Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-11 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on March 11, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN R-PZD 04-04.00 (Stonewood Gardens, pp 60) Forwarded Page 2 I-PZD 04-05.00(Wal-Mart Optical Lab/Hwy 62W, pp 559) Forwarded Page 18 Don Bunch Alan Ostner Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Jeremy Pate Suzanne Morgan Craig Carnagey MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Renee Thomas Subdivision Committee March 11, 2004 Page 2 R-PZD 04-04.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Stonewood Gardens, pp 60) was submitted by David Gilbert of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for property located on Crossover Road, immediately north of the Stonewood subdivision. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 3.36 acres. The request is to rezone the property to an R-PZD to allow the development of 14 lots with 12 single-family dwelling units proposed. Bunch: We are going to go ahead and start the meeting of the Subdivision Committee of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. This morning we have two items on the agenda and Commissioner Ostner will be acting chair this morning. Take it away Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Thank you. The first item on the agenda is R-PZD 04-04.00, a Residential Planned Zoning District for Stonewood Gardens. Mr. Pate? Pate: This property is located on Crossover Road immediately north of Stonewood subdivision. To the west is Lake Fayetteville, it is in northern Fayetteville. The property is zoned currently, R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 3.36 acres. The applicant is requesting to process a rezoning and Preliminary Plat for the property. The rezoning is to a R- PZD zoning district with the associated Preliminary Plat for 12 single family dwellings on 14 lots. Lot 13 is detention and Lot 14 would be to serve the private drive and utility easements and also some of the tree preservation area. Again, the total proposed dwelling units on the 3.36 acre site is 12. The density, therefore, is 3.4 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent and compatible with surrounding zoning and land use. It is vacant at this time. The immediately surrounding properties are primarily single family residential and agricultural. Including, on the Lake Fayetteville side of Crossover the future botanical garden that is proposed there. Access to this site is proposed by a private drive off of Crossover Road. The applicant is proposing a private street, Stonewood Court that utilizes a controlled access point, which is a privacy gate at the front. The remainder of the subdivision is proposed to be within the perimeter of a wrought iron and brick fence in the rear and a 6' brick wall along the front similar to the Stonewood subdivision directly to the south. There are descriptions of the wall and fencing on the plat. The applicant has provided 6' sidewalks along Crossover Road. Staff is recommending also that a sidewalk be shown to be constructed along the private drive. I believe the applicant is wishing to not do that at this time. I will let him describe those reasons why. The street is to be constructed as a private street, 24' in width. All lots will be accessed from the rear on the private drive or alley which is 14' in width. In the covenants submitted in your packets it describes many of the characters of the neighborhood, specifically, what kind of design character the homes will be and the type of zero lot line development that they are proposing. As you can see on each lot there are no specific setbacks shown because there is no right of Subdivision Committee March Il, 2004 Page 3 way, it is really just sort of built to the lot line. Again, I will let the applicant go over that a little bit more. Staff is recommending that the Subdivision Committee forward this to the City Council and the Planning Commission with recommendations for approval with, at this time, 15 conditions. A couple of which that we do need to discuss today are some of the utility easements have changed from Technical Plat Review and I would just like to advise the applicant to ensure that all of the utility representatives are ok with those easement locations prior to approval of construction plans. Also, the proposed gates into the subdivision do need to be fitted with appropriate measures to allow for 24 hour emergency access. In speaking with the fire department typically a knock box configuration where they have a key to get into that neighborhood. I believe that's all for now. Ostner: Thank you. Can you tell us about your project and introduce yourself? Gilbert: I'm David Gilbert with Jorgensen & Associates. Our clients hope here is to build something of a little bit of a distinctive character, not just your typical 14 lot 12 home residential subdivision but to do something with the grouping of the homes and some clustering to do a couple of things. One is to help preserve some of the natural trees that are on the site. In fact, we have done some reconfiguration on a few things to help to preserve these trees. There are some very nice trees on this site. If you have not been by there, these are all mature and big with the exception of a couple of undesirable species they are high quality trees in fairly good health. There are a couple of places where they have grown so close together that they are hindering one another but beyond that they are really nice. We want to preserve the majority of these in the initial construction and at the same time we structured the covenants for the subdivision in a way which will not allow those trees to be removed without approval from both the proposed property owner's association and in consultation with the city's landscape architect. In a typical subdivision once the plat has been filed and the lots are transferred from the developer over to individual private ownership a lot of the control over what happens to the trees on the property gets lost. We are trying to make sure that doesn't happen here because these are some really high quality specimens of trees that we would like to see preserved and we don't see any reason why homes can't be built on this around the trees rather than on top of the stumps. That's one of the reasons we wanted to go with a PZD is to get some flexibility in home placement on the lots so that that would be possible. With that in mind, and also to kind of cluster the homes together and leave open space for the people who live in the neighborhood we are proposing the zero lot line setback so that the entire lot is available and the designer of the home can come in then and it is just one less constraint he has to worry about when he is trying to figure out how to get this medium size home onto this lot and having to work around the trees. That's why we are looking at the Subdivision Committee March Il, 2004 Page 4 zero lot line. If you were to take the standard setbacks and apply it to the entire parcel all of the lots are outside of the building lots are basically outside of the setbacks with the exception of lot number one and we are showing a utility easement there which covers what would normally be the setback on that so they can't build in that area anyway. Lot 13 is designated for detention to meet city requirements. The developer intends to construct a pond which will retain water, it will be a pond all the time, not just an open space, and to put some sort of fountain in there to keep things moving and also to add to the element. It is a site amenity, it is something that looks nice when you come in to drive by the water and the fountain. It also presents itself to Crossover Road so we think that will be a nice start. With this property being almost at the extreme northern end of Fayetteville as you come into Fayetteville from Springdale we believe that something of this character will make a nice presentation as you enter the city. It is going to be something that will be attractive that will be well maintained, that the trees will be there and will be preserved and I think will be very distinctive. We certainly understand the need for a knock box or whatever mechanism and we are going to work with the fire department on that because they do need to be able to get in here anytime. That's not a problem. The sidewalks, we have shown as requested, a 6' sidewalk along Crossover Road. I apologize for that meandering but we were trying to go around all the trees on the right of way so we could avoid having to mess with any of those. We did wind up losing one but that was due to a combination of things with the utilities that will be going through there and the sidewalk and wall and everything else. With that we really did try to work around everything that's there. As a result the sidewalk configuration is far from standard. It is going to take some creative grading to get everything to go in there but we believe we can do it and not take out that very nice row of trees that is actually out in the right of way. As far as sidewalks within the development, we have discussed this with the staff and we understand their desire to have that. However, from our standpoint and from our client's standpoint we are looking at a couple of things. One is that the space available on these lots is somewhat limited because we have tried to keep the lots relatively small and preserve as much common area as we could. We have gone with the rear drive, the loop around the outside and managed that all the garages access off of that drive because our client's desire is to build something that when you drive down this private street the facades of the buildings are not dominated by garage doors. If you have ever dealt with, a lot of architects now are kind of omitting that in a typical American neighborhood now, not just in Fayetteville but all over the country, it's the same thing in my house, you drive up to my house and the first thing you see is two 8' wide garage doors. They are a pretty dominant feature of the architecture. What we are trying to do is to present something that when you're on the street and you are looking you see something more reminiscent of an older style neighborhood. This is a technique that was used in Harbor Meadows in Subdivision Committee March Il, 2004 Page S Springdale where they have used rear access drives to all of the buildings. When you go down through there whether you drive through or walk through, what you see is front porches and residential housing, you don't see garage doors. That's the reason we went with that in the rear. Also, one of the reasons we tried to keep everything pushed together. If we were to put sidewalks down Stonewood Court we would have to do one of two things, we'd either have to put this sidewalk right up against the back of the curb. That's what they did up in my neighborhood in Springdale and what it