Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-02-25 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, February 25, 1999 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111, of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas ITEMS CONSIDERED PP99-2: Altus Addition, pp 258 PP99-3: Robinwood Subdivision, pp 298 LSD99-5: Walgreens, pp 290 MEMBERS PRESENT John Forney Lorel Hoffman Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Kim Hesse Janet Johns Alett Little Ron Petrie Chuck Rutherford Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Forward to PC Forward to PC Forward to PC MEMBERS ABSENT Phyllis Johnson STAFF ABSENT None • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 2 PP99-2: PRELIMINARY PLAT ALTUS ADDITION, pp258 This project was submitted by Robert Schmitt of RNS Enterprises for property located north of Highway 45 and east of Altus Road. The property is in the planning growth area and contains approximately 7 01 acres with 4 lots proposed. Robert Schmitt and Dave Jorgensen were present on behalf of the project. Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the following: 1. Separate water service lines will be required for each new lot. 2. All proposed lot lines need to coincide with right of way lines and not with the center lines of Altus Dr. or the proposed private drive. 3. Right of way for Altus Drive must be dedicated from the easternmost existing right of • way to the property's western boundary. • A 20 feet utility easement between lot 2 and lot 4 was requested by the Arkansas Western Gas representative at the Technical Plat Review meeting. This needs to be reflected on the plat. 5. All plat review and subdivision comments. 6. Additional water information is due with the revisions before this can proceed to the Planning Commission. 7. A street name must be provided for the drive. 8. The right of way will be public instead of private as reflected on the plat. Committee Discussion Forney: Are there any other staff issues? Petrie: capacity. Dave was providing additional information on that existing 2 inch water line's Schmitt: I know that he ran some calculations on that. We discussed them last week. I Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 3 would hate to speak for him, though. Petrie: Provide me one copy of the letter and he needs additional information. Schmitt: From our discussion, what he said was that there is a certain amount of water that each house on the line can pull at a certain time. I'm not quite as familiar. I think maybe like 3 gallons per minute. With a proposed 20 ounces on the line, I think there are 12 houses on there now and he was planning for maybe an additional 3 besides these 4. He said that he thought that it was in the acceptable range and he thought that also would be increased once they get that water tower that is directly behind this thing built and that 8 inch line along 45 hooked up to that. Jorgensen: Ron and I talked and I called Dave Jurgens to get some information but I haven't received a phone call back. Little: Is that something that you need for preliminary plat or is that something you need before Subdivision sends it to Planning Commission? At what point do you need that information? Petrie: It's fine to get that before Planning Commission. If it's not capable of doing it, we would have to run a new water line. If they are going to take up all the capacity of the existing line, we may want to look at some contributions to upgrading those lines. Little: Okay. We will have to have that before Planning Commission because if there is a contribution to be assessed, the Planning Commission has to make that decision. Schmitt: And we'll agree to that. Hoffman: Has the Fire Chief looked at this, too? Little: I imagine that he is the one that brought the issue up. I don't quite remember. Jorgensen: You won't have any fire flow on that line because it's just a 2 inch line. Although it would be desirable to have fire protection back there for sure. Ron and I talked about that and it would be nice if we could have a 6 inch line back there with a fire hydrant but with just the 2 inch line there is no capability. Hoffman: Since this is in the planning area, we don't say you have to put a fire hydrant in? Little: We always say we strongly advise it but if it is just a 2 inch line it won't support it and the Fire Chief doesn't like for us to put fire hydrants on a 2 inch line because it gives people • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 4 a false sense of security. On the information, these revisions are going to be due by 10 a.m. on Monday. We need to have this water line capacity along with those revisions. Jorgensen: Okay. No problem. Conklin: On a private drive, did we talk to Jim Johnson about a street name for that? I'm not sure if we should use the word "private" if it's dedicated right of way. Little: You're right. Conklin: Take the word "private" off of there. Jorgensen: It needs a street name. Little: It does. How about Schmitt Drive? Hoffman: Why is this area shaded? Little: I think it was to indicate pavement. Is that correct? Jorgensen: Yes. Little: right of way. We don't care whether it's paved or not but we do care whether it's dedicated Hoffman: The right of way continues all the way through, then. Little: It does. Forney: Anything else from engineering? Petrie: No. Rutherford: This is in the county. Little: I did not mention to you and I think you probably understand that since this is in the county, it will be on septic systems. This will require separate approval of each lot from the Health Department. Ward: It looks like they have done that. There were several perk holes. • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 5 Jorgensen. We're working on that. Hoffman: Does this have to go before the full Planning Commission? Little: Preliminary plats are required to have the big public hearing. So it has to go on to the Planning Commission. MOTION Mr. Ward made a motion to forward PP99-2 to the Planning Commission subject to conditions and comments. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Further Discussion Little: We had asked about not taking the property line to the center of the street. They • need to be coincidental at the right of way. Jorgensen: Right of way of -- Little: Altus. Hoffman: And you're not taking any right of way for Altus? Little: No. Because there is already 60 there, I believe. 30 on each side basically. Fomey: I don't understand the property lines as I look at the plat? Is that a diagonal across right of way? Little: It is. The street doesn't exactly touch the property but the drive is there. It's just a county situation but that is why we have asked for the property line just to go to the right of way line. Jorgensen: There is something that somebody mentioned about the right of way. The property lines go where lot 1 and 2 -- what's going on here -- never mind. Little: Okay. All we're saying is that once this becomes right of way, this lot has • frontage and so that can be a property line. • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 6 Hoffman: There is a 20 foot utility easement. Forney. The situation on that west edge is okay? Little: No. Once we get the property line to the right of way it will be much more clear. Jorgensen: It would be clear if we just went ahead and deleted all this and just went right to the right of way line. It's confusing when you look at the property line with respect to the road and the right of way lines. Forney: Altus exists already. Is that correct? Little: Yes. Forney: There is no concern about this diagonal. Typically, we ask for dedication of half of the right of way. I'm not sure what this applicant is dedicating -- if they're dedicating anything. Little: They are not dedicating anything for Altus for two reasons. It's on the county and the county has made those decisions. They didn't ask for additional right of way. The other reason is