HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-17 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on July 17, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. in room
326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN
FPL 03-04.00: Final Plat
(Cornerstone Subdivision, pp 402)
Page 2
LSD 03-18.00: Large Scale Development
(Mitch Massey, pp 363)
Page 9
LSD 03-19.00: Large Scale Development
(Regions Bank, pp 174)
Page 16
ADM 03-18.00: Administrative Item
(Walgreen's/Shiloh, pp 135)
Page 23
Approved
Forwarded
Approved
Tabled
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Don Bunch
Nancy Allen
Alan Ostner
STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT
Dawn Warrick
Matt Casey
Jeremy Pate
Renee Thomas
Craig Carnagey
Rebecca Ohman
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 2
FPL 03-04.00: Final Plat (Cornerstone Subdivision, pp 402) was submitted by
Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Lindsey Properties for property located west of
Porter Road and south of Megan Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density
Residential and RMF -12, Moderate Density Multi -Family Residential and contains
approximately 15.34 acres with 10 lots proposed.
Bunch: Good morning. Welcome to the Thursday, July 17th meeting of our
Fayetteville Subdivision Committee. Lot Split for Copher 03-46.00 and
Preliminary Plat for Crofton Manor have been tabled. The first item is a
Final Plat submitted by Jorgensen & Associates. Jeremy, can you give us
the staff report on that please?
Pate:
Yes Sir, this property is 15.34 acres. There are ten proposed lots, nine lots
are for single-family homes and one lot is for required detention and
apartments as approved with an associated large scale development. That
large scale was approved October 28, 2002 along with the Preliminary Plat
for this subdivision. Surrounding zoning is RSF 4, RMF 24 which used to
be R-1 and R-2. Water lines and existing sewer lines are available along
Porter Road. Right of way being dedicated on the plat is 35' from
centerline for Porter Road, which is a collector on the Master Street Plan.
Also at Lawson street there is 50' right of way. Street improvements
proposed is 15' from centerline with curb, gutter and storm drainage. The
recommendation at this time from staff is approval at the Subdivision
Committee level. There are nine conditions of approval and I will read
over those for you. 1) Right of way for Lawson Street, which is 50 for
Porter Road shall be dedicated with the Final Plat. 2) All addresses for
each lot must be indicated on the Final Plat. 3) The applicant shall
provide provisions for maintenance of the detention pond on the Final
Plat. 4) A 20' drainage easement shall be required for the proposed storm
water pipes pursuant to utility representative's request. 5) All FEMA
requirements and the City of Fayetteville flood damage protection
ordinance must be met prior to Final Plat approval. This includes all lots
having 6,000 sq.ft. of buildable area outside of the floodplain which will
require a letter of map revision approved by FEMA. The letter of map
revision will need to be approved prior to Final Plat being filed. 6)
Installation of a 6' tall fence or privet hedge along the north property line
prior to Final Plat signatures. This is not required by the City of
Fayetteville but was offered by the applicant in a Bill of Assurance after
working with adjacent neighbors. Items seven through nine are standard
conditions of approval. 10) Payment of parks fees in the amount of
$4,230 is due before filing the Final Plat.
Bunch: Thank you Jeremy. Engineering, are there any additional comments?
Have they had their final inspection?
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 3
Casey:
Jorgensen:
Warrick:
Jorgensen:
Casey:
Bunch:
Casey:
Bunch:
Jorgensen:
Warrick:
Jorgensen:
Warrick:
Jorgensen:
Yes, they had the final inspection Tuesday I believe. There were some
minor items to be taken care of and those are being worked on as we
speak. I do need to add one more comment to the Final Plat, if you could
add a comment saying that the maximum residential driveway width shall
not exceed 24'.
Shall not exceed 24'?
That is measured at the right of way line for a driveway because we expect
it to flair out or have a radius to actually intersect with the street for any
residential drive.
Oh, any residential drive coming onto the street, I've got it, a 24' max.
Not for the large scale, just for the single family lots.
Thank you Matt. Craig, did you have any comments on this one?
Nothing additional.
At this time do you have any questions?
Item number ten on the parks fees, nine lots at $470, the apartments are
missing in that.
The apartments should've been paid prior to the issuance of a building
permit for that Large Scale so we are only trying to cover the nine single
family lots that are being created.
Surely that was done prior to permit.
It was for the large scale so we are only trying to accommodate the nine
single family lots with this requirement.
We have all the items addressed except one of them, item number four a
LOMR F will need to be approved prior to the Final Plat being filed. I
called down and it turns out that it could be October or November and
maybe on into the end of the year before a LOMB F can be approved
depending on their work load. The paperwork has been done and we are
kind of waiting for a few minor things to be done before we can dot the I's
cross the is and send it off. It could be a while until this thing is approved
by FEMA. In which case, what we thought we could do is we put a note
and I don't think this is on your plat unless you have a revised version
right here. First of all, let me back up, note number one, the detention
pond shall be maintained by the owner of lot 10 which is the apartment
project. Note number two, no building permits shall be issued on lots five
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 4
through nine until a LOMR F is approved by FEMA. We were hoping to
accomplish the finalization of this plat by this method and that way we can
ensure two things, the Final Plat could be finalized so that we could
proceed on with all the rest of the things that we need to do with the Large
Scale Development. That by the way, is the problem with this right here.
Number two, we can ensure that these lots five through nine cannot be
built on until the LOMR F is approved. We handled it this way on another
project I believe.
Warrick: I talked with Dave and also Jim Beavers who is our floodplain
administrator now with regard to this and he had indicated that reserving
any permitting on those affected lots until the time that FEMA has
approved the letter of map amendment would be adequate. We have
treated other projects in that manner because of the time delay that it takes
to get FEMA's final approval on those types of revisions.
Jorgensen: In fact, they didn't even commit that it would be done this year if we got
the information down to them within the next week or two.
Casey: If you could just submit to us correspondence with the Corp., maybe a
letter of transmittal or something showing that you have sent the study to
them.
Jorgensen: I have the information, we are right on the verge of taking it over to Jim
for his review and signature and we can do that.
Casey: If we know that it is done and it is in their hands and just waiting their
approval then I think we can sign off on it.
Jorgensen: The thing that I wanted to point out is that we do state on the Final Plat
that no building permits could be issued for these lots so it kind of locks it
up. There is no way they can do anything on those lots until this is
approved.
Warrick: Staff would be comfortable with amending number five with those
provisions. Basically, as stated on the plat no permits would be issued on
any lot affected by the 100 -year floodplain without final approval from
FEMA on the letter of map revision.
Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience
who would like to address this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to
the Committee. Maybe we have a different copy of the plat but I don't see
these notes that we have been discussing on the copy in front of us.
Jorgensen: I thought that this was submitted. It was brought to the Preliminary Plat
stage and then they weren't ready for final inspection and so it kind of
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 5
floated for two or three sessions and since then evidently the revised final
plats had not been forwarded but we have addressed these comments. As I
mentioned, the detention pond maintenance, the note about no building
permits being issued. The only item I don't have on here is the maximum
24' driveway width and we can add that. All addresses have been added
to the lots. The only item that hasn't been done is the installation of the 6'
tall fence and that was offered by the owner and has to be done prior to
Final Plat sign off.
Bunch: Another question since you are showing lot 10 being everything other than
the nine residential lots, is that accurate as showing that everything else is
part of the apartment complex?
Jorgensen: Yes Sir.
Bunch:
Warrick:
Bunch:
Jorgensen:
Is there any reason not to have the roads and driveways and such from the
apartment complex on here, is that necessary on the Final Plat?
It is not necessary on the Final Plat because it was shown on the Large
Scale Development approved for Lot 10.
This is basically just showing the lots and the public infrastructure, it
doesn't need to show the private?
Public infrastructure is the key word. In the platting process we wanted to
show the fact that there are nine residential lots and lot 10 is just what was
left. The LSD was handled separately.
Bunch: Commissioners, are there any other comments or questions?
