Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-10-29 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, October 29, 1998 at 8:30 a.m. in the City Administration Building, Room 111 at 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LS98-37: Lot Split (Walker, etal) FP98-5: Final Plat (Guinn) LS98-38, 39, 40: Lot Split (Allen) LSD98-29• Large Scale Dev (Hopkins Retail Ctr) MEMBERS PRESENT Lorel Hoffman Phyllis Hall Johnson Robert Reynolds ACTION TAKEN Pulled from agenda Approved w/condition Pulled from agenda Approved w/condition-to PC STAFF PRESENT Jim Beavers Janet Johns Alett Little Chuck Rutherford Brent Vinson Dawn Warrick • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 29, 1998 Page 2 LS98-37: LOT SPLIT (pp408) WALKER. BATSON & JOHNSON This lot split request was submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Pearl Walker, Lena Sue Batson , and Billie Joe Johnson for property located at 1149 Mission Boulevard. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 1.05 acres. This item was pulled from the agenda at the request of the applicant. • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 29, 1998 Page 3 FP98-5: FINAL PLAT (pp296) GUINN This final plat was submitted by Don Phillips on behalf of C.L. Guinn for property located north of Highway 45 and east of Co. Road 83. The property is in the planning area and contains approximately 5 acres with 4 lots proposed. Mr. Guinn was present to represent and response to the Committee's inquiries. Committee Discussion Little: This is a final plat. This has been through the process and they have given us everything that we wanted. Guinn: The last 9 copies I ran were incorrect. (He distributed corrected copies to the Committee.) Discussion ensued regarding the errors on the plats which were submitted. Little: Staff does recommend approval at this level. So, the 4 that you brought to us this morning should suffice unless we surface something else. We have standard conditions but nothing out of the ordinary. Hoffman: Is this road not presently built? Little: This is a county road Warrick: It's Oakland Zion Road and County Road 83 It is dimensioned from the centerline. They did dedicate right of way on Oakland Zion Road and on the little portion of Highway 45 that their property touches to meet the Master Street Plan requirements. Reynolds. Guinn: Reynolds: and 4. Guinn: You don't use City of Fayetteville now for your refuse? No. I am building a cul de sac at the end of this street. That's what I want to see where you plan on putting that cul de sac back to Lot 3 It will only go to 3.4 has access off of 45. • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 29, 1998 Page 4 Johnson: The city is satisfied with these utility easement being located in the 60 feet wide private access easement. Guinn: I've got a 10 feet utility easement there as well. Johnson: An additional 10 feet? Guinn: Yes. Warrick: Are you talking about the one that runs north and south? Guinn: No. It runs east and west. I dedicated an additional 10 feet. Little: This says 60 feet wide private access and utility easement. The driveway that is in there now is probably 15 feet wide? Guinn: Maybe 10. Little: It's not very wide and this is not going to be a public street. It will be a private street. This 60 feet should be ample room for utilities. Beaver: It's not our utilities so I'm not worried about it. Reynolds: In the plat review it seemed like Mr. Burrack stated that also a separate utility and drainage easement. You might want to question that. Johnson: What about the drainage element. Is that also serving as a drainage easement? Guinn: Only on the south. Johnson: This 60 feet easement that we are talking about is not also drainage? Guinn: No. It's a driveway. Where it joins the county road, that is the high point and water drains both directions from that driveway. Reynolds: This is a unique piece of property. Johnson: If 60 feet is adequate then 60 feet is fine. But, we need to not be saying 60 feet plus a 10 feet easement. It needs to say the access is 60 feet and the utility easement is included/ • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 29, 1998 Page 5 Guinn: Will the 60 feet be okay? Johnson: Staff says it's okay. Hoffman: Do we need approved perk tests? Guinn: I have that letter of approval here. Little: I'd like to have a copy of that because just in case there is ever any question it's nice to have a full record. Beavers: The only comments I have is on behalf of the Fire Chief. He requested a fire hydrant. Have you had any discussion on that? Guinn: At the preliminary plat review the comment was made that if I ever wanted to get a contract with the City Fire Department, I would have to have a fire hydrant. Otherwise, it was not required. Beavers: I want you to get with Chief Jackson and clarify it. Reynolds- Well, this is out in the county and we can't make him do that. Hoffman: Do you know who serves you? Guinn: Goshen. Hoffman: And you have contracted with them? Guinn: Yes. MOTION Ms. Johnson made a motion to approve the final plat with the recommendation to install a fire hydrant. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion Mr. Reynolds concurred. • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 29, 1998 Page 6 LS98-38, 39, 40: LOT SPLITS (pp240) ALLEN This proposed lot split was submitted by Jeff Allen for property located at Mt. Comfort Road and Weir Road The property is in the planning area and contains approximately 84.76 acres. The request is to split the property into 4 tracts of approximately 25.30 acres, 21.01 acres, 19 81 acres and 18.64 acres each. This request was pulled from the agenda because it was handled administratively. • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 29, 1998 Page 7 LSD98 29: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (pp443) HOPKINS RETAIL CENTER This large scale development was submitted by Steve Hesse of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Mike Hopkins for property located at the southwest corner of Wedington Drive and Garland Avenue. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 1.27 acres. Steve Hesse and Mike Anderson of Engineering Design Associates was present and Mike Hopkins was also present. Committee Discussion Little: We had several requests for information for the applicant to explore. First, on the Garland Avenue side we had asked for the applicant to explore the possibility of having a point curb cut with the adjoining owner to the south. • Hopkins: I have talked to the representative for the property owners and they didn't want to do it because they don't know -- they're trying to sell the property and they won't commit to doing that. • Little: Are they aware that they might not get any curb cut? Hopkins: I talked to Bob Nickels and he represents Ms. Parsons. I didn't tell them that. Johnson: When you're looking at the site, the driveway is so close to the intersection to me it is better to try to get this curb cut as far away from the intersection as possible. Hopkins: It's as far away from the intersection as I can get on my property. Johnson: What are our options if we want a point access and we only have one of the property owners? Little: You can just approve it that way and leave it up to them to work it out. Hoffman: We would have to leave half of it on his property and it would have to function that way? Little: That is the only way we have done that in the past. Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 29, 1998 Page 8 Reynolds: What if he just does this one and when the property owners come we'll just have them join with him and come out at one location. Hoffman: We're going to ask them to tear up work that he's just put in. Reynolds: He's moved his entrance as far back as he can. I don't think he ought to be responsible for the adjoining owner. Anderson: If we split the property line we're talking about moving it 25 feet. Hesse: We're 300 feet from the intersection. Johnson: We can't ignore the fact that there's another piece of property immediately on the south boundary and any access there is going to be problematic. Little: They have a drainage structure parallel to Garland when the sidewalk goes in. Hoffman: What if he builds a 48 feet wide driveway with no curb radius on the adjoining property side and when the next development comes in there will be enough room to put for example, a right turn only lane. Anderson: You're suggesting no curb return for vehicle turning south. Little: More than likely that curb return is in the right of way. Anderson: The Highway Department will not let us do that. Little: How do you know that? Anderson: Traditionally, they won't allow the curb return to go past a projection on that property line even though they have right of way. Johnson: What is the width from the property line to the south edge of the curb? Anderson: 14 feet to the next curb. Little: I'm concerned about moving the curb further to the south because of the site plan and we've gotten this one way and if we start moving this further south then we're making them weave more. I think given the set of circumstances that we have, we have to address it more thoroughly when the other lot to the south comes in and we have to say we allowed this curb cut • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 29, 1998 Page 9 here and because there wasn't an agreement to put it on the property line at that time then your next curb cut is going to be 300 feet from them. Hoffman: What's the width of the adjoining property? Little: Maybe 400 to 500 feet. Reynolds- Mr. Hopkins has been here and it seems like he's been around now for a year but he's done a good job with this project and I feel like he has moved the driveway as far as he can move them on both sides of the property. It's not going to be a liquor, a bar, or a club. It's a retail center and if you'll notice there are no neighbors here today. And when he first started out there were a lot of neighbors. It looks to me like he's done a real good job. Mr. Beavers, do you have anything to add to this project? Beavers: I'll reserve most of my comments for final design. Reynolds: What about sidewalks? Rutherford: I have one comments on this south driveway. You are showing the sidewalk continuous through the driveway as it should be and if it's built the way it's suppose to be in the sidewalk in at the 2 percent level of the curb continuous through the highway, you will not need to put a handicap ramp on either side of your driveway. Beavers. Steve, have you talked to Joe Shipman about the drainage coming on to a State Highway? Hesse: No. I never talked to him. Beavers: With the Highway's standards, you have to slope away and that's just not possible. Hesse: I guess our stance is the detention is not increasing the flow. They will obviously have to review our drainage. Reynolds: Trees and Landscape? Hesse: I reserve any comments for final design phase. Reynolds- Well from what I've noticed, he's putting in 154 trees and shrubs from 3 gallon to 8 feet. • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 29, 1998 