they probably would have but there is already 60 feet of right of way there so there really wouldn't have been a use for it. What we're trying to do since they have made some of those decisions already, is to say this is overly complicated. It's not straight. Let's Just make these property lines to the edge of the right of way and clear up what we can up there. Fomey: If staff and the applicant are all right with that, it's okay with me. So, we have a motion to move this one with all staff comments. We have a second and I would concur. • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 7 PP99-3: PRELIMINARY PLAT ROBINWOOD SUBDIVISION, pp298 This project was submitted by Robert Schmitt of RNS Enterprises for property located at Highway 45, west and south of Son's Chapel. The property is in the planning growth area and contains approximately 7.40 acres with 7 lots proposed. Robert Schmitt and Dave Jorgensen were present on behalf of the project. Staff recommended approval subject to the following: Conditions of Approval as requested by County Planning 1. Identify residential drive #4346 on the plan. Every property owner that has a recorded or prescriptive use of the existing easement and drive to be eliminated, must agree to the elimination of the existing easement and drive. A record of this agreement must be submitted to the Planning Office, reviewed by the County Attorney, and filed for public record. The book and page number where the document is recorded must be referenced on the plat. Have a 30 feet future right of way provided westward from the cul de sac to the property line. 3. Increase the easement along the south property line to at least 50 feet so it will be closer to the size of the original easement and will not inhibit those who use the easement from developing their property in the future. 4. Next to the total acreage of each lot, identify the size of the lot excluding all access easements. 5. Note the address of each lot on the plan. 6. Note that access to each lot is restricted to Woodcrest Lane. 7. Submit an engineer's certification that the runoff from the development will not cause or increase flooding problems. 8. Correct the location of the development on the vicinity map. • Conditions of Approval from City Staff • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 8 1. All conditions placed on the project by Washington County Planning Board - see above. 2. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 3. Clarify right of way along the southern property line to extend to the east and west. 4. Settlement of the property line dispute possibly filing a correction deed. Committee Discussion Little: Thank you for changing the street names. This is the same applicants again. Robert Schmitt, represented by Dave Jorgensen. The only conditions we have is that we must make the applicant aware they must meet all conditions placed on the project by the Washington County Planning Board. We do have a letter from them and those are delineated above. There are eight conditions. Is the applicant fully aware of all these conditions? Schmitt: Yes. • Little: Do you plan not to meet any of these conditions? Schmitt: Let me read them again. Hoffman: While he is reading, I have a question about the dead end street. Are we within the limits of allowing a dead end? Little: The length is a little bit over that. We're going to be a little bit over 500 feet. Warrick: In suburban subdivisions, which this is also a county subdivision, the length of a cul de sac is 1000. Little: It does meet the 1000 feet. Just so you know, this cul de sac, there is right of way which has been dedicated back to the east and to the west. At the bottom of the cul de sac, it does go east and west. Hoffman. This is an access easement? Warrick: That is temporary. • Little: There is actually a road there now. When we go on tour next week, we can show you this. As this develops and we have talked to Mr. Schmitt, we have very much concern about • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 9 there being a road on this side of those lots and a road on this side of those lots. He has worked with us. After this road has been constructed the other road will be given back to the original owner. It's actually an access easement. Access will be provided through this area right here. Ward: How do you get to this house over here? Little: This one up here? Through the cemetery. This one down here, they get to on this little road coming down here. Ward: here. They'll come down here and the Greenhaws get to another county private drive Forney: It's extension between a suburb cul de sac and a nonsuburb cul de sac. How do we distinguish them? Little: Suburban is in the county. Forney: The county? Ward: Dimension wise they are the same. Forney. Dimension wise they are the same. Little: The turn around on the bubble of the cul de sac is the same. I think we're talking about the length. Forney: The length is going to be greater in the county. Little: Yes. Schmitt: I do agree to all eight of the county conditions. Little: That was our only concern, we hadn't really had a chance to talk about that. Other than our standard conditions, Planning has nothing further. Jorgensen: The Greenhaws are with us today -- Leonard Greenhaw and his son John. They stopped in my office yesterday and were talking about the discrepancy in the survey/legal description on this. What happened is it was originally surveyed by one surveyor. Then Alan Reid came and did another survey. Then we did our survey and it turns out that we ended up agreeing this Alan Reid's survey which caused a 16.7 foot discrepancy in the distance for the 40 Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 10 ' corner down. The original surveyor used one 40 comer that in our opinion and in Alan Reid's opinion turned out to be incorrect. The new 40 comer is 16.7 feet north of the old one. The bottom line of the whole deal is that the south boundary line still remains the same as it always has been. There is some kind of a correction deed that has been prepared. I talked to Alan Reid last night and he has prepared one which he gave to David Mix. Public Discussion Leonard Greenhaw, the brother of Virginia Harkens, who owns the property along the south boundary line of the proposed subdivision. He stated he had drafted a correction deed and read as follows: "Whereas, Frank W. Blew, Jr. on December 31, 1991 made a survey for Rebecca Shrive which located and established the northeast corner of the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4, Section 33, Township 17 North, Range 29 West in Washington County, Arkansas. And, described the line running south 472.89 feet from said northeast corner of said 40 acre tract to the southeast corner of the land being surveyed for Rebecca Shrive. And, whereas, there appears in the record a Warranty Deed dated March 21, 1992 and recorded March 23, 1992 executed by Virginia G. Harkins and Peter Harkins relying upon the accuracy of the aforesaid survey by Frank W Brew, Jr. conveying to James Miller and Sue Ellen Miller part of the aforesaid 40 acre tract described as beginning at a point 472.89 feet south of the northeast comer of the aforesaid 40 acre tract. And, running thence south 143 feet, thence west 457 feet to the east side of an existing private road, thence in a northerly direction along the east side of side private road to a point due west of the point of beginning, thence east to the point of beginning containing 1.5 acres more or less. And, whereas, on April 25, 1997, Alan Reid made a survey for David Mix in which he located the northeast comer of the aforesaid 40 acre tract being 16 87 feet north of the point in which Mr. Blew in his said survey located said northeast corner. And, whereas, Jorgensen and Associates and their preliminary plat of Robinwood Estates dated February 16, 1999 agree with the aforesaid survey of Alan Reid in locating the northeast corner of the aforesaid 