Ostner: Since the parks fees for the apartments aren't being dealt with today
Warrick: They have been paid with the Large Scale development prior to building
permits being issued for that. That apartment development is almost
complete if not fully complete. We do not issue building permits on Large
Scales until parks fees have been paid if it is a residential project. We
need to check the assessment on the single family lots and staff can handle
that depending on when the Preliminary Plat went through the process the
assessment may be appropriate at the $555 per single family lot level, it is
the timing that is in question. We need to verify whether it is $470 or
$555. The applicant understands that it depends on the time frame but
staff will collect the appropriate fee.
Allen: Will very many trees be removed in order to build this project?
Bunch: It is already built.
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 6
Allen:
Bunch:
Warrick:
I mean for the homes.
That is up to the individual owner.
Right, any trees remaining on the nine single-family lots will be owned by
the individual lot owners and they will have discretion at the time of
development as to how to build out their lot with a single family home.
Once the subdivision is processed and finaled those trees become the
property of those lot owners and for a single-family lot we do not require a
tree preservation plan.
Jorgensen: However, to answer your question there are not very many trees on lots
one through nine except on that very north border. That is the reason we
don't have a utility easement along the north boundary line because we are
trying to protect those. It will be front utility service. There is nice
buildable areas right there, the places where they need to build the houses
such that they won't have to knock down very many trees if any at all I
don't think.
Warrick: Hopefully those trees that were preserved by moving the utility easements
to the front of the lots in the process of the development for the
subdivision will remain preserved because there is adequate buildable area
without disturbing them when the lots are developed.
Ostner: This screen fence or privet that is in the Bill of Assurance, there was a lot
of talk last October about are we going to have to tear out the good thick
screen that is there to build another screen, has there been any progress or
decisions regarding that?
Jorgensen: I don't know if there has been any more discussion on that. I will say that
you are right, Richard Maynard questioned the need for a privet hedge in
there. If you are going to have to end up taking out something that
provides good screen now what is the use of it. There may be some areas
that are open that they could put more hedge or a privacy fence and that
needs to be worked out prior to the actual signing of the Final Plat. You
are right, there are some areas that are very thick and they didn't want to
get in there for that reason. I will let Lindy and Richard Maynard work
that out.
Bunch:
Warrick:
Is there a comparable situation to that on the south side, isn't there a hedge
there and a creek or something like that?
With the Large Scale they did some additional planting down there too.
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 7
Jorgensen:
Bunch:
Warrick:
Bunch:
Jorgensen:
Bunch:
Jorgensen:
Bunch:
Jorgensen:
Bunch:
Ostner:
Jorgensen:
Ostner:
Warrick:
Yes they did. There is some additional planting plus there is the creek and
a real thick border of trees along that creek right there that provides a real
good barrier between that and the trailer park.
I thought it came up as houses.
There is actually a trailer park there to the south.
I was thinking about the part right up next to Porter Road there where it
backs up to the duplexes and houses on Valley. This goes all the way
through there.
We did protect quite a few trees there on the west side of Porter and they
are going to be planting some more.
On condition 9D on the street lights are you going to install them or do a
certified check?
I can't recall if the street lights are in but naturally if they are not then they
will get a certified check. I know they have got the underground electric
in and usually what they do is they pay the street lights and the
underground electric all at the same time so my guess is that that is all
paid for and we can get you a copy of the receipt of payment.
There is still enough construction activity going on that it probably
wouldn't be good to have the street lights there amongst all the dump
trucks and backhoes anyway.
That is true, there is a lot going on there.
Not having a copy of the final plat showing all of these but they are
detailed in the conditions and I guess we will have to add a condition of
approval when we make a motion reflecting Matt's comments about
restricting driveways to a 24' width. Do I hear a motion?
Before I make a motion I still am unclear whether we need to add that the
detention pond will be maintained by the owner of lot 10. Is that going to
be on your plat?
Yes Sir. I have this note number one here that I was reading. "Detention
pond shall be maintained by owner of lot 10."
This LOMR FEMA is that addressed adequately?
There will be an amendment to condition number five.
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 8
Ostner: Do we alter number five to say we don't sell lots five through nine?
Warrick:
Ostner:
Jorgensen:
MOTION:
Ostner:
Allen:
Bunch:
Jorgensen:
No permits.
No permits will be issued on lots five through nine.
Right. "No permits will be issued on lots five through nine until a LOMR
F is approved by FEMA
I will make a motion that we approve FPL 03-04.00 changing condition
number five to include no building permits will be issued on lots five
through nine until the LOMR F has been approved by FEMA and adding a
condition of the actual 24' residential driveway width measured at the
right of way line for lots one through nine.
I will second.
I will concur.
Thank you.
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 9
LSD 03-18.00: Large Scale Development (Mitch Massey, pp 363) was submitted by
Brett Watts of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Mitchell Massey for property
located in Lot 6, Pine Valley S/D Ph. V. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential
Multi -family, 24 units per acre (R-2, Medium Density Residential) and contains
approximately 1.90 acres. The request is to build a two story 4-plex with 3 bedrooms
each for a total of 12 bedrooms.
Bunch: The next item of business would've been a lot split for Copher but it has
been tabled so we will move onto item three of the agenda. Large Scale
Development 03-18.00 for Mitch Massey submitted by Brett Watts of
Engineering Design Associates for property located in lot six of Pine
Valley subdivision Phase V. Is there a staff report on that please?
Pate:
Yes Sir. The applicant is proposing to build a two story four plex with
three bedrooms each for a total of 12 bedrooms. It is a 1.9 acre lot six of
Pine Valley Phase V subdivision. The property is going through Large
Scale Development. It is over one acre and there is a note on the Final
Plat that this lot is required to go through Large Scale Development. The
original Final Plat was approved on April 22, 2002 for five lots to be
developed with duplexes and lot six, the subject property, be developed
with a four plex. At that time concerns by neighboring residents that the
four plex would be out of character with the duplex developed
neighborhood was discussed by Planning Commission and the minutes
regarding that discussion are in your packets. The density here is 2.1 units
per acre and that is allowed in an RMF -24 zoning district. There are
twelve bedrooms, there are twelve parking spaces required. They have
met that requirement along with one ADA space. The land use and zoning
around this site is single family homes, duplex homes and industrial
warehouse to the east. Water and sewer are available along Wildwood
Drive and a 50' total right of way for Wildwood Drive exists currently,
25' from centerline for this property. Included in the development are
street improvements to include a 4' sidewalk and a 6' greenspace. Access
to the four units is proposed by means of one 24' curb cut from Wildwood
Drive. Tree preservation existing is 8.95% which is what is being
preserved and that does meet the requirement. Staff's recommendation at
this time is to forward to the full Planning Commission based on ten
conditions of approval. I will go over those for you. 1) A variance shall
be granted by the Board of Adjustment for lack of frontage to meet the
bulk and area requirements in an RMF -24 zoning district prior to final
approval. A minimum of 90' of lot width for three or more residential
dwellings is required in the RMF -24 zoning district. 2) All trash
enclosures shall be screened on three sides with access not visible from the
street. The dumpster location shall be relocated outside of the drainage
easement and shall not encroach on the required 24' access drive. 3) No
work shall be performed within the floodplain without a formal floodplain
development permit issued by the city floodplain administrator. 4) The
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 10
location of plantings within the drainage easement shall be coordinated
with the Landscape Administrator. Items five and six are standard
conditions of approval. 7) Payment of parks fees in the amount of
$22,500 for the Pine Valley Final Plat was paid on April 5, 2001 and no
additional parks fees are due at this time. Items eight through ten are
standard conditions of approval.
Bunch: Thank you Jeremy. Engineering, are there any additional comments?
Casey: Nothing additional.
Bunch: Tree and landscaping?
Carnagey: No additional.
Bunch: I do have a question for you before we get into the rest of it. The numbers
for tree preservation, they are actually showing trees removed but not any
change in the percentage of coverage.
Watts: Any trees removed are on lot five that is just adjoining lot six.
Bunch: How about tree 18?
Carnagey: That is not being removed. That is within the boundaries of the tree
protection fencing shown on the grading and tree preservation plan as well
as tree number 17.
Bunch: Ok, so the cloud is tree preservation area and not canopy area or what does
the scalloped line represent?