means is that the sidewalk is a great place for everybody to put their mailbox. You can't walk down the sidewalks because the mailboxes are in there so we walk in the street. That kind of defeats the purpose of having a sidewalk if you put it out there. If you move it back off the curb then we are infringing on the lot size and restricting the flexibility there. It is just another thing for the home builder to work around is the placement of that sidewalk. We don't believe that sidewalks are really necessary in this setting because you are only going to have 12 homes. The people who live here are all going to be using the rear drive because they've got to get to the garage so Stonewood Court is going to have an extremely low volume of vehicular traffic, almost none. Basically, when they have visitors come they will have traffic out there. I'm assuming that the trash truck will drive on it and if something catches on fire the fire truck will use it but those are kind of rare circumstances so we believe that in this setting the street will function very well for foot traffic in addition to wheel traffic and adding more impervious area, you are running the risk of looking like you are trying o pave over the world at some point and I know that's a little bit of an exaggerated statement but that appearance of having that much street that is not used and then that much concrete over there is just impervious area that we feel like is not necessary and may not be the best thing to do in this setting for the environment and also the ability to work the homes around that would hinder us a little bit. For that reason, with all due respect to the staff, we understand their position. We understand the need for pedestrian access, we don't disagree with any of those things but we believe in this setting it will work as well or better without the sidewalks on Stonewood Court and with certainly the sidewalk down Crossover is needed and that is going to be put in. That's not a question. Lot 14 is going to serve a couple of purposes. Initially we had shown lot 14 to also include a blanket utility easement. That works out really nice for getting utilities in because they can basically just go wherever they want to go. The drawback with that is that you can't protect any of the trees on Lot 14 if you do that. We have come back to Subdivision Committee with a rather convoluted utility easement. It is a very unusual configuration and I apologize for that but what we tried to do is just basically stay out from under the road as much as we could and stay away from all the trees. That's the reason that's there. Mr. Bunch and I were discussing a little bit earlier, we do understand that we are going to have to go back to the utility companies with this and get their buy in on Subdivision Committee March Il, 2004 Page 6 it. We probably will have to make some modifications to the utility easement but the main thing that we want to do with that is to be able to protect the existing trees that are on Lot 14. It is hard to tell, and we've got the water and sewer lines running down the middle of Stonewood Ct. underneath the pavement, it awfully hard to tell with everything that is going on on this plan but the utility easement would include, I'll call it right of way even though it is private for Stonewood Ct., that way the water and sewer lines are covered. You can't see that on the plan and again, I apologize. It is kind of hard to make that clear with as much as is going on here. What we will probably wind up doing is just filing a separate easement plat to show the utility companies and put them both down on the table and say this is the plan and this is the plat, what do you think. We will work with them and go from that. There is not any reason not to and it will work out for everyone. We are proposing to take out a few trees here in order to put some things in. Quite honestly, with as many trees as are on here, there are 35 trees on this site on less than 3.5 acres it is hard to do anything without impacting something. We are proposing overall removal of nine trees on the site. Two of those trees will have to be removed because they will be in a utility easement out on Crossover anyway and we need to put water and sewer lines in there. We feel like we've done a pretty good work around of taking care of everything. We are proposing and have worked out a configuration where we can place all of the mitigation trees on the site. I think, I'll get Mr. Carnagey's input on this at some point, but I think we've got them placed where they will actually have room to grow and not be covering one another up. We have tried to do that to enhance the way things look. We appreciate your consideration of this. I know it is unconventional. It is a departure in some ways for the City of Fayetteville. It certainly has been a departure for us. We don't normally work with things quite this way but we appreciate you taking a look at it. Ostner: Thank you. Are there any other staff comments? Camagey: I will make a few comments real quickly about the trees. First of all, I appreciate the creative approach to the layout of the utility easement. It will be interesting to see what their response is to that. My only other comment would be that a mitigation planting plan will be submitted in a little bit more detail than what is presented here identifying the species and just kind of the basic criteria that are used on the landscape plan. Also, I would like to take a look at the layout of the wall along both Crossover and the drive to the east and try to either propose an alternative layout so they don't impact the drip line of those trees as much or a construction method that reduces that impact. Right now we have got the wall running through to fairly significant trees and if there is anything we can do to reduce that impact, although one of them is in a utility easement, it would be great to take a look at that and that's the only comments that I have. Subdivision Committee March Il, 2004 Page 7 Ohman: Parks fees are due in the amount of $6,660 for 12 single family units. Casey: I just have one comment. It is regarding the utility easements. One of our requirements are that structures not be located in utility easements so it is going to have to be modified somehow to either parallel this wall or straighten the wall out to where it follows the edge of the utility easement. I would imagine that you'd want to parallel the wall instead of change the wall configuration. Gilbert: We are trying to leave that wall curved so that it presents a more pleasing appearance. Obviously, a straight wall has some issues. We will work on that. I will call you and we will see what we need to do specifically on that. Casey: The wall can run right at the edge of the easement but it is crossing in several places as shown so if we can just make those changes then that is all that I have. Thank you. Ostner: At this time I will open it up to the public. Does anyone have any comments? Seeing as there is no public here I will bring it back to the Commission. Allen: David, I don't know whether this is ever done, I will ask staff. I think this is a real interesting and a very creative project but I wondered about regarding the sidewalks inside the project if we could suggest trails. Is that something that could ever be done? Warrick: I can think of one situation specifically. The Hyland Park subdivision where trails were substituted for sidewalks. However, that was a public street requirement for the sidewalks to be built and it was a negotiation and a tradeoff that the trails behind the lots be established instead of the sidewalks being installed. This is a private street, staff is suggesting that sidewalks be installed because it is typical that we have sidewalks along the streets within the city but that is not something that we have required on private streets, the trail configuration that I can think of an instance of. Allen: I was just thinking since this is not a real typical project maybe trails might be a possible solution. Gilbert: I'm not really sure where we would put them. I think what we are envisioning for Lot 14 is that it be as much grass and trees as is possible. I'm not certain that there will be any concentrated path. Typically what happens when you build something is that people basically decide where they are going to walk. I think, in fact, on large campuses the policy has been to not build sidewalks and see where people walk and then put the Subdivision Committee March 11, 2004 Page 8 sidewalks where people are walking anyway. If you go up here to the front lawn of Old Main you can see sidewalks all over the place, a lot of which never get used because they put them where they felt like they wanted people to walk and then there is the dirt trail going over here where everybody cuts over to go to building X over here in the corner. Up there they serve the purpose of having people's names on them and that's a good thing. I'm not really certain that we would see any focused pattern of walking in this that I would know where to begin to put one. In fact, with 12 lots and a small population it might even be better if we didn't try to focus people in a particular area and just let them walk on the grass. We can certainly take that under advisement and we'll speak with out client about that. I think that the pedestrian concentration, if there is any, is going to be in the front. It is either going to be along that private drive in the back where people go back and forth between the garages to borrow tools and stuff or in front where people want to walk through the neighborhood and they come out the front door and do their fitness up and down the street. Those are kind of what we envisioned. My house in Springdale, as I mentioned before, it is on a cul-de-sac, it is public and it does have sidewalks. We have got 75 homes on our street and everybody walks in the street, nobody walks on the sidewalks. The traffic is low enough even with 75 homes on the street, it is the longest cul-de-sac I've ever seen and nobody would ever be allowed to build that again, it's about '/2 mile long but the traffic on there is just so low that it has not been an issue. We are somewhat bucking the pattern here of having sidewalks down every street. If this were a public street we wouldn't have any option, we'd be doing sidewalk. With it being private and with these considerations I'm just not sure where we would put a trail that it would actually serve any purpose. Allen: Then I also wondered just for my own information, how a gated community works in terms of emergency vehicles. How do they handle that? Gilbert: There are a couple of methods of access for that. Generally these gates are, this is a community access gate, it is not like an emergency gate like we have proposed on some other projects. These things generally are keypad driven, you drive up, you punch the numbers in and