Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-30 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, May 30, 2002 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED PPL 02-9.00 Preliminary Plat (Rogers, pp 401) Page 3 PPL 02-6.00: Preliminary Plat (Brookstone Subdivision, pp 212) Page 5 LSP 02-30.00 & 31.00: Lot Split (Beard/Center, pp 599) Page 8 LSP 02-25.00 & 26.00: Lot Split (Haines, pp 369) Page 10 LSP 02-27.00: Lot Split (Foster, pp 245) Page 12 LSD 02-12.00: Large Scale Development (Bargo Engineering, Inc., pp 604) Page 14 LSD 02-13.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville Municipal Airport, pp 795/796/834/835) Page 17 ADM 02-17.00: Administrative Item (First Church of Nazarene, pp 253) Page 28 ACTION TAKEN Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded MEMBERS PRESENT Sharon Hoover Don Bunch STAFF PRESENT Kim Hesse Tim Conklin Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Matt Casey Keith Shreve MEMBERSABSENT Lee Ward STAFF ABSENT Kim Rogers Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 3 PPL 02-9.00 Preliminary Plat (Rogers, pp 401) was submitted by Al Harris of Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Sam Rogers for property located at the northwest corner of Salem Road and Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial containing 8.36 acres with two lots proposed. Bunch: Good morning, welcome to the Thursday, May 30, 2002 meeting of the Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. We are short handed this morning and lot splits that are normally approved at this level we will be forwarding to the full Planning Commission because it takes three of us here in order to make a ruling on items that we can forward to the full Planning Commission, two Commissioners can take care of that. The first item on the agenda is PPL 02-9.00 submitted by Al Harris of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Sam Rogers for property located at the northwest corner of Salem Rd. and Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial containing 8.36 acres with two lots proposed. Sara, could you tell us about this? Edwards: The proposal is to split these lots into a 4.77 acre piece which is zoned R - O and fronts on Salem and a 3.55 acre piece which is zoned C-1 and fronts on Wedington. There was a previous split which created this Arkansas National Bank parcel. At that time the requirement was that all future splits be processed as a subdivision so that is why this is a Preliminary Plat. We are recommending this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission because it is a Preliminary Plat. At this time we are not recommending any street improvements or right-of-way dedication for a new street connecting Salem and Wedington. We are recommending that be delayed until further development occurs. There was a requirement that both the right-of-way and street improvements be required with this subdivision at the time of the previous lot split. I would just like to say that a new public street will be reviewed and may be required with further development. Bunch: You say connecting Salem and Wedington, should that be Mount Comfort and Wedington because this is on the corner of Salem and Wedington. Edwards: Right. What originally was required was a road running north of this Arkansas National Bank parcel and then cutting around and coming back down. Bunch: Ok, so it is not talking about going all the way through to connect with the other parts of Salem. Edwards: Everything else is standard. Bunch: Ron? Petrie: Just a question for the applicant. On the Arkansas National Bank property you are calling out utility easements, are these existing easements? Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 4 Harris: Yes, this is existing from the lot split. Petrie: They are existing, you are not trying to dedicate them by this plat? Harris: No. Petrie: Ok, that is all I have. Bunch: Sidewalks? Shreve: We have existing sidewalks on Salem and Wedington, there is no new requirement. Bunch: Ok. There's no other staff here. Al, do you have any kind of presentation? Harris: No, it is kind of an old project. It has been to the city a couple of times in the past and I think right now Sam Rogers just wants to get it where he can sell it in the future and whoever buys it is responsible for coming back through large scale and meeting the requirements for grading improvements at that time. Bunch: Are there any comments from the public? Does anyone wish to speak on this? Seeing none, we will bring it back to the Committee. Al, I have a question on this note. It says there are no significant trees on the site and no grading of the site will take place until each lot is developed in the future. What does that note apply to? Harris: Both. Bunch: Ok, I was a little unsure if that was a note for lot 2 or lot 1 but that is just a general note. Motion: Hoover: I will make a motion to forward this to the full Planning Commission, PPL 02-9.00. Bunch: I will second that. Thanks Al Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 5 PPL 02-6.00: Preliminary Plat (Brookstone Subdivision, pp 212) was submitted by Terry Carpenter of US Infrastructure, Inc. on behalf of Washington Regional Medical System for property located at 415 Longview Street. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 38.62 acres with eight lots proposed. Bunch: The next item is a Preliminary Plat for Brookstone subdivision submitted by Terry Carpenter of U S Infrastructure on behalf of Washington Regional Medical Systems for property located at 415 Longview Street. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 38.62 acres with eight lots proposed. Sara, can you tell us about this one? Edwards: This subdivision is for the Brookstone Assisted Care facility and the Washington County Health Department. There is a large scale development planned on tract 2. This property was rezoned to R -O to offer medical offices. The property to the north is C-2, to the east is R-1, to the south is R-2. Currently 64% of the site exists in tree canopy. The proposal is to preserve 62% of the site until future development occurs and at the time of future development each tract will be required to meet the minimum 20% preservation requirement. Conditions to address are 1) Planning Commission determination of any improvements to Longview Street. At the time that the Brookstone Assisted Care Facility Large Scale Development was approved, a requirement was made that at the time of future development Longview Street would have to be extended to Plainview Street. At the time of the large scale for the assisted care facility the Planning Commission made a determination that 50% of the extension of Longview, that is this shaded area, would be required to be put in a bond, that decision was appealed to the City Council at which time they deferred that construction until future development. I have included the minutes with your report and we are asking for the Planning Commission to make the determination if there should be improvements to that street or contribution. 