Watts: That represents the tree canopy per the aerial, the city topo map. None of
that canopy actually is any trees of any significance. It is all 1" and 2"
caliper trees.
Carnagey: I've been to the site as well and verified that.
Bunch: Ok, it wasn't readily apparent so I had questions about that. I guess the
driveway, that will be tree preservation area, the ones that are included
within that existing canopy line?
Carnagey: Yes.
Bunch: If you would introduce yourself and give us the benefit of your
presentation if you have one.
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 11
Watts: My name is Brett Watts, I am with Engineering Design Associates
representing Mr. Massey. This really should be a straight forward LSD. It
has already been pre -designated to be a four plex via the Final Plat. We
have met the requirements of the variance for the frontage width which we
are in the process of getting. That is all I have.
Bunch: Alright, thank you Brett. At this time we will take public comment if
there is anyone who would like to address us on this. If you would please
come up and speak in this microphone here.
Jensen: I am Sue Jensen, I represent the Pine Valley neighborhood association.
We are, as you can see on our plat, a very small area. We are strictly
duplexes. This would be the only piece of housing, which cannot grow
anymore, that would be different. You are talking about tree canopy,
you've already ripped the tree canopy down so there really isn't much to
deal with there. We are very concerned about having a four plex, twelve
bedrooms in our neighborhood. That means 20 cars. We already have
problems on our street. You can't go back down in the floodplain, there
aren't many places to go and we are very unhappy with having one single
unit in 72 that there is no way in heaven's name that it can match anything
that we have. We would like you to reconsider that very strongly. Don't
stick us with one odd piece on development that has been there ten years.
That's about the extent of it. We would like you to rethink that. We
realize that it is allowed but that doesn't mean that it is a good idea for us
and we would like you to take that under consideration. Thank you.
Bunch: Thank you Sue. Is there any additional public comment? At this time we
will close it to the public comment and bring it back to the Committee for
comments and questions. I will start it off with since traffic is an issue,
staff can you bring us up to date on the traffic survey that is under way and
the treatment of I guess one of the questions would be the intersection
with access to this neighborhood, the Porter Road interchange and then
another would be the future extension of Shiloh Drive, the access road.
Warrick: What I can tell you with regard to that is that I know that the interchange
at Porter, Mount Comfort and I-540 has been identified as a problematic
intersection and is being studied by the consultants. I am not sure the
condition or the status of further study with regard to the extension of
Shiloh Drive. It has been on the city's Master Street Plan for quite a long
time to be extended. A bridge will be required in order to make that
extension. At this point in time we have had two public hearings with the
consultants and they have been working at the direction of staff to bring
forward some preliminary findings. My understanding is the next time we
will see the consultants in a public meeting will be when it is presented to
the Planning Commission, the transportation study for the city. That is the
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 12
best I know with regard to a status report. I believe early August is what
we are looking at as far as that coming forward.
Bunch: I guess the hold up on the extension of Shiloh would be development of
the undeveloped areas since development drives the road building. I think
don't we already have considerable donations for the bridge from previous
development?
Warrick: If I remember correctly fees have been assessed for the subdivisions that
are in that area to be contributed towards the construction of that bridge.
Obviously, they won't build the bridge with those fees. That won't be
enough to do it. That is just a contribution. It will likely be required to be
placed on a capital improvements list in order to actually have that project
completed depending on what other development we may see. There is
some industrial property that is undeveloped I believe and also some
residential property along the bypass through that area that is still vacant
and I would expect to see development on that at some point in time. Now
those properties could wait it out and see if the city goes ahead and builds
that connection. It really is going to depend on timing in order to
understand more about what will happen there.
Bunch: What latitude do we have on design standards or anything on
compatibility with the neighborhood since that is an issue? I know on
some other projects we have taken a look at that, they were probably
Conditional Use projects.
Warrick: You have much more latitude on a Conditional Use project. This is a
Large Scale, we do not have residential design standards. The issue of the
density of this development has been discussed. As Ms. Jensen said, it
was talked about when the Final Plat went through the process and at the
time of the Final Plat if I remember correctly, and I have been reviewing
the minutes, the applicant's engineer indicated that the property owner at
the time, and it may be a different property owner now, I'm not sure,
didn't know whether or not they wanted to construct two duplexes or one
four plex but they wanted the flexibility and the Planning Commission
granted the flexibility in approving the plat that was specifically noted that
this lot could contain a four plex. When you look at the density it is less
dense but as Ms. Jensen said, it is different than the primary development
within that area which is duplexes. That issue has been looked at in the
past. At this point in time you are looking at a lot that has zoning and size
to accommodate a four plex and that was the expectation back in April,
2002 when the plat was approved. I don't know that you have the ability
to say we can't approve this because it is a four plex. This particular
development is staying outside of the floodplain.
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 13
Bunch:
For purpose of discussion, with the landscaping plan and the tree
preservation area the visibility of this structure will be considerably
diminished. It looks like the only thing you are going to be able to see
will be the parking lot because this adjacent lot looks like lot one, I think it
has a pretty sizeable fence around it so this will actually be tucked back in
a corner and will be shielded somewhat, screened by the existing fence
and by the tree preservation area. I guess what we are really looking at as
far as visibility and changing appearance in the neighborhood would be
more the parking lot than the building because I don't know that the
building is that visible.
Ostner: And the traffic.
Bunch: And the traffic.
Warrick:
At the time that the Final Plat was approved there was a lot of discussion
of whether or not this lot should be divided into two lots for duplexes on
each lot. If you look at it from a traffic standpoint you are looking
basically at the same thing, two duplexes each containing three bedrooms
or four bedrooms. There is really no specification as to the maximum
number of bedrooms that a person can build within a duplex or one four
plex with the proposed twelve bedrooms. It can be disbursed in either
scenario with the same number of vehicles. Traffic generated by multi-
family development is generally calculated at about seven vehicle trips per
day per unit. In this case you would be looking at about 28 vehicle trips
per day if it were two duplexes the same calculation would apply.
Bunch: I think part of that consideration also had to do with combining two lots
because of frontage issues and allowing the four plex or the two duplexes
as opposed to having two lots.
Warrick: That was in question. The amount of frontage on this particular lot really
is not adequate for either scenario. There is less than 90' of frontage on a
street because of the curve in Wildwood Drive and because of the
triangular nature of the adjoining lots. In either one of the situations a
variance would be necessary in order to provide adequate frontage for
development on this lot unless it were a single-family home. That is
condition number one in your staff report, referencing that need for a
variance on the minimum frontage for this lot.
Ostner: Lot five will not be developed or could be developed? It says not part of
this submittal. Is it being included in the tree preservation plans?
Warrick: It should not, no.
Ostner: Ok, so it could be developed.
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 14
Warrick:
Casey:
Ostner:
Bunch:
Warrick:
Bunch:
Warrick:
Ostner:
Bunch:
Ostner:
Bunch:
Lot five is a stand alone lot and it has approval to be developed as a
duplex.
They are just showing that because of the grading that goes off of lot six to
lot five. Otherwise they would have to submit a separate grading plan just
for that lot so they are including it all in this.
From a neighborhood standpoint it concerns me that we equate an
apartment building with two duplexes. A duplex is a lot more like a house
and when you stack them up the nature is completely different. It is an
apartment building. I know the traffic count is just seven plus seven is the
same but it is not. I wasn't here in April. I think I would not have voted
to allow this to happen. I don't think this is good for the neighborhood
and I wish it hadn't been approved. It has been allowed for in April, 2002
for this to be a four plex. I don't want to approve it but I don't have a way
not to. That is not a motion, I'm just illustrating.
Our job at this level is not to approve anyway, just to get it in shape to
forward to the full Planning Commission for its decision and have more
public comment and discuss these issues. If we are primarily looking at
nuts and bolts and taking public comment and bring issues forward so that
there is a record of them.
Because this lot requires a variance in order for it to be developed we
don't feel that it is appropriate for the Subdivision Committee to approve.
We feel like it needs to have the full Planning Commission approval.
And also the Board of Adjustment.
Correct.