40 acre tract, 16.87 feet north of the point in which Mr. Blew in his aforesaid survey located said northeast comer. And, whereas, Jorgensen and Associates have placed a pin establishing the southeast corner of the proposed Robinwood Estates with Virgina G. Harkins and Peter Harkins agreeing to the location of said pin. The description shown on said preliminary plat locating said northeast corner 16.87 feet north of the said northeast corner shown in said survey of Mr. Blew. It is therefore, understood and agreed to by all parties of interest that the aforesaid Warranty Deed given by Virginia G. Harkins and Peter Harkins which was based on the location of the aforesaid northeast corner as established by the survey of Mr. Blew be corrected so as to run south an additional 16.87 feet from the new northeast corner of the NW 1/4 of the • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 11 SW1/4 corner of Section 33, Township 17 North, Range 29 West, as established by the survey of Jorgensen and Associates dated February 16, 1999 in connection with preliminary plat prepared for Robinwood Estates. Thence West 457 feet, along the east side of the existing private road, thence in a northerly direction along the east side of said private road to a point dew west of the point of beginning, thence east to the point of beginning containing 1.5 acres more or less." The reason for the correction deed is simply that once my sister and her husband decide to sell their property, there will be cloud on the title unless this is done because of the difference in the two surveys. I want to save the time of trying to quit title later on and take care of this matter. Little: Can you tell me the date of the Blew survey? Greenhaw: December 31, 1991 and it was made for Rebecca Shrive that owns the acreage there in the comer of the 40 acre tract that is involved here. Little: I don't believe that the lot split went through the City. So, we don't have a record • of that. We are suppose to approve lot splits that are done in the planning area Let's deal with this subdivision, then we would like to talk with you some more. Further Committee Discussion Forney. So, we shall deal with this subdivision and not be concerned with their filing of the deed. Little: I would not. Jorgensen: However, regarding his suggestions, the terminology sounds good and we discussed this quite a bit yesterday and the bottom line of the whole deal is they do agree with the location of this property line. There is a discrepancy in where the surveyor which the 40 corners are at. His document sounds like that would clear up this problem. I realize that there is this other side issue of the lot split. Leonard, that sound goods After you can work out the other problem about a lot split that she is referring to, I would be glad to have that typed up for you or you can type it and I'll look at it and -- Forney: Are there other comments that need to get on the record? Little: We believe that the right of way that is to be dedicated on the south line needs to • be clarified just a little bit. It needs to extend all the way over to the west property line. It's not clear and then back over to the cul de sac. The same thing over on the east where the north part • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 12 of it would be. Then there to the south, where the cul de sac line is, you added on the ones to make sure that the right of way went all the way to the south property line but you left the cul de sac radius in there, too. Let's take that out because that makes it less clear. Jorgensen: Okay. Little: What does the circle with the "BO" stand for? Petrie: Blow off water line. Little: It wasn't in the legend up here so I thought I better ask. Hoffman: The approval of this subdivision will hinge on the approval of correcting the adjoining lot lines? Little: It doesn't have to. It's a good idea. Ho man: I think it's a good idea so everybody knows where the property lines are. So, if you could, before it gets to the Planning Commission, have that document prepared. Jorgensen: There is a slight problem in the fact that the Millers are selling it to Schmitt. Schmitt: We haven't done the transaction yet, depending on what the Planning Commission does. I can make a side agreement to settle this issue with them which I don't see any problem with. Jorgensen: But, you can't sign that until you purchase the property. Hoffman: You could give a Bill of Assurance to show that you agree. Staff, does that sound like a good idea? Forney. That is not our concern. Little: I am glad that everybody else is concerned and willing to work it out instead of arguing over it. Forney: Are there other staff comments? MOTION Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 13 Ms. Hoffman made a motion to forward the preliminary plat to the full Planning Commission subject to the Washington County conditions and all City staff conditions and comments. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Mr. Forney concurred. • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 14 LSD99-5: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT WALGREENS, pp290 This project was submitted by Kurt Jones of Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of Walgreens for property located at the northwest corner of College Avenue and Township Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 2.59 acres. Staff recommended consideration of the project and should the Subdivision Committee decide to approve the project, it should be subject to the following: Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with commercial design standards - to include proposed wall and free standing signage. 2. Planning Commission determination of waiver request concerning overhead utility lines. • 3. Planning Commission determination of waiver of the City's grading ordinance. A retaining wall is shown along the north property line that does not meet the ordinance requirement for terracing when a cut is greater than 10 feet. Engineering Division supports this waiver request. • 4. A 10 feet temporary construction easement must be secured prior to submittal of a final grading plan for the area that the applicant proposes grading to the property line. 5. Applicant's engineer shall provide a cost estimate for the installation of the 8 inch water line adjacent to College Avenue with a recommended contribution by Walgreens. This item would be a cost share project with the City if approved by the City Council. 6. The island shown at both entry/exist locations shall be landscaped per UDO§ 172.01(C)(5)(b)(1). 7. Contribution toward or improvements to Township Road adjacent to this property. 8. All plat review and subdivision comments. 9. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, 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 • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 15 approval All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 10. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 feet sidewalk with a minimum 10 feet green space along Township Road and College Avenue 11. Large Scale Development approval is 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. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not dust guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. • 13. Resolution of commercial design standards criteria for the view of the southwest corner. • 14. Staff recommendation on Township improvements. Matt Crafton and Tim Gallop were present on behalf of the project. Committee Discussion Crafton: This is a Walgreens Store at the northwest corner of Township and College. The actual owner will be Bencor, a developer out of Colorado Springs. They will be leasing the property to Walgreens. The schedule, we believe, is good for Walgreens. There was an issue at plat review whether or not the current owner, Don Nelms, is going to be able to vacate the property within a year and from what we understand, that will happen. So, we are going ahead and pressing on with this. Little: We have seven issues (delineated above.) Under Commercial Design Standards, we have quite a few questions on signage, overhead electric lines and waivers will be required. Engineering Division is supporting a waiver request for a retaining wall along the north property line that is not meeting the ordinance requirement for terracing. The cut is greater than 10 feet. You all will have to make that final decision. We're going to need a 10 feet temporary construction easement and we must have that prior to the final grading plan for the area that the applicant proposes grading to the property line. The applicant's engineer is going to need to provide cost estimates for the installation of an 8 inch water line adjacent to College Avenue and • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 16 we recommend a contribution by Walgreens. So, in other words, Matt Crafton will provide an estimate to our Engineering Division who will then make a recommendation to you as to what the appropriate contribution will be. We're expecting the island shown at both the entry and exit locations to be landscaped. We're expecting a contribution toward improvements to Township Road which is adjacent to this property and it is a substandard road. Forney: Does the applicant have any questions about the conditions? Crafton: I guess we could address them one at a time. Regarding compliance with Commercial Design Standards, was there a specific issue? Hoffman. I don't have an elevation. Little: You have not received elevations? Crafton: We will comply with the maximum 75 square feet sign All the signage on the building will also comply with the requirements. I think the requirements in this case are up to • 150 square feet per side of building and we will comply to that. Little: I don't think this is my original copy. When we went through this, I felt like the whole portion right here read and looks like a sign. If it's an integral part of the building, I felt like it should be extended on down to the end so that there is a complete view of that. That was odd because after we had that meeting, I did go to Kansas City and in Overland Park, I found this Walgreens Store that was very similar to what I had envisioned. (Ms. Little presented pictures.) Hoffman: You're suggesting that they extend the stone with the signs on down to the end of the building. Gallop: We have some renderings of what this looks like. Crafton: I do have a copy of the revised sign. Hoffman: It's 25 feet. I thought you said 75 feet tall. I thought how would anybody see it up there. Little: (Referring to Gallop's rendering) This must not be site specific. Gallop: No. • Little: Because even that one does not include all of the red and the big red arrow for the • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 17 drive through pharmacy. Warrick: We don't have the site elevations in our office. Crafton: We did submit 12 color copies and this is the revised version of those. Little: I still have mine. These were my original markings. My original impression was that this reads like a sign. Either extend the length of the building or shorten it to be above the windows. I also felt like the big red arrow was excessive and they could put drive through pharmacy with a much shorter arrow if they feel like that is a necessary element for their building. Those were the only comments that the staff had. That reads very much like a billboard without some changes being made there. Gallop: You're suggesting the canopy of both sides of the building go all the way around. Little: Just to the back. • Gallop: Then reducing the size of the arrow at the drive through. Little: Right. Gallop: Okay. • Little: That is my suggestion but please bear in mind, I only make recommendations for the Planning Commission. They make the final decisions. Forney. So this is brick cladding on both the south and east. Gallop: The entire building is clad in brick. It has some solider courses both mid way up and at the bottom. The solider courses at the top are projected out below that shadow. The canopies themselves are made up of EFCS or plaster type material. The quarter entry is raised with a glass tower entry. Hoffman: What's it used for? Gallop: It's for a graphic in there. Hoffman: It says Walgreens? Hoffman: Has that been included in your sign calculations? • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 18 Gallop: We hadn't specifically talked to the staff or anyone about that. We will comply with whatever. Hoffman: So that will be like a building sign inside? Little: Actually, the way our sign ordinance reads is that if it is behind glass it doesn't count. Hoffman: It doesn't count. Okay. How big is it? Gallop: It's roughly 48 square feet. Most of the letters -- there is a motorized pedestal in here that has a full background with a neon outline and then there is a small Walgreens and The Pharmacy America Trusts -- or something like that underneath. So the actual lettering of the sign in there is fairly small. Hoffman: What this design? • Gallop: That's just stars. Hoffman: I see. Little: And none of that blinks or moves. Is that correct? Gallop: That is correct. Forney. Can it blink or move behind glass? Ward: Now what about the canopy? All the way to each side. Forney: You need another 15 to 20 feet. Ward: Which is now much further? Gallop. It's another 30 feet on the east and on the west side, too? Little: Yes. Gallop: That would be about 60 feet. • Little: There is another advantage to that. Both are frontages that face the two streets. • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 19 Hoffman: I have a question about the view from Township. If you're driving down Township, I've noticed on a couple of projects we've had questions about being able to see the ugly back part of the building. On this I know that we have the pharmacy drive through. What is the site distance if I am in a car on Township coming east? Am I going to be able to see retaining walls or big things like fences or such things that would block the view of the back. Gallop. The building is raised from the street level by how much? Crafton: It's a fair amount. Hoffman: So the trees maybe would block that view? Gallop. Somewhat. Crafton: There is a fence that will enclose all the dumpsters and this compactor back here. There are shrubberies, of course, along the frontage and tree here. The building has all 4 sides brick. Hoffman: Right. Crafton: These enclosures are 8 feet high cedar fencing. Little: Here is the west elevation. Most of the heavier screening is occurring further to the north Ho an. Does the Walgreens property stop here. Crafton: That is what we are proposing. Hoffman: You're adjusting the lot line? Little: Yes. They plan to. Is that filed yet? Warrick: Yes, and the legals have been approved. We won't actually approve it until we get this part. Little: Will we need to lot line adjust if the sale hasn't been finalized? Or has the sale been finalized? Crafton: The sale has not been finalized. • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 20 Little: We don't want to sign it if for some reason it doesn't finalize. Crafton: I believe the sale is contingent upon large scale approve. Little: Just give us guidance when that needs to be signed if you would, please? It looks like we're ready to sign it, we just don't want to sign it at the wrong time. Crafton: Okay. Forney: We're talking commercial design standards here. I don't object to the elevations as they are. I think those would be nice changes but for my vote it would not be necessary. I would, however, on the northeast corner, you've got good tree screening so that the back view is not going to be a problem. However, from the west property line, we're going to be seeing a good bit of this condition and I would -- Crafton: What this doesn't show is a curb inlet back here with a concrete pipe running