Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-03-11 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, March 11, 1999 in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSD99-6: Millsap Ctr, pp 212 LSD99-7: Arthurs, pp 406 LSD99-8: Bank of Fayetteville, pp 372 MEMBERS PRESENT John Fomey Lorel Hoffman Phyllis Johnson STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Kim Hesse Janet Johns Alett Little Ron Petrie Kim Rogers Chuck Rutherford Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Approved w/conditions Approved w/conditions Approved w/conditions MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF ABSENT None • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 2 LSD99-6: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT MILLSAP CENTER, pp 212 This item was submitted by Larry Gregory of Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of Lindsey - Green Properties for property located in Lots 5 and 6 of CMN Business Park. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 3.77 acres. Larry Gregory and Stan Green were present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval subject to the following issues to address and conditions of approval: 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards ordinance. 2. Reduce drive aisle widths within parking areas to meet City standard of 24 feet. • 3. Indicate landscaping to be installed within island in westernmost entry/exit. 4. Dedicate right of way along Millsap Rd. to meet requirements of Master Street Plan. 5. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. • 6. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks parking Tots, and tree preservation. The information submitted was for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 7. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 feet green space along Millsap Road. 8. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 9. Prior to the issuance of building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits. b. Separate easement plat for this project. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 3 c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City as required by §159.34. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 10. Add plants on the north side of the dumpster for screening. 11. Increase center entry to 15 feet not to decrease the size of the island. Committee Discussion Little: We only have three items that need to be discussed. One is your discussion of Commercial Design Standards and staff has no comment on those. This is a building a little different from what you have seen before. We do ask that the driveway width which is now shown at about 25 feet be reduced to 24 feet. 24 is adequate and that will allow a little bit of saving on pavement. And, we do need for the landscaping to be shown that will be within the island on the westernmost entry and exit. Gregory: You're just talking about that center island? Little: Yes. Gregory: Okay. Little: They have asked and we did include it in your packet a letter about signage. This is in the overlay district but this particular subdivision has been exempt from those requirements. The 6 feet high and 10 feet setback from right of way 75 square foot monument sign is really not applicable to this project. They have proposed two signages. One on Millsap which is a total of 96 square feet and they have proposed another which would face Highway 71 which is a total of 420 square feet. Both of those requests are going to have to go the Board of Sign Appeals and cannot be addressed here. So what will enter into your discussion in terms of how it relates to the building but those ultimate decisions on the signs are going to have to go to the Board of Sign Appeals. Johnson: Are there three signs proposed here, one on Millsap, and one -- Little: Each lot -- that's right. That's all that Planning has. Johnson: Let me ask for clarification on the sign issues even though they go to the Board of Sign Appeals. Does that mean that we should have no consideration for the purpose of Commercial Design Standards? • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 4 Little: No. It does not mean that. Johnson: In so far as we think signage may affect Commercial Design Standards, we still should address that. Little: Right. Johnson: What element goes to the Board? Little: Under our current Sign Ordinance, they would be allowed one sign for each lot. They are proposing that with the monument sign but the monument sign exceeds the amount of square footage that is allowed under either Overlay District (75 square feet) or under our current Sign Ordinance (75 square feet.) So, that is why that one has to go. We often deal with signs but as long they are not over 75 square feet, you can go on and approve them. But, neither or these meet the ordinances. Then on the sign along 71, they are proposing a 40 foot monument sign setback. So it is a total of 30 feet high and a total of 14 feet wide. It is a total of 420 square feet. That is more than anything we would normally allow. Johnson: The size. Little: The size and a totally additional sign. They are allowed 2. Johnson: So, what goes to sign appeals is on the monument sign on its size. They want one more sign than they are allowed. Little: Right. Johnson: If there is nothing further from staff, we can have the applicant make this presentation. Gregory: I'm Larry Gregory with Crafton and Tull. Green: My name is Stan Green. I'm one of the owners. Gregory: As you stated this is a slight redesign of the CMN Business Park project that was previously approved by the Subdivision Committee. All we have done is change the building size. We changed the floor plan to be the same on both floors and as a result the building footprint changed and square footage changed. That required additional parking which is why we resubmitted. We have met the parking requirements This is anticipated to be 50% commercial and 50% retail. We took one parking space for every 275 square feet which gave a total number of required spaces of 186. That is what we have. We