Just as another related subject that is not really related I don't think a two
story apartment building should be counted as a residential building and
that is part of our code I hope we can address. We have commercial
design standards that don't apply to apartment buildings and that doesn't
make sense to me. It is not a residential unit. A duplex I could almost see
being called a residential unit, it is a residential unit.
How do you explain a multi -story single-family dwelling?
It is single-family residential, the tenure is completely different from an
apartment building.
What about a multi -story duplex?
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 15
Ostner: Well, it does get fuzzy
Bunch:
Ostner:
Bunch:
MOTION:
Ostner:
Allen:
Bunch:
Those are laws and regulations.
I hear you. There again, I wish we could address how it looks.
Do we have any other comments specific to this project? Do I hear a
motion to do something with this project?
Seeing as it seems to be in order I will make a motion that we forward
LSD 03-18.00 to the Planning Commission.
I will second.
I will concur. There will also be public hearings associated with
forwarding it to the Planning Commission and also public hearings for the
variance to the Board of Adjustment. There will be more opportunities for
public comment on this.
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 16
LSD 03-19.00: Large Scale Development (Regions Bank, pp 174) was submitted by
Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Regions Bank for property located at Lot 8A
Vantage Square. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains
approximately 3.822 acres.
Bunch: The next item on the agenda would've been a Preliminary Plat for Crofton
Manner but that has been tabled so we will proceed to item five on our
original agenda which is a LSD 03-19.00 for Regions Bank submitted by
Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Regions Bank for property located
at lot 8A of Vantage Square on Joyce Blvd. Who has the staff report on
this one?
Pate:
The request for this property is a Large Scale Development for Regions
Bank on lot 8 of Vantage Square. The proposal includes a financial
center, drive through banking and other associated banking practices with
Vantage Drive to serve the development and future developments.
Surrounding zoning is C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and most of the
surrounding land use around this site is currently vacant. Right of way
being dedicated is 55' from centerline for Joyce Blvd. and 70' for the full
Vantage Drive extension pursuant to Master Street Plan requirements.
Street improvements proposed are construction of a public collector street
pursuant to the Master Street Plan with pavement, curb and gutter, storm
sewer and sidewalks. The Master Street Plan streets adjacent to this site
are Joyce Blvd. which is a full 110' right of way on the Master Street Plan
and then they are proposing the extension of Vantage Drive. Staff's
recommendation at this time is approval at the Subdivision Committee
level with eleven conditions of approval. I will go over those for you. 1)
The right of way for Joyce Blvd, 55' from centerline and Vantage Drive,
which is 70', shall be dedicated with the plat approval. 2) Planning
Commission determination of compliance with commercial design
standards. I do have color elevations. 3) Trash enclosures shall be
screened on three sides with access not visible from the street. 4) All
mechanical and utility equipment shall be screened, all roof mounted
utilities and mechanical equipment shall be screened by incorporating that
screen into the structure utilizing materials compatible with the supporting
building. 5) Setbacks from the property lines may not contain any
structure 30" or greater above the ground level. 6) Proposed signage,
both wall mounted and a monument sign, shall comply with the
commercial design standards. Items seven through eleven are standard
conditions of approval.
Bunch: Thank you Jeremy, are there any additional staff reports from Engineering
or Tree and Landscape? Thank you. At this time we will hear from the
applicant, if you would introduce yourself and tell us all about your
project.
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 17
Kelso: I am Jerry Kelso with Crafton, Tull & Associates. This is a proposed
bank. As you can see by the elevations, it is similar to First Security Bank
that you see on Joyce Street. It is an attractive building. I will answer any
questions that you might have.
Bunch: Thanks Jerry. At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone
in the audience that would like to address us on this issue? Seeing none, I
will bring it back to the Committee. I would like to start off with how
come we don't have a left turn lane for a public street going onto a busy
street, Joyce Street? Is that Vantage that will become a public street?
Staff or Jerry either one.
Kelso:
The only thing I can say is there is a creek back here and whether this
street gets extended or not I don't know. The amount of traffic that this
development would generate would never go out to a left hand turn lane
would never be needed.
Bunch: I go to a bank down the road from this, a little further east that is on the
same side of the road. Coming out of that driveway, which is a private
driveway, they do have a double wide driveway where there is room to
have left and right turns so that the right turners aren't hung up behind
somebody waiting for a left turn. I am just thinking about having that as a
contribution to reducing road rage getting out on Joyce can be frustrating.
The bank itself probably generates, we are looking at five drive through
windows. Apparently they are anticipating a considerable amount of
traffic with that number of drive throughs and it would just seem prudent
to as part of the design, I know it is a public street. If it were a private
drive I would definitely be asking about it because it seems prudent for
customer relations to have a left turn lane. Staff, what is the story on
having a left turn lane for a public street?
Casey: Did you all do any traffic generations?
Warrick: I didn't specifically run a traffic count.
Casey: Just like Jerry said, that has no plans at this time to go all the way through.
Warrick: Vantage Drive is a street that we expect to connect from Zion south and
eventually tie it into Millsap. There are some environmental constraints
with regard to Mud Creek and a bridge necessity to get the street to a final
destination if it actually ends up being built to the Master Street Plan.
Right now half of Vantage is built between Zion and approximately
Steams Street, then there is a large gap where there is no construction and
then at the entrance, the western most entrance to the post office there is a
small area of Vantage Drive that is built. When and if Vantage Drive is
fully built it will be a collector street carrying traffic in that north/south
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 18
Bunch:
Warrick:
corridor and I would expect that this intersection will be signalized and
there will be many improvements necessary in order to signalize the
intersection and to provide for the necessary turning lanes and provisions
needed there with cross walks, signals, street lights. All of that will have
to go into that improvement when Vantage Drive is completed.
Is the primary need for the signalization going to be from the north or do
you think it will be from the future connection to the south?
I think it will probably be driven more from the north because there are
more residential properties involved in properties to the north. There is a
piece on the other side of Mud Creek south of this that is residential but
primarily properties south of Joyce are commercial properties. That is not
to say that the commercial properties wouldn't generate quite a bit of
traffic. It is just that the properties to the north we are looking at multi-
family development and trying to get residential traffic between Zion and
Millsap. At least down to the Joyce Street area I think that may generate
more traffic in the future. The fact that this public street is being built the
entire length of this project is a substantial contribution. There is a lot of
right of way dedication coming from this particular project and a lot of
construction. Typically you only see half of a street built but it just so
happens that the entire right of way falls on this particular lot and this
developer will be building all of the street improvements on both sides.
That is a little bit abnormal, that is not something that we commonly see.
The amount of right of way that is there for Vantage Drive at the
intersection of Joyce on the south side would be adequate for a turn lane to
be installed, there is no question about that. The applicant has gone above
and beyond what we normally require with the amount of infrastructure
they are installing. They are the ones that would benefit and they are the
ones that will suffer for the lack of a left turn lane. They are the ones who
would benefit for the installation of a turn lane.
Bunch: Matt, I know there is no money in the city at this point in time but is there
any way that we can request consideration by the city to as this is being
constructed to cost share as this is being constructed. I hate to see curb,
gutter and everything else put in and then tear it down to redo it because it
is a waste of time, effort and money. Is there any way that we can put a
condition on this to consider that and if the city does not want to provide
the funding at this time to let it go as it stands since the right of way is
there. Just to have the vehicle there if we can save the money in a long
run.
Casey:
I don't think it would be a condition, it would just be a recommendation
for the city to cost share and then staff will make a determination and get
some more information from Crafton & Tull.
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 19
Warrick:
Bunch;
Ostner:
Kelso:
Ostner:
Warrick:
Bunch:
Warrick:
Bunch:
Kelso:
Bunch:
Ostner:
Bunch:
Kelso:
Bunch:
It really is going to be just a 12' lane to provide additional pavement
because the curb, gutter and grading work is already going to be done. It
may not be a very substantial expense.
Is there anything else? That was the first thing I looked at on this. I don't
want to monopolize the whole review of your project with that one issue.
I just wanted to break the ice with it. Is there anything else for the other
Commissioners?
Is there anything built around this?