2) All required improvements including street lights will be required to be installed prior to final plat approval. Street lights may be deferred if payment is made to the electric company with a certified check and a copy of the check and paid in full receipt is submitted to the Planning Division. All other conditions are standard. Bunch: Ok, staff comments, Ron? Petrie: Lets discuss this street for a second. I will have to get some additional information on some meetings that occurred with Kit Williams. There has been some involvement with the city already about trying to get this extension in. I believe there is a problem with the right-of-way acquisition so more than likely before Planning Commission we will need to put together a rational nexus number and if see if you feel comfortable with that. I don't believe the street can be built now due to the right-of-way acquisition. Other comments, on tract 2 we have seen a development, it is not a subdivision yet. There is some concern about the drainage on tract 1. Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 6 I think we need to put a private drainage easement across tract 1. I would like for that to be shown on this. Nierengarten: Ok, where on tract 1? Petrie: You will have to get with their engineer, Jorgensen & Associates. A couple of unique things with this is that there is no grading associated with this Preliminary Plat so we don't have grading plans. By ordinance, if that changes and they want to grade it, by ordinance that has to come back to the Subdivision Committee. Another thing is we typically like to get our detention at this stage but with the setup and the way the creek goes through this property. It is only going to be unfeasible to have one regional detention for the whole property so we will be looking at that on an individual basis when the large scales come through. That is all that I have got. Bunch: Ok, thank you Ron. Sidewalks? Shreve: There is an existing 6' sidewalk along Longview and I would like a symbol to be added to the legend to show the sidewalks. Bunch: Does anyone from the public wish to comment on this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. Sharon do you have any comments on this? Hoover: Just kind of a general question. This section of the road that we're talking about, doesn't it have to be built? I guess I don't understand if there is large scale development going on here we can't have it dead end. How do we usually do that? Edwards: We have done it both ways in the past but yes, that is a possibility when this property develops to have them construct that road because it is offsite and right-of-way acquisition will have to be done. Hoover: For instance, if all these tracts develop and this hasn't developed then what? Edwards: They do have access over here on Wimberly. Hoover: But they only have one way out. What happens if there is a fire or something? Edwards: That is another point. Our fire station is over here on Plainview so that would provide better access. Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 7 Hoover: Edwards: Hoover: Bunch: Motion: Hoover: Bunch: Nierengarten: Bunch: Edwards: Hoover: Bunch: Edwards: N ierengarten: My question is do we usually, if there is a lot of development, if it got built out and this still wasn't developed here, don't we have to have some kind of a temporary bond or what? Right now they were approved to construct it to the property line by City Council with the large scale. Ok, so even if this develops it has already been approved to go right to here. Ok. I have no further comments on it. I think we've looked at this one a time or two before. I will make a motion to move this to the full Planning Commission, PPL 02-6.00 subject to the additional staff comments. I will second. What would you like to see done or who would you like to see at the full Planning Commission in order to discuss this right-of-way extension? That is really the only thing that is hanging fire on it I guess. The engineering part of it looks real good. You should have a good presentation. I think the tree situation is pretty self explanatory. There is sufficient canopies on each tract to develop each one individually so I guess basically what we need is the land acquisition and we probably have to ask Kit to see what we need there. Would you like someone from Washington Regional there to help with your concerns? Yes. I don't think we can require the owner of the potential land to be there. That would be nice to get that started but I don't think we can do that. We will see this at agenda session the Thursday before the Monday meeting and that might give you a better idea. Ok, sounds good. Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 8 LSP 02-30.00 & 31.00: Lot Split (Beard/Center, pp 599) was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Tom Broyles and John Ellis for property owned by Cynthia Beard and William M Center, III and located west of Razorback Road and south of 15th Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial, R-2, Medium Density Residential, and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial containing approximately 29.62 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 22.11 acres, 4.42 acres, and 3.09 acres. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is LSP 02-30.00 and 31.00 submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Tom Broyles and John Ellis for property owned by Cynthia Beard and William M. Center, III and located west of Razorback Road and south of 15th Street. The property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial, Commercial, R-2, Medium Density Residential, and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial containing approximately 29.62 acres. Sara, can you tell us about this? Edwards: You recently saw a rezoning for the R-2 parcel, September 24, 2001. We really have no comments and no conditions. They have met all of our requirements. Bunch: Staff comments? Ron? Petrie: No comment. Bunch: Keith? Shreve: No comment. Bunch: We do need to read into the record that the request is to split into three tracts of 22.11 acres, 4.42 acres, and 3.09 acres. Al will you be telling us about this one? Harris: Mrs. Beard wants to sell off tract 1 at this time but she doesn't plan to do anything with the other tracts, just tract 1. We have been working with the potential buyers and they plan to come back in in the near future with a large scale on this. You will be seeing it again hopefully soon. Bunch: Alright, do we have any comments from the public? Does anyone wish to address us on this lot split? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. One thing on this 8" waterline that is across Razorback Road, you are not showing whether or not that is accessible from this site. I know there is a railroad right-of-way over there. Harris: The highway right-of-way is also pretty wide. Bunch: There are right-of-way and easements all the way to that? Right now it seems undetermined if they have the right to go to that. Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 9 Harris: There is a little sliver of land owned by Mrs. Beard also on part of this property. When the state came in and acquired Razorback Road they left a little sliver of land and Mrs. Beard still owns that site, which is actually part of this property, same parcel number. Bunch: Same parcel number but it is not shown in this lot split. My concern is that we don't create the lots that don't have access to utilities. Sara do we need to have that noted since this will have to go to the Planning Commission since we only have two sub -committee members here. I guess we could just put a note on there that, you know it is obvious that sewer and everything else are accessible. Also, on this 24" sewer, and 12" sewer, are those all existing? Harris: Yes, they are all existing. Bunch: That is the only comment I have. Sharon do you have any comments? Motion: Hoover: No I don't. I will make a motion to forward this to the full Planning Commission, LSP 02-30.00 and 31.00. Bunch: I will second. Hoover: I guess I should say put on consent agenda. Bunch: That will be to the discretion of the Planning Commission at agenda session is that correct Sara? Edwards: You can recommend it. Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 10 LSP 02-25.00 & 26.00: Lot Split (Haines, pp 369) was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Associates on behalf of Edward & Lerene Haines for property located at 1921 Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 10.55 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 0.78 acres, 7.22 acres, and 2.55 acres. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is LSP 02-25.00 and 02-26.00 submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Associates on behalf of Edward and Lerene Haines for property located at 1921 Old Wire Road. Sara, can you tell us about this one? Edwards: This property is on the northwest corner of Old Wire Road and Ash Street. It is zoned R-1 and is surrounded by R-1 zoning. Additional right-of-way is being dedicated both along Old Wire and Ash pursuant to the Master Street Plan. They have met all of our requirements. Everything is pretty standard. I will mention that there are park fees due in the amount of $940 for two additional lots. Bunch: Staff comments? Ron? Petrie: It is kind of hard to see but all of these lots do have access to water and sewer. I have no comments. Bunch: Ok, Sidewalks? Shreve: No comment. Bunch: Glenn, do you have any presentation? Carter: No, it is just a fairly straight forward piece of property that they are wanting to split. I guess so they can sell it. Bunch: At this time I will take public comment. Is there anyone that wishes to address us on this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. Glenn, a couple of questions. On this piece of property that is .63 acres in the northeast corner, who owns that property? You are not showing an owner and it is an adjacent property. Carter: They own that too and the .63 was shown with those dimensions because it is shown on their deed but it is not part of the parcel being split so I just showed it as .63. I guess it would have been more correct to put their names there. Mr. and Mrs. Haines own that property also. Bunch: If you could put that on the drawing. Also, on the south side I am pretty sure it is probably City property but it is not delineated either. Is that a lift station? Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 11 Carter: It is a water pump station. Bunch: Ok, can we have that described also? We are supposed to be showing all of the adjacent owners. Sara or Glenn could you tell us about the buildable area particularly for tract 2, is that sufficient to be built outside of the floodplain? Edwards: Yes. The requirement is for 6,000 sq.ft. outside of the floodplain so I did have them go and dimension that and he is showing me that there is 10,863 sq.ft. outside of the floodplain. Bunch: Is that also inside the setbacks? Carter: Yes. If you don't include the setback it is more than 10,000, I think it is about 13,000. We just subtracted off the setbacks. Bunch: There is an 8' setback on the west side, what about the setback on the south and the north, you are not showing that. Would that be significant enough to alter your numbers? Carter: I really don't think so I will double check that. Bunch: Just to make sure the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed since it is getting close to the proper amount. Sharon, do you have any comments on this? Motion: Hoover: No. I will make a motion to forward this to the full Planning Commission, LSP 02-25.00 and 26.00 with a recommendation to put on consent agenda. Bunch: I will second. Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 12 LSP 02-27.00: Lot Split (Foster, pp 245) was submitted by Terri Lynne McNaughton on behalf of Steven Foster for property located at the southwest corner of Weir Road and Salem Road. The property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately 6.79 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 3.87 acres and 2.80 acres. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is LSP 02-27.00 submitted by Terri Lynne McNaughton on behalf of Steven Foster for property located at the southwest corner of Weir Road and Salem Road. The property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately 6.79 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 3.87 acres and 2.80 acres. Sara, can you tell us about this one? Edwards: This property is located on the southwest corner of Salem and Weir Road directly across from Crystal Springs Subdivision. Right-of-way is being dedicated pursuant to the Master Street Plan to include 35' from centerline dedicated on Weir Road and they have met all of our city requirements and we have no conditions to address. Bunch: Ron? Petrie: No comment. Bunch: Keith? Shreve: No comment. Bunch: Do you have any presentation to make before I take public comment? McNaughton: Not really. They are just wanting to split these so they can sell them. Public Comment: Bunch: At this time I will take comments from the public. Is there anyone here that wishes to address us on this item? Cole: My name is Rob Cole, I am an adjacent property owner and I just was here to find out how that might affect me. I understand this is not in the Fayetteville city limits. Bunch: You own the property to the south? Cole: I actually own the 6.79, I think that is probably a typo. Their property is 6.67 but nevertheless, I own the property to the south, yes. Bunch: It is 6.67 if you add the numbers up. We will get that corrected. Is there any additional comment? Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 13 Cole This is not in the city limits. I was wondering if that is proposed that this will be in the city limits eventually. Bunch: That we don't know. Cole: I wonder how that would affect me being in between that property and the city limits of Fayetteville. Bunch: Sara, can you tell us about this? Edwards: Right now I believe your property is adjacent to the city limits on the south anyway. If you wanted to annex your property that would be feasible. Right now this property is not adjacent to the city limits because you've got property which is between this property and the city limits They can't annex feasibly until you do or someone over here on this side annexed in. Bunch: Is there any additional comment? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. Motion: Hoover: I will make a motion to move this to the full Planning Commission, LSP 02-27.00 with a recommendation to put it on consent agenda. Bunch: I will second. I apologize for having to attend an additional meeting on this and the delay on the time. Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 14 LSD 02-12.00: Large Scale Development (Bargo Engineering, Inc., pp 604) was submitted by Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Bargo Engineering, Inc. for property located at 1775 Armstrong Avenue. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial and contains approximately 5.14 acres with a 20,000 sq.ft. building proposed for a warehouse. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is LSD 02-12.00 for Bargo Engineering submitted by Landtech Engineering on behalf of Bargo Engineering, Inc. for property located at 1775 Armstrong Avenue. The property is zoned I- 2, General Industrial and contains approximately 5.14 acres with a 20,000 sq.ft. building proposed for a warehouse. Sara, can you tell us about this one? Edwards: This property is zoned I-2 and is surrounded by I-2 zoning. They are dedicating some additional right-of-way along Armstrong pursuant to the Master Street Plan. Two additional parking spaces are being proposed with the 20,000 sq.ft. warehouse building. They have met all of our conditions and everything else is standard. Bunch: Ron, any comments? Petrie: Just one. If I can get a one page summary of your drainage flows, pre - development and post -development that will help a lot. That is the only thing that I have. Bunch: Keith? Shreve: They will be constructing a new 6' wide sidewalk along the frontage of Armstrong which meets our requirements. Bunch: We have all the proper things on the drawing about how the sidewalk meets the driveway and the accessibility? Shreve: Yes. We are not going to require them to reconstruct the existing driveway at this point, just tie the new sidewalk to it. Bunch: Thanks Keith. Would you like to make a presentation at this time? Presley: No Sir. Bunch: Alright, we'll take public comment at this time. Does anyone wish to address us on this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee. Sharon, do you have any comments? Hoover: I have a question. Are there are already trees along the road? Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 15 Edwards: No. Presley: You can look on page two. Hoover: Ok. Bunch: On this note where it says to be decided by the developer tree list for city. I think the Planning Commission is charged with approving a tree and landscape plan. Edwards: They are not removing any trees as a part of this so we gave them a waiver on the tree preservation plan. Bunch: Ok, so basically as long as they pick trees from the approved list, no Bradford Pears. Edwards: Right. Presley: I had a meeting set up with Kim to go out on site and she was sick but we are planning on doing that. Bunch: Has this been before the Fire Depai tment? Edwards: Yes. Bunch: I just wondered about the number of doors into the warehouse. Of course this is just a schematic showing one overhead door. I wonder if there were any man doors. Presley: Edwards: Bunch: I do not know that for sure as far as exterior doors. I would imagine but I don't know that. They will have a chance to review it at the time of building permit when we have an actual site plan. Usually we don't get into that detail here but I just want to make sure that Fire had an opportunity to look at it. Also, for your proposed parking, are you going to do it similar to the way this was done? Presley: Yes Sir. Bunch: There are no curbs or anything. Of course that is on private property so it really doesn't matter. I have nothing else. Sharon, do you have anything else on this one? Unless we discover something between now and when it goes to the full Planning Commission. Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 16 Hoover: Can we recommend that it be on consent also? Edwards: Yes. Motion: Hoover: I would like to move that we forward LSD 02-12.00 to the full Planning Commission and recommend that it go on the consent agenda. Bunch: I will second that. Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 17 LSD 02-13.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville Municipal Airport, pp 795/796/834/835) was submitted by Ray Boudreaux on behalf of the Fayetteville Municipal Airport for property located at 4500 S. School Avenue. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 512 acres. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is LSD 02-13.00 for the Fayetteville Municipal Airport submitted by Ray Boudreaux on behalf of the Fayetteville Municipal Airport for property located at 4500 S. School Avenue. Sara, can you tell us about this one? Edwards: Yes. They can probably explain it better than me but my understanding is right now the proposal is for seven airplane hangars and construction of a new taxiway and with the hangars there will be 44 parking spaces. These hangars and the parking will be placed in the existing parking lot at the southern end of the airport property. It is actually resulting in the removal of 343 parking spaces. We were recommending approval at the Subdivision Committee level. The only condition is that Parking chart shall be revised to reflect the actual number of spaces shown on the plat. There are a total of 44 parking spaces shown. Jones: The existing number in that parking lot got left out. There are about 100 remaining in that parking lot out front. Bunch: Would you identify yourself for the record please? Jones: I am Wayne Jones with McClelland Consulting Engineers. Boudreaux: He represents the city for this project. A couple of things that are precursors to this that you probably need to know that this has already been rezoned, it has gone through that process already so we've probably got another ten days and it will be rezoned to I-1. It was a small piece that was left off of that rezoning. Bunch: Is that reflected in the statement? Edwards: The whole airport is still C-2, C-1, and I-1. This little piece was C-1. Bunch: Ron, any comments? Petrie: I have provided some minor comments for grading and drainage to the engineer. I won't waste everybody's time reading those unless you want me to. We just need those comments addressed before the Planning Commission meeting. They are minor checklist items. Bunch: Ok, Keith any comments? Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 18 Shreve: We're requiring on this development a payment into the sidewalk fund for the airport in the amount of $8,903.40 for this proposed development. Bunch: That is in addition to what is already in the fund? Shreve: Yes. Boudreaux: There is $5,500 in there currently. Jones: This is just a question. In the Tech Plat, the sidewalk on adding pavement for taxiways which are not public use areas, I was wondering if that is something that should be considered in sidewalk consideration verses public building areas. That could reduce that amount some for the airport. It may be something that the staff and Planning Commission need to address. Boudreaux: We want a sidewalk anyway but I see what Wayne's question is all about. Jones: Whether the taxiways over here on the east side should be considered in payment calculations for sidewalks. Bunch: Is that part of this project? Jones: It is part of the large scale development but it is not part of the facilities used by the public, meaning parking lot, terminal buildings, etc. Bunch: I am at a loss at what we're looking at here. Jones: We are looking at two things. We are looking at the development there and we're looking at this taxiway development, the first phase which will be this 1,300 feet to go in with the U.S. Forest Service fire fighting tanker base that they are moving from Fort Smith to Fayetteville. They will be required to submit their own large scale development for their facility. We are having to develop this taxiway as part of that. Bunch: The thing I guess that I was questioning when I looked at that, Phase II and Phase III are future so part of this particular item that we are addressing is this Phase I. Jones: We are looking at Phase I, II, and III as part of this development. Phases II and III will depend on when and how the airport obtains federal funding to build that parallel taxiway. Boudreaux: Which, for your information, we have got to do. The Forest Service already has their money and they are planning and probably will be building their site fairly quickly to put fire fighting airplanes in there. Our portion to get them to the runway is going to be up to us. Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 19 Jones: They have a lease with the city on that property. Bunch: In our packet I was unsure. I saw this on the drawing but I couldn't tell from the verbal description in our packet if this portion was included. Jones: Yes Sir it is. Bunch: So you are talking about extending the existing road. Jones: The road and this fire fighting tanker base is part of their Forest Service extension work. We are talking about the taxiway, the parallel taxiway on the east side of the runway and these two connecting taxiways to the runway is what we're talking about on the east side of the runway. Then we are talking about this complex on the west side south of the terminal. Bunch: How are we to know just from looking at the drawings and looking at the description what is in the project and what is not? This is something that before it goes to the full Planning Commission we will have to have delineated so that we know what we're looking at. I can't speak for the other Planning Commissioners but they don't like to approve things, I personally don't like to approve things that I don't know what I'm approving and give somebody the go and have it come back later and people say "Why did you approve this?" I don't like to give a broad based wave. Boudreaux: Let me give you my spin on this. Typically airports have what is called an airport layout plan. An airport layout plan is approved by the FAA for all development going on in the next five years. We are using our five year plan to then get to this other process, which is the city process called large scale development. When you do that what happens is that you start putting it all through the staff and all the other depaituients and you are required then to do to make plans and make arrangements for drainage and all the other issues that are necessary for the whole project. The airport is one big thing out there and it is quite a bit bigger than normal projects you would be addressing. The most important project right now is this one. That is really the only thing we are looking at today. Jones: Well basically Phase I the plans are being finished on that this Summer. Bunch: We need to be apprised with what we are considering. There is quite a bit on here. When you start looking at 512 acres are we giving a blanket approval of everything in your five year plan? It needs to be noted on the drawings the extent of what we're looking at so that we're not giving a blanket approval. Yes I am proud to see that we have a five year plan and that we're moving forward with this area but we still need to have it described. Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 20 Jones: These plans also have been through the City Council. Boudreaux: You need to tell us exactly what we need to put in there. Wayne, I guess what we need to put in there is just a one line or two line description of Phase I of the parallel taxiway and this one right here. Bunch: I am assuming from the City Council's standpoint that it is a concept that is being, that this is what we want for the airport to be able to not have it be a detriment to us in the future. We are at the point now that we're down to brass tacks. We are looking at nuts and bolts and we need to know what it is that we're addressing. Boudreaux: Those are the only two projects right now. Jones: Again, it may be, depending on if the FAA is able to come up with the additional funds right after their fiscal year starts. It may be that they have funding to do Phase I and Phase II of that taxiway, we don't know in the next year what we're going to be able to fund. We think we can get Phase I funding without a real problem. We are hoping that maybe we