the gate opens, or you push a button and call somebody at their house. There is an intercom system where it rings in their house and they push a button on the phone and the gate opens. That's the kind of thing we envision here. Certainly in a case like that emergency services are provided with a code to get in. It may not be the same code that the residents use because that way you can kind of see who is coming and going as far as the people who are not supposed to be coming and going. They would either be provided a code, I'm not sure if there are any other mechanisms but we absolutely, Subdivision Committee March Il, 2004 Page 9 positively do want to provide a way for emergency services, fire, police and ambulance to be able to access this as quickly as possible. Warrick: I have a question if I might about the same issue. I believe that it would be appropriate to design a turn around at this gate. People pulling in off of Crossover and not realizing that they are pulling into a private drive will need to be able to turn around so that they are not backing out and causing other people to have to back out behind them into Crossover. I would suggest that we look at some type of turn around at the entry gate. Being somewhat unfamiliar with gated communities, I also assume that there will be a way for mail carriers and other type of deliveries to use some type of access code. I believe that is something that would probably need to be explored before this is actually installed. Gilbert: Right, we are looking for trash service also so there are going to be some uses where people are going to have to have some access to this. I will visit with the client and see what his thoughts are on this but I think certainly everybody is anticipating all of these services that are necessary to run a neighborhood would be able to get in and out. Allen: I am sure there will be just some ironing out to do since we don't have many gated communities. I just wouldn't want there to be an elaborate process that the Chief of Police is having to go through files to find out his code in order to go out there or for an ambulance to arrive since this is new to the City of Fayetteville I would want a little better understanding of it. Gilbert: Yes Ma'am, let me do some more research on that. These things, gated communities are not common in Fayetteville, they are not terribly common in Northwest Arkansas but there are areas where you go where that's kind of the norm. I know there are ways to make this work, I just need to find out more of the details. Allen: I think that will be helpful to the Commission for us to have a little better understanding about that. Ostner: I would have to agree with the questions about mail and trash and simple things like that I think we'll be interested in hearing more about that as a Committee. This looks like a great project, I'm willing to vote for it. My take on the sidewalk, I don't know. You have actually presented a good case, it is a tiny community that is actually insulated. Usually part of my logic for sidewalks is that the public needs access. The public is not really allowed, it's only for these people. On the other hand, I also see sidewalks as a part of the street. I don't really see them as this separate issue that floats around that we take or disregard. I see it as a system, cars and people both move. I would hope that with all the specific designs you are Subdivision Committee March 11, 2004 Page 10 putting in place that you would be able to do a sidewalk and not let people block it up with mailboxes. I'm not even sure the mailman can get in here right now. I'm not really sure how I would feel about that topic. Gilbert: We could certainly do a sidewalk design which is not blocked up by mailboxes. Basically, how you do that is you create some space between the sidewalk and the curb, it's really simple to do, it's not very complex. The difficulty with this specific project is because of the nature of what we're trying to do here the lot lines are very close to the street, closer than you would have in a standard situation where you are creating public right of way. In addition to that, we are trying to leave as much flexibility to develop on those lots so it is conceivable, although, probably will not happen that you could have a home with a porch or whatever that was within 5' or 6' of the back of the curb, they could be very close. If we have to put a sidewalk in we have to create some space there. Basically, the sidewalk is going to lap over onto the lot and that restricts the ability to build there. That is kind of the issue with that. We can do a sidewalk that doesn't get covered up by mailboxes but that causes other issues that we would have to then deal with. Given again, the extremely low traffic volume we are expecting here, if every home had two cars and everybody came home at the same time you would have 24 cars on the street and then there wouldn't be anybody else. In reality that is not going to happen. They are going to come home within an hour window so you are looking at a car every two or three minutes for two hours and that's the peak. It is such a low volume here that we feel like the street situation can work. In a lot of older neighborhoods where there are not sidewalks people do walk in the street. This is really not connectable to anything. It is not like you could put a sidewalk through here that would connect back to some other neighborhood because this is kind of it as far as out there. You have this large single family home on this pretty good size lot to the east. You've got to the north that open country where you've got a house on three to five acres every so often. To the south is a subdivision but it is already kind of isolated from that by the method in which it was built and developed. That is some R -O property that is probably going to go to some office use. Those are just some of the kind of things. It is not that we object to the sidewalks in general. We certainly do not and we understand their function. It is just in this case it doesn't really seem to serve that function. Bunch: I don't know what the post office requirements are but it looks like one obvious place for the mail would be to access off of the access road around Lot 14, either that or a mail kiosk in this area. Looking at the elevation changes on the lots, with the exception of lots 1, 12 and 11, all the other lots only have 3' or 4' change in elevation on them so they are relatively flat lots and with the reduced traffic I really don't see that great of a need for the sidewalk. When we have had PUDs before we have had Subdivision Committee March Il, 2004 Page I1 a public street through the middle of the PUD so we would have interconnectivity and pedestrian access and that sort of thing and on this one I don't see that we are going to have with it's lack of interconnectivity most of the foot traffic is going to be people exercising and an obvious path for that would be to make paths around the loop. It is a lot to be said on both parts you know, maybe there might be kids using the sidewalk to go down to the retention pond and throw rocks and catch critters. Because of the nature of it that it is a cul-de-sac street with no connectivity and only 12 single family dwellings the need for access on a sidewalk is rather minimal and with the reduced traffic load and the private drive that circles the place will be used more or less like a trail and it is a one way. The sidewalk issue from my standpoint is questionable about the need for it. Ostner: I have a question for staff. People have been mentioning that word connectivity. What is the Fayetteville policy on connectivity of gated, enclosed subdivisions? Warrick: We don't have any regulations that specifically address gated or closed subdivisions. Ostner: So they are basically exempt from the connectivity? Warrick: Our ordinances are silent on that. Our policy is city wide, it is for Fayetteville. We do not have any ordinances that specifically address gated communities. In this particular case had the Stonewood Subdivision developed differently and provided a stub out to the north it would've been a very natural connection for this cul-de-sac to connect to the one that is existing in the Stonewood Subdivision. That wasn't done when Stonewood was developed. There are other connections for that subdivision. The only area that really offers some opportunity for connectivity would be to the east. There is an existing single family home directly east of this project site. I would say that would be the only real good opportunity to provide a reasonable connection for future development. Gilbert: I would like to point out Albright Road is just north basically just off the page. If you look on the vicinity map it shows up. Albright Road does go back out into the Zion area which provides a natural arterial path if you wanted to put one there. We don't feel like we're blocking anything by doing this particularly with Albright that close. Ostner: Purely from a common sense standpoint since it is gated there is no connection other than the people here having another way to come and go because obviously, being gated other people can't flow through. I just wanted to ask. Subdivision Committee March 11, 2004 Page 12 Bunch: This is kind of an unusual question, since this is one lot away from Albright Road is this on Fayetteville or Springdale water and services? I know the Albright Road area is kind of a mix of Fayetteville and Springdale. Gilbert: What we are proposing to do is to extend water and sewer from the Stonewood subdivision north to this project. It is going to involve construction of a lift station basically in this corner, the northwest corner of this project so that we can pump everything back up hill to the Stonewood Subdivision. What we are hoping that that will do is that any other development within the City of Fayetteville down Albright Road, Albright Road kind of tends to go this way toward this corner and we are hoping that that would open up some possibilities there for something in the future and kind of help bring Fayetteville service to the edge of the city. That is the plan. We have checked that with the Water and Sewer Department, they seem to be ok with the concept although the details have yet to be worked out. It would be Fayetteville water and sewer. Bunch: Ok, and you would bring it down Hwy. 265 and then come up Stonewood Court. Gilbert: Yes Sir. Basically, the water line and the force main will parallel Hwy. 265 in a utility easement off the right of way that would be on this property. The lift station would be in the northwest corner of the property. It shows there on your plan. We would bring a gravity sewer tine down Stonewood Court from basically the cul-de-sac all the way down to the lift station. From there the material in the station would be pumped through that force main parallel to Hwy. 265 to a manhole