No, it is open field now. There is a bank to the west. It is basically open
fields on both sides of this so it would kind of be by itself there.
I am thinking of sort of the tree line of the bank that I'm thinking of, the
tree line before the nursing complex.
That is Community Bank. This project is to the west of that. This project
is closer to the post office.
It is down by the creek. Isn't there a proposed trail along there?
There is a trail to the south of this property that is already built. It
accesses Front Street.
Is there any other trail connection on Joyce?
There is a trail along the west side of this creek.
We talked years ago that we were going to have a trail down Joyce and it
crosses Joyce and then connects with the trail along Mud Creek. Then it
crosses and I think there is a trail. Just to help you all figure out where
this thing is because there weren't any signs there, but I think it is right
there by the creek and the trail.
The reason I asked is I am trying to think ahead and gauge how quickly it
will be filled in and the need.
Obviously there is not much in the way to review on tree preservation.
It is our intent to leave the trees in, the Bradford Pears unless you want
them cut down.
I think mother nature kind of took care of a few of those through there. I
think a few of them split this last winter between the wind and the winter.
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 20
I guess that would be the only tree preservation that would be of concern
because the property line to the west stops short of the tree line.
Warrick: I think those trees are actually within the right of way.
Kelso: They are in the right of way in existing easements.
Ostner: That is sort of a question I had. What happens if our Bradford Pears could
be torn up ? These are being counted to meet our standards right?
Kelso: Actually, we are not even required to have a tree preservation plan
because these Bradford Pears are in the existing right of way.
Carnagey: They submitted a waiver on tree preservation on this particular site.
Bunch: If there are no trees then there is no need for that. Are there any
comments on the landscaping or commercial design standards?
Ostner: I guess I was thinking of landscaping. One tree per linear foot of right of
way, I was just wondering if they were being counted.
Kelso: The landscape plan is on sheet 3.
Warrick: There is no preservation because there are no existing trees to preserve.
Everything is new.
Pate: There is a signed tree preservation waiver form in your packets, just so
you know.
Ostner: The question I was trying to get to, which is moot now, is if those got torn
down in a storm would you have to put them back? You won't need to
because you are not even counting them. People ask me that a lot.
Bunch: Are there any other comments on general landscaping? What about
commercial design standards? We are looking at approval at this level. If
you want to describe it and tell us what the materials are since we don't
have a materials board.
Kelso: Here is the front. Basically it is brick and concrete.
Bunch: What is the roofing material?
Kelso: I think it is a metal.
Bunch: Standard seem metal roof?
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 21
Kelso: Right.
Bunch: Does it appear to you commissioners to be any large, out of scale, box like
or unarticulated surfaces or any of that?
Ostner: This seems to match the other development on down.
Warrick: It is similar to the First Security Bank. It is similar or complimentary to
the post office and Arvest Bank is a brick building in that area, the
Lindsey buildings and Community Bank is also brick.
Bunch: What about the sign?
Warrick: It is a monument sign which meets the city's requirements with regard to
size and height and it is required to be setback 10' from the front right of
way line.
Kelso: We have done that and it is shown on the plans.
Bunch: Which means it probably will be obstructed by the landscaping. You have
one wall sign? How many wall signs do you have? You are allowed two
since you have two frontages?
Warrick: Actually, this is not the Overlay District. They are allowed a total of four
wall signs. They can all be on one wall or they can be on four walls or
they can divide those up. They are proposing three total.
Ostner: The main north elevation, what are these three rectangles that would sort
of match the windows but they aren't, I'm just curious.
Kelso: What it is, it's actually a wall there and what you are seeing is the columns
recessed.
Bunch: It is just a relief to match the rest of it. It looks good.
MOTION:
Allen: I think it is an attractive building and I move that we forward LSD 03-
19.00 to the full Planning Commission.
Bunch: Why do you wish to forward it when we can approve it at this level and
the recommendation is for approval at this level. That is why we have
gone through some of the things. Do you not feel comfortable with
approving it at this level?
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 22
Allen: I think it is very attractive and I do feel comfortable with approving it at
this level.
Ostner: I second.
Bunch: Do we have conditions of approval?
Warrick: They didn't receive the staff report until today so I'm sure barring any
issue we will have.
Kelso:
Bunch:
Ostner:
Warrick:
As the applicant's representative we will sign the conditions and agree to
those conditions.
In that case, I will concur.
A quick question before we move on. What is the difference in allowing
us to approve at this level?
The bylaws don't allow the Subdivision Committee to approve anything
final at this level if there are any outstanding issues or waivers or if you
just simply choose to forward it to the full Planning Commission.
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 23
ADM 03-18.00: Administrative Item (Walgreen's/Shiloh, pp 135) was submitted by
CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Walgreen's for property located at 3939 N.
Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains
approximately 1.58 acres. The request is to amend signage and landscaping items within
the approved Large Scale Development, LSD02-24.00.
Bunch: The next item on the agenda is an administrative item for Walgreen's
submitted by CEI Engineering Associates on behalf of Walgreen's for
property located at 3939 N. Shiloh Drive which previously was the Nelson
Berna Funeral Home location on Joyce and College. Staff, why are we
looking at this one?
Pate:
I passed out the approved Large Scale Development that is currently
approved. The applicant is requesting to amend the plan. There are two
items that the applicant is requesting to amend. One is signage located in
the southeast corner located off the right of way of Shiloh and Joyce. The
other is the landscaping plan. This is the currently approved plan. The
new plans are included in your larger packet. I am going to address the
signage first. The Large Scale Development plan was approved
November 12, 2002. Those minutes reflect the condition of approval for
the monument sign and those are in your packets. The applicants stated at
the November 12, 2002 Planning Commission meeting that the proposed
monument sign would meet the required 10' setback, 6' height and 75
sq.ft. The current proposal is to modify the approved sign size with the
existing 10' setback to modify it to a 8' high 67 sq.ft. sign. Because the
sign is taller than 6' technically it is not a monument sign. There is Board
of Sign Appeals minutes for the Sixth and South School Street Walgreen's
also included in your packets. Anything taller than a 6' sign is not
technically considered a monument sign. It is still a free standing sign,
just ground mounted as opposed to a pole sign. Staff is in support of a
monument sign that meets all ordinances, 10' setback, 6' high and 75
sq.ft., just as approved originally. As an alternative, with this amendment,
staff would recommend that any proposed sign amendments meet those
size restrictions and setbacks as approved by Planning Commission and
the Board of Sign Appeals for the Walgreen's located at Sixth and School
Street. That is for consistency purposes. We have approved a larger sign
at that location. The Board of Sign Appeals also approved a larger sign at
that location and for consistency purposes that is what we would
recommend at this level. The sign approved at that location was 8' tall as
well. It had 53.36 sq.ft. of display area and was setback 15' from the right
of way. Staff recommends the same restrictions be imposed on the
proposed sign, which would move the sign back from each right of way an
additional 5'. In addition, the overall surface area of this sign should
match approximately 54 sq.ft. and 8' in height. This in your packet is the
proposed signage that is also on the board there. It does meet our
recommendation that it be 8' tall, currently it is a little larger than the 54'
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 24
that was approved down on South School. It also has not changed in
setback, we would request that they go ahead and set that back an
additional 5'. We will go ahead and go over the landscape modification as
well and discuss this all together. Craig has the report on the requested
landscape modifications.
