Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-11 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, July 11, 2002 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 02-35.00 & 36.00: Lot Split (Steigman, pp 257) Approved Page 2 LSP 02-37.00: Lot Split (Selby, pp 140) Approved Page 4 LSP 02-38.00: Lot Split (Mardanbigi, pp 410) Approved Page 6 LSD 02-18.00: Large Scale Development (KFC, pp 520) Forwarded to Planning Commission Page 10 LSD 02-19.00: Large Scale Development (Southwestern Bell Telephone, pp 484) Page 20 Approved MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERSABSENT Bob Estes Don Bunch Lee Ward Sharon Hoover STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Kim Hesse Sara Edwards Matt Casey Keith Shreve Tim Conklin Kim Rogers Subdivision Committee July 11, 2002 Page 2 LSP 02-35.00 & 36.00: Lot Split (Steigman, pp 257) was submitted by Kirk Elsass of Lindsey & Associates on behalf of Boyd & Kelly Steigman for property located at 2994 Oakland Zion Road. The property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately 7.52 acres. The request is to split the property into three tracts of 2.54 acres, 1.97 acres, and 3.01 acres. Ward: Welcome to the Subdivision Committee meeting. We have five items on the agenda this morning. Today is Thursday, July 11, 2002. The Commissioners are Don Bunch, Bob Estes, and Lee Ward. Our first item on the agenda is LSP 02- 35.00 & 36.00 submitted by Kirk Elsass of Lindsey & Associates on behalf of Boyd & Kelly Steigman for property located at 2994 Oakland Zion Road. The property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately 7.52 acres. The request is to split the property into three tracts of 2.54 acres, 1.97 acres, and 3.01 acres. Sara, what can you tell us about this one? Edwards: The proposal is for two additional lots. Currently there is a single-family home on the 1.97 acre parcel. The applicant is dedicating 60' of right of way to Washington County in order to provide public street frontage to these tracts. They are also proposing road improvements, which will include a 12' wide strip paved back into the property. There is existing water which will serve the property and individual septic systems will be used. We are recommending approval subject to the water service line to the existing house being added to the plat. There may be an additional easement required based on the location of that line and that Washington County approval is obtained prior to filing the lot split. Ward: Casey: Ok, we have two conditions that we need to talk about on this one. The water service line to the existing house shall be added to the plat and final Washington County approval. This is out in the county so I assume that we don't need to worry about sidewalks or landscaping. Matt, do you have anything else? I asked Sara to add the condition regarding the existing water service because it looks like it is going to be crossing a lot that it does not serve and we just need a private easement for that service to cross that lot. Ward: Ok, do you understand that Kirk? Elsass: No. Which water? Casey: On lot C it looks like you show a water meter for the existing house. If that is the proper location then water service is coming across a portion of this lot to serve this lot so we just need that to accommodate that service line if that is the proper location. Elsass: Ward: Ok. There will be no park fees since this is out in the county. With that I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone that would like to make comment on this Subdivision Committee July 11, 2002 Page 3 particular item? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. Motion: Estes: I would move for approval of LSP 02-35.00 subject to all stated staff conditions of approval. Ward: Do I have a second? Bunch: Can we include 36.00 or do they have to be separate motions? Ward: I think we can include both of them. Estes: Let me amend the motion then to approve LSP 02-35.00 and 36.00. Bunch: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Subdivision Committee July 11, 2002 Page 4 LSP 02-37.00: Lot Split (Selby, pp 140) was submitted by Philip Humbard on behalf of Janet Selby for property located at 4135 Hungate Lane. The property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately 7.94 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.90 acres and 6.04 acres. Ward: The second item on the agenda this morning is LSP 02-37.00 submitted by Philip Humbard on behalf of Janet Selby for property located at 4135 Hungate Lane. The property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately 7.94 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.90 acres and 6.04 acres. Sara? Edwards: Currently Hungate Road is a private drive. We are asking for a dedication of 45' from centerline along Hungate, which is in accordance with the Master Street Plan. We are also requesting additional right