Page 10 Little: The other things that you asked for at the last meeting was a plan showing the lane striping at the intersection so they have been gracious enough to provide that It should be in your packet. Then we have commercial design standards and they have given us their sign elevation. Hoffman: Are you satisfied? Has Perry looked at the traffic flow? Little: Perry has looked at the traffic flow. I don't think that he made any comments. There was a comment about making sure that any site lighting was shielded and directed downward. That's particularly important because of the neighbors over to the west. Reynolds. It probably would be a good idea to put a sign on either side of that driveway -- Watch for Children. Little: The Highway Department has plans to improve Garland. Anderson: Right now they are doing an environmental study and they anticipate possibly starting construction within a one year period. Johnson: When are they going to do that? Little: They are removing the existing sidewalk and they have to straightened out the confusion about the drop off for the school and trying to accommodate that. They're stalled out right now. Johnson: From where to where? Beavers: From north of Wedington up to Cleveland by the Leverett School intersection and then 112 spur at the campus. Reynolds: It shows here that the Highway Department is going to do the work up to the comer and the developer is in charge of doing the sidewalk up the property along Garland? Anderson: That's correct. Reynolds: Are we going to get a Bill of Assurance on this sidewalk because we don't know what the Highway Department is going to do yet. Hopkins: They just completed their sidewalk. Is the new standard 6 feet wide? • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 29, 1998 Page 11 Hesse: 6 feet wide with a 10 feet green space. Hopkins: There is existing sidewalk but it's 4 feet. Am I going to have to tear that up and make it the same as theirs? Rutherford: Yes. Because it's broken and tilted with trip joints. Little: Chuck, if you found out the Highway Department's work on Garland was eminent, would you be willing to take money in lieu? Rutherford: They aren't going all the way with it. Little: Not right now. Hoffman: There's no sense in putting it in and then having to tear it out. Reynolds: We don't know what they're going to do. Hopkins: It doesn't make much sense for me to put it in then they come along and tear it out. Johnson. You have to have something along the front of your property. Hopkins: It's got sidewalk now. Reynolds. Why don't we take a Bill of Assurance on this east side? Beavers: We don't take Bill of Assurances but we can cash or a letter of credit for 150 percent of it. Hopkins: It would be cheaper to go ahead and do it. Hoffman: If they're going to start in a year or two you may know where they're going to go before you're ready to put that in. Reynolds. When they get through tearing that up there they may build it themselves. It's another project. • • Little: Aren't they required if there is a sidewalk there to put it back? So we'll try to work with them and get it in the right place. • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 29, 1998 Page 12 Beavers: The timing of this and the guarantees in lieu of installment rules allows you time after you're finished. You don't have to do this immediately. Anderson: They (Highway Dept.) are building to this point right now. What we have proposed in talking with Chuck is to tie to their 4 feet with the 6 feet green space being standard. Reynolds: I think you need to put that on hold because they will eventually spend that money and you won't have to. Rutherford: There is a 6 feet sidewalk. Beavers: I had one other question. We stated the driveway may not meet driveway standards. I'm not aware of any driveway standards the City of Fayetteville has Little: Exiting from parking lots there has to be adequate stacking distance and the minimum is 40 feet. Reynolds: What about the design standards? I think east looks real good and I think the north elevation looks good and the other two elevations I guess are facing the woods. One of them will be facing a retaining wall. The retaining wall is going to hide the south and the west elevation. I like the two that we're looking at. Also, I like your sign. It's the kind of think we like to see. Johnson: Do you think that the south and the west elevations won't be visible from the two adjacent highways because of the retaining wall? Anderson: I think it would be a minimum. It's really hard to tell exactly but our wall is 9 to 10 feet tall. Johnson: On the entire south? Anderson. Pretty much the entire south. It will be tall, plus it's being cut into the hillside. Hesse: And you've got all this screening and trees on top of that. Hoffman: This is in fact the location of the drive through? Anderson: Yes. Johnson. I see the 6 feet screen which is the shrubs. The 9 feet wall is just immediately • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 29, 1998 Page 13 north? Hesse: Yes. It's the double line just north of the structure. Johnson: And the shrubs are going to be on top of the wall? Hesse: Yes. Johnson: So you've got 15 feet? Anderson: Approximately. The wall is going to vary. Hesse: It's going to slope down. Anderson: The hedge on top will be about 6 feet tall. Johnson: Is it evergreen? Anderson. It's crepe myrtles and junipers and spireas (sp?). Johnson. On a site like this, I feel like if you're going to use visual screening, it needs to be evergreen. Otherwise, it only screen 6 