can get Phase I and Phase II funding. Boudreaux: We are applying for that money. Jones: That is why we are showing Phase I, II, and III. It is a tremendous 5 or 6 million dollar project to build those taxiways on the other side over there and trying to get 90% of that from the federal government with everyone else out there that is a challenge but something that we're working at in trying to move on. That is the reason that we've showed the entire parallel taxiway over there. I can understand your part about this roadway, we can redelineate that, that is not a problem there. Bunch: Same thing on future phases. If you want us to approve it then you need to tell us what you're asking for. Boudreaux: The problem is that it is only a year. I know for my information that one year is all that this is approval for. I know that in a year that I can probably get this done and maybe Phase I done or started. Can I get it all done? No way. Bunch: The main thing is when you make your request to let us know what you're asking for because we're shooting at a moving target. Jones: All the proposed stuff other than the Forest Service area was part of this development. Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 21 Edwards: Jones: Boudreaux: Bunch: Jones: Boudreaux: Jones: Boudreaux: Hoover: Boudreaux: Hoover: Boudreaux: Jones: If they were to remove the shading of that road and that Forest Service area everything shaded would be what you're requesting right? Yes. I will make a note that that is part of the Forest Service. They are still going to have to come in with their final plans and they haven't done that yet. That would be good information for us to have if this in here is for a future submittal. That is everything within this inset area. The taxiway is also included within the inset so who is responsible for that? The airport is responsible for the taxiways up to the lease line. This outline is the forest service lease area and that is their large scale development area. We would need to delineate the road as being part of that responsibility, the rest of it is what we're asking approval on and initially we had talked about the fact that this thing is not something, these hangars may be built in a year, depending on clients that Ray can get in. We have two leases. The City is the F.B.O., fixed based operator, they are going to build a hangar here. These others over here we want to have them on the site so that we don't have to go through this thing every couple months. What we're doing is we're leasing ground and letting private enterprise build their own hangars, which means they have to get their own permits and go through all the normal process if you are going to build a building in Fayetteville which means you go through all the permitting and inspection and all those kinds of things. Do you tell them what kind of materials they should be using or anything to coordinate with the whole complex? These are hangars so typically they are metal buildings. Right, but is there some color that they are going to have? Everything requires approval by the airport, yes Ma'am, and the Airport Board. FAA will not allow the airport to actually sell the property. They want fixed leases that are renewable so there is a slightly different scenario that what your Planning Commission normally deals with. Airports are a little different in that respect. Boudreaux: The reason they do that is so they can generate revenue. Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 22 Hoover: Jones: Hoover: Jones: Boudreaux: Jones: Boudreaux: Bunch: Jones: Boudreaux: Bunch: Has Kim Hesse seen these plans? Yes. We have talked to her about the trees. I am really surprised by the Bradford Pears. They are already there. They are existing. They are in this existing parking area. We are hoping that we can relocate them. We are recycling a parking lot is what we're doing, actually two or three parking lots, which currently now is nothing more than a maintenance nightmare because there is nobody out there. The idea is to recycle that parking lot to the best of our ability and to use that parking lot to service this area of hangars. We are calling it the executive or corporate ramp where we are hoping to have one company who happens to be represented back here as a matter of fact, is going to put some really nice executive airplanes in there to be used by the executives in Fayetteville. We do have a really neat development going in and we just need to get that all approved and we want to do it in accordance with all the rules. Explain to me about the hangars. You have seven hangars and what you are asking us to approve is for the construction of those and you will be building how many initially? We have two leases, these two hangars. This one is to be the F.B.O. hangar and the City is the F.B.O., the one that provides the fueling operations and service to the aircraft. They need a hangar to store aircraft overnight if somebody comes in with a jet aircraft and they need to spend the night. They prefer to have it inside the building if we are having thunderstorm scenarios and prevent damage. The airport can get revenue by charging the aircraft owner rent for that overnight space. The City is going to build that. The city is meaning the Airport Department will build that. We are in the process currently of getting estimates and building a list of building specifications so that we can put those out for proposals. Hopefully we will be able to build that this fall. One of the companies plan on as soon as we get through this process being in the Inspection Division applying for permits and ready to start breaking ground. The other hangars are for future lease. Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 23 Jones: Boudreaux: Bunch: Edwards: Bunch: Jones: Bunch: Jones: Bunch: Jones: Bunch: Jones: Boudreaux: Jones: Future, hopefully within the next year or maybe 18 months or whatever. With the amount of interest Ray has been able to generate in five months it is tremendous. I really believe that the day we put the first building, when they see steel start going up out there I think that will generate enough interest where we'll get people fired up about moving to this great little airport down here in the south of town. Sara, since this is an airport and some of it is zoned industrial do any of our design building codes apply? No, not for the buildings themselves. For industrial buildings there are no commercial design standards on structures. They still are subject to landscape requirements for site development. This area with the hangars, that is one that was recently rezoned to Industrial so we don't have to worry about that. There is a three acre tract in there. The existing parking lot that is going to be shortened by about 