all the way to the front of the property. Hoffman: On this side? Crafton: Yes. I was worried about putting trees on top of that pipe. Hoffman: You probably couldn't based on engineering requirements. Ward: You might want to put more articulation on that side of the building. Crafton: On the west side? Ward: Yes. Just to break it a little bit where it's not one solid brick wall. Forney: One of the things we're trying to do with commercial design standards is to the view from public right of way to be not of the view of the backs of buildings but rather finished fronts. We'll get a good bit of that view. Gallop: We'll put in trees to avoid the drain pipe coming out of there. Crafton: Can we set the transformer back and put some more trees right in through here? Gallop: I believe that is possible, too. • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 21 Hoffman: I think it's important to have something to break the site line there. If you could put trees there or shrubs. We had McDonald's wrap a canopy around the back of the building to dress it up some more. Forney: It looks as if your landscaping on the rest of the south and east frontages is very good. We would hate for you to leave a kind of gap there where it looks as though things are not finished. Hoffman: I want to commend you for putting more trees on College. Thank you. Gallop: There's none out there right now. Little: There's a big curb cut out there right now. Ward: There's no grass or trees right now. It's dust a big, metal building. Gallop: This is a really good area to landscape. Hoffman: It does so much to break up that commercial strip. Everyone that's coming in and redeveloping -- I really appreciate the parking lot ordinance that we have. It will make a big difference in the long run. Forney. We could approve a large scale at this level, generally. I'm not sure this is going to be one that we can or not. Little: We have some overhead electric. If there is not a waiver then you can approve it. Warrick: There's also the grading ordinance. Little: Well, it's got to go on. Hoffman: And that's because of the 10 feet cut? Is that an existing condition, though? Petrie: No. You're lowering it even more than what's there now. They're cutting the maximum of about 13.5 feet for only about 100 feet along that wall, the rest of it will be fine. The current ordinance only allows 10 feet without terracing. Hoffman: Is it right on the property line? Crafton: No. It's the hatched part. • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 22 Hoffman: Okay. So there are no piers or anything that go across the other property. Forney: Before we wander off on grading, let's resolve the commercial design standards issues. Because we are not going to be considering a motion to approve this here today, I think we should leave it with the applicant to decide how they want to address it. I'll tell you here today that I would not object to these elevations as they are. I will object if there is not some resolution to the view coming from the west at the south west corner. That's what I'm concerned about. I think we've heard some concerns from staff and other Commissioners about the elevations. Crafton: I think we can address that issue. Hoffman: My concern other than the site view are the signs. I'm generally opposed to pylon signs but I got over ruled on a sign across the street. Little: Have you seen it? It's going up. Go have a look. Hoffman: The one at Coy's? Little: No. The other one.. Hoffman: Refresh my memory on how much we gave them. If we compromised with them on a certain height and I don't remember what that was but I would like to be consistent. Little: We'll try to get that information for you and we'll also share it with the applicant. Ward: What's on the site out there now? Is there a pole sign? Little: I can't tell you. I know our maximum height is 30 feet. So I would hope that it is not taller than 30 feet. Hoffman: We need to remember and try to be consistent. Forney: I'm rather uncomfortable with the fact that we have these two instances. It seems a little strange to me that we have an ordinance in place and that this would meet that. My inclination is to say okay to that. I'm never quite sure how we wind up getting people to make their's 3 feet shorter. I think we do this project by project and if they can convince us then they can do it. I'll be happy to hear arguments for 10 feet shorter or 5 feet higher. Little: I think the way that it comes into play is your commercial design standards gave • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 23 the Planning Commission the right to decide if there were large out of scale signs with flashy colors. The way that it works with the sign ordinance is the sign ordinance that's on the books never took into account what was also on the building because they never participated in that part of review. You all do participate in that part of the review and therefore, you're looking at signage for the whole project as opposed to just looking at the one piece of it. They look at it in pieces and you all look at it as a whole In other words, if there is not much signage on the building, then you can allow more on an outside sign. But if there is a lot on the building then there probably needs to be less on the outside sign. That's how I see it. Hoffman: That has a great deal of interpretational room. I understand your statement. I'm more concerned in trying to keep in scale with what is in this area. Little: We'll look up what was on Sonic. Hoffman: The Design Overlay District holds people to monument signs and they are not in the design overlay district. I don't think that is fair to do on College because everybody else has pole signs. Little: applicable. We chose not to put the overlay district on College and therefore I don't think it is Forney. What about the overhead utility waiver? Crafton: Before we move on, I want to make sure I'm clear. The issue we talked about was possibly extending the canopy but then you said from what you can see -- Forney: You're looking to try and get 5 vote in favor of your project at full Planning Commission. You've heard from -- I don't know if Lee has weighed in. Ward: I haven't weighed in. I'll be abstaining because I happen to a representative of Bencor. I'm not going to be able to vote anyway. Some of the things that have been brought up here especially the view from the west I think is real critical. You are going to see it from quite a ways back coming east on Township. It's crazy to do all the things you've done already and then have one ugly section. As far as the other thing, I hate to see a project like this that is going to take what I consider one of the ugliest buildings in the area and it's going to take that out and put a very nice building in. Do we want to step over our bounds and not approve something because a big ugly post sign is out there all ready. Right now, there's not one blade of grass on the whole area so this will be a tremendous upgrade from what we have. • Forney. I think for Mr. Gallop and Mr. Crafton's sake, it's safe to say that you'll find • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 24 especially with commercial design standards that there is a lot of room for interpretation and we can try to work it out project by project and that makes it very difficult for us to speak with one voice at any point. The ordinance doesn't require that you do this, this, or this. There is a good bit of room. I think you've seen or heard that a little bit this morning already. Ward: We aren't going to tell you what color brick you use or to use this type of canopy or on and on and on. Forney: If you want to get this approved, if you don't object, I suspect that the staff's recommendations that the canopy be extended or that it should be smaller, you will probably find favor with most of the Commission. It wouldn't bother me but I'm one voice. Hoffman: I'm to the point where if you