months out of the year. I think that is too heavily trafficked. Anderson: I have no problem in switching to evergreen. Johnson. You just don't have a site with enough space to get away from the traffic and so I think you've got a commercial design standard issue there. I don't think these two elevations will pass muster for commercial design standards if they are going to have significant view by the passers by. Reynolds: They've got red maple tree, paper birch, and red bud and then they have hibiscus, juniper, crepe myrtle, and spirea? Hesse: We had decided on a lot of color in the spring and I still would like to do some deciduous material so that we do have something that would have some interest in the spring. But we will switch and do predominantly some evergreen shrubs that still get 5 to 6 feet tall. And I think that would help with screening of the building. As far as site distance for what Mike's doing, it doesn't really matter to us and we can't see the building anyway. So, being a little tall with something evergreen wouldn't affect marketability of the space or anything like Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 29, 1998 Page 15 Hoffntan: But we do have the screening from the less restrictive to the more restrictive. Little: Yes. There is always a screening requirement between a commercial and residential use. Johnson: I think that under the direction of Kim's suggestion as to how far back the evergreen screening would be needed for the Highway traffic for screening the blank side of the building. How deep will you cut on Wedington at the west edge of your property? Right now that driveway goes straight up. Hesse: Where the retaining wall ends and we come back to curb return, we're probably about 6 feet tall wall. Anderson: It goes from 6 feet to 10 feet. The wall will not be over 10 feet tall. Johnson: I don't have much of a sense of what those people traveling east will be able to see because it's going to be completely reconfigured. Reynolds- What does this cartoon mean? Anderson. I think what he's saying is that as you drive down Wedington, you obviously see the top of Harps and the building down below. I don't really think there is much of a vantage point. Possibly if we're coming down Garland, we would see the top of these and I think it means that we're going to see the top of the building. Johnson: Harps was built before commercial design standards. Anderson: I'm saying that there is no way we can prohibit people from seeing the top of the building because of the vantage point you're going to have coming down the hill. Johnson- I saw a building recently that has grass on the entire top of the building. It was done partly for insulation purposes and also for these purposes. Little: Is that out in Huntsville? Johnson: No. Little: Did you take a picture? • Johnson: No. I should have. It seems to me we would be better off if the detail on the • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 29, 1998 Page 16 south elevation at the top of the wall continues as far back as that 20 feet of brick with the same kind of drivet that the drive through. Reynolds: I see what you're talking about. Just back to your brick an additional 20 feet. Johnson: Is 20 feet enough? Hoffman: I don't know. Obviously we have missed the mark on a couple of designs. Little: One thing that's a little strange about that is this is 20 feet but the length of the building is 30 feet, so this building has 10 more feet of siding. Reynolds: I just don't want a Township project. I think we've got a project that if he brings that back 20 feet then the rest of it you will have to trespassing to see it. It will be down under. Johnson: This is different from Township because this is on two state highways. It is a very heavily trafficed intersection. I don't know how it rates in Fayetteville. Little: Right up there with 45 and 265. Johnson: Also this building is not very far back from the highway. On Township, at least that building is way back off the street, so you can avoid looking at it if you're careful. Hoffman: I do have a suggestion in terms of the paint color. Have you considered instead of having a bright white, trying to match the appearance of the drivet with your paint color in the back? That might make it less -- Anderson: We have thought about Obviously Mike can think about that with the architect and work on the final color. Hoffman: Well, if the drivet is going to be a beige color and if you could match it with the paint. Hopkins: We didn't want to make it dark because that creates heat. I don't mind making it an off white or beige. Johnson: You understand what she's saying. She want the same color as your drivet. Hopkins: We possibly can. I don't have any problem with that. Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 29, 1998 Page 17 Hoffman: The reason I'm bringing this forward is because we had a great deal of discussion on the color of the monopole. I'm not comfortable dictating what color buildings are. Johnson: He's dictating the color of a portion of his building and you would like that color carried on to the other sides. Johnson: I do think we are going to have to make a judgement call about how far back this building is going to have detail on it. Reynolds: You have the same thing here without a canopy. Johnson: I think we're going to have to deal with the 20 feet issue. We're either are going to have to say well that's probably enough or it needs to go back further than 20 feet. We might ought to take a stab at it at this level rather than going into the full Commission and saying we don't have a clue whether that's enough. My question is how visible from the passing traffic will this part of the wall that is not brick, how visible is that part of the wall? Hoffman: Assuming you're in a car over here and assuming that these do totally block your view of the back of the building even though you're at a higher elevation you've got them down in the hole until you're almost up to the driveway that you're not going to be able to see the back of the building. Anderson: If you're looking at the right time when you go by there, I think you'll be able to see that facade but it's not like you're going to be driving up on it and that's all you'll be seeing. I think it will be a flash if you look over at the right time as you are coming down Garland. Reynolds- I'm just proud you made it a retail center. It kind of made peace in the neighborhood. Hopkins: I am a retail center and you're blocking that merchant on this. Johnson: What you're blocking is your back wall. Hopkins: I don't mind putting these trees here or moving the trees to the west. The business is going to want a sign and what I've got now is totally obscured. Johnson: It sounds like moving the trees to the west helps block the view of the back of your building and enhances your visibility. Reynolds. So this sign here is going to be your major sign in the front? How many doors are • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 29, 1998 Page 18 you going to have? Is going to be like a three sales units or three retail people in this? Hopkins: Well, it will be 5 or 6. It's really called Forrest Park Plaza and that's what we want to put on this sign. Reynolds. And then each merchant is going to have their sign mounted? Hopkins: Each merchants is going to have their sign mounted on the building along the top. I'm going to ask them to specify. Reynolds: Are you going to set one size for all? Hopkins: One square area. I don't know that I can dictate their preferences. Reynolds. You own the building. Johnson: The elevations should reflect the size of the signs on the building. Little: Include the height and scale. Reynolds. And the size of the wall sign is what? Little: 150 square feet or 20% of the face of the building which ever is greater. Hopkins: I'm just going to let them put it along the top. Reynolds: So were going to get for the whole unit in the front out on the corner by that traffic signal box, somewhere there we're going to get this monument sign that announces the center. Johnson: Do we have that located on the plat? Anderson: Yes. It's in one of the planter islands in front of the driveway. We obviously would love the option if we didn't put it there to put it in this one, but I don't think either one of them would make a lot of difference to the Planning Commission. At least I would hope not. Hoffman: It doesn't to me. Johnson: So far as Commercial Design Standards then, once we see the size and location of the signs on the building and once we get the same treatment on the top of the wall on these facades above the brick portion and based on the assurance that we're going to see this bear Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 29, 1998 Page 19 stretch of wall just for an instance when we drive by, then I'm not going to recommend that this brick treatment go back further than the 20 feet. I wonder whether or not these trees don't need to be shown on this set of plans. Little: I noticed down here on this end there calling out 3 and they're showing 1. Johnson: The trees need to be accurately reflected and they also probably need to be moved here or that will get lost before it gets planted. Reynolds. We just need to see everything we're going to get and if it's a part of the picture that's what's being filed for. Johnson: Those trees at the Wedington entrance need to be moved however Kim says would work best. Reynolds: So we're going to lose some trees and shrubs and ground mount all the mechanical stuff. Johnson: No. We aren't going to lose any trees. Reynolds. Kim, you're in agreement. Hesse: Yes. Johnson: This cross access drive back at the south edge of the property, is there anything that we can do to have the possibility of a future that the property to south has access through this drive and only through cross access and that there will be no other access on Garland. Little: There is something we can do but not at this time. It would have to be when that one comes through. Hoffman: If they sell that lot and it's less than 200 feet of frontage then I believe that our ordinance will allow us no curbing. Little: We're used to 200 because it's on our overlay district but our actual ordinance says they can't be closer together than 40 feet. Reynolds. Aren't there two pieces of property between this one and the school? Hopkins: I think there are four lots there. • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 29, 1998 Page 20 Little: At most there are three. Anderson: It's an old subdivision that is platted back there and I think there are separate parcels of land that you could develop. There is a platted street but it's not there. Reynolds. And there's an alley to your west? Hopkins: Yes. Reynolds. Then to the south of you there is a platted street in there that comes in behind the school. Hopkins: They gave that up. Little: No. That was in the early negotiations in the zoning and Mrs. Parsons said she would give that to the school so they could put in drainage. It didn't pass that time and when it went through that was not a part of the