Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-13 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN CCP 01-1.00 Concurrent Plat (Watkins, pp 650) Page 2 LSP 02-24.00: Lot Split (Baggett, pp 529) Page 16 LSP 02-32.00: Lot Split (Smith, pp 328) Page 19 LSP 02-33.00: Lot Split (Kelly, pp 180) Page 22 LSD 02-15.00: Large Scale Development (NWA Pathology Assoc., pp 212) Page 24 LSD 02-16.00: Large Scale Development (Arena Village #3, pp 521) Page 34 ADM 02-18.00: Administrative Item (Guido's, pp 401) Page 40 Tabled Approved Approved Forwarded to Planning Commission Forwarded to Planning Commission Forwarded to Planning Commission Approved MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERSABSENT Sharon Hoover Don Bunch Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Kim Hesse Tim Conklin Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Matt Casey Keith Shreve Kim Rogers Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 2 CCP 01-1.00 Concurrent Plat (Watkins, pp 650) was submitted by Bob Hill of Nickle-Hill Group, Inc. on behalf of Lorene Watkins Trust for property located at 2551 Mally Wagnon Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 40 acres with 10 lots proposed. Ward: Welcome to the Thursday, June 13, 2002 meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee. We have seven items on our agenda so we would like to get through those fairly efficiently this morning. Our first item this morning is CCP 01-1.00 for Watkins submitted by Bob Hill of Nickle Hill on behalf of Lerene Watkins Trust for property located at 2551 Mally Wagnon Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 40 acres with 10 lots proposed. Who is going to handle this one? Edwards: This is a subdivision. We are not requesting any street improvements because of the rural subdivision regulations require that all streets meet Washington County standards. We are recommending this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission because Preliminary Plats must be approved by the full Planning Commission. We are requesting that lot nine be dimensioned at the 25' building setback line. The requirement is that it is 75' wide I think it probably is, I just need it dimensioned there. This is a Preliminary Plat and a Final Plat at the same time therefore, we need the required signature block added to the plat and the required side setback changed to 10' because it is in the county and they have got an 8' listed. County approval shall be obtained for the subdivision. Everything else is pretty standard. Ward: Bob, please come up to the table since you are representing this. I will let you make any presentation that you have on this. Hill: I do have one question. I've been under the impression for the last three or four months that this was going to be approved here and then at the county and did not go to Planning Commission. Edwards: Preliminary Plats have to go to the full Planning Commission. I am sorry that I didn't make that clear to you. They don't have the authority to approve it here. Hill: Then if this is approved here, then we get it approved at the county and go and get all of the signatures of everybody and then we go to the Planning Commission? Conklin: No, you get it approved and they forward it to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission approves it and then you go to the county. Hill: Ok. Conklin: We are doing a Concurrent Plat. Typically, you would see a Preliminary, you would have public improvements required to be installed and then you would install those, get those inspected and approved, and then bring your Final Plat in Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 3 and have that approved by the Planning Commission, a two step process. Since there are no public improvements being required, we are doing a Concurrent Plat. You are saving the Final Plat process. Hill: So upon approval here then we are just put on the agenda for the Planning Commission is that correct? Conklin: Yes. Hill: Will that require three readings? Conklin: No. Ward: Are there any other questions? Hill: No. Ward: I will start with Ron. Do you have any comments to make? Petrie: Just a few comments. This was at the Subdivision level several months ago and one of the big issues was the water pressure up on top of the hill. We have done quite a bit of studies on the thing and we have determined that we had a faulty check valve with this connection to Elkins. Every time the Elkins tank filled up it was pulling water from the 4" and not from Huntsville Road. We have eliminated that problem and it probably doubled the water pressure from what they were getting on a daily basis, especially during peak demand hours. Ward: What would be a normal water pressure on a 4" line? Petrie: It completely depends on elevations. Unfortunately, this is on top of a hill, very low pressure to begin with, any changes like that faulty valve, makes a huge difference. Ward: When did you get this rectified? Petrie: Probably two months ago, maybe a little more. There is still the low pressure for several of these lots. They have got the Health Department to approve them. Although, there are some statements in the approval letter that more than likely several of these lots will require individual booster stations for their water. We want all of that documented on the Final Plat, which lots will require that so it is not unspecified. Ward: Is that some kind of a little pump or something that they can put on there? Petrie: Yes Sir. It pumps up their own private service line. Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 4 Ward: Petrie: Ward: Hill: Ward: Petrie: Conklin: Ward: Petrie: Ward: Petrie: Ward: Petrie: What if there is not enough water there? There should be plenty of water at the main. We wanted to make sure that they met the minimum pressure at the main so the water at the main there is plenty of, so they will have plenty of water to pump from. Several of these lots go up 50', 60', or even 70' higher than what the road is. We don't really know where the houses are going to sit, that is where it becomes a problem. We would like all of that documented on the plat. Also, there has been some discussion of whether fire hydrants are required. My only comment is if they are not installed, I don't see any ability and would probably say that they can't, just see a note that says "Fire Protection is not available to these lots." Ok, so if fire hydrants are not installed on the plat then it has to have that. We designate on the plat that fire protection is not provided. Ok. Why would you not put fire hydrants? It is only a 4" line on the road and you can not install fire hydrants off that 4" line. You would have to extend an 8" all the way down to Ed Edwards and all the way down Mally Wagnon. The ordinance does not require fire hydrants for subdivisions in the county, in the Growth Area. It would make the lots worth more if they had fire hydrants because the insurance would be a lot less right? I don't think it is as simple as just running an 8" and putting fire hydrants because of the water pressure. I think it would be, you can not get the fire flows and pressure you would probably need until you put a tank on the top of the mountain. Is that something that the City is looking at doing for future expansion? It is not on the CIP so five years out it is not anticipated. What the Health Department basically says and I agree with them, is this is really it on this road. There is no more subdivisions on this road. There are no more subdivisions until something has been done. Have we had any comments from any of the neighbors out there about the water pressure now since this malfunction has been fixed? I have talked to one and he did say that it has been better. My last comment is there is apparently a private service water service line going across this property, that needs to be located and an easement provided for that. Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 5 Ward: What is it servicing? Petrie: My understanding is that it serves a resident down Leo Ammons Road. Hill: That is correct. Our intention is creating that easement on lot six. It needs to continue across lot seven now that I look at it. The intent is that that water line is within that easement. It should show that on lot seven also. You want the line itself shown. Petrie: You need the verbiage on that because the way you are showing it, you are showing it more as a public easement and there are no rights for a private line in a public easement so it needs to specifically be a private easement. Ward: They need a legal description basically defining that don't you? Petrie: That is what you need on the plat. Ward: Alan Reid will need to draw up a legal description for that water line and show it exactly on the plat. Hill: Ok. Petrie: That is all I have. Hill: Should that just be called a private utility easement? Petrie: Yes. If it is your intention also to get public utilities back there you may either need to have a separate easement or make sure on the plat... Hill: Can we just call it a utility easement and then private and public both could be in there? Petrie: If you just say utility easement everybody is going to assume it is a public easement unless you have some type of verbiage on the plat giving that specific right for an easement. Hill: Ok. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: Since it is in the county, no trees. Keith, no sidewalks, no Parks and Recreation. At this time I will go ahead and open it up to the public. If someone would like to have some public comment on this water pressure situation then we'll talk about it. Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak on this? Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 6 Nixon: Petrie: Ward: Nixon: I think we would. I am Larry Nixon and this is my wife Krissa beside me. We have some neighbors down by the way. I am the one that Ron talked about yesterday speaking with him on the phone over the water issue. Yes the pressure has stabilized. It has not increased, it has stabilized. Wednesday afternoon, after I talked to him on this issue it took ten minutes to fill up the stool. That went on for three or four hours Wednesday afternoon. Now, during our conversation we talked about the fire protection. I know that we picked up the documents. Mickey Jackson, his comments if you notice on here from the County talking about the need for fire protection and all. Ron has informed me that that is not in the City's budget. There is feasibility there but they don't have the money to get it there. Number two in our conversation was that with the Health Department concerns that they have in pumping. The pressure is at the line but if they start pumping out of the line and sucking out of the line then obviously you vacate the line. Number three is we said that there are ten plats and if I'm not correct, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you said that the ten meters was all that could be put on the line and that would be the total amount of meters that 4" line could service. That would be the end, nobody else could put any more meters on that line. Well, at least there would be no more new subdivisions. It is a little bit harder to keep track of it if somebody on an existing piece of property builds a house. If somebody builds a house and let's say you sold off an acre to your daughter and she built a house on that... That is what I am getting to here. We have some property owners on this that are actually looking to do that but we haven't done anything yet. If we, as far as the amount of meters that goes on this, if we put ten out there, I've got five parcels myself. We have got two on down the road. Jimmy Sexton below the hill has got a couple. The people behind me don't even have water and they are at the bottom of the hill. We are a little concerned about running the water, furnishing the plat, when the water really needs to turn and go the other way down to the highway and furnish these people who have been living there all their life with water. That is one of the concerns. Now if I go out here today and I buy five meters, what does that do with these ten lots? All of the sudden, we have taken half of the water supply for those ten lots. Petrie: I think it is a good question, I don't have a really good answer for you. Nixon: I know if that is the case and we are forced into this, that is what we will do. We will automatically, here in the next week or so, we will have ten meters bought for property because you are putting the scare into everybody. If we buy ours, which is standing property, we'll go buy the meters, which will end up taking away from the plat. We are really, really concerned with our water supply out there and it is border line at best. Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 7 Petrie: Ward: Let me make sure I give you specific wording on the Health Departments letter. "Because fluctuations in the pressure recording submitted are almost 25 PSI, the city of Fayetteville should look at possible water line upgrades before any additional subdivisions are proposed in that area." That is a little different wording than just five meters. We are talking about maybe, I would doubt that another 120 lot subdivision could go out there with what the situation is. It sounds like to me that this water situation has been a problem and will continue to be a problem from now on until an 8" line is brought out there. I think a squeaky wheel needs something done. It seems to me like that is what we really need to start working on, trying to bring a real water line out there. What fire zone are you in out there? Nixon: Nine. Bosch: My name is Chris Bosch, I am the Fire Chief. I would assume that they are classified as a nine because there is no fire protection source there greater than 1,000 feet from a hydrant according to the Insurance Services offices. It would be our recommendation that adequate fire protection services be installed as well. Although, we understand that since this development is outside of the City's corporate jurisdictional boundaries we really can't mandate that. We would make a recommendation that that 8" main be installed and that adequate fire services, fire hydrants, and water sources be installed in that development. Ward: Normally what kind of fire zone do you get put into if you have got all the fire hydrants and all the fire protection stuff out in that area? Bosch: Your ISO rating could go from a nine possibly to the equivalent of the City of Fayetteville, which is a single class four. Ward: Somewhere between a four and a six probably? Bosch: Probably somewhere between a four and a six which is a significant rate savings on the overview. Conklin: Would that require a contract with Fayetteville? Bosch: That can be done under an automatic mutual aid agreement. Conklin- I was just curious if it needs a contract also to get those rates down. Bosch: Lets don't raise the contract argument. Ward: Larry, do you have any other comments? Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 8 Nixon: Ward: Nixon: Ward: Petrie: Nixon: Petrie: Ward: Petrie: Ward: Petrie: Ward: Nixon: I will pass the floor on. I think everybody has heard my arguments. Traffic is not an issue, and the rest of it is not an issue, we would just like to have some of the services, being this is in the one mile growth and it is all in the one mile growth and it makes sense to me that if we are going to start subdividing this property then everything ought to be according or come up to as best we can up to city standards. If they are going to annex this, which as soon as they get it all set up, that probably will be the case because of the tax dollar and everybody knows that. Everything that they annex ought to be up to city code. Have you got any idea what an 8" waterline brought all the way out to your property would cost? No I do not. I have not put numbers to that at all. Ron, would you have any idea? You are looking at about $14 a foot. It is 1.1 miles to my house, if you go one mile it goes straight as a crow flies to the city limits. That is almost to the back of this property, the last lot So about $100,000. Is there a way that this could all be put into some kind of improvement district or anything like that to facilitate, it would almost pay for itself with insurance, fire hydrants and some people that don't have water now and have never had water pressure, it would be much better. It has been done before. It has been quite a while since they have set one up, but it has been done before. Who would be involved in putting that together? It hasn't been done since I have been here but I would have to guess it would be Jim Beavers, Greg Boettcher, the Public Works Director. I was involved in the Wedington Sewer Improvement District and that was a fairly complicated deal. I think water is a lot simpler to do. I am just trying to think of some sort of solution. I don't think there is any money to do it by the City but if you have got a developer that is wanting to put in ten lots, and there are some other landowners out there, you can start getting the cost down there to where it would almost pay for itself because first of all, finally having water pressure. The next thing, having your insurance go down half or more. You might let Jim speak. I think he has done a little bit of research on trying to get some water to his house and he is about half way up the lane, he is between 1/2 Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 9 Jim: and 1/2 up the lane right there and he does not have water. The water actually comes even further south on that side. You might let him speak because he has done the research. The problem that we have is for 1/4 of a mile from Hwy. 16 up there there is no water line up that way. We have had Dave Jorgensen to make a plan to run an 8" line up for a little over '/4 mile up Mally Wagnon and attach it to a 2" line that comes down from a 4" line that serves up the hill. The problem is getting it under Hwy. 16. If we had it under that highway then we could run it on up. This was the plan a couple of years ago to bring it up there. Ward: Who was going to bring it up there? Was it going to be some of the neighborhood that was going to get together and bring it up there? Jim Yes. Petrie: And the City. The neighbors were going to pay for a 2" line and the city was going to pay for an upgrade to an 8". It was approved by the City Council, the money is still there to do that upgrade. Jim: This is a simple problem to help on the hill with the subdivision up there to run this 8" line up there. You are probably within 1/8 mile of the 4" line that is feeding the hill. This would be the simplest way to fix this is to bring this on up there. Now our problem was getting it under Hwy. 16. If we could've got it under there we would probably have had it 1/2 mile up there. Ward: What does it cost to put a line under the road anymore? Petrie: The Boar and everything is about $100 a foot right Dave? Jorgensen: It seems like we estimated about $5,000 for that deal. Ward: I don't think we have any solutions at the Subdivision Committee. I would suggest that maybe Bob, you get with Ron again, since you are going to spend all this money anyway, boy it would be nice. The problem is you are almost going to have to tell these people that they are not even going to have good water pressure when they buy these lots. You are almost going to have to disclose this when you sell an eight acre lot or a five acre lot out there, I think you are going to have to disclose as a realtor, that this might be a bad deal, you might not be able to take a shower or every hour your stool may fill up. This is what I am hearing from the neighbors. Hill: I was always planning on providing this copy of the letter from the Health Department and their study. Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 10 Ward: Nixon: Ward: Hill: Nixon: Hill: Nixon: Jim: Petrie: Ward: Petrie: It might behoove the developer on this case to get with a lot of the adjoining neighborhoods and put together some kind of a situation. It sounds like there is some money available already from the City that has been approved to get this thing done right the first time. In a long run, if you can get your fire rating cut to a five or a six that is tremendous. There is one other comment. He couldn't be here today and that is from the Hoskins folks, James, if you will notice on that plot, right down in the corner where the Hoskins come together with the Watkins and Woodruffs, they meet right on the corner boundary of Mally Wagnon Road. There is not any access at that point and that boundary falls right on the bar ditch line, it is right on the end. There is not any access or any easement shown on this for him to get any type of utilities or anything across that little pie shaped corner, into his property off of Mally Wagnon. He needs some kind of access off that lower end, that little pie to have some access into the property. What he is using now is a friendly driveway, which is at Lerene's house. You turn on her driveway and instead of turning into her house you go right straight through and into a gate. That is what he is using as a friendly drive and that has been a communal drive for years. It is not shown on there. He requests some type of access if this is actually sold off and he can't use the friendly drive, that communal drive that they have been using, then he needs some access to his property. Ok. There on the far north end would be adequate? He owns all the way to that where it says fence corner? Yes. That whole Hoskins Trust. Yes, this is all theirs. Right now they drive right through this little road right by her house. That is where that road goes, right out through there and they use it as communal. If they can't use that then he has got to have some access up in here. Well, this probably would go away so some kind of access right down in here? Enough for a driveway and services and that sort of thing to get into that property. It appears that the solution to the water problem is to run the 8" line up Mally Wagnon and tie it onto the 4" or maybe you would want to go with an 8" on up, I don't know. All of that will help but if I may, I want to make a couple of comments. Ok. On the boar itself, the city was going to help out on that. I have talked to Dave on this several times trying to figure out where we're at on the thing. On the bore Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 11 itself the city committed to pay for an upgrade to an 8", the city is going to pick up a lot of that price, even though it wasn't mentioned to begin with. There is still budget for that and that still can be done. We still have the money there to do that portion of it. Getting back on water pressure, if you run an 8" up here you are still going to have low pressure. You will not have as much fluctuation as what you would a 4" but you are still going to have low pressure. I just want to make sure that everybody understands that. Hill: That is an issue just with the line because it is so far from the tank. Petrie: That is because of the elevations relevant to the tank. It is going to take a pump station and separate tank sitting up there on top of Robinson Mountain to make this thing work. Ward: There is no way to pump pressure? Petrie: Not unless you have got tanks to pump it into. You don't want to pressurize just the line. Hill: I don't know if this is your suggestion if this is a prerequisite to this being approved. I have heard the word developer being used on this. I am not the developer. This is a little lady that lives up there whose husband passed away two years ago and she is trying to sell her farm. She has asked me to maximize what she could sell it for. She has no money for all these improvements that you all are talking about that would be easy to do. She doesn't have the funds to do that. Ward: Right. I think that anytime someone brings in a ten lot, there is a lot of difference in selling a farm, a 20 acre farm and all the sudden having ten lots out there. Hill: I understand. Nixon: Keep in mind, she has got another sixty acres immediately behind this. Ward: Anyway, the bottom line is I want to get this thing off dead center and head it on down the road. Nixon: Ward: Lee, we all think the world of Lorraine, don't get us different. She is a good neighbor and we all think the world of her. We are just trying to protect our own interests and the impact that this is going to have on everybody else up there. Sure. That is what we are here for is to try to get comments, solve a few problems, and go on down the road with it. I don't really like to table these things because we've already done it once. I think we'll have a hard time getting this approved at Planning Commission the way it is right now. Hill: What is the suggestion of what we should do? Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 12 Hoover: Tim, what do you recommend in this situation? Conklin: I agree, there is no reason to send it forward to Planning Commission if it is not going to be approved because of the low water pressure. I would recommend that you, as Lee and others have stated, get with your client and the neighbors and the City has funds budgeted approved by the City Council, and see what solutions you can come up with to get the waterline built. I understand you are trying to maximize her profits with this land sale. We see developers every week who have to go out and get loans to put infrastructure in and put it in before they can even sell a lot have it all designed, installed, approved and do a final plat before they can even recoup their money for a subdivision and we are looking at a subdivision here. If it is something that is going to be required, I think there is no reason to send it to the Planning Commission. Hill: Where do you not take the advice of your expert people? We have a City Engineer who said that it has sufficient water pressure. We have a State Engineer with the State Health Department, who said it has sufficient water pressure. Everything being relative, you could say "Ok, I am coming up here, I want to build one house and I want to tie on." And somebody could say "We don't have any water pressure, your house is going to take us over the line where that damages us. Where is the line that you cross where you can't do that? I know these people also have land that they would like to build on or sell for other people to do that. How do you determine? Petrie: We have the minimum pressure on that waterline required by the State. Unless the City Council tells us we cannot, we have to allow a connection. No city staff has authority to deny connection to a public waterline unless the City Council tells us we cannot do it. Hill: Unless we have to get approval for a subdivision. Conklin: The Planning Commission has the authority for subdivision regulations, what it can recommend for improvements. That is my concern, if you take it to the Planning Commission and their recommendation is to resolve the issue with the waterline and you are not going to get approval. Hill: I understand. I would love to have an 8" waterline up there too. It would make them easier to sell, it would have better water pressure, even though it is not a guaranteed better water pressure. We would also love to have fire protection, although I don't know if everybody that lives along Malley Wagnon and Van Hoose and up Leo Ammons if everybody wants to pitch in and do that and distribute the cost. I know that you can't make people do that. I know everybody is going to be looking to these ten lots to do it. Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 13 Ward: I do think, with the show of the neighbors today, that you've got a pretty good group already ready to do something and I think that that is something that could happen pretty easily. Hill: Who is with the City that has the study that says how much it will cost? Petrie: For that improvement, it was designed by Jorgensen and City Council approved it. That is offsite, that doesn't get 8" to this property although it does close the loop from Huntsville down this IA mile so it would help this situation. Nixon: At least that is ground gained. Petrie: I think that we can argue a point that we gained a lot of ground by discovering a problem and fixing the problem. Nixon: I will agree it is better than what we had even though it is 20 PSI, it is stable for most of the time. Now this has been through winter, we are getting into the warm months and the heat months and that is where we generally have all of our problem is July, August, and September. We haven't faced that yet. As it stands now, what you have done is you have stabilized that 20 PSI, everybody else in this room has probably got 45, 60, or even 80. Hill: Ward: So getting off dead center...You are going to table it, what do you suggest we do? I think you need to work really closely with Ron and with Larry Nixon so we can get this thing going. On approving this at the Planning Commission, some of the things we always look at is sometimes we turn down this type of subdivision because of traffic problems or ingress and egress problems and on, and on, and on. The low, low water pressure, we are not supposed to be creating problems. We are supposed to be making sure things are done right before they get out to the general public. I can say pretty surely that it won't pass Planning Commission as it stands right now because of these problems. If there is anything that we can do or help fix it, I think that that is what we're here for. I want this project to get on down the road too, get it out of our hair and go on. I am not sure, we can go ahead and make a motion to approve it here but I don't think it would get approved. Hill: I don't want to do that. You are on the Planning Commission and you are telling me that it is not going to pass so I am going to take your advice there. I want to do whatever expedites it in the right direction. We want to be good neighbors. If we can do something to make it work where we an get an 8" line up there, my gosh, we would love it. I just need to have some direction on who do I go to. Ron, are you the person that I go to start with? Petrie: I am one but I think the answer is you go to the neighbors. I think part of the answer is to see if you can facilitate actually doing what is already on the table Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 14 and there is money set aside to do that. If there is anyway you can facilitate it, I don't know why it stopped. I am told there were some problems with the boar. There is money still there to do that. If there is anyway that you can facilitate that, that is what I am getting to the Commissioners. That project would help tremendously going to improve how it is now. Hill: That is not to put an 8" waterline but to cut out a loop? Petrie: It is to create a loop. The problem is, the subdivision where Mylo Way, Tall Grass, Sequoyah Meadows, there is 8" that runs all through this. The 8" cuts across country right there and then it connects to a 4". You've got this area right here where there is no water at all. By making an 8" from there to there, you have created a loop and improved it. Hill: So you are talking about just putting the 8" from where it cuts over from Ed Edwards back to Hwy. 16? Petrie: Right. That is what is on the table. Hill: Ok. Bunch: Does that 4" line continue on and make a loop to go back down Van Hoose and reconnect to the trunk line that goes to Elkins? Petrie: Yes. That was the problem, it was sucking the 4" basically dry when the booster pumps for the Elkins tank kicked on instead of pulling it off of Huntsville, it was pulling it out of this 4". Nixon: We would have air coming back through the faucets. Ward: I do know Bob that definitely Larry Nixon would be someone that is used to getting things done. Nixon: We would as a neighborhood, I will guarantee you that there is not a soul that lives up through there that would not sit down and listen to reason and would not sit down and invite you to come in and try to work with us and work something out up there because it is all in our behalf and it is all for our good. We just have never been approached with that. Motion: Ward: At this time I would like to have a motion to table or I will make that motion that we table this. This will be a wonderful subdivision, it is really laid out nice, it looks like it is easy to do and it is a great area for those 3 yz acre to 5 '/ acre tracts. I don't think any of the neighbors are at all complaining about anything as Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 15 far as anything but the low water pressure. I think this is something that we need to get that hurdle over with and then do this. Bunch: I am going to second that motion. Hoover: I concur. Ward: Thanks Bob. Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 16 LSP 02-24.00: Lot Split (Baggett, pp 529) was submitted by Harold Baggett for property located at 3437 E. Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and in the Growth Area containing approximately 4 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.1 acres and 1.92 acres. Ward: The second item on the agenda is LSP 02-24.00 submitted by Phil Baggett for property located at 3437 Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and is in the Growth Area, containing approximately 4 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.1 acres and 1.92 acres. Is the applicant here? Please come to the table. Edwards: Basically they are asking to split a 4 acre tract into 2.1 and 1.92 acres. This is south of Huntsville Road. We approved a previous split which created this 4 acre tract back on June 15, 2000. Now they are asking for a second split and this will be considered the second split on the original property. The northern part is zoned R-1 and it is in the city limits but the southern part is in the county so it is in the Growth Area as well. Conditions are 1) The right of way for Huntsville Road shall be dedicated by Warranty Deed. We have prepared a Warranty Deed for this right of way, which you will just need to sign and we can either notarize here or you can take it to the bank. We have had some technical difficulties getting the legal description verified on this so I do probably need until the end of the day to double check the legal descriptions of these tracts before I can approve it and you do need to get county approval for this lot split. The third condition, and it is a standard condition, there is payment of parks fees in the amount of $470, we are recommending approval at this level. Ward: Ok, thanks Sara. Ron, are there any comments from Engineering? Petrie: No comment. Ward: Keith? Shreve: No comment. Ward: You might give us your name and let us hear any comments you may have. Baggett: I am Ray Baggett, this is my wife June. I don't think we have any comments. Ward: Ok, at this time I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone from the public that would like to make public comment on this particular item? Seeing none, I will close it and bring it back to the committee. What is this proposed building site on the plat? Baggett: That is a portable building. It is in the county now. It may move somewhere else sometime. Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 17 Ward: Ok, you are trying to create another lot. You build a nice home, living on one side and then you are planning on selling that off? Baggett, J.: It is our daughter. May I ask something about dedicating this to the City? When did this all start? You've got the right of way, how come we have to dedicate this or how come that is a prerequisite to getting a lot split? Edwards: On your previous lot split we got the right of way shown on the plat. However, we neglected to have it done by Warranty Deed and before the Highway Department will do any improvements, we have to have every bit of the property we do improvements on by Warranty Deed. Baggett, J.: Everybody down the highway is going to have to give the City that? The highway doesn't deal with individual property owners anymore. Edwards: We do that. Conklin: Well, they do if you are not subdividing or developing. That is a condition of developing by ordinance it requires right of way to be dedicated. It is a city ordinance that requires that. Edwards: If you were not splitting the property and hadn't split it before, since we already had it dedicated and we wanted to widen the road, our city land agents would come out, knock on your door, and ask for the right of way. We might have to purchase it, negotiate a price, and that kind of thing but it is required with a lot split to dedicate the right of way. Baggett, J.: Baggett, R: Baggett, J.: Conklin: Baggett, J.: Ok. I was just wondering about the constitution and the giving up compensation or something. I feel like that we have really, it has all been one way is what I'm saying with us. It really would benefit us because we have been paying taxes to the center of the highway and we can at least get that off, which amounts to about 'A of an acre along the highway. We also built that big sidewalk down through there that was very costly and I just feel like that we have just been, our property and our money are kind of going one direction. It is almost like we have five acres there and no place to build a house. I am saying that I don't know how or when this has come about, and how it is your property but it is not your property and you can't do this unless you do this, which kind of doesn't sit so well. It hasn't been a recent ordinance. It has been on the city books for 15, 20, or 30 years, I'm not sure exactly. I know that developers have to build streets and then they dedicate it to the city and I guess this is kind of the same way. Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 18 Ward: This is basically the same thing. If you weren't coming to us to get this lot split then we couldn't demand you to give it to us. Baggett, J.: That is kind of like twisting the arm a little bit. It just doesn't go very well with me. That is not the way I think or something. Ward: There is a lot of question of whether it is constitutional. I can see both sides of the story. Baggett, J.: Although this is going to get this done and we do want this done, and it will benefit because we're going to get that off our taxes but I am not sure that this is the way it should be done. I wanted to comment on that for the record. Ward: Ok. Bunch: For the record, there is a discrepancy between the drawing and the description on the acreage. You have got 1.97, it may be the right of way reduction. I just wanted that detail taken care of. Ward: Are there any other comments or any motions? Motion: Hoover: I would like to make a motion to approve LSP 02-24.00. Ward: Ok, do I have a second? Bunch: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Baggett, J.: How does this deed work with getting this to the City? We don't have to pay for that do we? Conklin: No. Edwards: I need to have you sign it in front of a notary here at the city and we can take care of that later and then we will file it for you. Baggett, R.: I talked to Celia and she said I need to bring something for her to stamp. She is just going to approve it. Edwards: I need to check these legal descriptions for you and then I can give you that. Baggett, R.: Thank you. Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 19 LSP 02-32.00: Lot Split (Smith, pp 328) was submitted by Jim Smith for property located at 89 W. Colt Square. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.54 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.26 acres and 0.28 acres. Ward: Our third item on the agenda today is LSP 02-32.00 submitted by Jim Smith for property located at 89 W. Colt Square. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately .54 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of .26 acres and .28 acres. Sara, are you going to handle this particular one? Edwards: Tract 10B was approved in 1989. The request is to split lot 10A into two lots. They are granting an access easement to tract 10C in the back. There is an existing building on tract 10A and tract C is currently vacant and they are proposing to build an additional building on tract C. We are recommending approval subject to the conditions of approval. Approval shall be subject to a parking lot for 10A being provided on lot 10C by a shared parking easement. We are requesting a plan be submitted showing the parking configuration prior to filing the lot split. Right now basically the parking for lot 10A is on this access easement and so I don't feel that it can be used as both a parking lot and an access easement because if people are parking there they are blocking the access to lot 10C. Second, when the building permit is obtained for lot 10C parking will be required to be provided for both lot 10A and 10C on that shared parking area. Everything else is standard. It is zoned Commercial so there are no parks fees. Ward: Will that need to be shown on the plat that there is shared parking? Edwards: Yes. Ward: Ron, do you have any comments? Petrie: Just a few comments. The utility easement shown, that needs to be some type shared easement. I am sure you are going to use that for some type of private water and sewer. Smith: As far as I know, the engineer was supposed to have revised that on that that we had an easement going between A and B, that there was a utility easement going back to C and then we had to revise a 10' easement back on the northwest corner where it says 99' of lot C. That is all we were really required the last time I was here. I understand what you're saying and it should be in there as far as I know. Petrie: You just need to call out the utilities, whether it is public or private. Smith: It should be with the easement going through there would probably be private if I am not mistaken. It would be public but yeah. Petrie: You just need to clarify exactly what it is for. Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 20 Smith: Petrie: Smith: Petrie: Ward: Shreve: Ward: Bunch: Hoover: Ward: Smith: Ward: Smith: Edwards: Ok. You are not getting utilities in there. You just need to make sure there is some type of note on the plat that is giving what the right use is and it is also giving private property rights, which is not normally granted by a public utility easement. So what you want me to do is put the City into this lot C? You can say all public utilities and private. That is all. Ok, thanks. No comments from Kim on Landscaping. Keith, anything on sidewalks? No comment. At this time I will open it up to the public, is there any public comment on this particular item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee. I have no questions, Sharon do you have any? No. I think the one thing you need to make sure of is that we are going to approve this at this level but this probably has to be redone and the couple of things that you have got to show not here is this shared parking easement, where it is going to be the parking for lot 10A shown on 10C. At this point B & A should have something in writing as parking they do share. I mean I've talked to B, I know him personally, and he said that they did but I will get that agreement. I understand what you're saying. The parking right now, the way they have it is right here where it says C-2 below the 10A, there is parking there. This is the easement here 174', 52, that is the easement and they back up now with no problem there. I need to get something from here is what you're saying. [ just think it needs it because this will be recorded and this goes on forever. That way, once it is on here it is not like it wasn't shown. Do I need to get my engineers to draw up a piece of paper stating that A, B, and C will share parking on this designated area? As well as I'm looking to make sure that you have the room on 10B to provide the parking for 10A because I don't want this lot to take out the parking when they are driving back there because that is not going to work. Smith: As of now they don't but I understand, you want it in writing. Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 21 Edwards: It looks really close because all we have is 25' so if you are saying there is a shared agreement with 10B to use that, then that probably will work. Smith: Ok, that is no problem. Ward: You understand what we have to have done before this will be recorded for final approval. We can approve it at this level. Motion: Bunch: I will move that we approve LSP 02-32.00 at this level with particular attention to designation on the plat of the public utility easement and of the shared parking agreement. Hoover: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Thanks. Smith: Thank you. Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 22 LSP 02-33.00: Lot Split (Kelly, pp 180) was submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of Gerald & Leona Kelly for property located on Gulley Road. The property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately 5.94 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 3.0 acres and 2.94 acres. Ward: Our fourth item on the agenda today is LSP 02-33.00 submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Joe and Leona Kelly for property located on Gulley Road. The property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately 5.92 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of three acres and 2.92 acres. Edwards: Tract A currently contains a house and a garage. They access their property through this private a road, a 30' access easement to the north. They are dedicating right of way along Gulley Road pursuant to the Master Street Plan as well as an additional 45' right of way along the west side of this property. We are recommending this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission because they are requesting a waiver of the required 75' of frontage on an approved public street. With this split tract A will not have frontage on any public street, they will only have access via this private drive. We are in support of this because there will be no additional traffic being created on the private drive but that does need to be determined by Planning Commission that that waiver will be granted. Condition number two, no further splits shall be allowed on this property. Tract A shall not be subdivided until frontage on a public road has been provided and a subdivision is approved and tract B shall not be subdivided except by the standard Preliminary Plat process. Three, County approval shall be obtained prior to filling this lot split. Ward: Thanks Sara. Ron, are there any comments? Petrie: No comment. Ward: Keith? Shreve: No comment. Ward: I will go ahead and open this up to the public for comment. Seeing no public comment, I will close it and bring it back to our committee. Mel, on this driveway going back into tract A, I guess you have a legal description that runs to that? Milholland: Yes, I put in there where it was granted to those folks years ago. Ward: Bunch: Ok. That access is what about five or six houses back through there? Milholland: Theirs is the only one at the end past this. Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 23 Bunch: Ward: Bunch: Milholland: Ward: Bunch: Milholland: Ward: Motion: Bunch: Ward: Hoover: Ward: Milholland: Edwards: Ok. Are there any other comments? The only comment I have is to upgrade the note about tract splits, any further conditions that are described since this is going to be forwarded to the full Planning Commission, it will give them an opportunity to upgrade that note on the drawing. We already have a note on it but just to expand a little bit to reflect that there could be additional splits and what the conditions would be. Item number two, tract A shall not be subdivided and tract B shall not. Right, that makes sense. That is a little more declaratory because the current note is no more splits. That's the waiver note right? Right. I move that we forward LSP 02-33 to the full Planning Commission. Do I have a second? I will second. I will concur, thanks Mel. We need to submit how many copies? 37 copies by Monday. Milholland: Ok, thank you all. Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 24 LSD 02-15.00: Large Scale Development (NWA Pathology Assoc., pp 212) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of NWA Pathology Assoc. for property located north of Longview Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 2.76 acres with two building proposed. Ward: The next item on the agenda today is LSD 02-15.00 submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Northwest Arkansas Pathology Associates for property located north of Longview Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 2.76 acres with two buildings proposed. Sara, are you going to handle this one also? Edwards: Yes. Monday night the Planning Commission heard the Preliminary Plat for the Brookstone Subdivision. This is a lot in the subdivision. The applicant is requesting to go ahead and hear this. They will not be able to obtain a building permit or be able to officially purchase this piece off until the Final Plat is approved as a subdivision. Currently, 57% of the site exists in tree canopy. The proposal is to preserve 8.48% of the site and to use onsite mitigation. There are two buildings proposed and 41 parking spaces proposed. We are recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. The first condition to address is a determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards including signage. You should have elevations in your packet. 2) Planning Commission determination of offsite assessments. As part of the approval for the Brookstone Preliminary Plat, the Planning Commission did require an assessment for each lot at the time of Large Scale Development, and that is for the future extension of Longview Street. Preliminary numbers right now, we are recommending $9,655 be assessed based on the projected traffic. 3) Three bicycle racks shall be added to the plat. Dave, I don't see those on the plat. Jorgensen: I forgot. Edwards: Approval shall be subject to all the conditions of the Preliminary and Final Plat approval of the Brookstone Subdivision. No grading or building permits shall be issued until the Final Plat is recorded and 31 copies are returned to the Planning Division. This plat shall not be sold separately until the Final Plat is recorded and cross access, it looks like it does not quite make it to the east property line so I would like to get that extended all the way to the property line. That is all that I have. Ward: Ok, thanks. I will go ahead and get staff comments first Dave before I bring it back to you. Ron, have you got any comments on engineering? Petrie: On this assessment, the only way we had to compute was a medical office building. It is my understanding that this is a pathology building, it is not the same traffic, we don't know what the traffic is so that is how that was calculated Dave. If you've got some additional information we will be happy to change that recommendation but we need to have a better understanding of how much traffic Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 25 will be generated. Again, that was the Planning Commission for Brookstone Subdivision. Ward: I think that we know that that is going to be appealed again to the City Council again right? This is just kind of a preliminary thing saying. Petrie: We may want to just put some different verbiage on the condition that goes to Planning Commission, if it is appealed. If it goes away then there won't have to be a second appeal. Ward: There is a very, very good chance that since it was approved unanimously not to have to pay this by the former City Council that this City Council will uphold that if we see that appeal. Edwards: There has not been an appeal filed as of yet. Bunch: That was one lot where this is a whole subdivision so there is a difference with the built contingencies in. Conklin: Staff is trying to work with the developers and allowing them to come forward with this plat. Jorgensen: We are subject to the Preliminary Plat conditions, we realize this. Conklin- This is not typical of what we have done in the past. In order to facilitate and get some answers with commercial design standards and other issues they are going forward. Bunch: You might as well go through the process while we're waiting on a decision on the rest of it, that is making good use of the time. Jorgensen: Right. Ward: Kim, on landscaping? Hesse: I had requested a couple of things that are showing up on the Tree Preservation Plan that we might also put on the other plan. That being the note on irrigation and then also, if you could change from one gallon to three gallon. You mention it on the tree preservation, if you could fix that. If you have any questions on tree preservation, I have revised my report with the changes. You will see on the tree preservation red is a low priority so I address that in my reports. If you see the site, it is not so much that the trees, some of the trees are unhealthy, some of them are healthy, but the problem was that they were so overridden with vines that within two years there would've really been a problem there. It is hard for us to raise that high because left alone, there wouldn't have been much of value there in that forest. Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 26 Ward: Of course we haven't had a chance to look at this facility. Hesse: Basically that is why we rate them low. Mitigation is shown on site. Clarify that for the Planning Commission, the trees that are mitigation trees have a M and then all the other trees are just the landscape trees. I think that we have got a variety. We may request that we get a little bit more variety when it comes to planting these. Just a few more different types of trees. Other than that, I think it is about as good as you can get on a piece of property with the type of selection. It is really difficult to make a selection of trees with that kind of slope. Bunch: One of the questions that I had on it is that it seems to be leaning real heavy towards Dogwoods and Redbuds which usually aren't that large of canopy area. That is my concern. I want to see the calculations on the different ranges between the numbers of trees and the actual area of canopy. Particularly since we have got some wide open paved areas here that would benefit from the shade and which we could use on this west side and in the parking lot islands we could get some type of trees in there that would create a better canopy and shade an awful lot of that asphalt or whatever type of pavement it is. That seems like it would be beneficial. Hesse: What they are proposing for their landscaping trees, you know the ones along the street and in the parking lot, are Red Maples, which is fine and will be very bright and then I would like to definitely get more than just the Red Buds on the side. You could make a condition that they add an additional variety of trees we would certainly work with them at that point. A lot of it will have to do with what is available at the time of planting. Shireman: If this project is approved at this level, as far as the landscaping goes, can we work with Kim administratively to work with the landscaping? Ward: This is a Large Scale Development so it is going to go to the full Planning Commission and then I think that you can definitely work with her but I think she will probably have, before we come to the full Planning Commission, she might have a little more. Shireman: Ok, then we will go ahead and work with you and get this landscaping adjusted at this level. Jorgensen: That is no problem, we can do something on the east and west side, something other than the Red Bud. That is kind of small and the intent was to provide Red Buds along the interior right here and then on the exterior something larger, and you are suggesting possibly Red Oak? Hesse: We will look at Red Oaks, even Spring Oaks. I have a pretty good list in the manual that we can look at. The issues are that you really can't hold them to any Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 27 one species because the difficulty of availability. However, we can request larger shade trees. Bunch: Larger shade trees would be the request, something to improve it. In the afternoon right here, there wouldn't be a lot of shade. Shireman: I personally would like to see some more irregularity maybe in their landscaping, maybe clump some pine trees a little bit. That was my question I guess as far as what is the final location of these trees when it comes right down to it. Ward: I think we leave some flexibility when it finally comes down to planting. Shireman: Kim, on the final analysis, even after it goes through Planning Commission, I will get with Kim on the actual species and we'll go through the list? Ward: Yes, we don't try to micro -manage that. Hesse: For the purpose of the Planning Commission, we want to basically just state the type of trees, like a large hardwood shade tree. Then maybe we can mix and match. Conklin- And the numbers. Bunch: Right, to look at the square footage of the area of the canopy to make sure we get good coverage going to the larger trees. Ward: Ok, thanks Kim. Keith with Sidewalks? Shreve: We have got an existing 6' sidewalk along Longview, which meets the requirement. The new driveway approaches will be required to be constructed of Portland Cement Concrete to the right of way line. The main thing is that the sidewalk is continuous, which is shown here. Ward: Are they having any kind of problem during construction with those sidewalks? Shreve: If they damage it during construction they will be asked to repair it. Right now it is in good condition. Ward: Ok. At this time I will open it up to public comment Is there anyone in the public that would like to make a public comment on this particular item? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the committee. Dave, have they already got uses for these buildings? Jorgensen: Yes. This is Ken Shireman, Architect, and Dave Jorgensen, Engineer on the project. Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 28 Ward: You might tell us a little bit about what the buildings are going to be used for. Shireman: The proposed larger building here is going to be the offices and the laboratory of the Northwest Arkansas Pathology Associates. The lower level will be primarily the laboratory and the storage facility. This is all low risk biological hazard. We don't deal with any real hazardous substances there. Alcohol and acetone they keep in a container and recycle so there is no discharge whatsoever. On the second level, that houses the administrative offices and the doctor's offices. We have two separate mechanical systems we are going to deal with aesthetically on the unit for the lower level will house a mechanical room. We will have a condenser, where we have the dumpster generator pad, we may wind up increasing the size of that at some point. We will probably have a ground mounted condenser and we will screen all of that in. We will want it to be nice looking also. If you will notice on the building elevation there on the right hand side that we have a larger rooftop area that extends up, we are going to have one rooftop unit that is contained on the roof and its projection on the east side of the building, they will come up and screen that off there, that is part of the architecture. The building on the north side of the property is primarily for long term storage. They have to keep slides and things that are incased in paraffin for many years. That will be a conditioned space. Also, they would probably have a very small part of that, they are looking at a proposed autopsy room and then there would be just probably some drive in garage type storage for their courier vehicles in inclement weather. Ward: Ok, thanks Ken. What about the, why don't you go over real quickly, the Commercial Design Standards, as far as what your building is going to be built out of, and what kind of materials, and colors, and all that stuff. Shireman: What we are proposing there is, of course we have a concrete retaining wall so we are not exposed on the exterior but the interior of the building is quite a bit of concrete exposed in our courtyard there so we wanted to treat that, probably texture that concrete with some forming and then we are going to extend that up a little bit. In fact, the lower building we do want to expose our concrete there and we will probably texture it. Then glass and the rest of the building is going to be masonry. We are looking at brick, right now we are proposing sort of a gray brick and then the metal panels would be metallic silver. We basically are doing gray and metallic silver with probably either black or clearindized aluminum on the window wall system. Basically, that sort of design, masonry with metallic finish metal panels. We are using the metal in there. It is not apparent here, but the north elevation on the opposite side, will have a curved wall there that goes out over the driveway and then we are going to curve out over our entry there. That metal panel sort of walks around and contours around the building. Ward: On the north end on the lower level are you going to have some kind of garage door or something? Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 29 Shireman: Conklin: Shireman: Ward: Shireman: No, it will just be an automatic door there. There won't be any garage doors. They are overhead doors though. They may or may not. We had one overhead door, on the north elevation, I don't think so, at one time we had one like 8x8 overhead door for deliveries. I think that is going to go away and then it will probably be a pair of doors. I don't think we are going to wind up with an overhead door. Ok. It looks like you are using metal panels up on top and then architectural concrete. Yes Sir, and brick. The other thing, on this wing wall we would have some split faced landscape blocks exposed there on that retaining wall. We have reserved this portion of space west of the building for future expansion space. We designed that wall so it could be removed and we could continue the concrete wall down at that point. Conklin- I just want to bring one issue up to discuss at this level before we get to the full Planning Commission. That is our Commercial Design Standards. We always talk about the design theme and the first development going in, and establishing that. This is a little different I guess because Brookstone Assisted Care Facility was built prior to the subdivision and then the county health facility didn't go through any process and just built their building, which is part of the overall subdivision. However, this is a lot different. When I say different, I mean similar to the work you did with Staffmark. Shireman: Conklin: Hoover: Conklin: It is a little less conforming to what is there. Yes. You don't have the gabled end roofs or mid slat. You did both Staffmark buildings in somewhat similar type of architecture you do. It is something that I want to bring up because it is something that we discuss. It makes it difficult. I personally don't think everything needs to look exactly the same or look residential in our business parks or office areas. I don't think that should be a requirement to have to all have the same roofline. However, it is different from what others have done in that area. I think, I see when we have a public street splitting up, they have both sides of the road. I guess I can understand when we have an area where it is a parking lot and all of the buildings are adjoining that parking lot but then I feel like when there is a street actually separating them, I don't see that the theme needs to be as strong. Do you know what I mean? I understand. Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 30 Hoover: That is a good point because we do have that. I guess in my viewpoint, the public road helps divide them up. Conklin: That is why I would like some discussion at this level because McDonald's on Joyce and Mall Avenue. If you look at their split faced block, it matches Best Buy and the roof matches Circuit City. There are colors and materials that match in those areas. For staff, this issue comes up, we talked about it with our business park. It is one of those issues in the Commercial Design Standards that makes it difficult for staff to advise developers when they come to our office to recommend exactly what will be acceptable to the Planning Commission when they process their Large Scale Development. Shireman: I guess from our standpoint, architecturally, we chose not to necessarily try to conform with the other buildings in there because this is a laboratory and in that sense, it is a very utilitarian building. You could house this building, as a matter of fact, we looked at some property in Springdale one time, you could house this entire facility, except the doctors' offices probably, in a metal building for the laboratory itself. We are not going for, the cost of the building is such that the plumbing and mechanical system required to house the building are quite expensive anyway without spending a lot of money on the building itself. We tried to do the building in an economical manner but doing it, we want the building to have a bit of a high pitch, sort of flowing look to it but it is a relatively utilitarian building in a lot of respects, particularly the lower level of it. I think we have taken a building that has a lot of usage and moved it out of that category. It has more of a high tech look to it in a lot of respects with the use of the colors, and the brick, and the metal panels, and our use of the glass treatment. I think particularly on the interior treatment that will happen on the upper level. I know things are not apparent like the large curving north wall that we have that will house all of the doctors offices. We are trying to bring a lot of natural light into this building on the upper level and the lower level with skylights and north lighting particularly. We have got some things that we are trying to do and that is a lot of why we want these broad bands of glass in there. It is a relatively inexpensive way of dealing with the curves in the building. When we look at materials that are used extensively in the other metal buildings that are out there, number one it is E.F.I.S. or dryvit, or whatever you want to call it. We are getting feedback from two very large general contractors that we work with, and they are both telling us that their builders risk carrier won't cover a claim on an E.F.I.S. building anymore. You can use it if you want to but if you have a claim, they are not going to cover it. We are not fans of those materials for that reason and so we start getting limited When you start doing curves in buildings and things like that and canopying out, our choice of materials get a little bit limited to use on an economical basis. This is a lot of what was driving our design solutions. Also, to be able to extend the material up and blend the concealment of the rooftop units and other rooftop equipment that we have as part of the architecture, rather than an added on equipment screen, which I am not a big fan of those, so we want to Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 31 Ward: try to integrate the mechanicals into the design of the building. That is another thing that was driving the work that we're doing here. Ok, thanks Ken. On the parking, most medical facilities do not have enough parking because of all the patients and waiting rooms and doctors, staff, and so on. I assume that there is plenty of parking here. Shireman: Yes. Currently they have about 16 employees out there. They do not have patient load as such. There might not be two vehicles a day. We do have two procedure rooms, but those are the only procedure rooms in the entire facility. The rest of the time it would be somebody coming to talk to them if they have a problem with their account or something on accounts payable or a bill or whatever. They just don't have that load of traffic. The traffic that comes in are people that work there and they work rather long hours. As a matter of fact, they get started at like 4:00 a.m. and work until about 8:00 p.m. The in and out traffic is primarily courier cars. They have six couriers that just run all over the place. Ward: Ok. Are there any other comments? Bunch: One question. I think it is probably a moot point. Since this has other lots in the subdivision that wrap around it, the question would be the view from the north looking south towards this from other developments I think the tree preservation area will cover most of this shop building and then I think the creek comes down along through here. Shireman: The creek comes right down through here like this and then it just kind of keeps on going like this and there is another lot back in this area but it is rather low lying. It will be interesting to see what use comes of it. Bunch: One of my concerns is that even though you are using the same materials, the north elevation of the laboratory utility building is fairly box like. Shireman: It is fairly utilitarian, no question about it. Bunch: Right but it looks like it is going to be adequately screened from the other parts of the development. Shireman: We think so. Ward: It may be part of the tree preservation. Bunch: The tree preservation area goes like that and then the creek comes down along this side. Shireman: The creek comes up and turns like this. Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 32 Conklin: Shireman: Conklin: Ward: Shireman: Ward: Hoover: Bunch: Hoover: Ward: Conklin: Shireman: Conklin - I am just curious why you chose to have two separate buildings verses trying to get that storage area attached to this building. I think it kind of goes along with what you are saying about the building being a rectangle back there. We felt like this real estate was pretty prime here because we have to go to great extents to do it, we kind of built a retaining wall here. Your site development cost on this piece of ground right here are rather high compared to what we would have to do to enclose that same amount of square footage here. That was the primary reason. We think it is more cost effective for us to do it in a separate building. This building has separate needs, separate traffic requirements. If you have an autopsy room you need to have an ambulance back up here and we don't need that traffic because we are trying to keep this open. This drive through here is going to be 95% courier traffic. These guys pull up here and stop, they go in and they come back out. It is that sort of thing all the time. We don't want any traffic up here that we don't have to have. Thank you. Are there any comments Sharon about the Commercial Design Standards? Do you think we will have a problem with that? I don't. I don't. The only thing would be the theme setting for that side of the building. I will argue that later. There are some different things that the other eight lots total in this subdivision, it might be ideal that some of the Commissioners will think that this same theme, same design and same colors will need to be carried out on the next seven lots. It is one thing that comes up a lot of times. I just have one more question. Are there going to be covenants within this new subdivision and does Washington Regional have an architectural committee to approve these plans, and have they looked at them? I can't answer that. Not that I've been aware of. Bob Nickle is actually handling the sell of this real estate with the doctors and I've not heard any mention of it. They did have really strong covenants with regard to North Hills and the lots around North Hills. It kind of surprises me that they wouldn't try to control what happens on this acreage. Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 33 Jorgensen: I would think they would accommodate this project being that they want to sell it to them. Shireman: They gave us first choice of the piece of land that we wanted on the subdivision so that is why this is happening before the subdivision is through. Motion: Hoover: I will make a motion to move to full Planning Commission LSD 02-15.00. Bunch: I will second. Ward: I will concur with all of staff comments to be added. Jorgensen: Thanks a lot. Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 34 LSD 02-16.00: Large Scale Development (Arena Village #3, pp 521) was submitted by Mandy Bunch, PE of EB Landworks, Inc. on behalf of Arthur Trumbo for property located in the 1100 block W. 6`h Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3.44 acres with a 9,200 sq.ft. building proposed. Ward: Ok, our sixth item on the agenda today is LSD 02-16.00 for Arena Village #3 submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks, Inc. on behalf of Arthur Trumbo for property located in the 1100 block of West Sixth Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 3.44 acres with a 9,200 sq.ft. building proposed. Edwards: The proposal is to add an additional building to the Arena Village tract south of Sixth, East of Razorback, and north of Indian Trail. Currently there are two buildings on this site, which hold existing businesses, The Taco Place, World Wide Travel, Mailboxes, Etc. Tree canopy is 1.1%. They are proposing to preserve .77% and to have mitigation. Right of way is being dedicated along Sixth Street. The only condition that we have to discuss is the compliance with Commercial Design Standards. Ward: Ok, thanks Sara. Are you going to be handling the Engineering part? Casey: Yes, I am Matt Casey. We have no comment. Ward: Kim with Landscaping? Hesse: I have no comment. Ward: Keith with Sidewalks. Shreve: They will be constructing a new 6' sidewalk along Sixth Street as a requirement for this project. Ward: That is a good place. We need one. At this point, I don't think there are any other comments from staff so I will open it up to the public to see if there are any comments from the public. Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the committee and to the applicant. It looks like the main thing we have to look at is the Commercial Design Standards. I assume it looks very similar to the other two buildings down there already? Bunch, M: Ward: Bunch, M: Actually, it is quite an extraordinary improvement I would think from the other two buildings. Can you give your name for the record? Mandy Bunch with Landworks, Inc. This is Steve DeNoon with Jordan & Associates. Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 35 Ward: Bunch, M: DeNoon: Hoover: Bunch, M: Why don't you go ahead and describe to us the building itself and also the materials you are going to be using and the color scheme and all these type of things. I am going to let Steve do that. On the site, there is not really a theme there as far as a building that this would match, possibly Arby's. We basically tried to follow the University's theme in colors close to the basketball arena, which it is sort of named after. There are two other buildings that are next to this site, which are not really that attractive. I feel like we have done really a 100% improvement on the exterior facade of this building verses what is there now. Most of these centers, we do try to appease the public and the curb appeal but you also have to understand a lot of the economics that are involved in these structures, as well as their environment and orientation in that on the areas that are of less use, mainly utilitarian, we usually go with a metal siding or something a little less flaunty. Now you can get these metal panels in various colors, which are not really that distracting. Basically, the design from that standpoint, just will blend in with the University area. I would like to stress that it is probably 1 00% better than what is there. I have a question. I know next door all their equipment is unscreened. On the south elevation, where will all the equipment go? All the equipment would be in a similar spot and we have proposed a 6' board screening fence. The elevation of Indian Trail, I think that is our main point of contention is the south elevation that you're looking at. We've got the 6' fence and the elevation of Indian Trail on the street, my understanding is that there is a view from the street, the Commercial Design Standards are applied. We are at the same elevation with the street as we are with the finished floor. Basically what you are looking at is only what is above the 6' board fence that would actually be visible from Indian Trail to the back of the building. That is currently about 6'. Conklin- Just on Commercial Design Standards, in your staff report. Let me just go through those again. For those that went on tour for Planning Commission last week, I did have the trolley go by here because it is somewhat of a unique issue. When they developed these two there was a strip of land that I don't believe was owned by Mr. Trumbo. He has purchased it, so he does own this land between the building and Indian Trail today. Our Commercial Design Standards state that elements to avoid or minimize unpainted concrete precision block walls, square box like structures, metal siding which dominates the main facade, large, blank, unarticulated wall surface, large out of scale signs with flashy colors. I think most of you are aware of that but just to remind everybody. They did meet with staff early on trying to address what to do with regard to this south elevation because there is property in between the building and the street. They have no planned parking behind it or direct access to Indian Trail back there. Whether or not you Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 36 would consider that as the main facade. Basically, number C, metal siding which dominates the main facade, it is metal on the back. The other thing that we looked at as staff, and I will hand this out. Under our screening requirements between commercial and residential, there is a screening requirement for fence, vegetation, or a combination. If you require the building to change with the south facade, you make it look pretty, and then at the same time you have an ordinance screening it, you are doing one thing because you think you are going to see it from the street, and then we have an ordinance that says you are trying to hide it between the design districts. I don't think it is clear cut with regard to the building having a front facing Indian Trail. That is my opinion. We have these discussions a lot with regard to lots that have double frontage on streets, which is the front side on the back of the building. I just wanted to give you my opinion on that. Ward: I think the fence would be the main thing to screen all the mechanical stuff back there. Few people drive back there behind Indian Trail anyway. Bunch, M: We are offset between 50' to 70' from Indian Trail. There is about a 70' buffer in there. Hoover: Is there any reason 6', that height, chosen for a particular reason? This is a 7' door and it is the same finished floor elevation. I am just wondering if there was any reason it couldn't be an 8' fence that would definitely, if it is going to pretty much look like that will definitely hide everything. I don't know that 6' will. Bunch, M: I don't see a problem going to an 8'. I think we put 6' because it is a standard height for a board fence. Hoover: I am just wondering. I think that some of the fences that we have, if they would be higher it would serve us a lot better. Conklin: They have 10' fences too that really screen. Hoover: On the back of this, I guess this is the gutter down here so you will be able to see the periphet? DeNoon: Elevation is about 12' above finished floor and probably from an automobile, I figure that you would probably see right at gutter line. Possibly a 6' fence protected view when you are sitting down in a car you are not really standing up. Bunch: You just have a 14' comparable to the others? DeNoon: It is a 15'. Hoover: The nice side of the fence will be facing Indian Trail? Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 37 Bunch, M: We could specify that. Hoover: I guess my gut reaction is the finished side facing Indian Trail and then higher than 6' just to be safe. Bunch: I like the idea of the staggered shadow box to get air movement. Hoover: That would be fine. Ward: I have no problem with the metal facing the south I think the front of the building looks much better than what the other buildings do out there. You get looking with the brick and colors and so on. DeNoon: I failed to mention the materials. Split faced block, we have got two different colors of brick, you will see a brick soldier course 8' or 9' up that divides up the brick and makes a nice uniform line that kind of binds everything together. There is going to be possibly three different colors of dryvit there. These sign areas are stepped. We have two tones of brown and off whites through here. That is red brick and kind of a brown split faced block on the base. Hoover: The strip of land back there, I think it is about 37'. Conklin: I think it is about 60'. Hoover: Could you actually put something there? Conklin: Maybe a habitat house or something. Bunch: You have setback issues. Hoover: Well we could get the setbacks reduced. Conklin: I just throw that out because Habitat is always looking for property. Bunch, M: It is a pretty low drainage area. As Matt had pointed out, we made some changes in our drainage to make sure we had the water moving back there. It collects water off of the old property across the street. There is quite a bit of drainage that comes through off of the east side of Razorback on through there. I am not going to call it a slue or something like that but it is not really readily usable for a structural purpose. Hoover: You would have to do some improvements. Bunch, M: Definite fill and drainage rerouting and that sort of thing. It looks like there are some wetland type vegetation growing in it. Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 38 Bunch, M: Bunch: Bunch, M: Ward: Hoover: Bunch, M: Bunch: Ward: Bunch, M: Ward: Bunch: Bunch, M: Bunch: I would think that entire area could be considered that. Even though it has a note on there that no suspect wetlands are affected by the development but there has been no determination since that is a rail bed. Yes Sir. That is why we were trying to stay out of that area as much as possible. We didn't want to get into that property. That is one of the reasons we didn't include it. It really wasn't usable for development even though it is continuous. Instead of all these fences and so on, we might look more at vegetation and maybe a tree preservation area back there. The only problem with vegetation is in the Winter months. Unless you are going to get pine, but you don't get the sure screening like you do with a fence. That is one thing that we considered, overall maintenance of the site. Looking on it, you've got the vegetative buffer in there to give you the green backdrop and things in there. We had some concern with overall future maintenance and appearance of the area I think it would be better served with a board fence in this particular location. I agree with you entirely that I would rather have a green buffer, but in this particular spot, I think that the appearance would be the better screening and it would be maintained more readily than vegetation. I basically prefer the fence myself because I like the idea of having the combination with the vegetation. Rather than just having this be neglected and winding up being a trash pit, you could turn it into some sort of landscaped area where there is pride associated with it and maybe an asset rather than just a neglected area on the other side of the fence. There is 5' in there with the unimproved vegetation behind I just felt like that it might be better to stop it there. How much acreage is total back there? It is wider in this area behind Indian Trail and then it goes almost to a point down behind the Arby's. Are there any other comments? Is this a bike rack that is going here? We had two bike racks and we had them on the end island down here. I didn't see them on the drawing. Bunch, M: They are right down here. Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 39 Bunch: Ok, I missed that. You are going back to pick up 7% on the existing to try to improve that a little bit? Bunch, M: Yes Sir. I think that will help the overall center hopefully too with the trees and the location. Ward: Are there any other comments or motions? Motion: Bunch: They did a really good job and everything was very well described. The only thing we will have to discuss at Planning Commission will be the design standards on the back of the building. The rest of it is all pretty much in order. I move that we forward LSD 02-16.00 to the full Planning Commission. Hoover: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Conklin: Do the three of you here today believe that the back of the building can be approved under Commercial Design Standards? Hoover: With at least an 8' screen. Bunch: With a combination of improved vegetation. Some way to treat that area in back so it doesn't become a neglected area, a trash catcher. Conklin- I was just curious if all three of you felt that way to give me some direction. Ward: It is really just a continuous development of what is already there with similar types of buildings and uses. There might be a use for that land that somebody could actually develop. Habitat For Humanity or it might make a neat park area, it is close to the University, you might be able to save land. Thank you so much. Bunch: Just as a conflict of interest, I don't know Mandy Bunch. This is the first time I've met her. Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 40 ADM 02-18.00: Administrative Item (Guido's, pp 401) The request is to seek commercial design standard approval for different building materials than were approved. Ward: The last item on the agenda today is ADM 02-18.00 for Guido's. The request is to seek Commercial Design Standard approval for different materials than what was approved. Who is going to handle this one? Sara? Edwards: When you approved a Large Scale Development on April 26, 2002 you remember this is in the Wedington Place Subdivision just behind Country Inns and Suites which is located behind the Sonic on Steamboat. They are looking to change some areas from brick to E.F.I.S. as well as a little bit of change in the arch. I will let Jim explain that. Basically, what we're looking for is your opinion on Commercial Design Standards. Ward: I was involved in this project and I think I've been recusing from day one so I will continue to do that. I will go ahead and chair it but I will definitely recuse. Jim, do you have a presentation? Key: I don't have a formal presentation by any means. Mr. Bariola asked me if I could attend here today. I told him I would be glad to. You have all received revised elevations that were in your packet that we distributed yesterday that consist of the four revised elevations. These were submitted to the City the day before yesterday. They were a little late so they may not have been distributed with the original packets. They should be in the file. We have supplemented that today with a perspective presentation showing a couple variations on the front facade. These are the new elevations. Obviously the rendering is a little different in terms of the browns, reds, and yellows. The material selection is the same. It is basically just a revision in the amount of E.F.I.S. and the amount of brick due to some budgetary constraints. The client put the project out to bid among several contractors here locally. He received those and the prices were a little out of their budget. They are trying now to do some guide engineering and get it to an acceptable point so that they can proceed and begin construction. Due to the nature, we have had quite a few requests by the various contractors that were looking at the project. One proposed that we took all the materials off the walk in cooler at the rear and leave an exposed metal cooler there like they have done in Springdale on projects, saving $6,500 or more. Obviously we know because of the Overlay District, there are certain things we can't do. We have intended to leave the Periphet construction and screening in tact on all four sides so that all of the top equipment is still screened so that the view from I-540 is still basically the same. The thing that is affected the most will be the two side elevations, the south and the north, where we originally had on the sides brick running up to a point about 14'. We had proposed on our revised elevations to limit the brick stopping at the accent band that runs at the top of the window. To stop the brick at a lower elevation, remove the brick pilasters extended to the top of the roof, we have cut the precast coping, which is a little bit of expense and gone to an accentuated E.F.I.S. rather than just a basic metal coping so we've got a larger field of E.F.I.S. Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 41 We have proposed to use two colors of E.F.I.S. to give us the articulation of the facade that we had before and we were utilizing masonry as opposed to some aesthetic stucco material. We have also removed some of the components of the canopy. We had a decorative steel canopy with the support rod. For budgetary constraints, we have altered that, maintained the arched form for the eyebrow arch, which is the unified element of the subdivision, but are proposing a fabric awning to form that as opposed to a metal canopy. That is the basic stem of what we propose to do. We have also looked, as you can see in the two perspective views presented to you, at the possibility of narrowing the width of the main arch for the entry. I personally prefer to leave it the width it was. Again, due to some constraints in the cost of constructive framing to support that and run masonry up to it, the contractor proposes that we can narrow this front arch down as shown in this perspective it would provide a cost savings significant enough that he felt it was worth asking for consideration. Here you can see the two views, one with the wider arch, one with the narrower arch. Hoover: Are you saying that anything mildly different than what we approve has to come back to Subdivision? Conklin: I try not to make too many administrative decisions on Commercial Design Standards, especially when they are changing from brick to E.F.LS. If we work on our Commercial Design Standards and clarify what you would like to give me authority to do that is fine too. Hoover: It just seems like this is pretty minimal. Key: It is just the difference in materials. It is not like we changed the height, or decided we wanted to do metal siding on the side, or totally changed the material selection. I wasn't surprised when we were asked to resubmit this. We revised rendered elevations. It was the owners intent to come and talk to you about the nature of what he was going to do to save a little expense. We have been asked to revise the renderings and the elevations, we printed that, we made 12 copies, distributed them to staff and all the Planning Commission members. Obviously, there has got to be qualifications as to what extent of changes would necessitate coming back to this point but we were just hoping that this would be agreeable to you so that the contractors can proceed to revise their price and get this to a point where the owners can accept it and begin with the project I think we are going to have a nice looking facility there when it is all said and done. I don't think that the changes we are proposing are going to compromise or diminish the quality of the structure. Hoover: I don't have a problem with it. Bunch: It maintains the design theme. Hoover: I am really having to go back and forth to see the difference. Subdivision Committee June 13, 2002 Page 42 Key: The front has not changed, the signage, the arch would be the only thing we would change there. Hoover: That brick band there. Bariola: On the other side of the Holiday Inn there is a big group of trees so it is impossible to see the site. Ward: There are these trees south of it. Key: The periphet that is there to the rear is actually suspended with the gutter. With the weight of materials and everything we feel like we've done what was reasonable. There is also a very large tract of land in between Holiday Inn Express and this property which eventually some day will probably bring it into view. Bunch: Can we approve this at this level? Conklin- Yes. Bunch: In that case, I will move that we approve ADM 02-18.00 for the changed materials and commercial design. Hoover: I will second. Ward: Thank you. Key: Thank you all very much. Ward: Meeting is adjourned.