have shown, based on the • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 5 revised landscape ordinance, the landscaping along Millsap Road which we did not have before. Per your request we will include landscaping in the center island. We've also added a fire hydrant at the northwest corner of the eastern building in an island back there which was requested in plat review. Johnson. So essentially, because the second floor plan has been changed and expanded thus requiring additional parking. That is the main thing that is different along with additional landscaping. Other than that, this is what we essentially previously approved? Little: Yes. Forney: The only question I have is cross access. Is there -- Warrick: They are providing cross access to the east and there is a large drainage ditch to west. Gregory: There will not be an immediate tie to the property to the east We're providing a drive in that direction but we have not coordinated anything with the adjacent property owner to • provide that tie in. Johnson: What is to the east? Warrick: The Eye Center. • Johnson: So, the Eye Center presently does not have anything to accommodate this cross access. Warrick. That is correct. Johnson: What do we gain, staff, by putting this cross access requirement when we have a relatively new adjacent development. Is it just that if one of these redevelops, then we've built in the possibility of cross access? Little: We wouldn't necessarily require redevelopment if those patrons of the Eye Center began to want to go that way, we would hope that they would communicate that. Certainly at redevelopment we would look for the cross access. That could be many years down the road. The reason it wasn't provided on the Eye Center is it predated the Commercial Design Standards. Johnson: Is there a parking lot there? Little: Yes. Is the applicant willing to approach them about the prospect of cross access. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 6 Green: I would be willing to approach them. Sure. Hoffman: The location of the dumpsters is screened but they are in front of a prominent location to be seen from the bypass. Did you look at any alternatives? Gregory: With the buildings this size, we couldn't get any drives around the buildings. As such, we would have to put the dumpsters at a dead end and the trucks would have to back up to exit. We worked on this with Cheryl Zotti and this is what we came up with. Hoffman: Would you be willing to add a few more screening plants along the bypass side of the dumpster? Gregory: I don't think that will be a problem. Johnson: Screening plants, where? Hoffman: Along the fence line on the side of the dumpster that is visible from 71. They have a 6 foot high board fence screen already but it might be softened somewhat if we could ask them to add some bushes. Johnson: Are we good to leave it at that or do we need to get anything additional for Kim or will Kim be involved in signing off on what this it? Hesse: We will have a detailed plan by at least the building permit stage. I'll make sure it does conform. Little: This is an if you want to -- on your entrance drive, we are finding that the 12 and 13 foot widths are still very difficult for people to go into without covering up that center median. If you would like to increase that to 15 feet, staff would support that. Gregory: Would that decrease the island in the middle? Little: No. It will come off the other side. Johnson: Do you know what your reaction to that would be or would you have to see what would work for you? Gregory: It wouldn't adversely affect the design any. Green: If you think it's fine then -- • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 7 Gregory: I think it would be fine. It's a minor change at this stage. Johnson: What about Commercial Design Standards? I think there is one file copy of the building. Hoffman: Will you describe the materials for us? Green: Brick will be the dark red and a lighter, more neutral color of brick. We'll use drivet. We will have a standing seem metal roof in a dark bronze color. Little: It's unusual for me to see this much brick over that much glass. Are there any structural problems with that or has that been considered all ready. Green: Actually, it should work fine. Forney: About the Commercial Design Standards, I guess we could "approve" this at this level but depending on the number of Commercial Design Standards issues, I feel like we should have some of the opinions of the full Commission. I'm concerned about the third sign on the bypass. It seems to me that is a pretty significant issue and one that I would be a little bit hesitant to approve at this level without the full Commission. Hoffman: I'm confused about the process in terms of Commercial Design Standards. Personally, I would not vote to approve a sign of this size. If that is the case and the rest of the Committee wanted to pass this large scale at this level and deleted the sign then it would still go to the Board of Sign Appeals? Little: I may not have understood your question completely, but, let me explain how the process works Johnson: She's saying that if we disallow one of the three signs because of Commercial Design Standards, then can the applicant take that third sign issue on to the Board of Sign Appeals? Little: No. Johnson: Was that your questions? Hoffman: Yes. • Little: No, they can't. What you are allowed to do is to deal with signage so long as it stays within the confines of what the Design Ordinance allows. So, these are 75 square feet signs • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 8 and they were asking for two, then we could approve them. But because they are asking for three and because they are larger than 75 square feet, you cannot approve them. That goes to the Board of Signs Appeals. Johnson: We can give contingent approval. Little: Right. Forney: And if we did not give approval then -- Johnson: They could not go forward with what they have proposed. Green: Could we talk about the signs for a minute. I'd like to give you our perspective. We don't want to create