Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-11-13 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on November 13, 1997, at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building located at 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS REVIEWED: ACTION TAKEN 1. LSD 97-19.00: lots 4R & 7 Spring Park Subdivision Approved 2. LSD 97-20.00: Summit Development Approved 3. LSD 97-22.00: Staff/Mark Fwd to Planning Commission MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Reynolds, Phyllis Johnson, and John Forney. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Perry Franklin, Beth Sandeen, Chuck Rutherford, Dawn Warrick, and Heather Woodruff. LSD 97-19.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (LOTS 4R &7, SPRING PARK SUBDIVISION) CLARY DEVELOPMENT -S. OF JOYCE BLVD. & AT THE S. END OF MALL AVE. The large scale development was submitted by Development Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Clary Development Company for property located south of Joyce Boulevard and at the south end of Mall Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 9.51 acres. Findings: The most noteworthy issues surrounding this project are circulation, connectivity and the Master Street Plan. In this revision of the project a street is shown to connect to Joyce Blvd. and continue to the south property line of this subdivision. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) 2. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, �1\ • Subdivision Meeting November 13, 1997 Page 2 parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. 4. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards along Mall Ave. Dedication of right of way for Mall Ave. from its intersection with Joyce Blvd. south to the south property line of Spring Park subdivision to the west of National Home Center. 6. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. 7. Any easements "to be abandoned" must remain in place until lines are relocated and then must be processed as a vacation request to be considered by Planning Commission and City Council. 8. Width of Mall Ave. at the south shall be revised to be 33' instead of 32' in order to allow for 3-11' lanes if necessary. 9. Access drive at the southwest corner of the site shall be revised to be 28' to reflect the width of the rest of the drive. 10. All utility equipment whether ground mounted or roof mounted must be completely screened from the public view. 11. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year 12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by § 159.34 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Ms. Little stated the developer was presenting a revised plan. The major changes were the extension of Mall Avenue to the south property line. She noted there was a problem with the sidewalks extending to the south property line towards the creek. Mr. Brown explained the south edge of the property was too steep for a sidewalk. He did not 3� • Subdivision Meeting November 13, 1997 Page 3 believe it was practical to install the sidewalk at this time. He asked the commissioners if they would be willing to accept a bill of assurance or letter of credit for the sidewalk. Mr. Rutherford replied a letter of credit would be required. He asked why the sidewalk had not been extended to the east property line. Mr. Brown stated the sidewalk would be extended to the property line. Mr. Reynolds asked about the sidewalk along Joyce Blvd. Mr. Rutherford stated there was an existing sidewalk on the west side and along Frontage. Ms. Little noted the driveway on the plat was specified at 33'. She noted it was 3' less than the Master Street Plan standard. The street width had been compromised to keep the landscaping and sidewalk along the public street. Three 11' lanes would fit into the 33' (although the city expected the street to be constructed as a two-lane street.) The staff had wanted to provide the extra footage incase the traffic in the future would warrant a turn lane. • Mr. Beavers questioned the 33' street. He asked who had the authority to make the street width compromise. Ms Little stated there was a question on whether or not this street could be considered a Master Street Plan street or not. She noted the street was not in the exact location of the Master Street Plan street. She stated they had tried to match the width of the existing street. She added Mr. Beavers had the authority to determine the street width on regular streets. Mr. Beavers stated the street standard was 28'. Mr. Brown responded he was trying to build as much street as there was room for. Ms. Little stated the applicant had originally presented a 32' street. She had requested a 33' street to accommodate three lanes. Mr. Beavers did not believe three lanes would fit into 33'. Mr. McCord stated the Master Street Plan did not show Mall Avenue being extended, therefore, it could not be considered a Master Street Plan collector or required to be wider. Ms. Johnson asked the inside to inside curb width of Mall Avenue at the Joyce Street intersection. 3(3 Subdivision Meeting November 13, 1997 Page 4 Mr. Brown replied the median was 12', each side of the median was 24', with two lanes. He noted the actual edge of pavement was located on the Wal-Mart property. Ms. Little stated the city would receive the right-of-way for Mall Avenue with this plat. Ms. Johnson noted the existing Mall Avenue narrowed to 33'. She asked Mr. Beavers if a turn lane could be safely placing within 33'. Mr. Beavers replied it would be very tight. Mr. Forney asked the standard width of a collector street. Ms. Little replied the standard collector street was 36'. Ms. Johnson asked if the street was considered a Master Street Plan street or not. If it was determined to be a Master Street Plan street, then the City Council would have to be made aware of the reduced width. Ms. Little explain the required 70' of right-of-way could not be obtain the entire length of the