which is just really off the page to the left there that is in the Stonewood Subdivision. It would then discharge into a gravity line in Stonewood and drain from there to the south where it makes its way to the existing system. The water line we would run also in Stonewood Court to get services off the front there of the lots put in some fire hydrants and do the things that are needed to be done there. We also want to provide the ability for both the water line and the lift station to be connected to from the north and the east so again, any development within the City of Fayetteville on Albright Road, if I understand correctly, Albright Road primarily forms the boundary. I know there is a little bit of wiggle room in there somewhere but for the most part it is there and those properties would be able to construct new lines which could come to this point and tie in with water and sewer. Bunch: On the issue of a turn around at the gate entryway with the trees that are being saved, the two large oaks, it looks like the only place to put it would be right in here. It looks like you've got a street light there. Subdivision Committee March 11, 2004 Page 13 Gilbert: We'll have to work that out with Ms. Warrick and her staff. It is going to be kind of tight with saving those trees but we'll try to work something out. She has a very good point and you certainly do not want anybody backing out onto Crossover Road. That would be disastrous. Ostner: I think a dirt spot would appear from people creating their own turn around. Gilbert: It probably would. We can reconfigure a couple of things. That streetlight can be moved, that's not a big problem. Bunch: Then you also have your keypad for entryway. That will probably have to be located back up in here. Gilbert: We'll have to work something out with that but we will certainly try to accommodate the request. It is a good point and we want to accommodate that if we can. It may turn out in addition that the postal service wants to see a community mailbox right there at the gate so that they don't have to mess with it. In that case they will need an area to park the truck while the mail carrier loads the boxes. We will certainly work with the staff to see if we can't make that happen. Warrick: I have one other thing that I think we probably need to discuss a little bit before we move on on this item. We are talking about flexibility for each lot as it develops and allowing for zero lot lines. That's fine, it is a nightmare for permitting because there are building code requirements for openings and spacing between structures for fire code as well as building code. I think we just need to talk a little bit more and your covenants probably need to be tightened up to address spacing between structures even if there is a zero lot line. For instance, on lot five, if a structure is placed on the lot line between 5 and 6 then the structure that will be placed on lot 6 is either going to have to be attached to that structure on lot 5 or it is going to have to be setback a reasonable distance in order to comply with fire code and in order to allow for openings on those two walls so that puts a natural restriction on lot 6 if lot 5 develops before it. We need to talk a little bit more about how this development is going to address that so that we have a very clear understanding of where the structures are going to be located for permitting purposes. I think we need to do that before this goes forward to the Planning Commission. It won't necessarily change the layout of the lots but it will require some notations and probably some information in your covenants. Ostner: On Charleston Place didn't they basically just decide all the lips are zero? Warrick: No, that was passed as a Planned Unit Development under a previous ordinance that has since been repealed and there is a requirement under Subdivision Committee March 11, 2004 Page 14 that ordinance which is probably appropriate to be applied here, that structures, regardless of where they're placed on the lot, no structures can be closer than 10'. If one, for instance, if lot 5 has a zero setback then lot 6 naturally incurs a 10' required setback on that adjacent lot line. We can look at that. We have a regulation that addresses that and 15 is the magic number in it. Since this is a Planned Zoning District we just need to find the appropriate number. I'm sure everyone has heard about the fires that have gone on in Rogers and about the proximity of those houses and that's really part of the issue is trying to ensure that there is proper spacing for fire code and building code. I'm sure all of those houses met those codes, it was just a really windy day and it turned into a really bad situation. Gilbert: Right, there are some conditions that are just really hard to design around the wind on that being one of them. There are some things that can be done if you will look down Dickson Street a lot of what you have is a zero setback and you've got buildings right next to one another. Some of those buildings are connected, some are not. The benefit that they have is that the sidewalls are primarily made out of brick or some other form of masonry which provides a natural fire barrier. There are some things that can be done to address that. Yes, I would like to meet with you and we can set whatever conditions we need to set to move this forward. Ostner: Are there any other comments from the committee or motions? Allen: I think this looks like a real appealing, interesting project and I'd like to move that R-PZD 04-04.00 be moved forward to the full Plannin Commission subject to the 15, now 16 conditions of approval. The 16t being a tum around entry at the gate. Bunch: In the Tech Plat minutes there was a question about street lights out on Hwy. 265. What has the resolution to that been? Gilbert: There currently are very few streetlights on Hwy. 265. There is one up at the corner of Albright which actually appears to be in Springdale. The next one is down at the entrance to Stonewood which is a considerable distance to the south there. What we have shown is streetlights which come very close to meeting the 300' spacing requirement, they are not more than 300' apart. That first light there at the entrance is not more than 300' from the one on Albright. That light there toward the south end of the project, which you are looking at Mr. Bunch, is more than 300' from the light at Stonewood but it looks like if whenever Stonewood, when that lot out front is built, a streetlight could be added to that lot there on Stonewood and bring those into compliance. It is about 500' or 600' from this light we have shown down to the entrance of Stonewood. Subdivision Committee March 11, 2004 Page 15 Bunch: When the R -O property on the north of Stonewood develops that that would be a good time to get that? Gilbert: I believe, am I correct in assuming that since it is R -O that anything that would develop there would need to go through Large Scale? Warrick: Only if it is on a lot that is larger than an acre. Gilbert: That probably makes my assumption a bad assumption but we've tried to space them out to meet the 300' requirement. We have not shown one at the extreme southern corner of the property. I don't know what the distance would be from the one we've shown. It is not nearly 300' but I don't think that we would want to make one streetlight a point of contention. If you would like to have another streetlight there I think we can add that. Bunch: I'm just making sure that we have it on the record that that had been addressed. Gilbert: Yes Sir, we have attempted to address that. Bunch: Could you give us a quick synopsis, since we haven't had time to really go through them, the protective covenants? Touching on building materials and that sort of thing since we've talked about the zero lot lines and that sort of thing to give us an idea if there is a minimum size? I believe I see a 2,500 sq.ft. minimum but speak a little bit to materials and maybe architectural styles or anything, just highlight what's in the covenants. Gilbert: Yes Sir. Bear with me, it's been a few weeks since I wrote these so I am going to have to read them as we go through to make sure that we get it. Basically, the covenants will establish the Stonewood Gardens P.O.A. It does try to dictate some elements of the architectural style while not actually going into great detail and allowing some flexibility in the styles within it. These covenants are more aimed at the character of the community rather than the particular detail of the homes. There are some things, that being said, which dictate some specifics. Condition three sets a minimum floor area of 2,500 sq.ft. excluding the garage and the requirement for a two car garage and prohibits carports. It also sets the requirement that access to the garages be from the private looped drive, not from the street for the purposes we have already discussed and also talks about material from which the driveway must be made so we don't wind up with dirt driveways or anything like that. Condition number five makes outbuildings basically subject to P.O.A. approval so that that those have to be submitted. You can't just go out back and throw up a tool shed, you have to work through the P.O.A. in order to get that approved. Number six basically says that you can't have any temporary structures. Subdivision Committee March 11, 2004 Page 16 Seven probably is unnecessary with regard to city requirements and zoning districts but it basically says you can't keep livestock or chickens on your property. Number 18 sets some standards for the exterior finish of the house saying it must be 80% brick or stone and gives the developer review and approval rights over these materials. There are some additional requirements in between number seven and number 18 which talk about the material for the mailboxes. In other words, they are not just going to put a mailbox out on a 2x4 out on the curb. You have to actually make it something, this is assuming mailboxes will be allowed in the development. That may all turn out to be moot if we wind up doing a community mailbox at the gate. If we do individual mailboxes they have to be something that looks nice and matches the character of the home. You can do a brick structure, you can do the metal type Victorian mailbox but you can't just put up the galvanized steel box on the 2x4 in the front yard. Nor can you put your mailbox on a brick support where the bricks don't match anything in the subdivision, they kind of have to match. I hope you will forgive me. I'm having a little difficulty remembering a lot of the others that are not here in the packet but they address things like vehicle maintenance, vehicle storage, if you have a satellite dish where it needs to be placed on the house so that it is not just sticking out there for the whole world to see from the street. There are some things along that nature. Condition