any kind of sign controversy. That is not our intent at all. Perhaps we have misread the ordinance. That is a real possibility. Our understanding was that on abut a controlled access highway, your signs can be up to 200 square feet. We have probably asked for more signage than we really intended to ask for but not as much as it might sound like we asked for. We thought each sign could be up to 200 square feet. Our intent on the Millsap side to propose signs that were only 8 feet high and which were attractive signs to get the height out of the main view of Millsap. Those are what I think the ordinance might call joint identification signs. That was our intent which was to model something that looked like anoint identification sign where tenants will be able to put their name on the sign and with two buildings, we thought that was important. They will certainly have different street addresses but we thought that would help their customers and clients find them in that two building development. Our intent on the larger sign was to not create anything which was in contravention of the sign ordinance and we may have inadvertently done that because we thought the display area was counted on one side of the sign and apparently from what Ms. Little said, it is counted on both sides of the sign. So, we ended up with double the size of the sign that we intended to. What we were driving at was that we think we're entitled to 2 signs and if we read the sign ordinance correctly, we think they could be up to a total of 200 square feet a piece because we do abut a controlled access highway. What we wanted to do was to trade two small signs on Millsap which we thought would be attractive and not unattractive in any way for one of the taller signs and then have one tall sign which was totally in compliance with the sign ordinance. We inadvertently may not have accomplished that as I listen to you talk this morning. But, that is our intent. I wanted you to have a good understanding of what that was before you make any kind of decision. If we went to the Board of Sign Appeals, our objective would be to get something that the Inspections Department was comfortable in recommending approval of to the Board of Sign Appeals. We don't want to create any kind of sign controversy and our intent with this proposal was to create something which we thought would be more attractive than what we would ultimately be allowed under the sign ordinance. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 9 Little: I may not still understand everything. We're simply calculating the 30 x14 to come up with the 420 for the tall sign. Green: We may not have read it correctly because we thought that the square footage was determined by the display area. The structure of the sign did not count because the ordinance reads, "200 feet display area when you abut a controlled access highway." So this display area is exactly 200 square feet. Our intent was to comply totally with what we thought the sign ordinance said. Little: I had forgotten about that provision of the sign ordinance about the 200 square feet. But neither Fairfield Inn or Chili's or any of those used that. They all used the 75 square foot sign. There is also additional consideration about that. On this particular spur of 71, we are in the process of requesting that it not be a controlled access highway for the reason of getting additional intersections for the development to the north. I don't think that would take away any rights that you have now. This is considered a controlled access highway but I would like to put that in the mix as we go through the consideration part of it. One other thing you said was that we were counting both sides. We're not. Green: What we could have done was to stick this on a pole and eliminate the structure around it and that would address your concern. Basically, you only would only measure that area then. We thought the proposed sign was more attractive than that. We were really trying with the tall sign to totally comply with the sign ordinance as we read it. We counted our 200 square feet as the actual display area of the sign. So, we could cut out the columns on either side and cut off the base and we would be totally in compliance with Ms Little's interpretation of the ordinance. We think that would be a less attractive sign. We also think we would be able to put another one just like this on the other lot but we wanted to trade the one tall sign for the two shorter signs because we thought that was really more attractive for the overall development and the area. Little: I really am no longer the person that's in charge of the sign ordinance. It is Mike McKimmey in Inspections and he does interpret somewhat differently than we used to interpret. The way it used to be interpreted, is anything that was a part of the sign was considered sign. The way the sign ordinance reads, is anything that is designed to attract attention is a sign. I remember one particular controversy over at Fiesta Square and it was when Hastings came in. They painted the whole front green and then they striped it and put Hastings in the middle. That entire painted surface was considered to be the sign. Obviously the majority of that is back drop but it was counted as a sign and that is how that was decided at the Board of Sign Appeals. To me that still says that anything that is around it is counted as sign. I don't know what we can do at this level. Johnson: It seems to me that we merely deal with it in the way that we always do under the • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 10 Commercial Design Standards approach, that is: size, color, is it gaudy, is it a pole sign, those kinds of applications that we deal with. So, we need to proceed as if we had the whole smear before us knowing that part of the smear we won't make a final decision on. Let's start with the two little signs. On the two little signs on Millsap, my main concern really is whether or not an 8 foot height is needed. That Just seems higher than is really warranted on that kind of a street with a 