street. Mr. Beavers stated the street was subject to further review. Mr. Forney stated the developer was giving the city the opportunity for a connection. He expressed confusion about the street not being defined as Master Street when it was doing the job of a Master Street Plan street. He asked if the city would be loosing anything if they did not define the street as a Master Street Plan collector. Ms Little stated the private street, Mall Avenue, would be dedicated back the city. Ms. Johnson stated the developer needed to know the staff's position on the width of the street. Ms. Little stated the developer had made many concessions because they had wanted to go through the process smoothly. She added this was a plan she could support. Mr. Beavers stated the Gregg Street bridge would not make the January letting. Ms. Sandeen stated the development was meeting the landscaping requirements. Mr. Franklin stated there was a need for a left turn lane on Mall Avenue now that the Wal-Mart had opened. He could foresee a lot of heavy left turns in the future. He suggested removing the Subdivision Meeting November 13, 1997 Page 5 landscape island and installing a left turn lane. He noted the traffic light was already setup for a turn signal. Ms. Little asked to see the traffic counts supporting the need for the left turn lane. She suggested leaving the median and making the center lane a turn lane. Mr. Franklin replied the center lane would not be a good situation for a tum lane because the lane was in front of a through lane. People would not know what to do. He noted the signal was set up for a turn lane. The center lane was not a dedicated turn lane. The signal could not separate the traffic turning. Ms. Little suggested leaving the median and moving the curb over to accommodate the turn lane. Mr. Franklin replied the traffic pole and drainage would have to be moved. Ms. Little felt the landscape island was a value. Mr. Franklin replied the median should have been a turn lane to begin with. Mr. Forney did not believe the developer should be responsible for putting the turn lane in, because the city had made the original decision no to install it. Mr Franklin stated he had assumed the developer had planned to install a turn lane because they had paid for the traffic signal with a turn signal. Mr. Forney stated if the city decided to make a change at the intersection, then the city should pay for it. Mr. Clary stated he would do what was required or asked of them. Ms. Little clarified the signal was not protecting people turning left. Ms Johnson noted the south bound traffic had signals to follow, but the north bound traffic had no turn signals to follow. Mr. Brown suggested reducing the landscaped median to 41, then downsizing the other lanes to accommodate the tum lane. In response to questions from Ms. Sandeen, Mr. Brown stated the medians were landscaped and irrigated. He noted when the street was dedicate to the city the irrigation would be cut off. Ric • Subdivision Meeting November 13, 1997 Page 6 Ms. Little suggested leaving the median private for the developer to maintain. Ms. Sandeen stated she preferred the medians to be private. Ms. Little stated the Planning Staff needed data before the decision was made to remove the landscape median and install a tum lane. Mr. Forney noted the north side had a median and five lanes. Ideally, the south side should be the same. The city needed to work out the intersection internally. Mr. Jeff Maxwell stated they had planned for the turn lane. It could be easily installed by removing the median. Mr. Clary liked the idea of 4' median. He asked Mr. Franklin if 4' of misalignment would be an issue. Mr. Franklin replied a dedicated lane with sensors was needed for a turn lane. • Ms. Johnson asked if the developer would be willing to contribute 50% of the cost of the intersection. Mr. Franklin stated it would be to the benefit of the city and the developer to install the turn lane because there had already been an accident there. Mr. Clary stated he would be willing to install the turn lane at his own expense. Ms Johnson stated the developer needed to work with the staff on the intersection. Ms. Sandeen stated safety should be put before the landscaped median. She cautioned visibility needed to be taken into account if there were a 4' median installed. Mr. Forney expressed confusion over the street extension not being called a Master Street Plan street. Ms. Little replied the street could be called a Master Street Plan street, but it would not meet the requirement for right-of-way and would have to be forwarded to the City Council. Realistically the street would function as a Master Street Plan street. Mr. Forney asked if the definition of the street would affect the decisions made on the Nanchar • property to the south. 3Ila • Subdivision Meeting November 13, 1997 Page 7 • Ms. Little stated the city would make it clear to Nanchar that this was the connection. Mr. Fomey did not see any problems with the Commercial Design Standards. He asked the developer if he was comfortable with the turning and access for loading. Mr. Clary replied he was comfortable with the layout. He had tested the turning radii on Mr. Peter's computer. Mr Beavers stated he was going to recommend the street to be 28' wide, unless it was defined as a Master Street Plan collector. He did not see the purpose of constructing a street between two street standards. In response to questions from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Beavers did not believe three lanes could fit into 29' of pavement. He asked Mr. Peters for his opinion. Mr. Peters stated it would be marginal. Mr. Clary asked if the city would like more right-of-way. Mr. Forney stated the street needed to be as close to a collector sized street as possible, given the limited amount of right-of-way. He added he did not like to be non-standard, however given the current situation, he would like to see as much pavement