceptable. Rudasill: Ok. It is not existing so we can adjust that to make it work. Petrie: If your size is right, I don't know. Rudasill: Ok. Ward: Are there any other comments Ron? Petrie: No Sir. Ward: Bill, it looks like there are parks fees in the amount of $2,820, you are aware of those. Rudasill: Yes. Ward: Sara, how much time frame do you think they will need for all these changes and additions? Do we need to table this? Edwards: Revisions would be due by Monday. By talking to Ron, he really didn't feel that he would have time to review the detention or the drainage calculations. Ward: I am going to recommend that we go ahead and table this Bill. I know it is going to set you back a couple of weeks but it is just not ready. That is the reason that we are here, to make sure that we have everything in mind. The next time this comes to us we want it to go click, click and it is gone and done. Is there anything you have any questions with that you need to settle right now? Rudasill: The size of the cul-de-sac I want to address. I found some documentation that the trucks could turn in a 30' radius however, after talking to the sanitation people, they would prefer to have a 32' radius instead of a 30'. I am going to widen that radius to 32' instead of 30'. That is the only other issue? Ward: Since we are going to table this I am not going to ask for public comment or anything but do we have any comments or anything that we would like to make on this particular project? Don? Subdivision Committee February 28, 2002 Page 6 Bunch: On condition number three, it calls for access to Kilgore lot but it is shown as a cul-de-sac and it is also called out in the findings as a cul-de-sac. How are we going to accomplish access to the Kilgore lot? Rudasill: He has an easement off of this cul-de-sac. There would be a little driveway there where we can abut the edge of the cul-de-sac right up to his property line. Edwards: Are you going to pave that for him? Rudasill: Yes, we are going to pave from here to here. There will be a driveway for him; his current driveway is a dirt driveway. Bunch: What about the overhead electric? Rudasill: It will all be put under ground. Unless this is over 14 KV. Bunch: Primarily the one that comes down. Rudasill: The one that comes over here will be put underground with all the other services when we redo the services and set electric service for these units we will have power back to him, take down his overhead line and tie him into the overhead. Bunch: Are utility meters going to be at each unit or are they going to be up here on the street? Rudasill: No, they will be at each unit. Ward: Does anybody have a comment or a problem with the detached garage with the studio apartment? I assume these are going to be sold separately? Rudasill: Yes, he plans on them being. That is why we are subdividing. He is going to initially start these as rental units but he did it as a plan to sell. The detached garage and the house would be sold as one unit. Ward: Right, right. That is lot six? Rudasill: Yes. Hoover: Let me ask, I am assuming this is not part of the this. This person has access off of Ash? I am just trying to figure out if they ever wanted to have their own lot split, they would have to have their own access. Rudasill: They actually did their own lot split. This piece that is here, this was a lot split off of that piece. Subdivision Committee February 28, 2002 Page 7 Hoover: Oh, ok. Rudasill: This overall development was actually two pieces. There was a piece that was split off here and there was this piece. Mr. Kilgore had a driveway that ran down between them. At Mr. Conklin's suggestion, they went ahead and bought this 15' and replaced it with an easement for Mr. Kilgore but they didn't follow through on the proper procedures to do that so we are following up on that, that is the conditional use for the tandem lot. Hoover: What is the maximum length for a cul-de-sac? Edwards: 500'. Rudasill: We are well short of that. Hoover: Ok. Bunch: This is just a housekeeping note; it says begin construction January 1st. Rudasill: We will change that. Ward: The main thing is Bill, when you come back here, make sure that on this plat that we have all those comments from the Engineering and also, sidewalks and also, that we have enough greenspace to cover this P.U.D., as required. Does anyone else see anything that needs to be discussed at this point? Can I get a motion to table? Motion: Bunch: I move that we table PPL and P.U.D. 02-4.00. Hoover: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Thanks. You are not very far from getting it done. Rudasill: Right, we're not. It is just some drainage issues and we will take care of that. Subdivision Committee February 28, 2002 Page 8 LSD 02-4.00: Large Scale Development (Danaher, pp 681) was submitted by Ken Parker on behalf of Danaher Tool Group for property located at 2900 S. City Lake Road. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial and contains approximately 38.06 acres with a 15,000 sq.ft. warehouse proposed. Ward: The next item on the agenda this morning is LSD 02-4.00 for Danaher submitted by Ken Parker on behalf of Danaher Tool Group for property located at 2900 S. City Lake Road. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial and contains approximately 38.06 acres with a 15,000 sq.ft. warehouse proposed. Sara, what can you tell us about this? Edwards: What they are proposing is a 15,000 sq.ft. warehouse between two existing buildings. It is on an existing surfaced area so they are not required to have a tree preservation plan or a grading and drainage plan because it is all existing. There is existing parking on the site. They do have sufficient spaces to meet both their existing facility and this new facility so they don't even need to construct additional parking or driveways. The only thing is this building. They are requesting one waiver, which is the requirement to build a 6' sidewalk along City Lake Road. Because they are requesting a waiver we are recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission and all the other conditions are standard conditions. Ward: Ok, who is going to speak for Danaher? Parker: I am Ken Parker. Ward: Ok Ken, I think there is a letter in here from someone, why don't you kind of give us a reason why that you feel like the sidewalks would be detrimental at this time for the property or why that you are asking for this waiver and then we can discuss it from there. Parker: The main reason we are asking for the waiver is just from an economic point of view in that we had certain monies allotted for this job and we have to meet certain financial guidelines in order to get a project to go through. We have met those guidelines, if I go back and add another 25% to it, I will no longer meet my guidelines and I have serious concerns about whether or not the project will go through or not. Ward: Right. I guess this property was built long before the sidewalk ordinances were put in place and so on, is that true Sara? Edwards: My understanding is back then we took a Bill of Assurance instead or requiring construction. Rutherford: That is correct, there is a Bill of Assurance. Subdivision Committee February 28, 2002 Page 9 Ward: How much frontage along City Lake Road are we talking about? Parker: 1,100 feet. Ward: The cost to build that would be? Parker: I called down to the sidewalk Division and got some names of some contractors that have typically been used in the past. I wanted to do that because they would be familiar with the regulations that we require in this application. I got three different prices, ranging anywhere from $20,000 to $25,000. Ward: Ok, as far as sidewalk development Chuck, down that road, I am sorry I haven't driven down there. I know where the Danaher Tool Company is but I haven't looked at this. What, is there any other sidewalks down through there? This is kind of out in the country, what is going on down there? Rutherford: We have three new projects that have happened in the last short time that have constructed sidewalks. There is the post office facility, Merit Electric just recently built a sidewalk, they are right there close to where this is at, there was also a trucking company, they built a lot basically to park their trucks and they put a sidewalk in. Parker: All that is exactly right. The last one is up here. That would be the post office. There is quite a space between the post office and where our property begins that there is nothing, on ours there is nothing, and on south of us going towards the old City Lake, there is no buildings of any kind. Edwards: I could add that the city does own this property and we are looking at developing it, looking at some people that are looking at buying it for a development. Ward: Ok. I will give you my thoughts. We don't really have anyone else since there is no landscaping and no parks. I will open it to the public. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak about this? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. I think in the future, how far in the future there will be a need for a sidewalk there. On this Bill of Assurance, who provided that Bill of Assurance? Canfield: Andrew Corporation. Ward: That Bill of Assurance would be that there would be a sidewalk put there by them, is that the case? Subdivision Committee February 28, 2002 Page 10 Rutherford: The way that a Bill of Assurance has worked on sidewalks, the way that I read them, whenever the City chooses to ask for the sidewalk then the sidewalks shall be required. That is the way they are all written. Our City Attorney says that the Bill of Assurance goes with the land not the owner. Ward: That is true. Let me ask you this, representing Danaher Tool, is there 200', the building is 75'x200', is there anyplace that sidewalks would be good for the employees and customers and visitors that could be put along there somewhere that would help you all? Canfield: We are 500' to 700', depending on where you measure from, fence or building, off of the road. We have sidewalks in our building and for all the parking and all that. Parker: We really don't want anyone out by the road. Ward: Ok. I am just trying to explore all options. Canfield: A sidewalk out at the road actually wouldn't be used by our employees or visitors because you drive down a driveway to get there. Ward: Yes, but once you are inside this complex, are there sidewalks in there that could be useful? Canfield: There are sidewalks there. Laiacona: I am John Laiacona, I am Plant Manager of the building. There is