number 23 talks about roof pitches so that we can get some pitched roofs on this and not have a lot of flat roofs. That will help to define a lot of the architectural style in the buildings and it also talks about the material from which the roof should be constructed. Condition 26 is one that we have added in here which is not something we typically put into covenants for a subdivision but in this case we felt like it was the thing to do. Condition 26 basically states that all of the existing trees have to stay unless you can get written approval from the P.O.A. to remove them. It sets a condition that in consideration of the approval the P.O.A. will consult with an arborist who will determine the health of a tree. Trees determined by the arborist to be dead or dying shall be authorized for removal. That is because if you've got a tree that's dying there is no point in keeping it, you want to get it out of there before it falls over on something or someone. It also dictates that the homes and the driveways and everything else related to the house shall be designed and constructed to minimize damage to the existing trees in accordance with the procedures outlined in the City of Fayetteville Landscape Manual. All construction plans shall be approved by the developer before commencement of construction in order to ensure compliance. Then it subjects offenders of this condition of the covenant to mitigation responsibility in accordance with the Landscape Manual. What we are actually doing here is we're bringing some standards that normally only apply to commercial development into this residential area. It is saying when you buy this lot you can't just come in here and cut down every tree on it. You can't cut down any of the trees because this requirement Subdivision Committee March 11, 2004 Page 17 applies to trees that are 4" or greater in diameter and there is not a tree out there under 18" right now. Every tree that is on the site is covered by condition 26 of the covenants. What we are really trying to do here is to save these trees. We want these trees to stay and we don't want someone to come in and say I know you wanted to save that tree but I wanted to put my carport out there or my patio out there so I just took it down, it was in my way. If they do that then they have to come back and they have to make mitigation for those trees in accordance with the conditions of the landscape manual which to my understanding is a lot tougher standard of responsibility than what we typically see in a residential setting in a subdivision after the developer is through with it. Allen: I presume you are not going to have any toilet planters for geraniums in the front yards. Bunch: With that being said, I will second your motion. Ostner: I will concur. Thank you. Allen: Good luck with your project, I don't think I'll be able to afford to live there but I'll enjoy driving by. Gilbert: We hope to make it something that everyone can be proud of as they go by. It is going to be very visible. We certainly appreciate your time. Bunch: With the botanical gardens on one side of Hwy. 265 and something like this on the other side it will definitely be a nice entryway to Fayetteville coming from the north. Subdivision Committee March 11, 2004 Page 18 I-PZD 04-05.00: Industrial Planned Zoning District (Wal-Mart Optical Lab/Hwy 62W, pp 559) was submitted by Todd Jacobs of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for property located at 2314 W 6`h Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and is in the Design Overlay District. The request is to rezone the subject property to an I-PZD, Industrial Planned Zoning District, to allow a 979 sq.ft. addition to the Optical Lab building and revise the on-site parking. Ostner: The next item on the agenda is I-PZD 04-05.00, Industrial Planned Zoning District for Wal-Mart Optical Lab on Hwy. 62 West. Pate: This site is located on 6th Street, Hwy. 62 West off of Old Farmington Road and Futrall Drive. It is the old Wal-Mart retail center. The retail was relocated in the early 1990's and the use was changed to an optical lab through the method of interior finish outs, tenant remodels and things of that nature. Also on the site is the tractor supply company which is a retail commercial type operation. They sale tractor and farm supplies and then to the far west is the Arkansas State Unemployment Center. The property is currently zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. It is within the Design Overlay District. The applicant originally submitted a Large Scale Development to expand what you see here shaded, 979 sq.ft., a minimal portion of the site to expand for a new piece of machinery. Under current zoning ordinances this site is used as manufacturing, which is not allowed by right or Conditional Use in the C-2 zoning district. Therefore, the only way to expand this use would be a rezoning application. In speaking with the applicant staff felt that it would not be appropriate to attempt to rezone this to I-1 or I-2 in this location. It is called out as regional commercial on our future land use plan, it is near I-540 obviously so there is obviously a lot of commercial opportunity on this site. That being said, staff recommended the applicant go through the I-PZD process. The uses that are there now would be retained as of right now. The optical center would operate as it is operating today as would the tractor supply company and the Arkansas State Unemployment offices. We have a mixture of uses here, office space, commercial/retail space and this manufacturing lab space. The other thing that the applicant was hoping to do was basically to re -stripe the parking lot and more efficiently stripe that. The number of parking spaces were originally determined by the retail use, the commercial Wal-Mart retail center. Therefore, there were a lot more spaces than you normally see with other industrial operations. The square footage is vastly different from 1 per 250 spaces for retail centers to 1 per 1,200 sq.ft. for Industrial types of uses. It was a non -conforming parking lot. Basically, if this use were permitted by right we would be looking at a building permit and signing off on a building permit to look at the expansion of 979 sq.ft. It is in the Design Overlay District so any expansion has to go through Large Scale Development and once we got to that point realized it was an expansion of a use not permitted. That is the background of how we got to the PZD process. It is a little confusing, and Subdivision Committee March 11, 2004 Page 19 it has been confusing for us too, but I think hopefully we are all on the same page now. The applicant does lease office and commercial space and they wish to retain those types of uses with the possibility of expanding into the tractor supply company space for instance in the future. I don't think that's planned at this time but they want to retain that option. They also would like to re -stripe the parking lot, as I mentioned. What they have presented to us are a number of charts and I've tried to synthesize it in page two of this report into one chart giving the businesses that are there now, the types of land use that are currently there, the square feet of those land uses, the number of employees served by this particular site. A couple of asterisks, 511 employees are employed by this optical center currently. That is approximately 110 employees per shift so at shift changes there are a number of vehicles, also the Tractor Supply Company employs another six to ten as does the employment center. One point I would like to make about the employment center, and this is also personal knowledge just from visiting the site, there are a lot of people at the state unemployment office a lot of time. They utilize the parking in the Wal- Mart Optical Center, it is usually overflowing with people there. That is just a point that I know the applicant made and I wanted to ensure that that was the case so we went out there and did some site visits and that is the case, they really did need parking beyond what's based on their 10 employees. The existing parking is 323 spaces. If we were going by what is allowed by right by ordinances right now we would be looking at 214 maximum number of spaces for this whole site. From the 323 that is existing they are proposing to go down actually to 284 but more efficiently striped and sort of relocate some of the spaces. There would be no additional parking. Actually, they are taking asphalt out. Currently there is 19% greenspace on the whole site, they are proposing to get up to that 25% number to go for the Design Overlay District requirements. Additionally, they are proposing the 25' greenspace along 6` Street to meet those Design Overlay District requirements with trees planted and shrubs to screen the parking area. We also have a proposal the Landscape Administrator has reviewed, trees along Fulbright and Old Farmington Road. The applicant is proposing to have several use units within this PZD including the manufacturing use that they currently have. Additional uses are professional offices, shopping goods, neighborhood shopping goods and office studios and related services. I have spoken with the applicant and suggested we might look at some of those other uses that are permitted. For instance, if Wal-Mart decides to move out in ten or fifteen years we want to make sure that this is still usable without going through another rezoning process so it is usable for commercial activity. I think that is an important point that this is regional commercial. I want to ensure that that commercial use is utilized in the future as well. There are no additional curb cuts proposed. Actually, the one on 6th Street will be modified to comply with the maximum width, 39' in width. Right now it is a lot wider I believe. Water and sewer lines are available to the site, Subdivision Committee March Il, 2004 Page 20 there are no additional utilities or utility easements really being looked at with the exception of one to serve this new structure, a utility easement to serve this new structure from Old Farmington Road. I would have to verify that through the Technical Plat Review minutes. I know Mr. Bunch brought up that comment yesterday. Sidewalks, we are looking at a requirement for sidewalks along 6`h Street, 6' sidewalks will be constructed along 6th Street. Additionally, staff recommended that the applicant approach this property owner just to the east and go ahead and connect that sidewalk. There are sidewalks all the way down with the exception of this small portion right here which is on the Blockbuster site. They have shown in their most recent site plans that they will connect that sidewalk to the drive offsite off of their property as well as connect the curb there. All of the other Design Overlay District requirements have been met for the most part. There is no additional signage proposed