25 mile per hour speed limit. That really is a local traffic area. Hoffman: And this sign is over by 5 square feet or is that not now the case? Forney: It was 96 square feet versus 75 square feet if you count the entire structure. Johnson: I don't think that we should get into the entire structure versus signage area I don't really think that is for us to say. I think that is more likely the Board of Sign Appeals. My sense is: height, width, propriety of the total structure on this street. Little: There 10 businesses listed here and then there would be 10 listed opposite. Green: Right. Little: Are there proposed to be a total of 20 or would it be closer to 10 or do you know? Green: We don't have any idea at this point. To be honest, we think there would be no more than 10 in each building and obviously that would not leave room on the bigger sign for all the tenants. We'll just have to work that out with them individually. Hoffman: I get the sense from the Committee that we need to be able to say that these met our monument sign standards in some way by being 75 square feet which is smaller than what they have proposed. Green: It depends on whether you measure the display area or not. They are actually smaller than 75 square feet if you only measure -- Little: If you take the 10 x 6 then it's 60 square feet internally. Forney: Are you going to make some changes? Green: No. We want the signs as they were designed. We thought we interpreted the ordinance correctly as I have described it to you. If we have not done that, then we need to go back and think about it. We like what we have proposed. We think it is an improvement over what we would be allowed strictly under the sign ordinance. We think we could have 200 square feet sitting on two pole signs on Millsap, if we wanted to and be in compliance with the • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 11 ordinance. We think this is better. Johnson: I think that you couldn't come close to that under Commercial Design Standards. Although maybe you could in one arena. Green: The ordinances are hard to sort through and understand what you can actually do. That is why we've made an attempt here to come up with something that we think we can do. Under the Design Overlay District Standard which we are not subject to even though we are in the Design Overlay District, you can have a sign that is 6 feet high. I guess the question still remains what area you count in determining the square footage. You can have a sign that is 6 feet high at the same setback as this one is proposed. Johnson: I think we understand your position and understand the logic of it. What do you have to say about these Millsap Street frontages? Forney: Broadly, I don't think we should attempt to make a decision here. But advisory to the applicant, I would say I think these are too large and the 3 sign structures are more than should be allowed. I think that at the full Commission there will be a concern about while he is not ruled by the Design Overlay District regulations. In our most recent discussion of the Commercial Design Standards in our last meeting, there was some discussion about trying to be broad compliance with the structures already. Especially to have that large sign out on the limited access area would be a break in the pattern. Johnson: I think we might well approve this at this level. Your comments seem to imply that your not considering approval here at Subdivision. If we approve this at this level, we have to take a position on the sign as a part of the Commercial Design Standards. Forney: I don't see any way we can approve this at this level. I take a conservative approach to having a 3 member subcommittee approve something and it would have to be a "no brainer" so I would know that our colleagues at the Planning Commission would not have a problem with. Johnson: What's your feeling of a "no brainer" on the 2 signs on Millsap. Forney: A "no brainer" would be that they met the 75 square feet total which is the accepted standard. Little: That is the regular standard. • Forney: And they need to have 2 signs total. That to me would be a "no brainer." • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 12 Johnson: I still want to talk about Millsap and then I want to talk about 71. Does everyone feel 8 feet total from the ground is particularly beneficial for this site? Or would something like 6 feet do as well? Forney: When you've done a limited 75 square foot monument sign, is there a height limitation or could they make it any height? Little: Generally, the height limitation is coming in because of our Overlay District Standards which is a height of 6 feet. That is the only height limitation. Truthfully, we've done more monument signs in the whole city than we've probably done out there on the bypass and we just refer to the 6 feet as the standard for Overlay and most people are coming to that. But there wouldn't be anything terribly wrong with the 8 foot height except that it might impede visibility. Johnson: It seems out of scale. I don't have a way really to compare. Hoffman. I have trouble separating the three. My sense is that I am very opposed to a sign of this scale on the bypass because I don't think that we have other signs -- correct me if I'm wrong, but the other businesses that you mentioned earlier had signs on Millsap and if they do face the bypass they are on the buildings. Those can be ugly. Little: There is nothing to say that this one doesn't have frontage along the bypass on the building. Johnson: The reason the other ones don't is because of the overlay district? Little: Let me think. Fairfield Inn and the other Inn came forward before the Overlay District as did Chili's. They just made marketing choices. Green: Chili's does have a tall sign on a pole on the bypass. Little: Yes, they do. But, they don't have anything on their building. Green: That's right. They are in the same subdivision. I think one thing that distinguishes this project from the others that we've talked about, the hotels. The hotel is the hotel and doesn't have up to 20 tenants