a small sidewalk in front of the building, there are several parking spaces right in front of the building, there is an overhang and you park in front, I don't know how long it is but it is probably 50' or so, there is a small sidewalk along the building itself for employees. Ward: I think that, my situation is that this is going to be forwarded to the full Planning Commission anyway. I think I will ask our City Attorney to look at what the Bill of Assurances said. I am more than willing to grant the waiver personally but I'm only one member. I would like to see a sidewalk put along there but I can also see the financial restraints with trying to build a warehouse building and having to spend a lot of money for a sidewalk out there. Laiacona: Let me just add a couple of things to this because we are in the process of trying to put a warehouse down there from our facility in Springdale. Dwight is the manager of the building down here in Fayetteville. What we are trying to do is provide more work in the Fayetteville facility because of the current situation. It is not a moneymaking facility right now because over the years we have lost some business. It is less than Subdivision Committee February 28, 2002 Page 11 breaking even. Our intent is using the warehouse there for our stock and to try to build up the amount of work that goes in there to cover our fixed costs essentially so that the building will now break even essentially. When we size the building, we try to do that to minimize the costs obviously. The building on this case is going to run us about $100,000. It wouldn't be a problem normally if this was a million dollar building but the cost for the sidewalk is substantial as a percentage of the building itself. That is what would hurt us. We are not against the fact that the city says that you would like to have a sidewalk there. Those are not the real issues. The issue is that as a percent of the total bill, it is a significant piece of that on a business that is a several million -dollar business and that is our concern. Ward: Ok. Just for the record, what will you be doing in this new addition? Laiacona: There will be a few folks, what we will be doing is essentially in Dwight's Fayetteville facility, we have warehousing in the current building. We can move the warehousing out of the current building and we would move our packing facility where we pack our wrenches, right now it is in Springdale. We would move that to the Fayetteville facility and that would provide about 40-50 jobs in the Fayetteville facility. It allows us to put, because it won't be heated, it will just be a shell essentially. We are going to put our material in there for storage and the building where we do have facilities, people can then pack wrenches there. Right now it is just used for a storage of wrenches so it allows us to put our jobs down there. We need the room essentially and that is the only place we have now that allows us the economic place to put the packing material and packing the wrenches, that allows us the room. That is the key reason for putting the building there. Ward: I understand. Bunch: These 40-50 jobs that you mentioned, are those jobs that will transfer from the Springdale facility or will they be new jobs? Laiacona: Some of them will be new and some will be transferred. Without going into some detail that right now is behind the scenes, we are getting additional business in the Springdale facility, additional wrench business that will increase the volume and that will add jobs. We prefer to have them in the Fayetteville facility when that business goes down there. Hopefully in the May time frame. May or June whenever the building goes up. Some jobs, twenty or so, about half the jobs will transfer down. The rest will be additional jobs. Ward: Ok, are there any other comments? Sara? Subdivision Committee February 28, 2002 Page 12 Bunch: A waiver on the sidewalk, is that a timed waiver or an absolute waiver? Would it be that they would never have to build a sidewalk or would it just be that they don't build it at this time? Edwards: Even if they don't have to build it with this addition, they are still looking at the possibility of the next addition where the same requirement would kick in. Bunch: Or at some time if we have other developments close to it and the need is more apparent? Edwards: We will have to get the City Attorney's opinion on the Bill of Assurance matter. Ward: We need to hear from the City Attorney to see if we can do it anyway. Hoover: I have some questions just in general. When you are doing an improvement to an existing location in an I-2, what are the general requirements? What kicks in? Do they have to do landscaping along the road? Edwards: Landscaping does kick in and we've explained that. I don't think we've worked out exactly what will be required. It kicks in at 10% expansion and I believe that they were at 16%. Hoover: Ok, so after 10% expansion, anything over that then that means they've got to do it. I know it is a minimal landscaping but then would that also include sidewalk construction? Edwards: The sidewalk construction kicks in at an additional2,500 sq.ft. Hoover: Ok. Hesse: I think they are adding six trees along the road. Hoover: Is there anything else other than landscaping