Carnagey: As Jeremy mentioned, this Large Scale Development was approved by the
Planning Commission in November, 2002. The original tree preservation
plan submitted included calculations that encompassed both lot IA and lot
1B. The existing canopy under this approved plan was 1.5% preserved,
0.66% removed, 0.84% and mitigation required four trees. Their proposed
modifications include calculations for only lot 1A, which is the only lot
that is approved for development. I actually think that it is more
appropriate for them to do the calculations just for lot 1A. I think
originally it may not have been necessary. The existing canopy is going
up to 7.6 preserved, 1.7 removed, 5.9 and the mitigation required would be
14 trees. Another proposed modification is to relocate the existing 12"
maple which is currently approved for tree preservation. It is located
along Joyce Blvd. in the southeast corner of the lot just west of the
proposed monument sign and they are proposing to move that tree,
transplant it, approximately 230' west to the opposite side of the proposed
southwest entrance driveway. Another modification is to relocate a 16"
oak, transplant that oak which is currently approved for removal and this
oak is proposed to be transplanted to a landscape bed along Shiloh Drive
approximately 50' to the east of its current location. If you see the tree
island just east of the building, east of the front door, that first tree island,
that is generally the location of the existing oak that is approved to be
removed. The stated reason Walgreen's would like to relocate the 12"
maple is to open up an area in front of their proposed building for better
visual access from the intersection of Joyce and 71B. Again, the maple is
what I understand is driving this request, modification. They are
proposing to relocate the 16" oak, or save it to a certain extent, as a
concession for requesting to relocate the maple. My finding is to deny
this. The basis for this denial is that the modification proposed has no real
benefit to the site's canopy cover. While they have modified their line
size to reflect the developed lot, which increases their mitigation numbers,
I am still not comfortable with transplanting large trees. The survival rate
is uncertain even with proper care. I think from here I would like to open
it up to discussion.
Bunch:
Koch:
Thank you Craig. At this time we will go to the applicant. If you would
introduce yourself and tell us why you want to do these things.
My name is James Koch with CEI Engineering, I represent our client
Whiteco Interra Ventures who are proposing this Walgreen's
development. As Craig stated, the driving factor for us to revise our
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 25
landscape plan is to create better visual access from the intersection of
Joyce and 71B and Shiloh Drive. At that corner there is a maple tree that
we would like to remove which is on the Joyce corridor. That maple tree
is something that is a significant obstruction to the visibility of the store
and in removing that previously preserved tree our client has asked us to
relocate another significant maple to the west side of the Joyce curb cut
and to relocate a previously approved for removal oak tree, the 16"
diameter oak to the Joyce right of way. By doing so I think that we are
prepared to take the necessary measures to preserve these trees properly
and we have talked to several certified arborists who say that this can be
done, it has been done successfully throughout our region. In an effort to
do this successfully all of these construction costs will of course have to
be bonded according to the City of Fayetteville ordinance. In doing those
revisions to the landscape plan to this site I think that we have greater tree
benefits as a result of larger diameter, greater canopy and certainly trying
to retain some of the growth that has taken place on the existing
commercial development over the past 30 years and not just remove them
from the site. These are costly items and our client is willing to do
whatever to preserve these trees according to a certified arborist's
recommendation. In addition to that, that is also the reason for asking for
an additional height on the sign as previously approved. Walgreen's on
Sixth Street got a variance approved for a little greater height. Corporate
Walgreen's in looking at these two sites, even though they are in very
much different locations of the city, has asked that they try and get as
close to what was approved with the other and of course this is a little
more square footage display area than the sign approved for the Sixth
Street location. In addition to that we have brick pillars on this side on
each end, something that the other sign does not have and all of this is
going to match the building. I think that it is very much in similar nature
to the sign approved at Sixth Street with a small difference in square
footage. Again, we are less than the 75 sq.ft. that we understood to be a
limiting factor for the monument sign display area even though that is not
considered a monument sign because of the two additional feet in height.
We respectfully request that the way we have presented this be approved
as is.
Bunch: Thank you James. At this time we will take public comment. Is there
anyone who would like to address this administrative item? Seeing none,
I will bring it back to the Committee. Dawn, is this in the Overlay
District?
Warrick: It is not.
Bunch: Let's do the sign first. What is the area allowed on a sign other than a
monument sign? What are we talking about on the area reduction? What
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 26
is the driving factor to make it replicate the sign on the Walgreen's that
was approved at Sixth and South School?
Warrick: The considerations for the monument sign for Sixth and South School
were similar with regard to that being located at a heavily trafficked
intersection. The sign proposal at the South School Street is a little bit
difference, the appearance of it. It looks like this elevation. There was
discussion about having the reader board as well as the sign with the
Walgreen's lettering on it. Also at Sixth and South School, it was a
different applicant, I understand that these are separately owned franchises
so we are dealing with different applicants. Staff felt that it was important
to maintain consistency when we are looking at similar types of situations,
very similar developments obviously and very similar site conditions with
regard to the fact that these are at heavily trafficked signalized
intersections. That is why staff recommended that the Subdivision
Committee either stick with your initial original approval which was for a
sign that complies with the sign ordinance, a monument sign which would
be 6' tall, 75 sq.ft. sign face setback 10' from the right of way. That is
what was originally approved or to recommend that Subdivision
Committee be consistent with what the Planning Commission approved on
Sixth Street, which is a sign that is 8' tall that is approximately 54 sq.ft. in
sign face and that is setback 15' from the street rights of way. There is a
sliding scale with regard to the size of a pole sign or a different type of
free standing sign and the sign face size corresponds with the setback.
The maximum of course is setback 40' from the street right of way, it is a
30' tall sign with 75 sq.ft. of sign face display area. With regard to this
particular proposal, staff is not penalizing the applicant for the columns
that are proposed on the sides. That is not calculated into the display
surface area. We appreciate that those are there, we do feel like those are
compatible with the development and it is an attractive sign but we feel
that it is appropriate to either stick with the ordinance as it is on the books
or to maintain consistency, as the applicant has requested, with the other
Walgreen's approved on Sixth and South School.
Allen: How does that compare with the signage at Township and College?
Warrick: It doesn't compare at all. That was a pole sign. I am not sure the size on
that but at that point in time the Planning Commission felt like it was
appropriate in that location under the site conditions that a pole sign be
approved for the Township and College site.
Ostner: One more time, is the old one that we approved already and the Sixth
Street, are they both within our ordinance?
Warrick: No. Sixth Street is not within our ordinance because it is taller than what
is approved as a monument sign, it is 8' tall. It was approved by the
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 27
Planning Commission with the condition that the Board of Sign Appeals
hear it and the Board of Sign Appeals did hear that item and approve it.
Ostner: Ok, so now they want the same consideration.
Warrick: Yes, and it would require a Board of Sign Appeals action also.
Ostner: You would rather they comply and Sixth Street complies, did I understand
that right?
Warrick: Sixth Street, we certainly would've preferred that Sixth Street comply
with the standard ordinance requirements, that is what we always request
and expect if possible in every situation. The Planning Commission for
the Sixth Street project did find that additional height would benefit that
sign because of its location at that intersection. I don't even recall if that
was staff's recommendation but we feel like it is appropriate that if that
was the consideration on Sixth Street, this is such a similar type
application that that consideration would also apply in this circumstance
and that additional height with the consideration that they also setback 5'
extra and it is a smaller sign face than what would typically be installed.
With those considerations the Planning Commission felt appropriate to
add the height to it. We are just looking at matching.
Ostner: I thought at Sixth Street the issue was more from where to measure. There
is a curved right of way and we in essence gave them the curve instead of
interpreting square right of way.
Warrick: They had some drainage improvements that were part of the right of way
on Sixth Street that shifted the right of way line, I think that was actually
off of South School. Off of the other street there wasn't. It was a little
unique there also but they really felt that the visibility at the intersection
was part of that.
Ostner: I didn't recall that being a variance issue down there. I thought it was an
interpretation issue of the staff but it has been a long time.
Warrick: It was actually a variance.
Bunch: Refresh our memories, how many wall signs do we have and what was the
story on the area identification sign for lots lA and 1B combined? I know
those were issues when we first looked at this.
Koch:
With respect to the wall signs, I believe we have advertisement on each
face of the building with respect to Joyce and Shiloh. The other signs that
were entertained whenever we first brought this development forward, we
have decided not to pursue any type of joint identification signs for each
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 28
lot respectively on this particular tract of land and also we do not want to
do any type of pole signage here. He just wants to install a good size free
standing sign such as this in order to have visibility across the intersection
because the distances across the intersection are of course much greater
here and the traffic moves a little bit faster through the area. Those are the
real reasons for wanting this type of sign instead of a free standing pole
sign, which is in our opinion, less attractive than what we have here.
Bunch: James, the difference in the dimension of the sign verses the dimensions of
the sign from Sixth and South School are minimal, it is like 9'2" long to
10'1", is that a sticking point?