or additional curb cuts. The existing light poles will be retrofitted with light fixtures that comply with the Design Overlay District requirements, shielded, full cut off fixtures using sodium lighting directed downward at the parking lot. Elevations have been submitted. I have those here. One of the conditions that we stated in our conditions of approval is Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards. At this time the applicant is not proposing to modify the existing structure and it's current use. Staff feels that is appropriate. Potentially the expansion, we could look at that for Commercial Design Standards. What we have also conditioned is that with any future additions or changes of uses any new construction for the existing or any proposed buildings would have to meet all Commercial Design Standards because this is a very visible site and it is still commercial even though they are going through an Industrial Planned Zoning District process. We feel that is very important. As it stands there isn't anything really changing with the exception of this small portion of the building being expanded. I think it is appropriate that it does match the existing structure and not be something entirely different than what is there but if it pleases the Commission I would like to discuss that today at Subdivision Committee so the applicant can know at Planning Commission what to expect there. As I mentioned, the greenspace has been increased to go to the 25% greenspace requirement. There is some outdoor storage. If you may remember driving by this site there is some outdoor tractor supply type of thing. A lot of it is in the right of way. With this proposal, since it is a PZD/Large Scale Development, right of way will be dedicated to meet our Master Street Plan requirements. Although, the improvements along 61h Street, if you notice on your site plan on page 3 they show an area for all of that equipment to be relocated to that specific area. For sales, outdoor display of merchandise for sales is not required to be screened, only for storage. If this merchandise is for sale it doesn't necessarily have to be screened under our ordinance requirements. The same thing just to the east of the Tractor Supply Company is outdoor sales. It is fenced off and only Subdivision Committee March 11, 2004 Page 21 accessible from the interior but it is designated as outdoor sales and not just outdoor storage. Staff is recommending that it be forwarded to the full Planning Commission and the City Council with a recommendation for approval with a number of conditions, sixteen. A determination of if Commercial Design Standards are applicable at this time. Again, we recommend that the applicant look at the use units a little more closely to better ensure that commercial types of activities will be allowed here in the future. Also, a minimum of 51% of the gross leaseable floor area shall be for industrial use. That is based on the I-PZD requirement. That is why it falls into an I-PZD as opposed to a C-PZD. I believe the rest of the conditions are pretty standard. Ostner: Thanks Jeremy. Do we have any other staff input? Carnagey: I will make a minor comment. I'm curious to know the trees on the north side of the building, what sort of setting are those in as far as bedding? Jacobs: Right now they would just be planted on their own, there wouldn't be an edge bed. I think there is a ditch running parallel with the road so I'm also curious about with the utility easement there what we can do. Right now they would be individually planted and mulched. I would prefer they be in beds where they would be better maintained and have a better livelihood but I think that is something that we probably need to look at. Camagey: There was no indication of a difference between the asphalt and some sort of a grassy strip to plant in. I just wanted to make sure that there was adequate space to plant those trees. It is something we should follow up on. Jacobs: Right now I know there is a ditch so I don't know what kind of slope we have to plant in but it is something we will have to go to the site and actually verify. Ostner: We'll bring it back to the applicant if you could introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Jacobs: My name is Todd Jacobs with CEI Engineering representing Wal-Mart. This is a difficult little project. This is probably one of the most difficult ones that I've been involved in. Basically the site has got a mixture of uses. I tried to go through the history to find out what has really gone on with the site in the past. I guess the short version is this was one of the first regional commercial sites in Fayetteville so it is definitely not up to code. Parts of it are not in compliance now with the optical center so somehow it has all slipped through the cracks but now we are where we're at right now. What we would propose to do is tackle this entire site under this PZD which best suits our client and also suits the City of Fayetteville Subdivision Committee March Il, 2004 Page 22 long term so we know what will happen to this site, not only now but a year from now or ten years from now so we don't have to go through this process again if, for some reason, none of us are around. Basically what we have is Wal-Mart Optical Center is a lab that is very like manufacturing. If you go to Wal-Mart and get a prescription they send it to this lab, they put it together and have a piece of machinery that sorts it out and then mails it out. They have a new piece of machinery that is bigger so it wouldn't fit in the building. That's kind of how the whole process got going here is figuring out why they aren't zoned correctly or how this happened. Basically, they do have a large number of people per shift, it is 100 or 110 people per shift. There are quite a few people in there. There is no noise, no complaints from neighbors in the past, it is very light manufacturing. We would like to do the addition of 979 sq.ft. for the new machinery and with that we are willing to bring this site up to code with the additional landscaping, the irrigation, address the site lighting, greenspace, sidewalks, the addition to the sidewalks towards Blockbuster. We are asking for additional parking but it has a lot to do with what is really going on with this site right now. The Arkansas Unemployment Center has a staff of six to ten people but from us talking with them on a given they have between 40 and 60 people per hour showing up. It is a large rotating, lot of cars. With the Wal-Mart Optical Center and the large number of people inside the problem we have is why we are asking for that additional parking, which has kind of caused a big hang up on this project is when we have a shift change there are 220 people that need parking spots along with the employment center during the daylight hours. Right now the parking lot is quite filled during the daylight time. Then of course you have the tractor supply place, a smaller staff of six to ten people but there are people shopping there and their outdoor storage sales. That is the big picture of this project. There is a future talk for Wal-Mart Optical Center expanding into the Tractor Supply at some time in the future. That is something that Wal-Mart would like to see. They don't want to relocate the site, it works for them. With that we are willing to bring the site up to code, sidewalks or anything it takes to address. With that that's all I have for this proposal. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I will take public input. Seeing as no one is here from the public I will bring it back to the Committee. Bunch: Todd, what about the dirt road down on the southwest comer? Jacobs: We are going to go ahead and curb that and block it off. I don't know how it was there in the past or where it came from. It kind of goes along with this whole project of this site. It is kind of a we don't really know. We have shown new curb and we are going to block that off so that cut through will no longer be allowed to go through unless you want to drive over the curb. Subdivision Committee March 11, 2004 Page 23 Ostner: Is there going to be a curb on Futrall or is there already? Jacobs: I know they are re -curbing it right now. Right now they have curbed almost up to it, I don't know if they are going to go any further or not. Ostner: If they don't I would just like to suggest some boulders or trees or something that are tough to drive around. It is kind of an eye sore. Bunch: Position these in such a way that it is blocked off and then block it off over here. Ostner: You could even stagger a second row of trees kind of in between and behind to do a zigzag so it is not. Jacobs: I don't know the reason that's there, I think people are probably cutting that stop light and with all the traffic going through here it is just an access road even though it is dirt. We are going to go ahead and curb that and block it off and that will end that. Bunch: Jeremy, on the percentages of Industrial verses Commercial mix is that figured on just tract 1 or both tract 1 and tract 2? Pate: It should include both uses. I believe it just barely makes the number right now. It should include both because the PZD is for the entire site, both tract 1 and tract 2. Ostner: This is basically a rezoning so we are also rezoning the land for the unemployment building and for tractor supply to I-PZD. Warrick: To an Industrial Planned Zoning District with restricted uses specified. Ostner: Those uses cover? We are not creating something that is non-compliant right? Warrick: All of the use units that are proposed to be carried with this PZD address the existing uses on this site. It needs to be, the only zoning district that we could find that would allow for all of the existing uses on the site and the configuration of the site was an I-PZD. A C-PZD doesn't allow the use unit that addresses light manufacturing. In this particular situation since it has evolved to the optical lab since the use of this site has evolved to the optical lab, we have not seen any specific problems and we have not had any complaints. The way that it evolved to that use is not well documented but we understand that it is something that we want to address and we want to be able to deal with now. The most flexible and most appropriate district that we could apply was the I-PZD. It does still allow Subdivision Committee March 11, 2004 Page 24 for the adjacent uses, the retail sales and the office use. It is something that should the optical center relocate at some point in the future that very likely would shift the percentages to something other than a 51% Industrial use. That would then need to be reviewed and need to come back through the Planning Commission and Council because then it would not be an Industrial PZD. It very likely could convert to a C-PZD without too much of an issue depending on what the new use was. We expect that in the