and sidewalk? Edwards: Parking always kicks in but in this case they already have the parking provided so typically on a development they would be required to build additional parking and that parking would be up to code. Hoover: Since they have adequate parking then they don't have to upgrade or do anything on that. Is there anything else? Edwards: Commercial design standards do not apply in I-2. Subdivision Committee February 28, 2002 Page 13 Hoover: I think, when this goes to Planning Commission, you might list these items so it is clear. It is confusing because I don't understand without having the ordinance in front of me, I don't understand what is absolutely necessary according to our ordinance. Bunch: I have a question that ties into what Sharon was asking. On this 10% to kick stuff in, is that 10% based on a building that is attached to other buildings or a 10% refurbishment to existing buildings? My understanding from the ordinance is that a stand alone building in addition to the complex is not covered by the percentages, that is one place where it seems we have a failing in some of our ordinances. I don't know if it applies to this particular one. Edwards: We have interpreted on the landscaping as expansion whether it is connected or a separate building, either way. Hoover: Does it just read as 10% expansion? Edwards: Yes, that's right. Bunch: Ok, so it is 10% on landscaping but on parking lots I think it actually gets more specific as to whether or not it is an attached building, you know like the non -conforming parking lots to retrofit them. Edwards: That is where that 10% is. I believe with a refurbishment it is 50% of the value is where that kicks in. Parker: I don't know if it has any bearing on what you are asking but I did notice that in the large scale application permit that I filled out, it reference those kinds of things and how much would be visible from the road. As you can see, none of this would be visible from the road. Edwards: I can read that to you. "A building permit is granted to rehabilitate a structure on the property exceeding 50% of the current replacement cost. At such time 50% of the existing parking lot area shall be required to be brought into compliance." That is one, then two is: "A building permit is granted to enlarge or construct a structure on the property exceeding 10% of its existing gross floor area. At such time 10% of the existing parking lot and/or parking lot area shall be brought into compliance with the provisions of this article. This shall be on a graduated scale until meeting 100% of the required landscaping." Bunch: We've run into this before where there has been an additional building to a complex that is not attached to any other buildings and it is kind of a failing in our ordinance to where it is unclear as to where we're supposed to go with it. Subdivision Committee February 28, 2002 Page 14 Edwards: All new parking always has to be in conformity. Ward: Now, this legal description here says 48 acres and this one over here says 38 acres, is this the 38 acres here and this part here is 48 or something? Parker: All of it combined was 48 acres. It is my understanding, and this is going back through, I went back through with our accounting department as to what we've paid taxes on down there. The actual amount of acreage is 28.72. The 38 that was on here, I don't know where that came from. Edwards: We believe that this legal description went with the city property. We bought a portion of that whole piece back and therefore, they don't have a deed. We bought it as a separate deed and they don't have a deed excluding that piece. Ward: Ok, do we have a motion? Motion: Hoover: I will make a motion to forward LSD 02-4 to the full Planning Commission. Bunch: I will second. Ward: I'll concur. I think the main things that we will be interested in is when you present it to the full Planning Commission is make sure that you present what you are going to be doing to the facility, how it is going to bring more jobs to our community and the impact that we'll have from that. Also, why it is quite a large investment to put the sidewalk in at this time with the amount of capital improvements you're doing out there. Hoover: On the flip side of that too Sara, you might have prepared when we have done waivers for the sidewalk in similar situations. Edwards: Ok. Ward: Of course, make sure our City Attorney is reviewing the Bill of Assurance and make sure we're not doing something wrong. Hoover: But Lee, without the Bill of Assurance, the code requires that they put a sidewalk in. Parker: Do you know when that meeting will be? Edwards: It will be March 11`h at 5:30 in the Council Chambers. Subdivision Committee February 28, 2002 Page 15 Bunch: What tools do you make out there? Laiacona: Specialty parts for taking off oil filters, spark plug removers, that kind of stuff. Bunch: The KD line? Laiacona: Yes Sir. Bunch: How long has that line been in existence? Canfield: For about 90 years. Laiacona: You are welcome to come by. We are a low-key operation but you are welcome to come by. There is not a lot of heavy machinery going on in there. Bunch: What do you use the old galvanizing building for? Laiacona: We do blackoxiding in there. There are several tools that get a blackoxiding for