negotiation. Discussion ensued regarding turning radius at the drives. Anderson: This is one way traffic for us. I probably would not make it any wider. From a safety stand point, I want them to pull up there and stop and tum and not pull up there and feel like they're just driving on. I want it to be obvious that it's an intersection and that it's not a continuous go. It's must safer if we force them to stop and turn. Johnson: I don't see any way then, if you did something different with the cross access that it would benefits these Tots, is what you're saying. Anderson: The bad situation for both pieces of property is that because of this cross access and because we are on a slope, the people to the south are going to have to build what we give them which is kind of a bad deal and it may force then to have to go further to the south just to build the transition back and work the pavement back into a situation where they can build what they really want to build. It's much like the drive that the Highway Department has given us that we have to work with that. We don't like what they're giving us but we need to work with that. The adjacent property owner to the south is going to have to work with what we give him. We will do our best to make it work but it's not a great situation without knowing what's going on to the south. One of the things that was requested and Phyllis you specifically asked us to bring this and I want to make sure that this doesn't come up and you are satisfied with what's going on traffic wise on Wedington and Garland. Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 29, 1998 Page 21 Hoffman: I asked Perry Franklin if we need that and had he had any comments. He didn't make any statement. Johnson: So what we have on Wedington going west is two continuous west bound lanes and what we have on Wedington going east at your Wedington entrance is two continuous east bound lanes and beyond you that widens out into a dedicated right turn, straight through and dedicated left turn In terms of people who want to come into your site off Wedington if they're traveling west on Wedington to make that left turn, they block one of the two lanes of traffic and they stack from your drive back to the cross walk. So tell me what this distance is from the easternmost line of your drive back to the sidewalk intersects through there. Anderson: This may not be a good scale Hoffman: There is the right turn from Wedington to Garland and then Garland has one lane going north and one lane going south. Is that correct? There's a turn lane but it doesn't really show it. Hopkins: Little: Johnson: Anderson: Hoffman: Little: Anderson: Little: They'll left turn lane, right turn lane, and one lane through traffic. Well right after that, it goes to two lanes of through traffic. So at the point where your driveway is, there's no left turn lane. Correct. There isn't anywhere along there. It's going to be a problem to turn left onto Wedington from your site. Because you have to cross two lanes of traffic. They will have to stack in our driveway to do that. Which is very much on a hill. Anderson: The good point is they.will have a good sight distance because we are above it. The other key is that the traffic signal will stop traffic and hopefully give them a turning gap. I don't know if there is anything we can do to improve the situation in moving anything or doing anything on our sight. This is what the Highway Department's given us. Johnson: And we think that Garland when it is improved along there is four lanes at Garland at their entrance. • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 29, 1998 Page 22 Little: The Highway Department says 5. The University at the last meeting of the Regional Planning said they wanted 4 with a medium. The University is the one that got the project. The City didn't get the project. I think it will be five lanes. Reynolds: The University may get their way with the boulevard type street. But, I know that the Highway Department has been against that. Johnson: There really no decision here to be made unless we prohibit left turns. Hoffman: I think it would be more difficult to left from the Garland entrance than it will from the Wedington actually because it's closer to the intersection and you have to deal with the right turn through lane as well as traffic going. Johnson: It depends on what that sight line is on Wedington. You may not be able to see depending on how they drop over that hill. Reynolds. If you limit it to one left turn, you're going to be running everyone to right turns. • Anderson: I don't think that would help or hurt matters. Rutherford: I need to make a correction on the sidewalk on Garland. I said that was 6 feet on Garland that the Highway Department is building. I assume that because they are building a 6 feet sidewalk on Wedington and I just figured they would turn it. Motion Ms. Johnson made a motion to send this project forward to the Planning Commission with recommendation of approval with revised plat showing the changes discussed today including relocation of the trees, the possibility of the deletion of the handicapped ramp, change of planting materials to be evergreen, ground mounted HVAC with screening, and changes as noted to the elevation including submission of paint sample wall treatment and the signs on the buildings. Ms. Hoffman seconded Mr. Reynolds concurred. Ms Warrick request 37 revised plats and 12 revised elevations by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, November 2, 1998. • Meeting adjourned at 9:55.