all vote against it, it is probably a good idea. Fomey: I think that you'll find that the more modest the sign that can do to herald your project, the more likely you will find the commission saying that this is a project that we are going to be proud of. It's a balancing act. Hoffman: I think I remember the Sonic sign was a similar height. I don't think we're talking about a big difference there. Little: Tim's looking that up. Fomey. The second condition is waiver of overhead utilities. Crafton: I'm not sure exactly what the waiver would be. The only utility lines that would be remaining overhead are the main transmission lines that SWEPCO has along the south portion of this property. Hoffman: The west -- overhead electric and something else, I can't tell. That's dust serving you. It's serving to the property and then you are going under ground with it here. Crafton: No. Actually, we're coming down here and going underground. Hoffman: There's a drop off. And there's overhead electric here, too? Crafton: All the overhead that is out there right now will be taken down. There are some flood lights that Mr. Nelms has on his car lot and those will all come down with the project. There is the overhead electric that actually comes to a pole at this location and that will come down as well. The only thing that will remain out there are these high transmission lines along • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 25 the south portion of the property. Warrick: I have a question in that regard. Against the west side of the existing property line, there is an overhead electric line that runs north almost the full length of the property. Is that under consideration for removal as well? Crafton: That's outside the -- Warnck. No. I'm talking about where the words, "edge of asphalt" are. We are right now talking about this entire piece of property. The property line adjustment has not been approved. We need to know if that line is going to remain overhead. Crafton: I believe those are flood lights that are shining to the east which I would think would be removed. Gallop: If that's all they do, then they can come down. • Warrick: We need to know affirmatively whether or not that line is -- Crafton: We'll have to talk to Mr. Nelms. • Warrick: I know that he does still have his used car lot and I don't know the story as far as what all is going to be moving when he does vacate the property. Forney: We have overhead electric that will be removed. The applicant says there is overhead electric on the south side that will remain. I see overhead electric on the east side. Will that be removed? Crafton: Yes. Forney: That will be removed. Crafton: In fact, that overhead electric is actually just to the flood lights. Forney: If it's on the plan, that will be there. You have overhead electric indicated on the north side of this property behind the retaining wall. That will be removed? Crafton: Yes. Those are flood lights mostly. Fomey: The only ones we need to concern ourselves with are the overhead electric. • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 26 Hoffman: We need to say the overhead electric needs to be removed or not removed or whatever. Forney. We have the south line and the one on the west line that we need to concem ourselves with. Have we had any investigation of the feasibility of burying or removing that south line? Gallop: It is a high transmission line and I don't think SWEPCO was interested at all in beanng that. It runs the length of Township. Hoffman: What is the status of the ordinance that we changed? Little: You recommended changes to it and it went to City Council and from there it went back to the Ordinance Review Committee. They have appointed a new Ordinance Review Committee and they have not met. Hoffman: I would vote to exempt -- which ones? Forney. Do we know what KV it is? Crafton: No. I will get that for you. Forney: We were encouraging those below 12.4 kv. It would be good for us to know that. Hoffman: The only difference from the ordinance we sent to City Council was if you were adding new service then that would be buried. That as yet remains unresolved but since it's existing, I don't see a problem with that. Forney: We'll review your application on Monday about that western line and depending on the kv it sound as those we will probably grant the waiver. The next issue is the grading ordinance waiver on the northern retaining wall. Is there any way to reconfigure that in the fashion it would not be more than a 10 foot retaining wall? Crafton: If you've been to the site that is there now, it's very steep along this north edge. Right now there is about a 1.5 to 1 slope coming down with no wall. That's right. This is a very steep slope on the east side that Mr. Nelm's has cars parked coming down that slope. That is not going to work for Walgreens. What we're going to have to do is cut that slope out of there so that this is a much flatter site than it is currently. That is the reason for the cut that we're going to need. • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 27 Forney. Is engineering aware of any alternate configurations that might accomplish what they need without giving us that large retaining wall? Petrie: That is a difficult question. Forney. Instead of one large retaining wall that will be over 13 feet high at one point, could we have a second retaining wall set back half the dimension to the property line so that it is stepped once? Petrie: I think that would still require some kind of wall in the parking lot because keep in mind that north of that retaining wall is still on a 2 to 1 slope. So any retaining wall would be on that 2 to 1 slope. Crafton: Even though the cut is 13 feet, when the pavement comes back in, the highest the wall will be is 11 feet. So it's really only a foot higher than 10. Hoffman: I really don't have a problem with it because we're in the middle of town and • we're not affecting a beautiful hill. Crafton: The wall will be versalock. It's a masonry type wall. I think it will be very aesthetically pleasing. It will match the building. It's much better looking than the concrete. Little: in it? Are you aware that Tri-State Precast makes a wall like that with planting pockets Crafton: No. I didn't know that. Little: It's a local company They would like for some people to use their product. Their product is wonderful. They have used it in Branson. We can't get anybody here to use it. Crafton: I'll check them out. Forney. This is not just a push for the local but I think some planting on that face would actually help. A question I always have about these retaining walls is if there will be a hand rail at the top? Petrie: That is a requirement. • Hoffman: Where did that requirement come from? • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 28 Petrie: In the grading ordinance, it says that retaining walls over 3 feet require safety railing in pedestrian or traffic areas. Forney: This one you might interpret as not being an actual pedestrian area or traffic area. I'm glad to hear that you are requiring it. Crafton: Just for safety reasons. Fomey: Are there any other questions we have about that? Hoffman: I guess about the landscaping on the retaining wall. Did you talk about it? Hesse: We haven't specifically looked at it. Little: It's not a recommendation at all. It's just a comment and I sure would like to see some of those big stone walls get softened. The pictures I saw looked great. I have seen it used by the Missouri Highway Department. Forney: What about the temporary construction easement? That is due when they submit a final grading plan. Are there any questions or concerns about that? Crafton: No. We can get that after large scale. Forney: That true. The cost estimate for the installation of the 8 inch water line on College Avenue. Are there any concerns about that? Crafton: We'll have to get with the City Engineer's staff to discuss exactly what they have in mind