corrosion resistance. You are all welcome to come by and see what you are looking at for approval. I want to thank you for your understanding the situation here because we are trying to do some good stuff here and we appreciate your understanding of that. Ward: Ok, thank you Gentlemen. We will see you in a couple of weeks. Parker: 1 don't need to bring any new information that you are aware of Sara? Edwards: It doesn't sound like it. Bunch: Are we making progress towards getting the legal description tied down and getting it on GIS and all of that, is that a priority? Edwards: For this project, no. They were having some difficulty and without requiring a new survey it was going to be difficult so we were just waiving that requirement for them. Bunch: Dwight, what is your last name? Canfield: Canfield. Subdivision Committee February 28, 2002 Page 16 ADM 02-8.00: Administrative Item (Cliffs Ph. II Sidewalk, pp 488) was submitted Jerry Kelso, PE of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Cliffs Ph. II for property located at Cliffs Blvd. and Hwy 265. The request is to move the sidewalk against the curb to save trees. Ward: The next item on the agenda this morning is ADM 02-8.00, Cliffs Phase II, sidewalk, submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Cliffs Phase II for property located on Cliffs Blvd. and Hwy. 265. The request is to move the sidewalk against the curb to save trees. Sara, why don't you tell us a little bit about this. Edwards: Well, Chuck requested that this be on the agenda because anytime that the greenspace is reduced it would require approval by the Subdivision Committee. We have done this several times before. Chuck do you have anything further? Rutherford: As far as I know we have done it at least a couple of times. We brought this back before the Subdivision Committee because they are asking for basically a waiver from what our Master Street Plan calls for with greenspace. Ward: Ok, how much greenspace are we talking about here? Rutherford: Six foot of greenspace compared to no greenspace. Ward: Which street are we talking about? Is it Sapphire? Kelso: Just the north side of Sapphire. Rutherford: From the intersection, Jerry, if I make a mistake correct me, but it is from the intersection here up to Hwy 265. Ward: Ok, and what kind of trees are we trying to save? Kelso: They are oaks. They are not real big but they are probably 8" to 12", the largest. Ward: Kim, is this something that would be beneficial to the city and for the community? Hesse: I looked and thought of switching tree preservation areas like we did in another section of the Cliffs but in my opinion I think we are serving a good purpose. Kelso: It gives a nice buffer in that location. Subdivision Committee February 28, 2002 Page 17 Hesse: It is a good buffer. It is an area where there wouldn't be any trees if we did the sidewalk. Ward: Ok, personally I've seen the Cliffs itself and I think that most of the traffic that is going to go through there is going to the Cliffs itself'. I don't think it will be used very much as a cut through to get to Happy Hollow or Hwy. 16 East, I think it is mainly people living there that are going to be using that street. I might be wrong in the future, it is hard to tell. Bunch: Just as a matter of record, since there is not an inset on this to show exactly where this is, just for the record, is this one that is north of Cliffs Drive? Kelso: Yes, probably about 800' or so. Bunch: Are there new cuts being made onto Hwy. 265 and the road that is actually under construction now? Kelso: Yes, and just to give a little background information on how all this came about. A couple of years ago is when we designed this thing and it got approved. Since then, when we were working out the designs, we got the latest plans that the Highway Department had for Hwy. 265. They kind of warned us, they said it was in the preliminary stages but it should be good. Well, now that it has been built, the actual street that we are tying onto is quite a bit lower than what we had originally planned. With that, we had to lower the street and lowering a street, there was a major cut through there so that is the reason why we had a tree preservation area established quite a while ago but now that we are having to lower the street, by pulling the sidewalk back we can save the trees that we planned on. Bunch: Ok, so the trees that you are talking about saving are higher up on the slope? Kelso: Correct. Bunch: So this has to do with the grading and how steep of a slope that you can have there? Kelso: You got it. Bunch: I know when I went by and looked at it I thought "Wait a minute, there aren't any trees anywhere close." They are back up there. Kelso: They are back up there and if we're having to cut it down so the slope is coming up to it. The top of the slope will be right at the canopy line if we Subdivision Committee February 28, 2002 Page 18 can move this sidewalk right up against the curb so we would be able to save all of those trees. Bunch: With this location, since Cliffs Drive is fairly close to proximity, and that is what we are talking about, the traffic being routed through to get over to Hwy. 16 or something like that. One of my concerns was the safety issue of having a sidewalk right up next to