future we may have to deal with that. If the optical lab continues to thrive in this location and even possibly expand they still have on the ground if this is approved, what they would need in zoning to do that without going through this process again. Ostner: I'm sure that the dirt road isn't very well documented either but it is still there and that's just the way things go. Bunch: If it goes through the regular process and becomes a zoning district of it's own, an I-PZD does that mean any additional buildings or anything that is substantial by definition in the PZD ordinance would have to come all the way back through everything and go to the City Council? Warrick: Not necessarily through the City Council but the reason most any change to an additional structure or an addition to an existing structure on the site would be back at the Planning Commission for Large Scale approval solely because this site is located within the Overlay District and the Overlay District requires that any alterations or additions go through the Large Scale process. What this is is a piece of property that now has a zoning district applied and the uses permitted and if the uses that are proposed are within the allowances of the I-PZD it would not go through another PZD process or even Large Scale if it is an interior finish out and they are changing the uses and it still meets the thresholds defined in the PZD we will do a building permit for that. Bunch: Condition number four addresses some time between now and the full Planning Commission having the use units expanded to pick up more of what is normally available in a C-2, that makes a lot of sense. Jacobs: For us the way this property has evolved over time and it has been two months of just researching and figuring it out for everyone getting up to speed so we can explain what we are trying to do, this process works the best for us. I think it works probably the best for the city to get some sort of control of what's going to happen. I think office space will always stay here with this building for us. Tractor Supply may or may not go. I am pretty sure Wal-Mart Likes this site and wants to stay here long term. Just with the other uses this will definitely control what is going to go on here. This process works the best for us rather than a rezoning and Conditional Uses and all the other variances we would have to ask for. Subdivision Committee March Il, 2004 Page 25 Bunch: I need to make a statement that before we get down to voting I do have financial interest in Wal-Mart, it is very, very small. Particularly, it is a percentage basis. I don't think I would need to recuse on this item because I don't think that would abridge my objectivity on this. I just wanted to have it on the record that I have filed on my financial statements that I do own some Wal-Mart stock and have owned it for a number of years. Allen: That is true in my case also. I don't think the company would fold if I sold my stock. Bunch: Now that we have covered that on the Commercial Design Standards in looking at this by our normal parking lot ordinance 979 sq.ft. addition to the building by our ordinance would not require anywhere near the extensive landscaping and restructuring of the parking lot and sidewalks. This project as presented is carrying much more than what would normally be warranted by a 979 sq.ft. expansion. By virtue of that I'm in full agreement with the condition of approval that says that Commercial Design Standards basically would be addressed with any future addition. Right now we have an existing building that has been there for a long time and anything other than just this one little piece that goes on it won't really change the function of it. What has been presented as far as the landscaping and the parking lot reconfiguration to me is a very major step and is a big step in making a better looking entrance to the City of Fayetteville from I-540. We have had considerable work that has been done on the west side of Hwy. 62 and I-540 intersection so all of the sudden now we are having maybe 50% of the commercial node of Hwy. 62 and I-540 being dressed up. Not only the form of the additions that are being done here but the functionality of it where the broad expanse of asphalt is being minimized with the landscaping and we are getting some shade and that sort of thing so we are having a good tradeoff that we are getting a comprehensive redoing of the parking lot and the total site and then at a future time would address any building issues. Allen: I would certainly agree with you. This is going to be wonderful. Who would think that adding a piece of equipment would result in this. Warrick: I don't think anybody thought that would be the case when this all started. Bunch: This is definitely not a minimalist presentation. Ostner: I would agree that this is a vast improvement. It has kind of gone without much attention. There is a lot of great stuff going on here from the standpoint of the public is being given a big benefit in landscaping and extra sidewalks and bringing this up to snuff. At risk of being the wet Subdivision Committee March Il, 2004 Page 26 blanket, this is a prime commercial node, probably one of three and we are allowing an industrial zone. Many would say, and I'm not necessarily presenting this myself, but I think a strong case could be made that we have a finite amount of commercial nodes in town. Commercial is contingent on the street visibility, sales and retail. This functions in a vacuum. It is an Industrial use, people go there and I don't know if there is a window. They do their jobs and they go home. Trucks come and trucks go, it is an Industrial use. A strong case could be made that we are giving away our commercial nodes to a use that doesn't benefit this prime intersection. That concerns me. The Tractor Supply is appropriate, it is retail, the Arkansas Unemployment is very much commercial, it is appropriate. I just wanted to start that conversation. I think it is going to get a lot more pressed than the three of us because we see development and this is a good development. Jacobs: This is a large piece of property and it is a prime piece of commercial. In the future though Wal-Mart will own this property and most likely will never sell it. They will lease it. There are very few other retailers who Wal-Mart will lease this to. There are very few retailers who could actually probably lease the entire building. That is not to say it couldn't happen in the future but the likelihood is very minimal right now. It is a commercial node for Fayetteville and these comments will come up. The likelihood of another retailer being able to move into this site is probably going to be very difficult right now in the near future. It is manufacturing, that is not technically what we probably would like to see but there are 500 jobs give or take right here at this spot. Like I said, it is very expensive to relocate that optical lab, it is very impressive inside with all the machinery. I believe they like this site and want to stay here long term, five or ten years. The process that we have does allow for them to change their mind and they could sell it or lease it. I think that is a good part with this project to address some of the concerns you just brought up. Ostner: I appreciate that. Again, another case could be made that no single retailer, very few single retailers would be interested or eligible. There are many small retailers, Westlake, a Tractor Supply. I just wanted to approach that subject. I think this is a good project and I'm wanting to forward it. Bunch: In the short term you look right across Hwy. 62 from it and we have the old K -Mart Store. Ostner: Food4Less is what I know it as. Bunch: It was a K -Mart before it was Food4Less, it was originally built as a K - Mart store. Subdivision Committee March Il, 2004 Page 27 Warrick: It is being renovated right now for office. Ostner: I was going to ask about that. Can you elaborate? Jacobs: I live very close to it and that building has been vacant for five years or more. Warrick: Building permits have been issued and Tyson is going in there as office. Jacobs: They weren't tied up in our same process since they did not add onto the building but they are painting it and it looks a lot better. Warrick: They are making some huge fagade improvements. They won't be doing as much in the area of landscaping and parking lot improvements but they will be doing some. Ostner: That is a terrific benefit for sure. Bunch: As an I-PZD it still can have up to 49% commercial. We do have a commercial development going in to the north of it. This has been a conversation that has been bounced around when we were looking at rezoning some commercial to residential for the apartment complex and then we have the Phase II of the Southern View where it is mixed residential and commercial. Then also not too far from it is the Hwy. 16 and I-540 commercial node that is underutilized and of course as it meets critical mass in that area with the Harps project that we just had come through that area is probably the icebreaker that will attract other retail type to that next intersection and it will become a more viable node. In seeing how this works with everything around it I don't think having it as an I-PZD should be that great of a concern because it is being utilized and with that number of people that are working there with the shift work having it right next to a major intersection sure helps ease a lot of traffic problems in other parts of the city if that lab were located where people had to drive all the way through town to get to it. That can draw from a large area and be readily accessible to two U.S. Highways. Ostner: The same argument could be made in reverse that someone who works in a vacuum that this building does not need to be here. Most commercial and retail is all about location. This building is contingent on trucks, employees and infrastructure. That could be anywhere, it could be in our industrial park and all those drivers would be subtracted from this intersection because they are not contingent on the visibility and the location. That is just points of discussion I suppose. A sort of different topic is I would like to understand more about these sales areas for Tractor Supply. I have often wondered why they have their stuff out front when Subdivision Committee March Il, 2004 Page 28 so many of our other retailers aren't allowed to do that. Now we are incorporating it, we are validating it for sure. Pate: It is allowed by right if it is for sale or rent, just like car dealerships. Obviously, they can't fit them all in the buildings so a lot of materials that are for sale are larger pieces of farm equipment, tillers and those types of things. Those are allowed by right if they are for sale or rent. If it is just storage, to the applicant at Technical Plat Review we discussed that to ensure that this was not just