as possible. He noted if the street narrowed from 33' to 28' at the south end it would indicate to people that the road did not continue to the south and was a drive. Mr. Rutherford stated the width of the sidewalk would be affected by the definition of the street. He asked if the street was going to the defined as a Standard or a Collector. Mr. McCord stated the Master Street Plan did not show Mall Avenue as being extended as a Collector. It was not a collector, however, the street was being constructed above locals street. Ms. Little reminded there was 15' of green space on both sides of the street that could be used for additional width if necessary. Ms. Johnson felt the street should be defined as an above standard local street. It could become a collector in the future if it was needed. Mr. Forney stated he was satisfied with the Commercial Design Standards. • In response to questions from Mr. Forney, Ms. Little stated the Subdivision Committee could approve any Large Scale Development that was not requesting any waivers. 311 • • Subdivision Meeting November 13, 1997 Page 8 In response to questions from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Clary stated all signage would be located on the building. Mr. McCord requested the Subdivision Committee to approve the Large Scale Development at this level, because the development had met all the requirements. Ms. Johnson stated the developer had made major concessions to the city. She did not believe there were any outstanding issues. She felt it was appropriate to approve the development. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to approve the Large Scale Development pursuant to this plat, the landscaping, the staff conditions of approval, and the developer paying for the rework on the Mall Avenue and Joyce intersection. The developer would consult with the staff on the intersection. Mall Avenue would be defined as an improved local street (it was not a MSP collector street). The width of the street would be as shown on the plat. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 3-0-0. �t� Subdivision Meeting November 13, 1997 Page 9 LSD 97 20.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (SUMMIT DEVELOPMENT) SUMMIT DEVELOPMENT- N. OF WEDINGTON DR. & W. OF SHILOH DRIVE. The large scale development was submitted by Development Consultants on behalf of Clary development for property located north of Wedington Drive and west of Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density and contains approx. 6.29 acres. Findings: At the 10/16/97 SC meeting, this item was tabled due to substantial changes which needed to be reviewed by staff and utility representatives. A waiver of the number of required parking spaces was granted by the PC on 10/27/97 requiring that 132 spaces be provided (30 spaces fewer than the 162 which are called for in the parking lot ordinance §160.117). A waiver request for overhead utilities was denied by the PC on 10/27/97, therefore requiring that all overhead utilities be placed underground on this site and within the entire commercial subdivision. The fire chief is looking for information as to whether the building (the large 2 -story building) will be sprinkled in order to determine which building and fire codes must be applied to the structure. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Westem Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) 2. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. 4. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $31680.00 (132 units @ $240.00) 31c\ • Subdivision Meeting November 13, 1997 Page 10 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6' sidewalk with a min. 6' green space along both sides of Timberline Dr. and Steamboat Dr. The westernmost sidewalk along Timberline and all sidewalks located on lot 4 and associated with this large scale development must be completed prior to the issuance of any type of certificate of occupancy for the apartment complex. 6. The construction of Timberline Dr. from Wedington Drive to the intersection with the existing Timberline Dr. and the construction of the part of Steamboat Dr. which is located on lot 4 and associated with this large scale development must be completed, inspected and approved prior to the issuance of any type of certificate of occupancy for the apartment complex. 7. All overhead electric lines within the Wedington Place subdivision and associated with this project shall be placed underground (PC decision 10/27/97) 8. Payment of parks fee of $31,680.00 (132 units @ $240.00) prior to the issuance of a building permit. • 9. Payment of a sewer assessment in the amount of $8,844.00 (132 units @ $67.00) for improvements to the Hamstnng basin prior to the Issuance of a building permit. • 10. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by § 159.34 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Ms. Little stated the Planning Commission had approved a parking waiver for 132 parking spaces in lieu of the required 162 parking spaces at the October 27, 1997 meeting. The request for a waiver from the Overhead utilities had been denied. The overhead utilities would be placed underground. The buildings would be sprinkled. The parks fees would be $31,680 for 132 units. There would also be a sewer assessment fee of $8,844. In response to questions from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little stated there had been questions concerning Steamboat Drive, the required number of parking spaces and the overhead utility lines at the Subdivision meeting. The Large Scale Development could not be approved with the parking and 3zO • Subdivision Meeting November 13, 1997 Page 11 utility waiver request. Those two items had been forwarded to the Planning Commission. The developer had redrawn their plans to reflect the decisions of the Planning Commission. She added the timing of the utilities being placed underground needed to be clarified. Mr. Rickett was not