a street. Kelso: Right. For Sapphire Drive, I don't think anyone would really use it except for the residents. Ward: As far as I'm concerned, as long as we have the blessings of our Landscape Administrator and of our Sidewalk Administrator.. . Rutherford: I would comment on what Don was eluding to and I get phone calls from parents who say "I won't allow my kids to walk to school because the City of Fayetteville allows sidewalks to be built up against the curb." I think there were reasons for establishing the greenspace, safety being one of those. I think that also, we originally looked at, this is a cluster right in the middle of that section there. We were originally looking at bringing the sidewalk next to the curb where the cluster of trees is at and then when we got out away from it to go back and get a greenspace but I'm being informed that because of the steepness of the slope it is too steep to try to build so I guess it is going to be advantageous to the grading also to have the whole section brought back to the curb so that they don't have to cut back into the steepness of the slope. Kelso: Right. Of course on the south side we will be able to keep that greenspace, we've got room to do that. Hoover: Since we have got the sidewalk on the other side, if there were any questions regarding the safety, you could tell the kids to walk on this side. Bunch: That would be a good viable option there. Hoover: Yes. Ward: Do we need a motion on this Sara? Edwards: Yes please. Bunch: Can we do it at this level? Edwards: Yes. Subdivision Committee February 28, 2002 Page 19 Bunch: It is not something that because it was approved by the full Planning Commission needs to return to them? It is just a matter of protocol? Edwards: I think we've done it in the past this way. Hoover: Didn't the last revision that came back, didn't we approve it at Subdivision? Kelso: I think so Rutherford: We did one similar to this just up the road. Edwards: If you guys feel you want it to go to the full Planning Commission.. . Bunch: No, that was just more of rhetorical question that I was asking to see if we were undermining the decision that was made at the full Planning Commission level and whether or not we had the not only the authority but the etiquette to do it at this level. Edwards: I think it is ok. Motion: Bunch: In that case, I will move that we approve ADM 02-8.00 for sidewalk location of the Cliffs. Ward: I will second. Hoover: I concur. I want to thank you for accommodating all the trees. You guys have made a lot of revisions trying to make the development even better. Bunch: With ongoing projects there is no way you can foresee all of this. Hoover: Right, until you actually get out there and start doing things like the road height changes on you. That is significant. Bunch: I see no problem fine-tuning the processs like that and keeping some goals in mind when it is fine-tuned. Kelso: With Lindsey and Underwood involved in this project, obviously, it is one of the nicest projects in Fayetteville. Bunch: Did you get a picture of your fountain with all the ice? Kelso: No I haven't. Subdivision Committee February 28, 2002 Page 20 Bunch: Kelso: It is real pretty. Thank you. Subdivision Committee February 28, 2002 Page 21 ADM 02-10 Administrative Item (Bizyas Neon, pp 404) was submitted by Kirby Walker on behalf of Bizy's Cafe for an approval of neon use on the exterior facade of the building located in Cross Roads Village. Ward: Kind of as a fourth item on the agenda is the last page of your packet this morning. It has to do with Bizy's Cafe, compliance with commercial design standards. Sara, are you going to give us some background on what we're asked to look at? Edwards: Tim has written a memo in your packet, we are requesting that the Subdivision Committee determine compliance with commercial design standards. Mr. Walker is requesting some additional neon on a new restaurant proposed out there called Bizy's Cafe. We did, as staff, go out there and look at the development, look at the other neon. We prohibited neon on McDonald's as a part of that development. There is some neon on Taco Bell and there is some neon on Cafe Santa Fe but it is a straight- line neon. Whereas, here he is proposing some confetti neon. We do have some concern about the amount, the colors, and the fact that it is going over different E.F.I.S. lines so it is going to stick out and draw a lot of attention. We are recommending denial of this request because it is not consistent with the overall design standards of the development and I did include the commercial design standards and all the code. Hoover: This is a new building? Edwards: It is. Hoover: Where is this going? Edwards: It is in Cross Roads Village, which is the one with Harps over on Hwy. 265 and Mission. Hoover: Ok, which spot? Edwards: It is north or east of McDonald's and the bank. When you come in off Mission, it is right off that first entrance off Mission. Bunch: So this is a totally new building? Walker: It is cattycorner between the Bank of Fayetteville and the hardware store, there are two buildings. Hoover: What are the elevations? Walker: I have some pictures of the building, the building is pretty far along. I didn't know that we had this step in the process so I'm kind of here to ask