of way along Gulley Road pursuant to the Master Street Plan. There is an existing house on tract A, tract B is vacant. There is existing water along Hungate and septic will be used. For conditions, again, we are requesting that the water service line and meter be shown because there may be additional easements required depending on the location of that line and Washington County approval must be obtained prior to filing the lot split. Ward: Ok. Do you understand that? Humbard: Yes Sir. There is an existing 2" that runs along Hungate Lane and you just want to show the service line from the 2" over to the house? Casey: I just wanted to verify the location of that so that the service is crossing. Humbard: If it is all on tract A do I need to show it then? Casey: Yes, just to try to avoid any future conflict. Humbard: I believe it is on tract A right now but I will show the location of that meter for sure. Ward: Again, on this lot split there is no worry about sidewalks, landscaping or park fees I don't believe. Is there anything else Matt? Casey: No Sir. Ward: I see that this gas line ends up on Hungate. Does it feed this house? Humbard: No Sir. Ward: So the house does not have natural gas? Humbard: I don't believe so, it is on propane. Subdivision Committee July 11, 2002 Page 5 Ward: Motion: Estes: Bunch: Ward: Ok. At this time is there anyone from the public that would like to discuss this lot split? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to the Committee. I would move for approval of LSP 02-37.00 subject to all stated staff conditions of approval. I will second. I will concur. Subdivision Committee July 11, 2002 Page 6 LSP 02-38.00: Lot Split (Mardanbigi, pp 410) was submitted by Northstar Engineering Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Farhad Mardanbigi for property located at 1304 Crossover Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.69 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.14 acres and 0.55 acres. Ward: The third item on the agenda this morning is LSP 02-38.00 submitted by Northstar Engineering Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Farhad Mardanbigi for property located at 1304 Crossover Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.69 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.14 acres and 0.55 acres. Sara? Edwards: This property is located on the east side of Crossover. It is just south of Lovers Lane. There is R-1 zoning surrounding the property. Right of way is being dedicated along Crossover pursuant to the Master Street Plan. There is a single- family home that exists on the property and will remain on tract 1. Tract 2 is vacant and there are existing water and sewer lines along Crossover, which will serve both tracts. We are recommending approval at this level subject to the required right of way along Crossover being dedicated by Warranty Deed. Ward: Ok, thank you. Is the applicant present? Gray: My name is Mark Gray, I represent Northstar Engineering. Ward: Ok. Matt, are there any engineering concerns? Casey: No Sir. Ward: This is a state highway and do they have to get a special curb cut or anything to get into that lot? Casey: Not that I'm aware of. Ward: Tim, do you have any concerns about that? Conklin: I believe when they do build their driveway they probably do need AHTD approval for a curb cut onto Hwy. 265 for tract 2 when it develops. Casey: With all the construction that might complicate things. Ward: Ok, are there any other concerns engineering wise? Keith with sidewalks? This is in the city. Shreve: We are not requiring sidewalks for lot splits. Ward: Parks and Recreation, is there a fee? Subdivision Committee July 11, 2002 Page 7 Edwards: Ward: Edwards: Gray: Edwards: Ward: Pereira: Ward: Pereira: Ward: Conklin: Pereira: Edwards: Conklin: Pereira: Gray: Pereira: There are parks fees due in the amount of $470 for one additional single-family lot. When is that payable? It is due at the time of permit. Is that in addition? We gave them a check already. No, that is not in addition. How about landscaping? We don't have to worry about Landscaping on a lot split. I will now open it up to the public. Is there anyone that would like to address the Committee on this particular item? I am Rita Pereira and I live at 2 E. Lovers Lane and this land butts up to my land. I would like to know what their intent is to put on this land. I will let the staff tell you but it is zoned R-1. We have no idea what that means. It is strictly single-family homes. It cannot be a duplex or an apartment complex or a commercial building. It has to be a single-family residence unless staff has something else to add to that. You are correct. It is zoned R-1. Minimum lot size is 8,000 sq.ft. and they are well over that minimum. The land use is single-family homes. I understand that. My question is when this land butts up to Lovers Lane. Is that 1.55 going to be on