sure of the time, but developer (Clary) had agreed to place the utilities underground. He thought the lines would be buried when the streets were constructed. Ms. Johnson questioned which part of the line would go underground. Ms. Little replied all of the line would be placed underground, from the north property line to Wedington Drive. Mr. Rutherford stated the developer had agreed to construct the sidewalk on the west side of Timberline, all other sidewalk would be constructed at the time of development. Mr. Rickett stated the east sidewalk would be constructed for the Summit Development. • Mr. Bruce Adams stated the mix of bedrooms might change depending on the requirements of the lender. He did not believe it would change the parking requirements. Ms. Little explained the number of parking spaces had been based on the number of bedrooms. The normal requirements would have been 162 spaces (one per bedroom). The waiver recommendation had been made based on the number of units in the development Any additional bedrooms added would required an additional parking spaces. The staff needed to see the changes, If there were substantial changes the project would have to go back to the Planning Commission. In response to questions from Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Little stated the only outstanding problem for this development was a right-of-way issue, which would be handled by the staff. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the large scale development. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 3-0-0. • 3Dl • Subdivision Meeting November 13, 1997 Page 12 LSD 97-22.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (STAFF/MARK) BREWER INVESTMENTS- 302 EAST MILLSAP ROAD The large scale development was submitted by David Norman of McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc on behalf of Brewer Investments, Inc for property located at 302 East Millsap Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.51 acres. Findings: This project is proposed to be a new four story building which will connect to the existing Staffivark structure located on Millsap Drive by means of a catwalk. Setback reductions for the parking lot have been requested for both the north and south sides. The 15' landscaping required for Commercial Design Standards as well as parking setbacks has been reduced to 5' and landscaping has been provided. (refer to § 160.117(G)(2)(d)) A setback reduction for the building has been requested for the north side (adjacent to Hwy 71 Bypass). Additional screening has been added to the plan to accommodate this request This setback may be reduced from 50' to 25' if that 25' is landscaped and a total of 10% of the • landscaped area provides screening. (refer to § 160.118(D)(6)) A waiver of the "Overhead Utility" ordinance is being sought - see letter attached to plat in agenda packet. • Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) 2. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval • Subdivision Meeting November 13, 1997 Page 13 • 4. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6' sidewalk with a min. 10' greenspace along Millsap Dr. Sidewalks shall be continuous through driveways and shall be built to current City standards. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by § 159.34 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Ms. Little stated the applicant had requested setback reduction for parking from the required 15' to 5'. The applicant was providing the required landscaping for the reduction. The applicant was also wanting to reduce the required setback along the bypass from 50' to 25'. A waiver from the requirement for the overhead utility lines to be placed underground had been requested. Ms. Johnson stated elevations of the east and the west sides needed to be provided. Mr. Forney added the Commercial Design Standards applied to all sides visible to the public. He added the elevations did not need to be rendered. Ms. Johnson asked the applicant to describe the other two elevations. Mr. Ken Shireman replied the other two elevations would be similar to the two elevations shown. He presented a floor plan of the building. Ms. Johnson stated she had not see the building stair step on the elevation. She suggested to Mr. Shireman that he present the drawing in a minor easy for the untrained eye to read. She suggested he point out the stair step footprint of the building to the Planning Commissioners. Ms. Little stated the east and west elevation would be due by 10:00 Monday. Mr. Shireman expressed frustration with the Commercial Design Standards because it forced the developer to have designs fairly complete during the Large Scale Development process, before they knew what the development site plan would be. The building foot print had been based on 3a3 • Subdivision Meeting November 13, 1997 Page 14 • the assumption that they could receive a waiver. It the waivers were not granted then their whole design would be useless. He felt the large scale plan needed to addressed separate from the commercial design standard. Ms. Little replied the staff would not prevent the applicant from submitting a site plan with the waiver requests first She added if the development was on such a time schedule then do not design for waivers. Design following city regulations. Mr. Shireman expressed frustration with the city requiring an additional 10' of right-of-way. He questioned the fairness of the additional right-of-way requirement. Ms. Little stated the city was only requesting an additional 5' of right-of-way. Ms. Johnson asked to discuss the waivers. Ms. Little stated the green space waiver was an option allowed by right if the applicant met the landscaping requirements. The setback reduction could be an option with additional landscaping. She added the applicant was asking for a waiver from placing the overhead utility lines underground. Ms. Johnson asked if there were any limitations to placing the power