Koch:
My sense is that this is similar to what we had before with the exception of
the addition of the standard Walgreen's mortar and pedestal on the display
area which the Sixth Street sign does have. At the same time, the length is
a little bit longer. Each panel is a little bit taller and a little bit longer than
what was approved at Sixth Street. I feel like that was the architect's
preference. They put this monument sign, free standing sign together for
our client. Aesthetically, these are the architects interpretations. The
difference is from the architect for Sixth Street and the architect for Joyce
and Shiloh, nothing more and nothing less. In short of going back to that
architect and going through another corporate Walgreen's review and
acceptance of the change here I don't know what the answer to that
question would be. I would like to give our client the opportunity to
respond to that and to accept it or just ask that we go ahead and stick to
what we have here. There is no real reason for the differences outside of
that. We more or less used the 75 sq.ft. as a limiting factor here and we
are well below that.
Bunch: I think the brick columns definitely add to it as far as aesthetics. How
difficult would it be to use the same dimensions as the sign reader board
for the Sixth Street site and put the same columns on either side of them
for ease in administration. We are talking very small percentage in change
here. What about the location?
Koch:
I think with respect to the location, we have a large greenspace on the
corner and that provides us a fair amount of flexibility to adjust the sign
placement in that greenspace. As long as we get the open areas that we
are requesting with the landscape revisions, outside of that I don't see any
problems with adjusting the sign 5' each direction off of Shiloh and Joyce.
I think I can speak for our client on that. As far as changes to the overall
appearance of the sign, removing the brick columns, changing the
dimensions of the channels, I think that they would like to keep it as is. It
is a little dressier appearance than what is at Sixth Street.
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 29
Bunch:
Koch:
I guess we will have to include the landscaping in with this when we are
looking at visibility. The maple that is being relocated or that is shown to
be relocated, I don't have my scale in front of me, how far is that from the
relocation site of the oak? I think the oak was to be removed previously
and now it is to be relocated. It seems like the issue to this with visibility
from Shiloh and North College. The location of the maple street is not
that far from the proposed relocation for the relocated oak. What is the
deal there? We are moving trees but not too far.
That is correct. At a previous review with the Landscape Administrator, it
was our understanding that the oak would be preferred to be saved. That
is why we are saving the oak tree. We understood that the oak is a more
preferred tree, at least according to comments that the mayor had
whenever he went out to the site with me.
Carnagey: Right, we went out there with the mayor. He requested that if they did
want to move the maple that they preserve the oak in place where it
actually is growing right now.
Koch:
We were unable to do that because of the configuration of our parking and
the limited size of the lot that we are trying to put this on. Our client is
willing to relocate this tree successfully at the direction of a certified
arborist. We are willing to make that effort and relocate the tree properly
and do everything to try to keep it a viable living tree.
Bunch: Let's get into some nuts and bolts on this for just a minute. This is in an
expanse of compacted and filled materials so what would be the
methodology of the relocation? Are you going to excavate a considerable
area and put in top soil and that sort of thing? For our information and for
the people that are watching when we are talking about relocating large
trees in some highly compacted areas, what is the methodology and what
is the success rate for this?
Koch:
Discussing this with several certified arborists in our area, it takes
considerable preparation on the front end to ensure that the tree is in
optimum health or as good as you can get it before you actually remove
the tree from its current location and replace it however many feet away
from where it is right now. In preparing for this it would have to be at the
direction of a certified arborist, we agree with that. Also, the time of the
relocation would have to be during the dormant phase. As mentioned
here, during the winter is of course the dormant phase. I guess that would
be November or December. Do you have a specific time frame?
Carnagey: I placed on my recommendation winter so basically December or January.
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 30
Koch: You say December 1, I would like to get a definitive date on the record for
that.
Carnagey: The first day of winter is December 22nd so December 22nd.
Koch: I would like to see it done a little bit sooner than that.
Carnagey: I think December ls` would be fine, late fall early winter. I do have
conditions if indeed the Subdivision Committee does choose to approve
this I have placed several conditions under my recommendations including
some of the conditions that James has mentioned such as a maintenance
plan submitted by a certified arborist which includes preparing the tree
floor removal well before the intended transplant date, such as fertilization
and any other requirements to boost the trees health and a maintenance
plan for care of that tree at least three years after transplanting. Also, tree
protection measures. If any sort of construction activity is going to begin
on the site before that tree is transplanted then all tree protection measures
would need to be in place and there are a couple of others here as well.
Bunch: What about a contingency if the tree is lost?
Carnagey: Yes. That is number four, an establishment guarantee which would
basically guarantee that tree. If it did indeed die then they would have to
replace it with the cost of equaling four mitigation trees which roughly
come out to be $900 I believe.
Koch:
Please correct me, I believe from acceptance of the project, at the end of
the construction period, we have to bond the cost of that construction
activity to actually do all of this. We have got a very expensive couple of
trees to be relocated here. Our client has offered to do and it will be
bonded according to one of the three methods allowed by the City of
Fayetteville and in addition to that we could provide for this extended
maintenance agreement which is really minor in comparison whenever
you look at the cost of what we expect these trees to be for relocation.
Bunch: Obviously before we get too much further into discussion on this, since we
don't have a lot of this information in front of us in hard form I think it
would be better on the tree issue to forward it to the full Planning
Commission to give the staff and the applicant time to work up their
proposal, any recommendations that you have for denial or acceptance and
possibly if you all could get together. Right now there is a disparity and
possibly that could be compromised, I don't know but at least to have it in
a more understandable form. I am not real comfortable with making a
decision at this level with the types of information that we have available
to us. We haven't had time to review it and think about it. As far as the
trees are concerned I would rather entertain a motion on that to be
forwarded to the full Planning Commission to give time and if that is not
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 31
sufficient time then it could be brought back to this. It could work as
being tabled. In the interest of saving time to forward it to the full
Planning Commission. Normally something like that would probably be
tabled and brought back to this committee. If you don't have time to get
all the prep work done then it would come back to this committee at the
next meeting.
Carnagey: If you did choose to approve this couldn't being a condition of approval
that we would get together and have all the information basically under
my supervision?
Bunch: With the initial report you were recommending denial.
Carnagey: Right, right but if the Subdivision Committee did indeed choose to
approve it based on their request to open visual access I did state that I
would be willing to meet these conditions or willing to work with the
developer to meet these conditions.
Bunch: That would be the purpose of either forwarding it or tabling it is to allow
an opportunity for you all to get together and to work up a proposal and if
you are still in disagreement then we would have the benefit of each of
your proposals. If during that time you are able to reach a compromise
then we would have that before us.
Allen: I don't feel comfortable with approving it at this level. I feel at a bit of
disadvantage since I wasn't aware that I would be on the Committee this
morning until too late to look at sites and I remember though that this
visibility problem was debated a good bit at Planning Commission as to
whether or not there was that necessity for the height of the sign and the
vegetation and the trees. I would feel much better about it going to the
Planning Commission.
Warrick: If I might add, we have included the code section from the development
chapter of the Unified Development Code on the front of your staff report
that addresses major modifications to a Large Scale Development. I felt
that these were major modifications that were being proposed and needed
to be taken through the process of approval. That code section states that
in the event that a developer wishes to make major modifications to an
approved development such modifications shall be submitted to the
Subdivision Committee in a form which compares the approved
submission with desired changes. After submission the Subdivision
Committee shall approve or disapprove the requested modifications at its
next meeting. This is relegated to the Subdivision Committee. I am not
saying that you shouldn't request additional information if you need it but
by ordinance this is something that the Subdivision Committee is charged
with covering.
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 32
Bunch:
Warrick:
Bunch:
Allen:
Bunch:
Ostner:
Koch:
Ostner:
Bunch:
Warrick:
Osmer:
Warrick:
Ostner:
Bunch:
Ok, so we would be looking at if we are to make the dispositive action
then we would need to table it in order to.
We would just need to know what you need to feel comfortable with
having enough information to make a decision.
Which is basically what we have started to express.
I would like to go out and look at the tree.
