Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-01 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Friday, October 1, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN LSP 04-1217: (David Mashie, 405) Approved Page 2 FPL 04-1137: (Crofton Manor, 323): Approved Page 4 FPL 04-1211: (Wildflower Meadows, 32 1) Approved Page 7 LSD 04-1184: (USA Drug/Evelyn Hills, 407) Approved Page 10 LSD 04-1216: (Wedington Business Center, 435) Approved Page 14 ADM 04-1251: (Major Modification Drake Field) Approved Page 28 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Candy Clark Jill Anthes Christian Vaught Loren Shackelford STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Suzanne Morgan Jeremy Pate Alison Brady Renee Thomas Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page 2 LSP 04-1217: Lot Split (DAVID MASHIE, 405): Submitted by ALAN REID for property located at 1613 N OAKLAND AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.46 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 0.16 and 0.30 acres respectively. Shackelford: Welcome to the Friday, October ls` Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. The first thing we have, item one is LSP 04-1217. Morgan: The applicant with this proposal is requesting approval of a Lot Split on the subject property, approximately .50 acres. They are requesting to split this property into two tracts of .16 and .30 acres respectively. The site is zoned RMF -24 and contains a single family home and wood frame shed to the rear. This is an accessory structure only permissible on a lot if associated with a primary structure and therefore, shall be removed from the proposed tract of land prior to the Lot Split approval. The lot is located adjacent to two rights of way, both of which are local streets on the Master Street Plan and require 25' right of way from centerline of each street, requiring an additional 5' dedication for each street with this Lot Split. Staff is recommending approval of LSP 04-1217 at the Subdivision Committee level with seven conditions of approval. Shackelford: Is the applicant here this morning? Patterson: I'm Tim Patterson with Alan Reid & Associates. Shackelford: Do you have anything else you would like to add? Patterson: No, I will just answer questions. Shackelford: Does anyone else want to comment on this item? If not, I will bring it back to the committee. This is something that we are asked to take action on at the Subdivision Committee level. Staff is recommending approval subject to the stated seven conditions as attached. Are there any questions? Clark: Have you gone over the conditions? Patterson: No I haven't. Clark: Did you know that they were going to have to move the shed? Patterson: I believe so. Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page 3 Vaught: I guess my only questions were making sure the lot that we are approving is a buildable lot, which it looks like it is. Does RMF -24 have smaller setbacks than 8' on the sides of interior lots? Warrick: It actually has larger setbacks on the rear, smaller lot area and lot width requirements. Vaught: With that being said, I have no further questions as long as right of way is dedicated and they agree to all conditions of approval. I will move to approve LSP 04-1217. Clark: Second. Shackelford: We have a motion and a second and I concur. Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page 4 FPL 04-1137: Final Plat (CROFTON MANOR, 323): Submitted by NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC for property located at 3110 MT. COMFORT ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 21.15 acres. The request is to approve the final plat of a residential subdivision with 55 single family lots proposed. Shackelford: Next on our agenda this morning is FPL 04-1137 for Crofton Manor. Morgan: In October, 2003 the Planning Commission granted approval of a Preliminary Plat for the Crofton Manor subdivision. It is a single family residential subdivision with a total of 60 lots comprised of 57 proposed residential lots. The applicant is at this time requesting approval of a Final Plat for the Crofton Manor subdivision. Rights of way dedication include 45' from centerline on Mt. Comfort Road and 50' right of way for all interior streets. Street improvements include 14' from centerline of Mt. Comfort as well as street stub outs that have been provided and constructed with this subdivision for future connectivity to the west and the north. Staff is recommend approval of FPL 04-1137 with the following nine conditions to include access from individual lots prohibited from Mt. Comfort Road. Specifically identifying lots in that condition, as well as tree mitigation fees in the amount of $9,675, assessment in the amount of $4,000 in lieu of the construction of the sidewalk along Mt. Comfort east of Kenswick Avenue as well as an assessment in the amount of $22,660 to be paid to the city in lieu of street construction for the northern portion of Kenswick Avenue not constructed with this project. Shackelford: Sir, will you go ahead and introduce yourself? Bender: Mike Bender with Northstar Engineering, representing PTB Development. Shackelford: Do you have anything that you would like to add about this project? Bender: The only question I have is for Matt Casey. After our lift station discussion, when I called the developer about the Scata system that they installed, I just wanted to confirm that with you. This is the first time we had heard about it, I didn't know if that was your standard practice. Casey: A Scata system is required on all lift stations. That is installed after the fact by OMI and the developer has to pay for that. Bender: That would be a condition that we would need to add. Do you know the standard fee? Casey: I don't know the standard. Bender: I just know after we had done the lift station test that that came up. Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page S Casey: That is how it is normally handled. Warrick: Matt, is this property, I can't remember if this is far enough west to be included in the area assessed for the Rupple Road bridge. Casey: It is out of the assessment area. Shackelford: Do any other city departments have comment regarding this? O'Neal: Mike, you also need to show the location of the sewer taps and the water meters. Bender: That's no problem. Shackelford: At this point I am going to open it up for public comment if anybody here would like to comment on the Final Plat for Crofton Manor this is your opportunity. Seeing none, I will close it and bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions and comments. Vaught: I have one question on conditions four and five. I think five is because they don't have enough room to build the road, they don't own that property? Bender: That is correct. That is a temporary lift station access road. What we've got is right of way, but we don't have the other half. Vaught: What about the sidewalk? Bender: The sidewalk was an existing house, that was part of the discussion with the Preliminary Plat. It is an existing house and they've got a lot of landscaping along the road and it was agreed that we could leave that out as long as we left the house as is. At the time that they change something with the house then they have to install the sidewalk. We did install a sidewalk along the west side. Clark: Staff, why is there no connectivity to Gooseberry to the east? Warrick: Those are all existing developed lots with no location to punch through. They will end up with two rows of houses back to back when these houses get built. Clark: Are we adding a condition for the lift station? Vaught: It sounds like to the lift station and then showing the water and sewer services. Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page 6 Clark: Are you agreeable with the rest of them? Bender: Yes we are. MOTION: Clark: I will move for approval of FPL 04-1137 subject to the stated conditions, including the lift station and water, etc. Vaught: I will second that motion. Shackelford: I will concur. Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page 7 FPL 04-1211: Final Plat (WILDFLOWER MEADOWS, 321): Submitted by GEOFFREY BATES for property located at MT COMFORT ROAD, WEST OF CLABBER CREEK PHASE II. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 18.38 acres. The request is to approve the Final Plat of a residential subdivision with 48 single family lots proposed. Shackelford: Next on our agenda is the Final Plat for Wildflower Meadows, FPL 04- 1211. Olson: This is submitted by Keystone Consultants. In November, 2003 the Planning Commission granted approval for a Preliminary Plat for Wildflower Meadows subdivision, a single family residential subdivision comprised of 48 residential lots. Water and sewer service has been extended to this development. Right of way being dedicated includes 45' from centerline along Mt. Comfort Road and 50' right of way for all interior streets with Morning Mist Drive having a dedicated right of way of 70'. Street connectivity, future stub outs to the east and west have been constructed and staff recommends approval of FPL 04-1211 with nine conditions of approval. Shackelford: Thank you very much. Will you introduce yourself? Bates: I'm Geoff Bates, I'm an engineer with Keystone Consultants. Just looking over the conditions of approval, number five, I believe this duplex right here, originally these cul-de-sacs came all the way to the back and there was sewer available to the duplex but now there is no sewer main to even get to it. I believe it was when sewer became available and sewer is not available to that duplex. Warrick: I think that number five can come out. I will just give a little more history of how things came about on this. When this piece of property was proposed for annexation it, without the two adjoining tracts would have created some islands. The two adjoining tracts did decide to come into the annexation initially and that was the property for the Shiloh Community Church as well as the duplex that we've been discussing. During the process of annexation, the Planning Commission did approve those items, they carried it forward to the City Council and at that time both the owner of the duplex as well as the Shiloh Community Church decided that they wished to withdraw their annexation request and Council allowed them to do that. Since that time, of course, the City Council has annexed all islands within the city and they are within the city. However, they didn't come in at the time that the subject property came in and the condition of connecting that duplex to the sewer was initiated as a part of the combined annexation request that was then withdrawn. I think that it is appropriate to withdraw item number five with the expectation that that duplex will be connected to sewer under our ordinance as soon as sewer is available Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page 8 within 300 feet and not necessarily as a condition of the subdivision, since that annexation didn't go through as it was originally proposed. Shackelford: Do we have any other comments regarding the conditions of approval? Bates: No, other than that, everything is fine. Shackelford: Are there any other comments? O'Neal: You need to show the location of the sewer taps and the water meters. Brady: Could you coordinate with us with getting park boundary signs up on that little sliver? Bates: Ok. Warrick: The reason that there is no connectivity to the north is because that is the location of Clabber Creek. Shackelford: At this point I will open it up for public comment. If anybody would like to speak in regards to the Final Plat approval for Wildflower Meadows, FPL 04-1211. Hearing none, I will close it and bring it back to the Planning Commissioners. Clark: What is to the east? Bates: The church. Clark: There is no road or access? Bates: Clabber Creek Phase II is right here and they are connecting to it. Warrick: At the northeast corner Morning Mist Drive, the street that cuts through the site east/west at the north end, that is a collector street that goes all the way back through the Clabber Creek developments to Rupple Road and eventually over to Salem Road. Shackelford: There is in affect, significantly more connectivity than what this looks at. You are looking at just a little piece of a very fast developing area. Are there any other questions? Vaught: Is three and four the developer's responsibility or does the city go out and check that? Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page 9 Warrick: The city will have to ensure that the improvements have been made and we will not sign off on the Final Plat documents until we have verified that those improvements have been improved. Clark: The rest of the conditions of approval are ok7 Bates: Yes. MOTION: Shackelford: I will make a motion that we approve FPL 04-1211 with the change that condition five read that the Final Plat shall show location of sewer taps and city water taps. Clark: Second. Vaught: I concur. Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page 10 LSD 04-1184: Large Scale Development (USA DRUG/EVELYN HILLS, 407): Submitted by CEI ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at NW CORNER OF THE EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 17.21 acres. The request is to approve the development of a 3,500 s.f retail space with 23 parking spaces proposed on 0.91 acres of the subject property. Shackelford: Next on our agenda is LSD 04-1184 for USA Drug. If the applicant would please come forward. Morgan: This site proposed to be developed as USA Drug is a .91 acre site located at the northwest corner of Evelyn Hills Shopping Center. This property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and is currently developed as a multi tenant shopping center. All surrounding properties are also zoned C- 2, Thoroughfare Commercial and used for commercial purposes. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 3,500 sq.ft. USA Drug retail center. The proposed structure and the associated parking is located within the current parking lot field for the Evelyn Hills shopping center. Approximately 61 existing spaces are proposed to be removed for the addition of the retail store and associated 34 spaces. The leased area on which the structure is proposed is adjacent to College Avenue (7113), with this Large Scale Development dedication of additional right of way for a total of 55' from centerline is required adjacent to the lease area boundary, as well as construction of a 6' sidewalk along that right of way. A waiver has been submitted for the tree preservation plan. It has been reviewed and approved, there are no existing trees on this site. Staff does recommend approval of LSD 04-1184 at the Subdivision Committee level with twelve conditions, of which, Planning Commission determination and approval of commercial design standards are required. Staff does find that the elevations of the proposed structure generally meets the requirements as set forth in the commercial design standards and additional conditions address dedication of right of way, construction of a 6' sidewalk, as well as the location of two bike racks, one of which has been shown on the plan, as well as a condition from our Landscape Administrator regarding existing landscaping along College Avenue (7113) shall be protected during the construction process, as well as a note from the Solid Waste Division, included in this packet with regard to the location of the trash container for easy access for the Solid Waste Division. Condition seven addresses that. Shackelford: Thank you. Would the applicant please introduce yourself? Smith: I'm Scott Smith with CEI Engineering. Shackelford: Do you have anything to add at this point? Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page I1 Smith: Not that I can think of. Shackelford: Have you had an opportunity to read the conditions of approval and are you in agreement with those conditions? Smith: Yes. Shackelford: Do any other city departments have any comments regarding this item? O'Neal: Scott, on the sidewalk we need to coordinate with the Sidewalk Administrator on how we are to connect onto the south. We can do that at the time that construction plans are submitted. Shackelford: At this point I'm going to open it up to public comment. Would anybody like to address LSD 04-1184 for USA Drug in the Evelyn Hills Shopping Center? If not, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for questions and comments. Clark: How far is this building setback? Warrick: Somewhere in the range of 70' or 80'. They have 30' of landscaped area, a 24' drive aisle, a 20' parking area, it is more like 90'. Smith: The back drive is pretty much the pavement existing now. Clark: What did you look at as far as parking in the commercial development? Warrick: We looked at the use and square footage within the overall development to assure that the removal of spaces that they were proposing here was not going to short the entire development with regard to range that they were required to have. Clark: Did you look at the flow of the traffic through that parking lot? Warrick: Yes. Clark: That is an incredibly interesting one to navigate. Warrick: It is wide open and it has different angles. It is almost as fun as Fiesta Square. Clark: Has anybody, it intrigues me that they are building in front of another building. Has anybody in the development of Evelyn Hills commented on that? Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page 12 Warrick: The applicant, the owner, Weingarten Realty is the applicant on the project. This is actually the second time that a proposal has been approved in this location. There was a previous Large Scale Development and the reason that there is that grassy strip in the parking area is because they chose at the time that they did a renovation to Montgomery Wards, which is now Ozark Natural Foods, they had proposed a Large Scale Development for an out building, which at the time they just specified as spec. lease space. They brought that to the Planning Commission, got approval for it and then chose not to build it. Of course, that Large Scale has lapsed so now they are starting back. This isn't surprising and it is not really new to the tenants or the developers of that area, this is just kind of a new proposal because now they have a specific tenant. Shackelford: I have one question of staff. We are recommending approval of this Large Scale Development at the Subdivision Committee level and not forwarding it to the full Planning Commission, is that in regards to the actual size of this location? How was that judgment made? Warrick: Under your bylaws the Subdivision Committee has the authority to approve Large Scale Developments if there are no outstanding issues and no waivers being requested. We feel that this is a clean project that meets the criteria of our ordinances and we feel that they comply with commercial design standards and therefore, we are recommending approval at this level. Shackelford: Condition of approval number one requires a specific determination regarding commercial design standards. If we could speak to those. Vaught: I do appreciate you adding the awnings in the back. The back is going to be very visible so I think it is important to have that look as nice as the other elevations. I definitely think that the other three elevations meet the standards and I think the awnings help the east side tremendously. Clark: The only side I have a concern about would be the back half of this elevation, you've mitigated it every place else. Maybe it is just going to be directional, but where is the front entrance going to be? Warrick: The southwest corner. Clark: It is not going to face College? Warrick: It is going to face the bank. Smith: Similar to the Walgreen's with the corner entrance. Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page 13 Clark: So you are trying to give the impression of the shopping center as a horseshoe thing? This is certainly an improvement of the existing nature of the building. Shackelford: Are there any other comments regarding commercial design standards? Are there any other comments regarding the conditions of approval? Vaught: I guess I have one question. They are constructing a new 6' sidewalk, are we leaving the old one or are we going to rip it out? Smith: There is not one. Warrick: I think there is a footpath where people walk along that frontage. Clark: The cut through to the service station, is that going away? Smith: No. Clark: You are in agreement with the conditions of approval? Smith: Yes. MOTION: Clark: I will move that we approve LSD 04-1184 with conditions of approval as stated and a specific determination about commercial design standards. Vaught: I will second. Shackelford: I will concur. Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page 14 LSD 04-1216: Large Scale Development (WEDINGTON BUSINESS CENTER, 435): Submitted by JAMES KOCH for property located at 6363 WEDINGTON DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 5.51 acres. The request is to approve a 29,630 s.f. commercial development with 160 parking spaces proposed on the subject property. Shackelford: Next on our agenda is LSD 04-1216 which is the Wedington Business Center. Can we have the staff report please? Morgan: In November, 2002 the Planning Commission unanimously approved a Large Scale Development on the subject property for PIT Development consisting of four retail buildings and associated parking as well as street improvements and landscaping. Subsequent to approval the developer obtained the grading and drainage permits to begin construction and did begin construction on public sidewalks. In May, 2004 the developer requested building permits for the Large Scale Development. Approval for this project however, expired in November, 2003 without a request for an extension and therefore, a new Large Scale Development is required to be reviewed. The 5.51 acre site is located at the southeast corner of Wedington and Double Springs Road and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. It is currently in a halted state of construction pending approvals from the Planning Commission for any development. The applicant is therefore, requesting approval to construct a 29,630 sq.ft. retail center with four separate buildings as approved with the previous Large Scale Development. This plan before you is largely the same as the approved plan of 2002 though it has been modified to include an improved grading and retaining wall to the east, better interior circulation as well as parking. Parking numbers have been increased with the current