the south side or the north side? South side. Here is your property and here is Hwy. 265 and here is the piece. Ok, so this is still going to be open. Where is Lovers Lane here? Ok. We just wanted to be sure that you weren't going to put some shack there. I hate to say that, or put a park there or something because we are old and we like the privacy. As it is we already have this dog barking up here with this guy. Fred is just wanting to build another house up there. You tell Fred to keep his dog under control. I had a gardener in that almost didn't stay because of this clog. I have already had some things with this ad I just didn't want to have this here. That is it. Subdivision Committee July 11, 2002 Page 8 Ward: Is there anyone else in the public that would like to make a comment on this particular item? Pereira: What are they going to build there by the way? Gray: A house. Conklin: There was somebody that stopped by our office yesterday. I just bring this up because she was supposed to call us back or write us a letter and she never did, she couldn't be here today and I am not sure if she was concerned about it. She wasn't concerned where this exactly was and so I am not sure if she was opposed to it or in favor of it since we didn't hear back from her. I just wanted that for the record we did have another property owner in this neighborhood stop by our office. Ward: Ok, I will close it to the public and bring it back to our Committee. Do we have any comments or questions? Pereira: I just want to ask about the property in the area. Is that ever going to go commercial along there? I don't know who to ask these kinds of questions. Ward: Not in your lifetime. Things can change though but I don't think it is going to change for a long time. Pereira: When you live there and you love it it is scary when you don't know what is going on. Conklin: The plan for commercial development is the intersection of Hwy. 265 and 45, that is the commercial corridor. Staff will be making recommendations for denial of other commercial along Hwy. 265. Pereira: So we can remodel if we want to and not worry about investing money in that place. Ward: If that becomes a 10 lane super highway things can change. Conklin: Things can change but the plan is not to strip the commercial like College Avenue all of Hwy. 265. It is to keep it at the intersections. Pereira: We just didn't want to put money into it if someone comes along and says "Hey, this has been changed and now we are going to need your land." We are old and when you invest you invest like a savings type. Thanks. Subdivision Committee July 11, 2002 Page 9 Motion: Estes: I would move for approval of LSP 02-38.00 subject to all of staff's conditions of approval. Bunch: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee July 11, 2002 Page 10 LSD 02-18.00: Large Scale Development (KFC, pp 520) was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Jon Dyer of K -Mac Enterprises, Inc. for property owned by Ermel Fox and located at 1860 W. 6`h Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contain approximately 1.11 acres with a 3,145 sq.ft. restaurant proposed. Ward: Our next item of development is LSD 02-18.00 for KFC submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Jon Dyer of K -Mac Enterprises, Inc. for property owned by Ermel Fox and located at 1860 W. 6th Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contain approximately 1.11 acres with a 3,145 sq.ft. restaurant proposed. Sara? Edwards: This property is just west of the new J.D. China on Sixth Street. There is C-2 zoning to the east, R-1 to the south, R-2 to the north, and the property on the west side is split between R-2 and C-2. The proposal is for a 2,872 sq.ft. restaurant with a 273 sq.ft. freezer and that gives the total of 3,145 sq.ft. There are 28 parking spaces proposed. Currently 61% of the site is in existing canopy and they are proposing to preserve 27% of the requirement in a C-2 zoning is 15%. We are recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. We do have some conditions to discuss. One is Planning Commission approval of a requested conditional use for additional parking. Under the current parking ordinance 17 spaces are allowed. They are proposing to provide 28. Actually, under the new parking that we are working on 28 would be required so they are within that. We are requesting Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards including signage. There is a comment that the sign had not been submitted but we do have that now. Everything else is standard. Ward: Thanks. Love: I am Mark Love, not Jerry Kelso. Ward: Ok, we will start with Engineering. Matt? Casey: I am a little concerned with how the drainage on the east side is going to get into the pond. It looks like it has the potential of going out into the street. I thought maybe an additional flume might be necessary on the east side of the