for cost sharing. Certainly we would think that it would be fair that we would bring this water line down to the point where Walgreens will be using it. Then there will be an easement along the south side. We'll have to get with the Engineers to discuss exactly what they have in mind about what portion, if any, this project would pay for, other than coming down to the point where Walgreens -- Little: Have you talked to Jim Beavers about that since yesterday? Petrie: No. I haven't. Little: I was in a meeting with him and Venable and Jurgens discussing commercial • projects and the fact that we require residential projects to extend the water line all the way across their property and they were representing that we needed to be doing the same thing with • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 29 commercial. Petrie: The difference was between a site like this versus some other site, like a hospital, or something like that. The existing waterline adjacent to the front -- Little: Is there a water line along the front? Petrie: Yes. Little: Okay. Different situation then. Petrie: The City is having some problems with its connections. That's what Dave Jurgens informed me. I think we will look for a little more cash contribution by putting this new water line in, we are saving money by not having to go in under College Avenue so we won't have as many lines. Crafton: I'm sure we can come to some agreement. Petrie: You also need a 20 foot easement on this 8 inch water line. Crafton: Okay. Forney: When you say a 20 foot easement, I see that's going underneath the drive through canopy and that will catch that retaining wall. Petrie: We will look at that. We can use an encasement on that water line so that we won't have to dig so close to the retaining wall. Forney. Potentially, if you have to service that line, you will be digging a hole up underneath their drive through and you're happy with that and the applicant is happy with that? Petrie: We'll run a sleeve and we won't have to dig in that area Forney: Okay. Number 6, landscaping on the islands at each entry on the northeast and southwest corner. How much landscaping would we like to see there? Hesse: This plan kind of indicates the location of the landscaping. They will bring a detailed plan and I have a feeling there will be lot more based on what I've seen Walgreens do recently in Springdale. • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 30 Warrick: My question on those was that the stippling that they have indicated on those islands and the drives matches the concrete for their sidewalks and it's not hatched like the landscaping is in other areas. Our ordinance requires that if you have a drive that is divided like that with an island that the island be landscaped. Hesse: I thought you meant the site. Forney: Is that acceptible? Crafton: Yes. We'll have to get with Kim to determine exactly what type of landscaping you are wanting to see. I'm sure we can hatch that as landscaping. Forney: We wouldn't want to see a tree in there would we? Little: We don't want to block visibility, so, nothing over 30 inches. Forney: Finally, the contribution toward improvements to Township Road. Little: Let me talk about a few things on that. The applicant is dedicating the right of way and hasn't been real pleased about dedicating the right of way but I believe they've finally come to terms with our urging. They have understood that it is necessary and that Township does need to be upgraded. You notice there is a right in/right out on College Avenue. Our staff has supported the right in and we will support the right out but with the caveat to the owner that it will only work when there are not cars there and there are a lot of cars there and we always have trouble getting people in and out of Villa. They get let out by nice people stopping and letting them out. The traffic superintendent suggested that the applicant pay for a land that would bring traffic on down to College Avenue but Mr. Venable did not feel like that would be necessary so that has not been recommended to you. That was also discussed. On Wedington, which is also a State Highway, we charged the applicant's along Wedington Road, the cost of the widening in their area and also we required Glenwood Shopping Center to widen Highway 265 out there. So, we do feel like some of the cost of the improvements to Township Road should be born by this developer. Hoffman: When is Township scheduled for improvement? Crafton: It's a State Highway and we contacted them and there is no definitive date. Little: In the 2020 Plan, which is the regional plan it is scheduled between 1995 and 2000. • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 31 Hoffman: They better hurry up. Little: Don't worry about it. You know what else was in there? The flyover. I had to look that up the other day. Hoffman: Well, we all know that's happened. Little: Arkansas. Those were the agreed upon priorities between all the communities in northwest Hoffman: So, my question though is, I think it is appropriate to dedicate the right of way if that is in fact consistent with what we have been doing with other developers. I think we have. I don't think we put any time stipulations on the right of way reverting back either. I just wanted to be clear that everybody understood that. Forney. I was out of town for Tom January Floors. What did we end up doing there? We got curb and gutter there. Little: Yes. And sidewalk and right of way. I don't think we assessed them any money. We got so carried away with the commercial design standards, we didn't assess any money for the street. Hoffman: Let's go back and assess it. Little: Township is one of those streets the right of way jags in and out. It may be possible that January's was already built to the width that it needed to be on his side. But I can't tell you that for sure and I would like to look that up. There is a creek right there. Hoffman: There was something about the creek and I don't remember what all. I thought we assessed something. Little: Petrie: is needed. We can look back. I asked that question. I think the traffic generation doesn't indicate an assessment Forney: I would be looking for suggestions from staff about what we ought to look for as a contribution. Little: We've talked about a traffic engineer for a long time and Engineering has • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 32 advertised for another engineer that has some specialty in traffic. We don't have that person on board and until then it will just have to be Planning and Engineering trying to come up with out best estimate on what it might be. Ward: How much property have they dedicated? Warrick: 10 feet. Crafton: Actually, it's more than that. The existing right of way is 30 feet and we're actually going to dedicate 49.5 feet. Warrick: Your dedicating so that the sidewalk can be in the right of way. Crafton: That's right and outside of the utility poles that are along the south side there. I believe what you are shooting for is a 90 feet total right of way on Township and we're actually giving you more than half of that right of way with 49.5 feet. • Hoffman. And it's that wide at the corner, because we would be anticipating turn lanes. • Warrick: That is based on the Master Street Plan requirement for minor arterial which is what this is classified as Little: At the corner, more is actually going to be required when the project goes through. We don't have the ability to require that and we certainly don't have the ability to require that in the absence of the State Highway growth plan. The same thing is true on College. When this intersection is improved, there's going to be another swath taken off here but we're just saying we don't know how much to get right now so leave it alone and let someone else deal with that in the future. Hoffman: And you are saying that somebody would consider a recommendation for a right turn lane. Little: Perry