Subdivision Committee February 28, 2002 Page 22 for permission to do the accent neon. We went through the signing process and we worked closely with them and communicated with them so we stayed with all that and when we came to get the sign permits is when we got a little side track here for us, not for you all of course. Hoover: Here is an unrelated question. What kind of restaurant concept is this, express cafe? Walker: It is what is the fastest growing segment which is fast casual which means you have casual dining food, a broad menu that is cooked in eight to ten minutes, but it is done in an express format so you come back to the counter and get it, we will seat about 125. Hoover: Are you familiar with Cafe Express? Walker: I am very familiar with Cafe Express. Hoover: Would it be anything like that I hope? Walker: Very similar. Hoover: Thank you. Walker: That would be the exact style and format. Hoover: Cafe Express is a terrific concept. Walker: People don't mind waiting a little longer for food and they can still eat in 30-40 minutes instead of an hour plus. Hoover: You didn't consider coming downtown? Walker: You've got to go with the opportunity and this was the opportunity presented to us. I got to this point, I didn't know there was an access neon issue because I took pictures last night as I'm in there. I have been in Fayetteville since 1981 so I knew there was a signage issue and we worked pretty closely making sure we were within that. We just didn't anticipate that there would be an issue with the accent neon because it is so prevalent in Fayetteville and it is very prevalent in the center. As I walk and drive by that center, Cafe Santa Fe jumps out and so does Taco Bell. The other ones are primarily signs with their neon but it is obviously in the center already. There may have been some history that it was difficult on some of the tenants to get to there but you have. Obviously, our building is built just like the other buildings and we look just like them with the exception of our style of neon. Cafe Santa Fe has three colors, Taco Bell has one color. All those places have more footage of neon than Subdivision Committee February 28, 2002 Page 23 what we have. Obviously we want to look a little different, that is what we are trying to do. Hoover: I guess when I look at Cafe Santa Fe, I look at the amount of neon. Edwards: Let me make Tim's point for him again. He says that the neon lights are non-traditional with regard to the fact that it is not intended to accent architectural features and instead it is designed to act more of a sign that identifies the business. Our point is that these are put along rooflines, beams, they are accenting the building, whereas, these are not, they are intended to be a sign. They are not consistent with the roofline or an E.F.I.S. stripe or anything. They are kind of hanging out there and sticking off. Hoover: Where is that referenced in the ordinance that it has to be used in a traditional way? Edwards: That is not addressed in the ordinance. The point that we are making is on 2B, on the second page, a commercial development which contains more than one building should incorporate a recurring, unifying, and identifiable theme for the entire development site. Hoover: He is doing that in the building itself. Edwards: It does, it looks just like everything else. Ward: What you are proposing is 270' of this neon and there is 440' of neon on the Taco Bell and there is 400' of neon on Cafe Santa Fe. I will give my take on it real quick Kirby. I don't have any problem with it but I think we need to get all nine members of the Planning Commission to yay or nay it, everybody has got their own idea. It might be a situation that on the two sides, you have two different elevations of the north and south I guess. As far as the west elevation and the east elevation, you don't need signs on those right? Walker: Right. I think he said we could have four signs, it can't be anymore than 20% of the side. Those are our primarily visible sides. Ward: Well, sometimes signs, the way that you've got it lined up would give you the same effect as all of this neon gives you, maybe we might go more that way. Maybe more of a straight-line neon kind of like what Taco Bell and Cafe Santa Fe and everybody have. I don't have any problem with it but I'm just saying everybody has got his or her own visions. Walker: Let me tell you where I am in the process. I am out $8,000 on the neon because we didn't anticipate that this would be an issue because of the Subdivision Committee February 28, 2002 Page 24 existing neon in the facility and because we had gone through the sign size. They are trying to say that we are in a signage issue, which if we are in a signage issue then really it is only a square footage issue it would appear to me. If it is signage then it only leaves the square footage in. If it is not signage then it is the accent neon, where I thought it was. At that point in time, we looked around and saw a lot of accent neon. We didn't know there was an accent neon permit we needed to get. We started the process, and you know, you are involved in processes, you start them. I am going to have a lot of neon, the question is going to be where is it going to be. Is it going to be inside the building now? I