proposal with the addition of the retaining wall to the east to alleviate the steep grade along the existing access drive. Right of way to be dedicated includes 55' from centerline for Wedington as well as 45' from centerline for Double Springs Road. Double Springs Road is also to be improved approximately 14' from centerline with curb, gutter, storm drain and a 6' sidewalk. Tree preservation has been waived. There are existing trees located within utility or access easements. Several adjoining property owners have returned notification mailings stating no objection to the project. One property owner does object citing existing traffic congestion at the intersection of Double Springs and Wedington. Another has also submitted a bulleted letter detailing concerns with the drainage, the existing grading violations and concerns with access onto the adjacent driveways. This particular adjacent property owner does request that the item go before the full Planning Commission for review. Staff, however, does recommend approval of LSD 04-1216 at the Subdivision Committee level with a total of 16 conditions of approval, of which, Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff, again, is recommending that Double Springs Road be improved 14' from centerline Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page 15 with pavement, curb, gutter, storm drains and a 6' sidewalk constructed in accordance with city standards. The sidewalk shall also be constructed at the right of way line per ordinance requirements. Planning Commission determination and approval of commercial design standards and additional conditions as stated on the report. Warrick: I would also like to add that this morning I received an additional comment from an adjoining property owner who has objections and states that there are serious drainage washout and flooding issues to the east of the property that need to be resolved before continuing development and also the elevation of the south side of the development is excessively high. Shackelford: If you would introduce yourself and add anything that you would like to add before we make a determination. Koch: My name is James Koch with McClelland Consulting Engineers representing Pat Tobin's revised plan for reinstating the approval here. The development, with respect to the land owner's comments has undergone some change in grading. He is adding about 260' of a really nice modular block wall around that perimeter to help out with grading issues and there will be screening along that boundary as well. The drainage is all being directed to a detention basin over there and there is currently a permit with the ADEQ to maintain any erosion and sedimentation problems resulting from the site. Shackelford: Have you had an opportunity to review the conditions of approval and are you in agreement with the conditions? Koch: Yes. Shackelford: Are there any other comments from other city departments that we need to be aware of regarding this? O'Neal: We need to add a condition of approval that prior to the issuance of building permit, that the damage done to Wedington during the construction of water main shall be repaired per AHTD comments. Koch: Their roadway will have to be repaired to state's standards but the water main will be the city's requirement. Shackelford: At this time I will open it up to public comment. Is anyone here who would like to address LSD 04-1216 for Wedington Business Center? Sloan: I'm Charlie Sloan, one of the land owners out there. I own the subdivision next to him, Copper Ridge on the south side of this project. We are tickled to death to have some potential for retail in that end of town so we Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page 16 are excited about Pat getting it in. We have had some problems with this project. The number one is water. I am south of him. Our design is to pick up the water coming out of his detention pond and put it in our detention pond and then it releases into a small swale that goes on the McGrewter property. One of the concerns that we have had is the volume of what is going to try to go down that swale because we also pick up Owl Creek subdivision, which has no detention pond. I know the engineers have done their calculations and everything but one of the things we would like to look at, we made our pond, after getting out there and looking at the situation, we made my detention pond about 30% bigger so we could retain water longer than normal to try to slow down flow into that. One of the things that I would like to ask for is that we look at the detention pond on Pat's project and make it larger, the space is there. If the detention pond were extended to the west a little bit further, and also his outlet structure, I am going to modify mine based on what we have talked to our engineers about slowing down the flow out of our detention pond and I would like Pat's engineers look at his and possibly look at some way of slowing down the time frame and extending the time frame it takes for water to leave there. Right now our problem is most of the water wasn't going into his detention pond, it was coming down onto my property, going through our property and into our detention pond and we have blocked it up. I've got probably 2' of mud in the bottom of my pond right now. We are catching it and letting it filter through our pond by putting hay bails and stuff in there, we have been doing that all year, which is fine because I can get into my pond and clean it out. The first time we didn't have it in there the McGrewters got flooded out. It came through there, went through his outlet structure, went through my outlet structure and flooded them so we obviously had a problem there. We have gone back since and tried to rework part of their drive, part of the swale to try to create it, and it works, as long as you control the volume of flow going into their swale down the side of their property. They have been great to work with. Two or three times they have had their workshop flooded out and it was red mud that was going down there. I know Pat had silt fences up and everything else but it was just the volume of water. One of the things too on this project was that I believe the original plan when I saw it when we were looking at the property, that we weren't going to have a 12' high bank of red dirt on this project. I thought it was supposed to stair step down. I may be mistaken. That was one of the issues that I had with it. Another issue is there needs to be something addressed at the northeast corner of this project, a concrete swale or something because water comes off that area, goes down to the McGrewter driveway and it just adds more volume to them. We put a drain in for them at the end of their driveway. The trouble is that it handles their driveway and puts it into the Swale but it doesn't handle that extra volume. Since then, we went up there and put silt fence up, hay bails and dug two little small ditches across there and that helped a lot by Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page 17 putting the water in the ditch alongside the highway where it should've gone. Right there it just sort of flattens out along the tree and stuff. We need to be concerned about that one corner. It really got bad once they put those sidewalks in. I understand once the parking lot is in those sidewalks won't act like a dam but they acted like a dam and brought it over to his drive. Clark: Where is the detention pond? Koch: The detention pond is in the rear of the site. It has been expanded