It will also give time to Craig and James to get together and combine their
proposals and see if they can affect a compromise and then bring it to us
with the additional information we might require. What about the sign?
At first blush I think I understand it. I think I would like to go with staff's
recommendation that you all get the height and limited square footage as
down on Sixth Street which means you can change that sign some but not
as much.
So you are saying allow for the height but reduce the square footage of the
display area?
Yes, because 56 sq.ft. was approved at Sixth Street and going to a full 8'
would be 15' square feet beyond what we approved down there. That
would be my opinion. Fifteen square feet on a monument sign is a fairly
significant portion of it and I think that would be fair.
I am getting lost.
I think the numbers are just different. The display surface area approved
on Sixth Street was approximately 54 feet and the proposal is for a 67
square foot.
Twelve feet.
We are not too far off.
As a percentage of the overall sign I think it is 10%.
Since this project is going to have to come back to us for the landscaping
why don't we consider having the sign, rather than take dispositive action
on the sign at this time to allow the applicant time to go back to his people
with the staff recommendation and let them take a look at it. I tend to lean
towards the staff's recommendation personally to give you a little bit of a
sounding of how we will look at it. I think it is an attractive sign. You
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 33
Koch:
have stated the location as far as setting back an additional 5' didn't seem
to be any problem since you have plenty of space there to do it and there
appears to be plenty of visibility. Rather than make a hasty decision on it I
would recommend that we wait on the sign and bring it forward with the
landscaping because there may be some bearing on the sign depending on
what you come up with on landscaping and tree replacement because it
could alter the visibility.
As far as the landscaping is concerned, I think that the only other item that
I would need to provide here would be a maintenance plan from a certified
arborist. With respect to the sign, I guess I just need to find out if our
applicant or our client would be willing to concur with that reduction in
square footage and the adjustment into the greenspace on the corner. With
those two items addressed would that give you enough information to
make a decision?
Bunch: I believe it would. Fellow Commissioners?
Ostner: To go ahead and do the transplanting?
Koch: Yeah, we want to do the transplanting instead of cutting down the 16" oak.
Ostner: I guess I'm still real interested in why our Landscape Administrator
doesn't think that is a valid concern.
Carnagey: Everything that I've researched and understand is yes a tree of this size
can be transplanted but the question is the success rate. Considering the
fact that this oak is growing in a large lawn area currently and they plan on
transplanting it into a constricted landscape bed, first of all, that is a
problem right there. Second of all, they are going to have to do some root
pruning both on the roots and the canopy. That is going to be a problem.
What I've read is for each inch in diameter that a tree stands that you can
equate that to one year of stress in the future. You are looking at a
potential of 16 years of stress for that oak tree if it is indeed transplanted.
Like I said, I know that there are lots of certified arborists out there that
would be willing to do this and possibly guarantee it and there is a lot of
preparation that is required and maintenance after it is planted but the
research that I've come across is success rates are very, very questionable
and objected. When you do come back to the Subdivision Committee that
it may be something more of I say something and he says the other and
there is no definitive objective proof that says in fact this tree will be
transplanted successfully and be healthy in the future. I think with
mitigation trees, a 2" caliper tree you are more likely to have a success
rate with a younger tree. In some ways I do like the preservation plan, I
do like their numbers, we are getting a higher number of mitigation trees
out of this plan but I am not sold on the transplanting idea, I don't think
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 34
we are getting the benefits that we would if they were four 2" caliper trees.
That is my opinion.
Ostner: If we are going to revisit this and this is a sounding time. I tend to
understand that and agree with it more than the transplanting issue. I
understand you get nice, big mature trees and believe me I love that but it
is risky planting more small trees the odds are much higher in their favor
to survive and they get to be exactly where you want them. Here again,
this is just putting it on the table and we are going to come back to it.
Koch:
I guess from hearing that would you prefer to see the 2" mitigation trees in
place of relocating these larger trees. It is certainly going to be less
expensive for us to do that. We may have some groupings though that
exceed the 25% allotment per grouping if in fact we do that. Would you
take a cash offset and mitigation trees that we could fit into the 25% group
allowance?
Warrick: The request here is to modify it based on your transplant proposal. The
alternative is to stick with what was approved. What was approved was
maintaining the maple tree where it is and removing the oak tree. That is
my understanding of what we have brought to the Subdivision Committee.
It is either the modifications proposed which is transplanting these two
trees or maintaining approval that was granted back in November for the
tree preservation and landscape plan that includes removing the 18" oak
and maintaining the 12" maple in its current location.
Carnagey: Correct. To be honest with you I'm most concerned about transplanting
the oak, particularly because of the size and also where it is going.
Generally when they transplant trees they are going to transplant them into
a larger area with more space. This is literally a landscape strip along
Shiloh Drive. I would be open to discussing transplanting that 12" maple
because I understand that aesthetically it is not in the best shape either. I
know that is not any justification for removal but I would be willing to
entertain that idea because I believe the bed that it is proposed to be going
into is a lot more appropriate for its size. I guess we do need to get back
together before the next Subdivision and that is something to consider.
Bunch: We have also spoken conceptually here. I think one of the things that we
would need in order to make a decision is information from your certified
arborist, you said you have talked to several. We need one who is willing
to supervise the work or plans to supervise the work to give his proposal
and to address the issues of limited planting space, root pruning, limb
pruning or whatever and also to, since they are certified arborists, to put
his reputation on the line and say what he thinks he can do and give some
references about his success ratio since that is in question.
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 35
Koch:
Yes Sir. Because of the continuing education requirements for certified
arborists we were unable to get ours here today. There is a convention in
Hot Springs I believe where they are all in attendance. That would give us
some time to speak with them, formulate a plan to come back. I can work
with Craig on concerns that he has and options to entertain for the
landscape plan and I guess we will address that. Are we looking at
coming back to the next Subdivision Committee meeting?
Bunch: We can table it to be brought back at whichever one is convenient for you
since you may not be able to get all of these people together and you may
not have time to do it. We can just table it to be brought back to us at your
discretion after you feel comfortable that you have a presentation, is that
acceptable to staff?
Warrick: Yes Sir.
Ostner: Before we complete the topic, part of the reason I said that, I should've
finished my train of thought. Three years is the standard bond length of
time, the stress of these trees is they can die at 4 or 8 because you are
moving such a massive amount of their life root tissue so that is why I was
interested in putting a much higher percentage rate smaller tree but if we
can find out more about it, that is something that I would want to know
about to extend the bonding time because it is a much different proposal.
Bunch:
Koch:
Bunch:
MOTION:
That would also be tied in with the recommendations of your certified
arborist. If they guarantee a certain time of longevity and success rate
then we could possibly adjust our requirements to meet that. Is there
anything else you need from us as far as do you feel that you have a
sufficient direction that we need in order to make a decision?
Yes I do and I feel that we will be able to supply good information and
work with the City of Fayetteville to get what everybody needs. In
addition to the stress on the tree issue, this site is going to undergo a
significant construction event so all trees are potentially affected here. We
are going to take special effort to try to preserve what we do relocate.
That is well above and beyond the requirements for caring for trees that
are just going to have construction take place around them. I think that we
have all seen trees die after construction in one year past events in
numerous locations in our area. All of this is at somewhat of a risk. We
are willing to take special efforts to preserve them accordingly, relocate
them and/or mitigate them with dollars or new trees, whatever is required.
Yes, I do have good direction. Thank you.
Do I hear a motion?
Subdivision Committee
July 17, 2003
Page 36
Allen: I move that we table ADM 03-18.00.
Ostner: I will second.
Bunch: I will concur. Staff, are there any more announcements?
Warrick: No Sir.
Bunch: When is the next meeting of the hillside development?
Warrick: It is July 30`h.
Bunch: Ok, it has been established. I just wanted to let people know that there is
an upcomin meeting of the hillside development and at this point in time
it is July 30t .
Warrick: I think they will be meeting during their lunch hour, right after this
meeting.
Bunch: It is about 10:30 right after this Committee meets. Hearing no other
business, we will stand adjourned. Thank you.
Meeting adjourned: 10:29 a.m.