don't know, but I am going to have eight thousand bucks worth of neon. Edwards: Do you have these little shapes where you could bring a couple and show us? I think that would be interesting. Walker: They are at the sign company, he will be building those. Bunch: Is this a local deal oris a national franchise? Walker: No, it is just local. Fayetteville, Arkansas birth. Bunch: So it is not like it is a logo that says, like the golden arches that people identify with. Walker: You are looking at the creation of it. Bunch: Ok, out on north College when we did the; Hoover: Do you remember Mr. Bubbles? The car wash. Bunch: We did something there. Hoover: As far as the recurring theme, do we take the recurring theme to mean the neon or not. Edwards: I don't disagree that on College this would probably be ok. Walker: Again, if I stand and look around in this center, I have got neon all around me. From the distance coming in, it certainly jumps out at you. Bunch: From the standpoint of a non-traditional treatment, that is why I was thinking of the suds place because of all the bubbles, it wasn't necessarily lighting but it did stand out from the building. Ward: I think that was kind of neat. Subdivision Committee February 28, 2002 Page 25 Hoover: Yes. Walker: For example, you look at El Chico, does that fall into be a non-traditional standard because of the way they sloped it, would it be different than that? Hoover: This is stemming from the idea that if it is in a development you have that unified theme which I think if the building is a unified theme I don't have any problem with the neon doing something a little different at all. Then, if you look at it too, as far as our outdoor lighting ordinance and all of that, we have actually got less light coming off of it than these other guys. Bunch: We are looking at a commercial node that is limited and by the time you stack everything in it, that whole intersection to me is rather goshe, that is one person's opinion. Hoover: Right. Bunch: By the time we get everything at the 265 and 45 junction, it is not the most attractive thing but one thing about it is that it is a commercial node and it is a concentrated node. Hopefully it won't spread up and down Hwy. 265 and Hwv. 45. Ward: I would like to move this on. I would like to send this on up to the full Planning Commission. I think you got our three opinions, we are only three out of nine. Walker: Do you give a certain recommendation? Ward: I think everybody will be able to read our minutes. I personally don't have any problem with it, I kind of like something a little bit different but I may be different than everybody else anyway. What I might like most people wouldn't like. I think it would be unique looking and kind of different and I think it would draw people in there and that is what you are hoping to have happen. Walker: That would be the goal. Bunch: Do we have any other places like this in town that we could use? Hoover: I don't know on neon but I'm thinking that the Best Buy is not the exact same theme as TJ Maxx and others. Bunch: I was thinking where we had some neon or signage/decorations or something in an existing where we had more or less unified themes because the building is matching up with the unified theme. If everything Subdivision Committee February 28, 2002 Page 26 looks the same it is going to look like an army complex, you don't want it to look like barracks so we need some differentiation. Hoover: I think too with more growth coming and more restaurants coming in, they are usually the ones that need the more individual theme going. Bunch: Of course, at night how well are you going to be able to see the unified theme of a lot of these places visible. You are not going to be able to see different shades of a less than bright red. Hoover: Did you want this to go onto the full Planning Commission? Ward: I think it needs to. Edwards: That was our hope that you would just send it forward. The whole Planning Commission, I think that there was a lot of discussion and I will be sure to get those minutes on Cross Roads Village and establishing the design theme. Bunch: Was this building done under a blanket approval or was it an individual approval? Hoover: It must be under an acre. Edwards: This piece was a part of the original large scale, which was 1996. Motion: Bunch: I move that we forward ADM 02-10 to the full Planning Commission. Hoover: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Thanks Kirby. Hoover: The good news is maybe you'll get it in the newspaper. Edwards: That is March 116 at 5:30 in Council Chambers. I do have a request. Would it be possible for you to get me nine of these in color? Walker: I will get them to you. Edwards: That way I can hand it out to the Commission ahead of time and they can go out there and take a look. Hoover: Those boards are good to show. Subdivision Committee February 28, 2002 Page 27 Ward: It probably wouldn't hurt to have some pictures of places like Suds, that new car wash. Bunch: Walker: Edwards: Also, daytime and nighttime pictures where daytime reflects the unified theme and your nighttime differentiation. Ok, I can do that. I appreciate the feedback. Whatever you can get, if you can get it by Monday that would be good for me. I will hand it out on Thursday.