detention pond. Love: Casey: Estes: Or maybe ditching it down to the east. We can look at it. It looked like it was intended but it is so flat right there that there may be a problem getting it in there. Matthew, where is the detention pond? Subdivision Committee July 11, 2002 Page 11 Casey: It is in the southwest corner. If you look at sheet two it is in the bottom left corner. Estes: What is your concern? Casey: I was concerned that the runoff from the east portion would not go into the detention basin and that is what the calculations are based on, all of it would go through the detention basin. If they bypass it and it goes into the street they would be increasing the flows. Love: We have a high established 10' north of the south property line so it will not go to the highway. Casey: It is just so flat in there I am concerned a little bit. Before that when the detention pond was out further to the south it didn't appear to be such a problem but with these provided plans it looks like it has a potential for that. Estes: Where is the high point? Casey: The high is at the narrow point of the driveway. Bunch: There is a bridge and a flume right here it doesn't look like it is going to make it. It is going to have to come around that island and it is going to be tough to make that curve. Love: We will take a look at that and if it is better off to cut a little flume there or a little curb cut we can do that. Bunch: This is the main entrance to the detention pond from the paved area isn't it? It is going to be difficult if you have a high point down here. Love: If we need to rotate that around to the east we can certainly look at that. Bunch: Most of the east side drainage looks like it is going to come down a driveway because of your curb over here on the west side of the driveway. Love: I can assure you that the Highway Department won't allow that. Ward: Keith with Sidewalks? Shreve: They will be constructing a new 6' sidewalk along the frontage. Ward: Ok, is there a sidewalk out there now? Subdivision Committee July 11, 2002 Page 12 Shreve: There is an asphalt strip behind the curb that is used as a sidewalk. We are asking that they remove the asphalt behind the curb and start the new concrete sidewalk at the new right of way line. Ward: Ok, thanks. On Parks and Recreation there won't be a fee on this will there? Edwards: No there won't. Ward: The next thing I would like to talk about is the landscaping. Kim? Hesse: Landscaping is fine, they made some changes of the site review since last time. Ward: Would you like to go over all of that with us? Hesse: They've met the requirements. They are over. They were required to preserve 15% of the site in canopy. Preservation they are at 27% or something. They have done all that they really can. Our ordinance is based off the priorities. Actually, the whole site has the same priority. The canopy is the same from the front of the lot to the back of the lot. There are large tress spaced throughout the whole thing. I am accepting the plan and recommending approval. Ward: Hesse: Tell me again how we are determining the health of the trees. These are all fair and poor that is even remaining. Does that make sense to keep a bunch of trees that are just barely in fair condition? It is pretty hard to find an excellent condition tree. I mean if you find one you just don't want to touch it. The reason why they are probably rated fair, that is the biggest discrepancy in the ordinance with regard to how people rate them. We have to revise that so that we have certain standards on how to rate good, fair, and poor. At this point we don't have those standards. They are all fairly mature and that is why when you get to that maturity stage you have parts of the tree going down. They are all pretty much in fair condition, which means they are going to live several more years. They are just old. There is a lot of under story that is very healthy and young and growing up. They didn't necessarily locate all of those. They show the canopy of them but a lot of them are 6", 8", and even 4" trees coming up. The biggest portion of those are back here. Love: The property hasn't been maintained for years and it has just gone to pot. Hesse: Probably health wise the best health is in the back of the lot because it hasn't been touched. Where the old houses used to be, there were two houses in front and people used to park their cars or probably change their oil and their antifreeze leaked and there is a lot of various infected soil by the trees that are on the south side of the lot so the health probably gets better as you go up the lot. Subdivision Committee July 11, 2002 Page 13 Ward: We don't recommend that they take out some of these trees that they say are getting in poor condition that they say they are saving? Hesse: I didn't see any to the point where they were going to die out. I think they are spaced out well enough. There