1/3. There is also an existing parking lot down in here. That will have everything sitting on top of that and then you are taking about 1/3 of the existing parking lot and basically truncating the islands. Leaving the drainage systems that are there. We have got the buildings adjusted where they will not interfere with the existing drainage system that is there. The future plan calls for that parking lot to be parking associated with new hangars? We have got some parking in that area if they need additional parking. You don't see it on that plan but then we are going to go north of the terminal building and do a similar type development. The reason we are south is because it is flatter. We have got the handicapped. We are trying to leave these islands where possible in that aspect. Islands on the south of these. Building separation criteria, depending on fire resistant walls of the building, could actually have those buildings shift a little bit space wise but either one stay within the 20', it could be more if the walls are not fire ready. Those are some options that are still being looked at during the building design. Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 24 Bunch: We will go ahead and take public comment if there is anyone here that wishes to address us on this issue. Seeing none, I will bring it back. Sharon do you have any comments? Hoover: This one has to go to the full Commission. I think I would like it if you could include the minutes from the meeting when it got rezoned. I can't remember what we were told about the landscaping up along the street. Boudreaux: We are going to put them all back there. Hoover: I was just thinking it was going to be a little more landscaped. Jones: West of the southern hangars there it is a lot of parking area there that we are going to turn back into grass and adjust some things out there. We were looking at using the existing trees, setting those out in that area and trying to create a tree buffer along the roadway is what we're looking at doing there from that aspect. Hoover: On the north side there are just a couple of trees there. Jones: The first two islands, two adjacent to the terminal building have some fairly trees in them, 6" or 8" trees that have been there for a while. The next island had some put in and a lot of those have died. Hoover: I am talking about along the street. Jones: We were relocating some of the trees around the sign but not trying to get the trees in the position where they would block the sign. We were trying to put something out there, there is landscaping around the sign. Boudreaux: We are having trouble maintaining it because of all the rain. Hoover: Is that already out there? Jones: Yes. Hoover: I will have to go back out there and look at it. Jones: It is there. Boudreaux: There is a big sign that says Fayetteville Municipal Airport and there are bushes and trees. Jones: That is to remain and the landscaping around it is to remain I think that may answer a couple of your questions and concerns. Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 25 Hoover: Jones: Bunch: Rutherford: Jones: Edwards: Rutherford: Jones: Motion: Hoover: Boudreaux: Hoover: Bunch: Hoover: Bunch: Ok. I will just have to go out there and look at it, I don't have it memorized yet. I was just thinking about the curb cut and all that. We are leaving the curb cut where it is. We are going to make basically a one way drive coming into the existing terminal as it is now. It is actually going to be 16' wide, wide enough for two vehicles but it is going to be signed as just one way. We are not going to turn that around. Chuck, did you have an additional comment? Along 71B here there is a change in the right-of-way width, does that change with this large scale? That is the right-of-way per the Highway Department. I am not requiring the city to dedicate right-of-way at this time because I know if the Highway Department wants it we can pretty much give it to them to put in their name or our name. I wasn't real concerned. I just don't have any doubt that whenever they want to have it there won't be a problem with it. I understand that. I heard the comment about relocating trees and all that. At some point in time they are going to need a sidewalk in front. That is my thought. I am looking ahead and when we're talking about moving things around. Chuck, are you familiar with where that recirculation road was? The trees are proposed to be inside that. There is plenty room between the recirculation road and right-of-way for the sidewalk. I will make a motion to move this to the full Planning Commission, LSD 02-13.00. Do we have to go before the full Commission? Unfortunately we only have two Commissioners here today. It takes three to approve something. Everybody is somewhere else today, isn't that hard to believe. The question is how come we aren't. Right. I will second. Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 26 Bunch: Boudreaux: Bunch: Boudreaux: Bunch: Boudreaux: Bunch: Boudreaux: Jones: Boudreaux: Bunch: Jones: Ray, just a question. We have all been looking at different ideas, I guess everybody in the community wants this thing to go and to be an asset to the community, are there any FAA regulations that would preclude using some of these parking lots for RV parking? Any property that is not airside property you can use for generating revenue in any way you want. It has absolutely nothing to do, in the old days I guess there was somebody that wanted to put a hockey arena out there on the airport grounds. It is not very compatible. However, does it produce revenue? Yes. One of the question I had was we are very short handed in Fayetteville, other than some of the University facilities for RV parking when we have events to bring tourists in. I mean like day parking or even for overnight parking, we don't have much to offer people. I just wondered as a citizen rather than a Planning Commissioner, if in the future there may be any liability to using some of these areas of pavement. On the parking area, yes. Inside the fence, no. The parking lot area is already there and existing. It would hold probably a couple of hundred. For special events to have some sort of shuttle system to access the people. This is just an idea. You aren't the first one that has mentioned it and it is fine, I have no problem with that. The key would be the administration of such a thing where we would want to make sure that people paid, make sure that people kept the area clean and didn't make it an eyesore. It would have to be self contained units because we don't have a dump station or a sewer access point out there. We might want to think about, sewer is right underneath that. It is available nearby. It is something that is possible. We could do a water fill and