felt very strongly that if there was a right out turn, that there should be a right lane built. But, he talked to Charlie Venable about it and he said no he didn't feel like that would be necessary. Perry thought it was necessary in order for the traffic signal to be upgraded in the future and to function efficiently. He also felt like it made the right turn lane actually work for them. It gave them a place to go. There is one like that the Mall built up there between Shepherd and Joyce. There is a right turn lane that you can get in and go all the way down from Shepherd to Joyce. Not that many people use that one. • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 33 Forney. It could have been longer though. If we made that a right turn lane, I think it would help the flow of that intersection with that done. I'm not sure how much it would help getting on to 71 because once you got in unless you wanted to make a right, in which case you would have gone out the southwest corner anyway. You would have a hard time merging over to the left in a short distance. Little: Right. I agree. We all know that people are nice at that intersection. We just hope they don't get too frustrated. Ward: Another thing, too. It's not like we're going to be able to do a lot of connection to the north. If we have a bunch of commercial buildings and businesses that were going to connect into this property, then I think that would be a real benefit. But, just strictly for this building only, I don't see that we can require that. Little: We did talk about cross access to the north but there is a huge grade and they were planning a retaining wall This is R -O as opposed to being C-2, I believe. Crafton: Actually, it's all C-2 in there. Hoffman: What is up here? I don't remember. Little: It's vacant. It's that big hill and sign. Hoffman: How many trips per day does this business generate? Warrick: Average 24 hour two way volume is 1,320. Hoffman: That's not that much to me to justify any kind of talk about that. Little: Traffic on College has gone down from 1996 to 1998 by 2,000 cars a day. Hoffman: Because of growth? Little: I don't know. I can't remember exactly. Crafton: Could I go back to one thing? These islands at the entrances, it will be real tough to do anything but concrete or grass there because the trucks just can't turn into the site without probably driving over those. Little: Grass is fine. Concrete is not. Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 34 Forney. On the Township Road contribution issue, I still haven't heard any suggestions about what the contribution might be. Little: We're going to have to look at some cost data before we can -- Petrie: We may want some improvements at this time. Little: Okay. Crafton: Other than curb and gutter? You mean widening improvement or just paving what's there? Petrie: Our standard is half of a standard street. Little: Right. Forney: So, that would be one way to go to look for half of a standard city street for the length of this frontage. And the City would have to do the additional cost of getting it up to the width that we are looking for. Little: We would have to make a recommendation for that to the Council. Hoffman: Where does Township come to now in here. I assume it's somewhere in the middle of this dedication. Forney: Is the street where it is now, or have you moved it? Crafton: That is the edge of -- that's where it is right now. It winds along there right now. There is no curb. The edge is a pavement and grass. Little: drain. So really, if it's open ditch. The major expense would be to put in the storm Petrie: There really not much water in this area. It's the high point and it's all diverted down College. It's just open ditch now. Crafton: It's not carrying much. Petrie: There wouldn't be much drainage except west of this driveway -- a little piece in there. • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 35 Little: At this point he doesn't have his information and what staff can tell you is we will provide written documentation by the agenda session. Fomey. I guess another way to ask the same question would be that in theory with this large scale development, we could ask for dedication from the property developer for the cost of half of a standard city street. Little: Yes. Forney: By not addressing College at all, we're not asking for contribution there. Little: That's right. Forney: I want to be somewhat reasonable about this in your eyes. We'll look for that information at agenda session. Little: Those were the numbered issues. On the sign height for Sonic, it was 26.5 feet. • Hoffman: Okay. And this one is only 25 feet. Forney: Are there other issues? Little: Not that I know of. • Rutherford: You have 4 lines on here. I would ask for you to remove those out of the sidewalk. Contractors out in the field assume that they are going through that sidewalk. Just remove the 4 lines there. Little: Continuous sidewalk. Rutherford: Right. Little: Just so the Planning Commission knows, when we approve the property line adjustment, it means that the improvements that we will be considering for this project will be confined to this lot. By approving that, we are shorting ourselves 69 feet that we could be getting the improvements and the sidewalk on. Hoffman: That reverts to Nelms for their used car lot. Little: Yes. • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 36 Hoffman: It would be my suggestion that we put the sidewalk in anyway. Little: No. Hoffman. We can't do that. Little: Unless we give it to these guys as a condition of their property line adjustment. Nelms isn't doing anything right now and we can't ask him to do that. We don't have a problem with that. I just thought you should know that. Forney: I think we should look for that sidewalk when the rest of that property develops. Little: I'm comfortable with that but I wanted to make sure you understood it. We try to be more and more reasonable. Forney. Are there other staff comments? There is no public here to comment. Crafton: We do have one other issue we need to bring up to you. I have been asked by Mr. Nelms to ask you what the possibility would be to dedicate 10 feet less right of way along College. Right now, we're dedicating 55 feet of right of way and if we could dedicate 45 feet, we understand we would have to resubmit for the large scale for this because the entire site would shift to the east but it would give Mr Nelms an additional 10 feet along the west side. Little: Let me explain our process and then you can get their response. Our Master Street Plan requires 55 feet of right of way. It's one of the reasons that the Planning Commission could deny a large scale. Staff wouldn't support dedication of less right of way and dedication of less right of way requires the approval of City Council and not only the Planning Commission. Forney: Have we gotten 55 feet from anybody along College yet? Warrick: Under large scale. Forney: We desperately need more right of way along that artery it seems to me. I would not favor that. Little: Particularly at intersections. Getting these intersections upgraded is critical. You know what getting Joyce Street working out there has done for traffic. Even the other side of this one at Township getting that widened out will make a major difference. It's real important. • Conklin: And another thing, when you get the intersection widened out, your parking lot • • • Minutes of a meeting of Subdivision Committee February 25, 1999 Page 37 can get right up against the street. Little: So we loose all our good green space. Forney. We really have a pressing need. One of the reasons you want to be on that street is because it handles all that traffic and if we don't make it work, you won't want to be there. MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a motion to forward the large scale to the Full Planning Commission subject to all conditions and comments. Mr. Forney seconded the motion.