is some spacing that will allow newer trees to grow up. A lot of it is shrub there. Bunch: What is the plan for this area over here? Is it going to be landscaped or left to its own devices or what? Hesse: Part of that was sloped back when J.D. China was built. This is a pretty steep slope, which they are trying to establish sod on. They still need to work on their sod. Love: That is the affect of J.D. China grading on our side. Hesse: Yeah, which pulled it all the way to here and then when you start to get into your canopy you go back down. Bunch: What about the type of trees in these landscape islands since we have a big open chunk of asphalt there, are these the types of trees that will provide some shade or are they minimal? Hesse: Probably red oaks. Love: Whatever you want. Bunch: I would like to get something that will shade part of that asphalt rather than a small compact. Hesse: What I asked them to do is rather than show where all the shrubs are, I asked them to at least show where the shrub beds will be, which is per our ordinance. They have got a landscape architect that will take this and specify plants and the locations and as it goes through for building permit I will look at that again for approval. I just want to make sure that you guys were approving that there would be shrubs in certain areas and that is the hatched space. Ward: Ok. Are there any other questions about landscaping? Conklin- I just want to clarify something for the record. The 27% tree canopy preserved, we are going to show that as a tree preservation area on the easement plat and that will be forever protected and they are in agreement to that even though they are beyond the 15%. That is kind of a question and a statement at the same time. Hesse: Yes. It is written in the ordinance that way so I would make sure that your client is aware of that. That what is preserved goes into an easement. Subdivision Committee July 11, 2002 Page 14 Love: Ward: Casey: Love: Casey: Love: Estes: Love: Ward: Shultz: Love: Schultz: Ward: Schultz: I am sure they wouldn't have a problem with that. On drainage, what other options do we have if for some reason we can't get this to drain into this detention pond? I don't think that they will have a problem getting it to drain into it, they can depress the pavement some to create a swale. If we need to create a curb or a pocket or something, we will get it there. The layout doesn't give them much room for adjusting that detention area. They have already had to move it back some. It is kind of a narrow lot to work with so it makes it tough to make it work. I don't know about civil engineering but a swale down through there dropping the elevation and running right in there that seems to be a fairly simple solution. If you go underground then you are going to get clogged up over time. We will eventually need to split full construction plans to Engineering for approval and we will have all of that addressed by then. Ok. At this time I will open it up to the public. Is there any public comment on this particular item? My name is Dale Schultz. I am building an apartment complex behind here. I just wanted, since I haven't seen this to make sure that we have the same. You have grading between you and J.D. China that is supposed to be a three to one but it isn't. It has been a concern of mine. I just want to make sure I understand, that back part is going to be all tree preservation into a retaining wall? Yes. Ok, I just didn't want another sharp drop off and students in a drunken stupor rolling off the side of the mountain there. I am concerned about soil origin is what I am concerned about. Ok. I think that is one reason we are sodding between J.D. China. They stopped right at that corner the other day. They didn't even go to my property line, they just did that corner right there. I just personally feel that they need to go all the way down. There should've been a retaining wall there to begin with and I told Ron that. That was before I purchased it though. Subdivision Committee July 11, 2002 Page 15 Conklin: Love: Schultz: Love: Schultz: Bunch: Love: Bunch: Love: Schultz: Conklin: Schultz: Conklin - Schultz: Conklin: Ward: Estes: Love: Estes: Love: There is a 6' high privacy fence proposed on these plans at that north property line and I guess the west parking line too. Yes Sir. I was just a little concerned that we would have another J.D. China and that is what I wanted to come look at. By ordinance we will have to. Ok. There is no way to get cross access over to Braum's? There is a retaining wall. But you do have cross access over to J.D. China? Yes Sir. There is an ordinance that says a 6' high retaining wall between commercial and residential? No, it is a fence, screening or vegetation. How did J.D. China get away with nothing? They have tree preservation. They bought that additional property back there. Which is fine, I really enjoy