lines underground when each piece of land developed, rather than at one time. Ms. Little replied where the line was not a high amperage, it did not appear to be difficult to relocate the line underground. However, when the line was one of this size, there was a large box at each point where the line entered or came out of the ground. The box was over 7 tall. Someone had made the suggestion at the last Planning Commission meeting when North Hills had requested a waiver from placing this same line underground, that the city take a contribution for the relocation of the line. The line would be placed underground at one time after all the land had developed. If the line were installed in pieces there would be more large boxes. She added each box was over $35,000. Mr. Shireman added the total cost of placing the line underground was over $100,000. In response to comments from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Norman explained the two boxes on the ends were not as expensive as the large box. Mr. Shireman noted if they were to place the line underground they would have to cross the road onto another property. There would be some offsite expense. Mr. Norman explained the large box was located at the corner to because the wire could not be Jac) • Subdivision Meeting November 13, 1997 Page 15 • pulled around a corner. He explained if the wire were placed underground they would have to cross the street and run an additional 100' to the next pole. Ms. Little added the line was in an easement and could be accessed. Mr. Norman added the main line went to the east. Ms. Little noted the turns required the large boxes. She suggested running the line at a diagonal to reduce the number of boxes required. Mr. Shireman responded there was not an easement. The proposed easement would run through the last remaining buildable land Staff/Mark owned. Ms. Little suggested the applicant have a representative from SWEPCO present at the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Johnson stated the commission would need information on the cost of the line relocation and the applicant's proportional share. Ms. Little suggested the applicant simplify the cost of line by creating a chart illustrating the different options. Mr. Forney noted the misalignment in the parking lot. Mr. Norman replied a couple of parking spaces could be removed and a landscape island. He noted they were tight on meeting their parking requirement. Mr. Shireman asked if the square footage of the stairs and elevators could be discounted when counting the number of parking spaces. Ms. Little added they were allowed to take out any square footage not used as office space such as conference rooms and rest rooms. She added the staff would need a floor plan of the building in order to subtract the square footage. Mr. Reynolds asked if the training center would be in this building. Mr. Shireman replied the training center would be located in the existing building. The fourth floor of the new building would be the cooperate office and support staff with conference rooms. The second floor would be conference center with two rooms and an atrium. The rest of the room would have modular work stations. The third floor would be an extra floor for future expansion. Only 35-40% of the building would be occupied when they first moved into the building. They would like to add additional landscaping if they were allowed to reduce the 3)) Subdivision Meeting November 13, 1997 Page 16 number of required parking spaces. Mr. Forney asked if this project was located within CMN Business Park. Mr. Shireman replied the building was located within the CMN park. Mr. Forney noted the Overlay District requirements did not apply. He questioned the requested to reduced setback. Ms. Little noted a 25' setback was required in the Overlay. The overlay only required 25' reduce setback, which was their standard requirement. Ms. Johnson asked if the landscaping was adequate. Ms. Little stated the landscaping was adequate. The construction area only covered 78% of the lot and not 85%. The Overlay District limited the development to 75% of the lot. The development was only 3% over. She added the staff encouraged the use of the 25' setback because it allowed the development not to have the parking between the parking and the front of the street. And it provided additional landscaping. In response to questions from Mr. Forney, Ms. Little stated the street narrowed from three lanes to two lane. She explained when there was a middle lane, the drives did not need to line up across from each other. When the road was a two line, the driveways were lined up across from each other. When there were three or more lanes the driveways were staggered to prevent accidents. Mr. Forney asked if two curbcuts were necessary. Mr. Shireman explained the second curbcut was necessary because the lanes deadened. He also expressed concern about people staking up when leaving or coming into work. Ms. Little noted the circulation was constricted within the parking lot. She noted cross access had been provided to the west. Mr. Shireman asked why the entry drive could only be 24' wide. Ms. Little explained the smaller entry slowed the traffic down and allowed people further down to get out into the traffic. Mr. Reynolds asked how the building would be serviced. The location of the dumpster. 9a Subdivision Meeting November 13, 1997 Page 17 Mr Shireman explained the one dumpster located on the existing site would service both buildings. Mr. Forney asked if the lot were to split would the buildings meet setbacks. Ms. Warrick replied there were no side setbacks in C-2 zoning districts. She added all revision needed to be submitted by 10:00 Monday morning. Ms. Little noted the new diagonal easement would need to be shown on the revised plat. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to forward the item to the Planning Commission. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 3-0-0.