those kinds of things. Of course, it would require some administrative fees and things like that for us to afford to do that. The thing is that we have quite a bit of capital investment already there. Right now it is growing weeds. It would just be maintaining it. A lot of this pavement has improved subgrading, the pavement wouldn't require as much cost and so forth. We Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 27 Boudreaux: Bunch: Jones: Boudreaux: Bunch: Hoover: Boudreaux: Bunch: Jones: Bunch: are looking at only a slight increase in the impervious area for this drainage basin. Can we get this on consent as well? The spin on this is that it is not delineated and we don't really know what people are looking at. Personally I would rather not put it on consent. At the agenda session if the other Planning Commissioners wish to put it on consent agenda. Is that open to the public? When does this happen? I am worried about moving on. Next Thursday the 23`d It would be a good idea for you to come. We are running behind. I worry about taking time because I want to go ahead and get ground broke. I don't think anybody has any difficulty with the project, it is just getting it moving through the process. We need to know what the scope of the project is. If people don't know what the scope of the project is then we're hesitant to pass on it. You need revisions Monday morning? A much better definition of the scope will go a long ways. Boudreaux: Thank you, have a great day. Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 28 Bunch: Edwards: Woodrick: Hoover: Bunch: Guinn: Bunch: Woodrick: Guinn: Bunch: Guinn: Woodrick: Guinn: The next item on the agenda is ADM 02-17.00 for the First Church of the Nazarene. The request is for a change in building materials. Sara, can you tell us about this one? We approved a large scale on August 16, 2001 The proposal was for a new 20,527 square foot church with 74 parking spaces. Originally the elevation we approved was with E.F.I.S. with stone along the base, entryways, and south side. They are requesting a change in that elevation. They are basically going to full brick instead of E.F.I.S., changing the color of the metal roof, removing the stone work and having a full metal side facing the south. There is quite a bit of landscaping and large trees back there. The impact is minimal towards the street and the adjacent property owners. That is what they are requesting is to change the building materials. We have a letter from the property owner who owns all those duplexes. He has no problem with it. I have no idea, I would have to go out there and look at it and see what you can see from the street. We have to forward it anyway. Right now all you can see from the street is a whole bunch of red dirt that is real soggy, compacted subgrade. The metal would just be on the south side only? They do have it mis-worded here, the metal panels will be on the south side, not the west side. Brick is on the west, north and east. Larry, can you identify yourselves for the record? I am Larry Woodrick, Pastor of the First Church of the Nazarene. I am Chris Guinn, Building Committee. Thank you. When we first came to you with this plan we had that about a day or two before we came here. That was the architect's design, we had barely seen it. We hadn't had time to really ponder finishes. This is what we wanted and since we are paying the bill, that is what we made the architect do. We felt this would be more endurable as far as the brick instead of the stone and E.F.I.S. That lower part down there I think she said is E.F.I.S. but that is split faced block and then brick above it with the E.F.I.S. as a band between the two floors. Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 29 Woodrick: Hoover: Guinn: Hoover: Guinn: Bunch: Edwards: Bunch: Hoover: Bunch: Hoover: Bunch: Hoover: Bunch: This is the end that faces Old Missouri Road. This is the west that faces the creek and the detention pond. I can have absolutely no problem, I just have to ride out there and look at it. The ordinance is if you can see it from the street and my memory is not that good on that site. We are as close to our back property as they would let us go. If this is really buffered then I don't see any problem at all. We have to do some plantings there to further buffer. The reason we were hoping to have approval is our building is at a standstill until we get this change because the metal building, the engineers have approved it and it is ready to go back to the metal building company who is doing the structure. If we can get this approved we can send it back immediately, otherwise it is going to be a four week delay. The earliest you can get your approval is not this coming Monday but Monday a week, June 10`h. All we can really do at Subdivision Committee, since there are only two of us, would be to forward it to the full Planning Commission which would save you three days I guess. Since it is going to Planning Commission, we will do a site tour on agenda session day and we will need 12 of these copies for the Planning Commissioners so that they can look at them on site. The ones that don't go will need copies for when they go out on their own. Since this is an administrative item can we put it on consent? I don't mind putting it on consent because we can always take it off at agenda. We can tour it and look at it. I don't see a problem but I would like to look at it. We can recommend it today and then if we so desire at agenda session we can put it on consent. It looks good, I just hate to cause the additional delay. I move that we forward to full Planning Commission ADM 02-17.00. Wait, I didn't take public comment. Does anyone care to comment on this? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Subdivision Committee May 30, 2002 Page 30 Motion: Hoover: I move that we forward to full Planning Commission ADM 02-17.00. Bunch: We are recommending that it be on consent? Hoover: Yes. Bunch: I will second. Our agenda session will be Thursday a week from today at 3:30 p.m. and then the Planning Commission meeting will be the following Monday at 5:30. Woodrick: Is there action that can be taken at the agenda? Hoover: We can put it on consent agenda. The other thing is that if you come you might get feedback from other commissioners, which you might have enough information then to go ahead and proceed. That gives you a couple of days if that helps to get you into a different week to get the order in. Guinn: Once we send it back it is a contract and we're stuck. Bunch: What we're doing by not coming back to Subdivision is we're trimming three days off by sending it to the full Planning Commission. If it goes to agenda session it will be at your own risk. That would basically trim a week off the process.