stored out there at the side of the structure, that there is actually a consumer entrance that you go in and walk through the aisles to shop for these types of materials. They are not necessarily weathered, they are weather resistant to be outdoor type sales. Ostner: Is the outdoor sales you mentioned by right is that by right in commercial zones? Warrick: Yes, that is why Wal-Mart can have their seasonal sales in their parking areas, as well as Lowe's and Home Depot and other areas like that. Ostner: It is just storage that the delineation is made that that should be elsewhere? Warrick: Storage is treated differently. Seasonal sales is permitted. Ostner: Just another small issue because we need to talk more about Commercial Design Standards. This curb cut in front of Blockbuster is pretty inadequate. That is offsite and that is not really what we're dealing with is that correct? Jacobs: It is not our piece of property. Wal-Mart doesn't own it, that belongs to Blockbuster. We are going to extend that sidewalk to connect up to it since it is already there and it is already in the 25' greenspace setback. Hopefully we'll get some sidewalk going along 6th Street. It is not our property. Ostner: I would hope in the not too distant future that could be corrected. It doesn't function. It is very dangerous in fact with people trying to exit and turn around. If we could talk a little bit about Commercial Design Standards to try to prep the applicant for the full Commission. You two have already approached the subject a little bit that you weren't sure that they needed to make any changes. Bunch: Just the part that is being added. The other parts are existing. Jacobs: Talking about the future and the 51% Industrial to make sure I understand. Say Wal-Mart does expand into Tractor Supply, they will only have to go for a building permit? Subdivision Committee March Il, 2004 Page 29 Warrick: Yes. Jacobs: If another retailer were to come in then they would address more the Design Overlay Commercial Design Standards for that building then? Warrick: If there are alterations or additions to a structure. Interior tenant finish outs are typically not addressed, they are building permit actions and we would of course look at the square footages and the break out of the different types of uses to ensure that we are still meeting that criteria for 51% of the Industrial use. If that threshold was changed if this center decided to become wholly commercial then we would recommend that that come through the rezoning process so that it would then be given a commercial designation again. Bunch: It could revert to C-2 or C-PZD or something appropriate. Warrick: Commercial Design Standards kick in at a threshold when as far as the structural elements, when you are making changes to the exterior of the structure. Interior changes don't typically hit that threshold because there is an ability to just do a building permit and tenant finish the inside. Bunch: As an Industrial PZD does it even come under Commercial Design Standards? I know that it is in the Overlay District so I know that those would apply. Warrick: In a Planned Zoning District ordinance any portion of a PZD that has commercial components does come under Commercial Design Standards. Bunch: Then also on the Design Overlay standards with streets all around it it would have to have at least three places that looked like a front? Warrick: In this particular situation staff feels that the addition, the 979 sq.ft. addition is appropriate to review for Commercial Design Standards, primarily ensuring consistency and that it is not a metal addition, that it has some sort of articulation and that it fits in with the existing structures on the site. Allen: Todd, could you show us what is existing and what's planned? Jacobs: Basically, your front elevation will stay the same. The only part that would change on your plan is the back corner here. What it would be would be a CMU wall on two sides and painted to match the existing building. Allen: It's not on this drawing? Subdivision Committee March Il, 2004 Page 30 Jacobs: The loading doors are right here existing, there are two loading doors and a trash compactor. It would be closer to us. Ostner: Ok. Jacobs: There are two existing loading doors here and here and this is the trash compactor. You would have two new sides built that would be painted to match what the existing store looks like. Bunch: In a sense it is not changing anything because it is basically just adding two walls. Jacobs: Right, it is adding two walls and they are going to demo these two interior walls for the new piece of machinery. Bunch: So in a sense each one of those walls that are already forming that corner are just being relocated. Jacobs: We have the trash compactor and an overhead transformer right in here. Warrick: On the elevation what we would end up seeing is a corner which would be a line. It is not going to look on an elevation really any different than what the existing wall appears. Instead of the line being at this location it is going to be shifted to the north. I think it is important to note that without this process to allow for the addition for this machinery for the existing use that has been permitted by the city for eight years none of the improvements on the site wilt incur. That has nothing to do with any sort of blackmail or twisting of arms so to speak. I think it is important that we have acknowledged this use on this site for a number of years, that it has not caused any problems or complaints and that through a very small addition the city will benefit in an entire site improvement. There are always problems with sites. This site, while it is being tremendously improved, I'm sure could have more and better and I believe that that will come in the future. It is a staged process. I don't think that we'll be able to get absolutely everything that we will ever want to see in this site as if it were being developed brand new with this one process. I hope that we have staged our conditions to the extent and in a manner that would allow for us to progressively see improvements on this site as things change over the years. That is what we really want to see happen. Allen: I would certainly agree and hope that we don't get bogged down on housing a piece of equipment. Bunch: Especially since it is you might say taking two walls and moving them over. It is not really a person driving by and looking at it. Unless they Subdivision Committee March 11, 2004 Page 31 drove by while it was under construction you probably would never notice what's being done. I think what's being done on the rest of the site far outweighs anything that we would be looking at that that minor piece would be carrying on retrofit to the building fapade itself Do we need to address anything on the parking issue? I know that the lights and everything are being changed and that is wonderful. Since it is actually decreasing the amount of parking space available, or the amount of asphalt, but do we need to say anything about the numbers? I think that since it is a PZD it is probably a little more negotiable on percentages and that sort of thing. It is basically a re -striping. Jacobs: For the greenspace to get to where we had to was removal of asphalt that was either striped out or wasn't striped. Bunch: Can you show us specifically what asphalt is being removed? Jacobs: On your site plan, everywhere you see a new landscape island was existing asphalt. Bunch: Basically, that's what you are counting as greenspace and open space is the islands? Jacobs: Luckily we had greenspace on your west side over behind the employment center which is existing trees and the dirt drive we talked about. To get to our 25% we added 20,000 sq.ft. more greenspace which all of that is removal of asphalt. Bunch: Is some of that along 6`h Street? Jacobs: A big part of that is. As you know, the asphalt goes right up to the curb. From the curb back that is 40' of asphalt we're taking out that will be greenspace with sidewalks, trees and shrubs. Right now with the asphalt up to the curb we all know what it looks like. Basically, all the greenspace we came up with was total removal of asphalt. It should look a lot better. Ostner: These three areas right here, I'm just wondering why they aren't given the same treatment in front of the front door of the optical. Jacobs: Part of it is the additional parking we need is probably lower than what our client would prefer to have. To try to meet city code and to keep our client happy with their parking numbers and Arkansas Employment Center happy is try to get as much parking as we can in these two areas which are the main two entry areas. We could curb that up and maybe shrub it but the likelihood of plants surviving in there would be pretty low with the amount of vehicle traffic and foot traffic so I opted to pull the Subdivision Committee March Il, 2004 Page 32 islands back towards the bank and have a better chance of survival of those trees and the landscaping we do. Ostner: In general this is outstanding, just carving out two spaces giving the trees ideal dirt room. I was just wondering why this terrific method wasn't used in these three. Jacobs: We can shift the landscape islands back up so we have a continuous row and then we will have to re -stripe that. It is mostly a parking issue. Ostner: There is no reason to take the same thing and flip flop it. In fact, really these are going to be important for shade. Everybody loves to park under a shady tree. You are going to be able to park on the north side of it. These are going to shade the street. I just wanted to ask about that, this is fine as it is. Don't switch it around. Bunch: Are you taking the barriers out on the southwest comer of the optical center building? Right now the traffic is being rerouted to loop around. Jacobs: I don't know how that got through but we are going to propose to remove them and on our final construction plans we will put a speed bump in on this area right here. Bunch: They are using concrete barriers that forces traffic to come around like this right now. It is like those temporary deals that were used out on I-540 for so long with those orange barrels. Ostner: Another thing I wanted to commend you on this landscape plan is that you have actually carved out spaces abutting the building and put trees in there. I think that is really important and I think that helps a lot. Getting the trees close to the building makes a big difference. MOTION: Bunch: I would like to move that we forward I-PZD 04-05.00 to the full Planning Commission with our recommendation. I don't think we need to add any conditions of approval. I think that staff very well covered it for us. I would move that we forward it and recommend it for passing to the full Planning Commission. Allen: I would like to enthusiastically second. Ostner: I will concur. Thank you very much. I believe we are adjourned.