that but I am just asking. When I was looking at this I was looking at trees. When you said by ordinance, you have a lot of trees there also but you have an area that is cleaned out so I think a fence is needed. Ok, are there any other public comments? Ok, I will close it to the public and will bring it back to the Committee. I have some questions regarding ingress and egress in traffic patterns. Do we have a drive thru window? Yes Sir. It is that little knick that is on the right side as you are driving through? Yes Sir. Subdivision Committee July 11, 2002 Page 16 Estes: Folks are going to come in on the south side and they will circulate, they will have parking available and then will circulate around the back through the drive thru? Love: If they are sit down they can also exit straight south without going around. Estes: They will come around, go through the drive-thru and exit south, ok. Bunch: All traffic has to go around the building, right? Ward: No. They could park here and come back out. Bunch: The arrow is misleading. Love: That is misleading, you are right. It is intending that this east lot be ingress and egress, we'll get another arrow in there. Conklin- There is adequate aisle width for 90° turning in the spaces. Ward: How wide is that curb cut? Conklin: It is 39' and it has a 15' aisle in and two 12' aisles out for left and right turnouts. Ward: Ok. I guess we need to start off with commercial design standards on the things that we need to look at. Mark, why don't you kind of give us a breakdown of what materials and colors are being used. Love: I can only tell you what the developer has submitted to me. I don't pretend to know anything about architecture. Ward: Ok. Love: I don't know how many of you have this. Ward: Nobody. We haven't seen this before. It is very important that we kind of look at this. Love: As far as I know it is just a generic KFC. They do call them KFCs, not Kentucky Fried Chicken, there is no such thing as a Kentucky Fried Chicken, their name is KFC. One of the things that Sara pointed out to us in our Technical review is the freezer in the back here, which they had not originally proposed being of the same material as the building, is now the same material as the building. We were able to get with the freezer suppliers and they have a way to do that. Subdivision Committee July 11, 2002 Page 17 Ward: Edwards: Ward: Edwards: Ward: Edwards: Ward: Edwards: Love: Conklin: Love: Conklin: Bunch: Conklin: Are we looking at split faced block, E.F.LS., glass? Can you help us out? Do you have any idea? It is scoured. It is a smooth faced concrete block which is scoured down the middle. If you have seen the KFC on College they use that same material on the bottom. That is what the base is and then the rest of it is E.F.I.S. and where you see the scours up above where the sign is, that is E.F.I.S. as well. What about the signage on the building? They have got a KFC sign on the east and west side and then the face of the Colonel I guess on the front. I have checked with our Sign Division about their sign ordinance. We do have a free standing sign proposed, 21' tall. It is located behind the driveway out so technically it does meet the setbacks with regard to height. We are still asking for a determination of commercial design standards with that sign though. Ok. If we approve the pole sign it has to be shown on the plat also right? Yes, it is. Is it the same sign they have on their other KFCs size wise? We can check on that prior to Planning Commission. I don't know the size. You will see the chart at the top. The supplier supplies lots of different sizes and will say pick one that will fit on the Fayetteville standards. I am sure that any other KFC anywhere else is very similar. It may be larger or smaller or whatever to fit the size standards that are in place at the time. This one meets the current regulations. We would like to make sure that your client is aware that we do allow a monument sign 10' back from the right of way, 6' tall and 75 sq.ft. It allows for that reduced setback if it is a monument sign. I believe that J.D. China, we approved a pole sign and then they went back and put a monument sign in because of visibility. They were aware of the two options that they had but this is what they chose to do. It seems like it is right in front of the Colonel on the building. It seem rather redundant. I am not sure how high the Colonel is on the building. He may have a sign right in front of his face, his face in front of his face. Subdivision Committee July 11, 2002 Page 18 Ward: As far as I am concerned we have approved very similar KFCs already in the city of Fayetteville so it will be a good project. Some people on the Planning Commission are avidly against pole signs so you can expect that. Bunch: It is 16' to the top of his head and about 15' to the top of this one. It will be a head on top of a head. Motion: Estes: I would move that we forward to the full Commission LSD 02-18.00 subject to all staff comments and with the additional comment that we need to do something with regard to the detention pond and the drainage and perhaps the applicant would consider a monument sign as opposed to the pole sign for the reasons that have been discussed. Love: Ok, I will bring that to his attention. Bunch: Before I second, since there is an existing KFC facility within rock throwing distance down the street, it begs the question of why. Why do we want to build a new one when there is one right down the street with a for sale sign on it. Love: I have been told that when the guy that owned the KFCs around Northwest Arkansas went bankrupt and K -Mac picked up a lot of those stores, something was attached to the prior sell of that somehow it had to be separated out of the package deal when K -Mac picked them up. I don't know the details of that but that is what I was told. I am sure that if it would've been included they would have rather remodeled it than build new but it just wasn't an option to continue it to be a KFC the way I understand it. Bunch: That was my thoughts when I first looked at this and then whey I drove by to see it. I saw the For Sale sign on the existing one and I thought maybe the existing one had been tied up in some sort of bankruptcy problem and may not have been available. Since it is on the open market now it just seems rather...the question has to be asked why build a new one when there is a fairly recent model right down the street. Love: We were wondering that ourselves. I can't tell you because I really don't know. Ward: Ok, are there any other questions or concerns? Bunch: No and I will second. Ward: I would suggest also Mark that it is always good for us to bring the materials and colors and so on. Subdivision Committee July 11, 2002 Page 19 Love: We submitted one to the city, what has happened to all of that? We had that and submitted it. Edwards: With the second revisions or the first? Love: The first. Edwards: I would also request that you provide color elevations with the materials called out before the Planning Commission meeting. Ward: Thanks for all you've done to get this thing done. Subdivision Committee July 11, 2002 Page 20 LSD 02-19.00: Large Scale Development (Southwestern Bell Telephone, pp 484) was submitted by Larry Bates of Canino Peckham & Associates on behalf of Southwestern Bell Telephone for property located at 138 N. East Avenue. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and contains approximately 0.25 acres. The request is for an emergency generator, fuel tank and transformer. Ward: The last item on the agenda is LSD 02-19.00 for Southwestern Bell Telephone submitted by Larry Bates of Canino Peckham & Associates on behalf of Southwestern Bell Telephone for property located at 138 N. East Avenue. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and contains approximately 0.25 acres. The request is for an emergency generator, fuel tank, and transformer. Sara? Edwards: At Monday, July 8, 2002 the Conditional Use for this proposal was approved. You will recall as part of this request the dumpsters being relocated and landscaping being added along Spring. They are adding an emergency generator, fuel tank, and transformer. Basically we are recommending approval subject to the conditions of the approved Conditional Use, and I did include those conditions so that we could all recall what they were. In addition to that, we are requesting a replacement of sidewalk sections along Spring Street. Ward: Ok. So we have two main conditions. Matt, is there anything concerning Engineering? Casey: No comment. Ward: Keith, you might talk a little bit about the sidewalk situation. Shreve: The two west of the alley, the existing Southwestern Bell building, there is an existing 5' sidewalk. Portions of that sidewalk are broke and deteriorated and we are asking that those sections be removed and replaced. I would also ask that on the drawing here that we define the sidewalk along the north of the project or the south side of Spring Street. They are showing access ramps through the curbs but we would like a line actually defining a sidewalk through this concrete section. Ward: Ok, Kim with Landscaping? Hesse: Everything is as good as we could expect on something like this. Bates: Kim, we may come back and ask for a substitute for an evergreen because we don't want the leaves to get inside the enclosure. That is just a possibility. I am not sure if we would do that yet. Ward: Ok. I will open it up to the public and seeing no one here from the public I will close it to the public and bring it back to the applicant and the Committee. Subdivision Committee July 11, 2002 Page 21 Bunch: If this is open top structure with chain link fence on the south end correct? Bates: Yes. Bunch: Basically this brick wall is for