to include additional volume. The McGrewter property is on the east side of us here. What is happening with this site currently is not according to our grading plan. We cannot go out and rectify any drainage concerns on this site until we have a grading permit. Until we get the approval from Planning and Engineering we are not going to be allowed to go out and address any of these concerns under the current ordinances of the City of Fayetteville. Mr. Sloan is exactly right, that drainage pattern does exist now, but it is being revised with this plan. Warrick: I would just add to that that the previous project as was stated in the staff report, did get underway and it was put under a stop work several months ago and has sat waiting for new plans to be submitted and new approvals to be granted so that as James said, mitigation can be affective on the property because it is in a problem state right now and we need to ensure that the proper plans get through the process that our engineers are satisfied with them so that the right fix can be made to the property so that it does drain properly and that a project can be installed that is appropriate and complies with our drainage ordinances. Shackelford: Let's go ahead and finish up public comment and then we will address the issues that those comments raise. Mr. Sloan, is there anything else? Sloan: One of the other things that I didn't see on the plans, what kind of screening? I thought when I do commercial I always have to put up a privacy fence for myself. The biggest thing, I would like the engineers and Pat to work with us on looking at the situation over there for that neighborhood and trying to come up with a solution. I do pick up his water. His water leaves his detention pond and goes into my piping. I spent $30,000 or $40,000 piping it to my pond. We had excess space where my detention pond is and got Matt to review it and we got to enlarge our pond by about 30% and I'm just saying if Pat enlarges his we can look at our outlet structures and we can make sure the McGrewters won't have a problem with this. We want to be good neighbors with them. Shackelford: Would anybody else like to make comments regarding LSD 04-1216 for Wedington Business Center? Seeing none, I will close it and bring it back Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page 18 to the Commissioners. We have three questions in my understanding. We have the screening, which we have not addressed. The storm water runoff, which my understanding is will be addressed. It is just a situation that the development that it is in right now they couldn't go back in and there is uncompleted work in this area and then some grading questions as well. Koch: All of the grading and drainage issues have been incorporated in our design and also the calculations as evidenced by the detention verification report submitted here. Clark: So when you are finished will your current detention pond be sufficient? Koch: It is going to increase from the previous approved dimensions. It has definitely gotten bigger. We have revised the outlet structure to detain the runoff appropriately. The grading of the site will take care of the issues that Mr. Sloan is concerned about for runoff going to the south. The project is kind of on hold right now until we can go back out and rectify these situations. The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality did issue a statement to the owner regarding sedimentation. We have brought the site into compliance with them. It is permitted with the state right now. We are just waiting to go out and revise the site grading scenarios to meet the city's ordinances right now. With respect to screening, we are going to do planting material, we don't desire to do a privacy fence back there. Warrick: We have included conditions eight and number eleven with regard to screening requirements. Our Landscape Administrator will need to approve a screening plan for the property where it adjoins residential development, which is the east and the south. There is a requirement under our buffers and screening ordinance that ensures that we have either vegetative screening or a view obscuring fence or the combination of the two and he applicant has indicated that they choose vegetation. It will be required to be a combination of evergreen and deciduous materials. I think the minimum requirement is 50% evergreen to ensure that the year around screen. That will be reviewed by our Landscape Administrator prior to permitting any of the structures for this project. I think that it might be helpful, Matt, if engineering could inform or discuss with the Subdivision Committee the differences between the previous plan and this plan so that there is an understanding of what improvements are really going to be taking place. Casey: If you look at the plan compared to what was approved before without the grading it looks very similar. The big difference, if you have been to the site, there is about a 12' wall of dirt out there. What was approved was about 4'. When this was put in we started conversations with the developer that this is not in compliance with our grading ordinance, this Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page 19 was not approved, it needs to stop. He kept going and we issued violation notices, we put a stop work to the project and those events have lead us to where we are today. They had to find a new engineer. The engineer they used before is no longer in business so there were some time delays with trying to get a new engineer and get the plans done so it has taken quite a bit of time to get to this point. The revisions that have been submitted have the retaining wall instead of the near vertical wall of dirt and the riprap will be removed that has been installed. That was not approved either. As James stated, on the detention pond, it is increasing by a fair percentage in volume and we will be looking at the outlet structure design to make sure that Charlie's comments are addressed and looked at. We don't want to cause any further damage downstream than what has already been done. Shackelford: Matt, in your opinion, the newly proposed plan will address the grading and storm water sufficiently to accommodate the problems, is that correct? Casey: The brief review that has been done on the report submitted by McClelland, we have not done a construction review yet, the detention pond and the drainage design will decrease or keep the same with the amount of flow that was previously leaving the site before the prior development. Right now, I want to add, the plan calls for some swales that will run the length of the south side of the development that catch water, those aren't in right now. What is supposed to go to the detention pond is bypassing the pond and going straight onto Charlie's development. That could be one of the reasons that he is catching a lot of extra water and also the sediment that is leaving the site. Casey: I assume you have no objections talking with the engineers of adjoining properties and looking at this flow? Koch: Absolutely not. Vaught: From what I understand about grading and all of that, a lot of that can be handled with just the outlet structure, I know with Clabber Creek there was some discussion on the outlet structure design and how it affects Clabber Creek next door to it and there have been some problems with some other developments in that area. I think coordination with adjoining land owners would be a positive step. On commercial design standards and also screening, the back of the site is going to be very visible from anyone behind even if we do do screening. There is a 13' rise in grading from the back of the property line to where the building starts and we don't have any elevations for the rear of the building. When an adjoining residential area, what do we look at on commercial design standards? Can we consider that or do we need to? Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page 20 Warrick: What is required adjoining a residential area when you have a commercial development is screening. Commercial design standards specify what is visible from a public right of way. We are not talking about visibility from a public right of way, we are talking about visibility from a private property. It is important to address that through the ordinance requirements that we do have and that requires the view obscuring screen. Vaught: It is hard for me to believe, I guess depending on where the screening might be installed, but it is hard for me to think that it is going to be installed on this 13' rise and this steep slope that goes up from the detention pond to the back of the buildings to adequately screen those buildings. Clark: It is going to be visible from the right of way because you are going to be able to see the back of this whole development and that concerns me. Vaught: On prior large scales do we normally get the landscape screening plan? Warrick: That is something that we do require and if the Planning Commission is not comfortable with the amount of information that is here then we can ensure that that is included with any revision. Vaught: We do have a landscape plan but it doesn't show any of the screening. Warrick: That is why staff did enhance those conditions of approval, numbers eight and eleven, to ensure that we did see that information. Shackelford: As I read condition number eight, that will be required, it will just be at the discretion of the Landscape Administrator instead of the full Planning Commission. Clark: Dawn, on condition number three, you pointed out that we don't have rear elevation of the interior walls, that got my attention. What is the issue with interior walls? Warrick: The Planning Commission's stated approved condition, did state if metal walls were proposed on the interior or rear elevations, that they would not be fully metal, that they would incorporate other materials, split faced block or similar materials to avoid a large, blank, unarticulated wall surface. The Planning Commission at the time was concerned about the visibility through the site on the walls. As you mentioned, any visibility that you might be able to have of the rear walls, that those not be solely metal wall spaces. Clark: They are still not representing the walls. Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page 21 Shackelford: I see what they are calling interiors, the east side of building two and the west side of building one that basically face each other. These can't be metal sides to the building without some other type of materials. Koch: They are going to be similar to what you see on the front elevations there. Vaught: Is that a drive aisle between buildings one and two? Koch: Yes, there is a drive aisle in there right now for servicing the buildings. There is no parking in that area. Shackelford: Commissioners, we have two specific determinations that we have to make, if we could speak to those specifically. First, condition number one, determination of street improvements. Staff is recommending Double Springs Road be improved 14' from centerline with pavement, curb, gutter, storm drains and 6' sidewalks. Staff is this the same condition that was on the previous approval? Warrick: Yes. Vaught: Is the city currently considering widening Wedington all the way to Double Springs Road? Warrick: That is not a city road, nor a city project. It is a state project and it is something that they are working towards. Koch: We did grant the right of way necessary to accomplish that. Vaught: Everything is typically set outside of that? Warrick: The location of the proposed sidewalk is set outside of that, or right at the edge of that proposed future right of way. Shackelford: Are there any other comments regarding the street improvements? If not, we will speak specifically towards the determination of commercial design standards. I think we have addressed that issue at this point. We talked about those interior walls. The rear elevations back up to a residential area so they don't specifically apply to commercial design standards but that's where screening comes in. Are there any other questions or comments regarding commercial design standards of the developer? Vaught: Overall I think the front and the side elevations do comply. I wish I could see something more lifelike instead of concept. Reviewing commercial design standards I think that helps. I would love to see the elevations that aren't present. Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page 22 Clark: If we wanted to see the elevations that aren't present, could we recommend that this goes to the full Commission? Vaught: I just want to make sure. I am leading toward, as much as I hate to force the Planning Commission as a whole to look at this, to give additional time to work on the drainage issues with adjoining property owners and to work with the city on a landscape plan that can show us the screening or the rear elevations that will suffice. That is my opinion. Clark: I concur with Commissioner Vaught. I thought I was going to be the only Commissioner here that thought that because I think there are some significant issues with this project. It sounds like a Catch 22, you can't fix the drainage until you get your permits, but I think the things you pointed out, are two of the problems that I had with the elevations and the screening and I think we need to forward this onto the full Planning Commission to give you time to reassure the neighbors a little more about your intent, Matt a little bit more about the grading and maybe give us some more elevations that show a little more detail and talk about the screening. I would move that we forward this to the full Planning Commission with the stated conditions as noted. Shackelford: I have a different opinion on this deal. I guess that is what makes this a commission, because we aren't exactly alike. I think that I have confidence in our city staff that Matt and his department can work with the developer and handle the drainage and grading issues through our process there. I think that the Landscape Administrator has the ability to view screening which is obviously, one of your concerns on this deal and on commercial design standards, I think the applicant has met the intent of that ordinance. The elevations that you are speaking to with regard to the interior walls and the back of this building don't face a public right of way and I would argue aren't required to show elevations. With that being said, I understand the concerns and if you guys want to take this to the full Planning Commission. My concern is that that is just that much longer delay before these water and grading issues can be addressed. Koch: I would like to add to that that the grading issues are addressed with our design and if it would make you guys feel better I could ask the architect who is here to approach and actually speak to the interior and rear wall designs that are not seen on this elevation that may help to satisfy some concerns you may have. We can talk about that. The landscape material is going to be per the city's requirement. One question I have is the landscape material, is it something that is going to be bonded? Will the landscape screening in the rear of the site be part of the bond requirements? Warrick: Yes. Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page 23 Koch: So we will have to count that material and bond that material. All of this stuff is stuff that is going to be reviewed by them and bonded by our client for a period of time to ensure successful growth. With respect to that, I'm not sure what else we could do to satisfy these concerns. If you don't mind, or if you want to speak with the architect I can ask her to come up. Vaught: I would also like to ask a question about parking lot lighting and building lighting. Warrick: Many times we will insert the condition that any lighting shall be shielded, directed downward and away from adjacent developments. It is a city requirement for parking lot lighting and we will be glad to add it. Vaught: Is there any lighting proposed? Koch: There are light poles constructed on the site right now. Vaught: I'm asking about on the south side of the building. Koch: There may be something for a path, it would be minimal. Vaught: I am just thinking because of the large grade, any lighting is going to fall off on them. Koch: We would not want to have any lighting cast onto the adjacent land owners. McNeal: I'm Hanna McNeal, representing Key Architecture. What I can tell you is since none of these buildings have tenants and are completely designed, the way that we redesigned this building compared to what it was once before, is the thought that this elevation will wrap completely all the way around the building. What we have done is where you see this red and the stuck out awning parts of it, that will break this building as it goes all the way around. There is a parapet wall which is what is shown, that has the split faced material that comes up. The intent is, depending on how these tenants are coming in, this will help break this fagade up and then wrap around. We will, depending on where the drainage is, we are going to have to deal with outside elevations. The thought is we will take the same band across and deal with it and the roof will slope beyond it. We are planning on taking split faced block all the way around the building, at this same wainscote height which is already shown. Shackelford: This band will extend even on the back of the building, is that what you are saying? Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page 24 McNeal: Yes, it will break the fapade up whether we deal with it with an awning or we actually break the material itself. Shackelford: Is it the same thing on the interior walls between building one and building two? McNeal: Yes, the intent is to wrap that all the way around and we can use that to deal with the water that is going to come off the building. This band will continue all the way around the building. It may not stick out as far but there will be a change in material to handle that. Clark: The sides of the interior walls will still be articulated? McNeal: They will still follow these exact same standards. One thing we did talk about at some point, there is metal on this building because of the awnings, in the back you will have that same configuration but you still will have the split faced block that goes all the way around. What we wanted to do is break that fagade up. The idea is some of these buildings may be built before something else is depending on how he leases it. Originally this building number two was the original one he was going for a building permit on, that is now changed. It now looks like building three may be built first. It has to do with getting tenants and what's going on. Things have changed from when all of this happened. Warrick: Where you have breaks in tenant spaces, will you have this same column affect on all of the sides or is that a front elevation treatment? McNeal: It is a front elevation treatment as well as the sides to help break the fagade up. The idea behind this was to show you the architectural style of the building would be. When we met originally since we don't know where all the window placements and door placements are, what the intent is that some of these that come up will relate to the metal building structure and where the columns are. It may not necessarily be that way because the idea is to break that fapade up. Warrick: These are the materials and colors throughout the development that we will be seeing? McNeal: Correct. We have a split faced block, which we are trying to pick up in the retaining wall, again, trying to tie everything together so the whole development follows along. That was kind of why we picked that. There is the EFIS color and then we have the metal awnings and roofs, and we have some black accent pieces, which are the metal accent rods and the signage. What I wanted to do was try to break this whole thing up and give him a lot of options depending on who comes and leases. Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page 25 Clark: That is going to be continued on all four sides? McNeal: It will. The only thing that we have talked about is that on the back side portion of this band would be the same color but would probably be metal because you've got gutters and different things. A lot of that has to do with the way that the roof slopes. What we are trying to do is put a color on the back depending on how the metal comes across and comes down because of drainage, that will match the EFIS color. It may be that it comes across and then we have that band that we are trying to pick up so we will pick up some red. The whole style of the building, there probably will be some metal building in the back. We are doing a wainscote across and the split face. Shackelford: Are there any other questions regarding commercial design standards? I will concur that the concern that I have on this is the screening. But I don't know what specifically could be added between now and the time that we reviewed this at the time of the full Planning Commission. The condition is added that it will be addressed to the satisfaction of the Landscape Administrator. If, for any reason, he is not comfortable with it I'm sure he will send it to the full Planning Commission. Warrick: I was just going to say that the existing proposal calls for shrubs to be located on the south side of the detention pond immediately adjacent to Mr. Sloan's residential development. I would believe it to be appropriate that the screening to provide a buffer between the commercial development and the residential to the south that we incorporate a lot of that screening immediately adjacent to the rear of the structures. There is more room there because of the way that the site is graded but it would also be at the elevation of the base of the structure and it would provide a better screen than being down the hill and screening that slope. We will be looking for screening materials to be placed immediately behind the proposed structures to ensure that that is accomplished. I can include that in condition number eight, that can be expanded. Shackelford: With that being said, I believe we have a motion on the floor to forward this to the full Planning Commission. The only point that I wanted to make is we are talking about commercial design standards, the true reading of the ordinance is elevations that are visible from the public right of way and so I just wanted to make that comment that those are not from the public right of way, but are interior elevations. Vaught: My main hang up is the screening to the rear because of the severe slope and the elevation as opposed to the surrounding developments. That is a specific finding that we have to make so it is just a matter for me to get comfortable with that finding. For a Large Scale does it require three votes or is it just the majority? Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page 26 Warrick: If this project is to be approved at the Subdivision level all three need to recommend approval. Clark: It seems like we are in a Catch 22 as well, I'm not sure what we can show the Planning Commission in terms of grading until we get it fixed. In terms of the interior walls I think your design sounds great. I do disagree about the public view because I think when you come down Double Springs headed north you are going to see between these buildings, because the site elevation. I think that is an important thing to talk about and you have pretty well elated my concerns about that. The screening is I think a major issue, not only by the detention pond, but up by the building itself. Again, that is nothing something that would have to be changed to bring it back to the full Planning Commission. It seems like staff is very aware of the drainage issues, not only on Mr. Sloan's property but also the McGrewter's property. You have got to fix the drainage in that area or there are going to be a lot of upset neighbors. I don't know if you can do that by the next Planning Commission. With all that in mind I will withdraw my motion with confidence that staff has paid attention to our concerns and will assure that all of these issues are addressed. Koch: Thank you. I will also add that the previously approved project was nowhere near this quality. With the reinstated approval here we are doing a much better building package. We are adding a lot of cost to the package with a very nice retaining wall, a lot of landscape materials and I think this is just overall a completely improved site. It is very nice. Vaught: I think I feel comfortable having the architect address the rear and staff's understanding of our desires will help tremendously. I would like to see something happen out there before we start getting some significant storms and have even more problems. Shackelford: You volunteered, and I very much appreciate it that you would talk to the adjoining property owner's engineers. Commissioners, are there motions? Casey: I just wanted to make one more comment. Condition number four, I spoke with the adjacent property owner yesterday and there were some concerns about the private driveway on the east side and there is an access there and the driveway straddles the property line, but that is a paved surface that they maintain and we added this condition that no construction traffic be allowed on that driveway during the construction of this project to protect their investment in that driveway. I just wanted to make sure to get that on the record. Clark: I would encourage you to continue to work with the neighbors. I will move that we approve LSD 04-1216 with the additions as added. Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page 27 Vaught: I will second. Shackelford: The road will be repaired to State AHTD standards and the water main repaired to the city's specs, along with the commercial design standards being met as described. I will concur. Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page 28 ADM 04-1251: Administrative Item (DRAKE FIELD) Submitted by the City of Fayetteville, a request for a major modification of the approved Large Scale Development for Drake Field, the City of Fayetteville Municipal Airport, to construct a "T" Hangar in a different location. Shackelford: Next on the agenda is ADM 04-1251 for Drake Field. Warrick: This is submitted by the Drake Field airport to modify an approved Large Scale Development plan to allow for the construction of new 8 bay T hangar for aircraft use. This references back into the 1980's when the airport presented to the Council a master plan that was adopted. In March of 2001, a Large Scale Development was approved by the Planning Commission to build 14 new airplane hangars and a new Fire Training Tower, placed where needed throughout the site. In June of 2002, another Large Scale Development was approved by the Planning Commission, to construct an additional 7 airplane hangars and a new taxiway, in addition to the already approved development. At that time, the Planning Commission determined that the construction of this type of development, which is subject to FAA approval, is typically beyond the one-year time frame. Rather, the airport develops over years, as needed. Consequently, a condition of approval gives a three-year expiration period, as opposed to the one-year normally given. By June 10, 2005, all permits must be received or the Large Scale reviewed again to determine if the original approvals are still in compliance with current ordinance requirements. At this time, the airport wishes to construct a new 8 -bay T -Hanger for aircraft use, consisting of approximately 13,000 SF. The location of this hangar has been identified for 20 years on the Airport Master Plan, but has not received approvals from the Planning Commission for development. Based on the airport's direction at this time, several of the hangars approved in 2001 and 2002 will not be constructed. The applicant wishes, therefore, to modify the approved Large Scale Development Plans by removing a 40,000 sq.ft. hangar and fire training tower, to be replaced by the 13,000 sq.ft. hangar on top of existing paving. By approving the Major Modification, the Large Scale Development plans will effectively be altered to reflect the request. It shouldn't modify any of the existing impervious surface on the site. Boudreaux: It has been designated for several years and this is the last of eight hangars that we have planned to build. Jones: I'm Wayne Jones with McClelland Consulting Engineers. This 40,000 sq.ft. building is in the area where the forest service is designing their tanker base. They are in the process of designing that and will be coming through a Large Scale. Subdivision Committee October 1, 2004 Page 29 Boudreaux: As you know, the city will be voting to purchase the property at the corner of Huntsville Road and that will be where the fire training facility will be located, they will probably vacate this building and we will convert that to a hangar or something in the future. Shackelford: Ok, do you have any other comments for us? Boudreaux: No I don't. Shackelford: Are there any other comments from staff? Ok, I will open it up to the public, seeing none, we will close it and bring it back to the committee for questions. Clark: Have you already built this? Boudreaux: No we haven't. We have a contractor for the building. Clark: The last time you went through the LSD process it was already built Boudreaux: We need a whole new master plan and development plan, which is required by the FAA. Once we get that, we are going to come here and say that. We would like therefore, to have this LSD approved for four or five years and that is what I plan on doing soon. Shackelford: Commissioners, it looks like they are removing a 40,000 sq.ft. area and we are approving a 13,000 sq.ft. hangar that will be put on already concrete surface. MOTION: Clark: Let's approve this item as stated in the staff report. Shackelford: I will second. Vaught: I will concur. Shackelford: That is the last item we have on our agenda today. We are adjourned.