security screening in lieu of a chain link fence and the question I have is on the design standards if we would actually save on the amount of brick used if you use kind of a lattice work design on putting it up. Bates: When we use lattice work people can climb it and it doesn't look as good and it is harder to maintain. You have got the upper joints and the openings in the spring. Estes: Commissioner Bunch, is your concern the unarticulated wall surface? Bunch: Yes Sir. Estes: Can we put some banding? Bates: We could put a soldier course. If you look at the other building, this building, it looks like it has a stucco cap on top of it but there again it is across the alley and three stories. Estes: Would that satisfy your concerns Commissioner Bunch, a banding of stucco? Bunch: That might help, just something to break up the unarticulated wall. Bates: It doesn't show up in that photograph but we have a soldier course at the top of that. Bunch: Estes: Bates: It is this brick that is turned up on edge. It is 8" tall verses the normal 2 1/3 inches. Estes: You provide a banding at the top? Bates: Those just sit on end. Conklin: Is that what this line is supposed to represent right here? Some of the Commissioners did express design concerns at the full Planning Commission meeting when we considered the conditional use. Since this one is recommended for approval at this level I wanted to follow up on their desires to have some means of articulating this structure. Help me out here. When you say soldiering, are we talking about a blemished bond or what are we talking about here? Subdivision Committee July 11, 2002 Page 22 Bates: Yes. That looks like a shadow line actually. This is just a real rough sketch. That is basically the way it would look with those up on ends. Ward: Don, do you think that would satisfy the Commercial Design Standards? Bunch: I cannot speak for Commissioners Hoover and Allen but they seemed to have considerable concerns over it. Bates: We could put additional soldier courses in there. We really don't like to recess anything back in here because of the mortar joint and the freeze/thaw cycles that the mortar goes through right there but we can do that. Bunch: One of the saving courses is that it would blend with the existing building. Bates: Just about anything will blend with that building. The upper floor, they obviously couldn't match the brick that the original building was and then when they added onto it they got a blend. Ward: How long and how tall is that wall? Bates: It is 57' long and 39'6" wide. It is 8' from the equipment pad itself and then the lot slopes approximately 2'. Ward: Mr. Bunch would you like to make a recommendation? Bunch: I don't want to get in the business of designing. Estes: A masonry cap on the wall. Bunch: It has that soldier course and that is not really a cap. It has another course behind it that is a cap. Bates: It has got basically a roll off on top of it to keep the water out. Bunch: If I am not mistaken it is a concrete block with brick veneer? Bates: That is right. Bunch: That is a pretty stout fence. I am pretty much satisfied unless one of you wants to take a shot at satisfying the concerns that our fellow Commissioners had about being an entryway to the downtown area and that sort of thing. We do have landscaping on the north end. Not much has been said about the west side of it. Basically the west side will look like the east side with the exception of a door. Subdivision Committee July 11, 2002 Page 23 Motion: Estes: The Commercial Design Standards do not apply to this LSD. Commissioner Bunch is correct. I feel like we have been charged by the full Commission to get this right. I am as satisfied as I think I can be considering the site and considering the purpose and considering I see Mr Conklin nodding his head at my comments. I would move for approval of LSD 02-19.00 subject to all staff conditions of approval and of course subject to all the conditions of approval stated in the Conditional Use. Ward: Do I have a second? Bunch: I will second. Ward: I will concur. I appreciate all your help with this project. I think it is going to be a much nicer project than what it originally was and it will benefit the whole city. Bunch: It has a one year sunset clause on it but the way this thing has been rolling apparently it won't need it. When do we expect delivery of the generator? Bates: Maybe as late as October. That is the critical path, the generator. It has to be completed this year. It takes them a while, they move kind of slow. It has been ordered but it has not been built yet. Bunch: The generator will have to be placed before all the screening and fencing goes in or are you going to crane it over? Bates: They may leave one side of it out until they get it in. Bunch: 1.5 megs is a good size power plant. Bates: Yes. Ward: With that, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.