in it. Chili's is Chili's and it doesn't have 20 tenants in it. That is one thing that distinguishes this project from the other projects that you've talked about. In fact, I don't think there is another office building similar to this on Millsap which has multiple tenants. All the other office buildings are basically, no more than 3 tenants. If you look • at the building TCA Cable is in -- when you head up the bypass the first thing you see is a large sign on the side of the building that says TCA Cable TV. This one's a little different than the • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 13 other buildings. Little: The closest one maybe is the one that has maybe 3 possibly 4 tenants. It's down on the west end and it was developed by Smith Brooks. It has Blue Cross Blue Shield. It has a doctor and something else. Johnson: And Jay Cole's building? Little: Has about 4 tenants in it. Hoffman: The projects along there are certainly smaller but we don't have any billboard size signs. I feel at this level, if you had two signs total and you did one on the bypass that it would easier to approve by deleting one the smaller sizes but then you stated that you needed the advertising to direct people to one building or the other on Millsap. Signs are the most difficult because the sign ordinance and the overlay ordinance and the commercial design standards really are vague. Green: I will agree with that. Hoffman: The statement that you referred to as far as the last Commission meeting was that I'm trying to do what is in scale with the surrounding developments. On College, if you are infilling a large commercial strip, we might approve a 30 foot high sign. But on the bypass, are people going to be able to read 20 signs as they are driving by. Green. There won't be 20. We know that not all the tenants in the building will be on that sign so there won't be anymore than 10. Again, I would just come back to Chili's which is a similar situation. It is the tallest pole mounted sign on the bypass side. Johnson: The thing about this sign is that although pole signs have some draw backs of their own, they aren't anything like -- this is a sign I believe that is 5 feet higher than the Commission considered for Cracker Barrel. This is comparison to other things allowed, I think this is one of the biggest signs ever built Forney: I understand you are renting it and you don't know how to anticipate, but I have to anticipate that you could essentially rent the entire development to one person or one entity and you could have a sign that goes the full width with only one name. If I was that tenant, I certainly would want to take advantage of it. Then, we would have something that is very out of scale with what is conceived along the bypass. Johnson: My sense from this discussion is that at this level, we probably would not approve the project because of Commercial Design Standards and so we will probably send this on to the • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 14 Commission and this sign strikes me as being so large and out of scale in comparison with anything I can remember that we have seriously considered. I would surmise that nothing close to this size sign would pass the whole Commission. It is so much larger and more out of scale than anything else we've seen, I don't think we would have much of a suggestion on how to get around this. Forney: I don't have a suggestion but I would be interested in staff's opinion -- I'm looking for the "no brainer" or those things that we would typically see on the bypass since this is not governed by the Overlay District. What would be typical? The Cracker Barrel discussions would probably be a good guide. They requested a pole mounted sign 25 feet in height and what square footage? Little: 75 square feet setback 40 feet from the right of way. Fomey: That would be a "no brainer." Johnson: Is that what the Commission ended up voting to do? The Commission split essentially 5-4, as I recall, on the sign issue for them. Was 25 feet what the majority of the Commission would have allowed? Do you recall? Little: I think it was 30 feet tall. Johnson: It was 25 and I think maybe Cracker Barrel felt like they had to have at least 30. Little: It was more or less the typical sign. Another discussion which Dawn reminds me of and I think is probably applicable was the Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market. They wanted a larger area identification sign and they were held to 75 square feet Just on 265. Johnson: But they don't have the bypass situation. Little: No, they don't have the bypass situation. These are two story buildings. These are very Large. These are 25,000 square feet buildings. These are signs in themselves. Johnson. Staffmark, by the way, has -- Little: Sign on the building. Johnson: Don't they have a pole? • Little: They have a monument on Millsap and a sign on the building. That's it. They are not multiple tenants, they are a single entity. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 15 Green. One reason we think a sign of some kind, if not this high is important for these buildings is that these buildings are set further back from the bypass than anything else along there. Basically, almost without exception, the buildings come real close to the bypass and we have allowed a double row of parking between the bypass. In fact, this building is 157 feet off the bypass. So, wall mounted signs might work and that might be the way that we have to go. Again, this situation is different than others that you see up and down Millsap just in terms of the location of the buildings in relation to the bypass. If we have some idea of what would be acceptable, we would be happy to go back and try to comply with that. As I said earlier, our objective was not to create a controversy over this sign. That is the last thing that we want to do. If we knew, for instance, that we could shorten the height and meet the standard, we would be happy to go back and do that. That might involve cutting the display area down some. It might involve eliminating part of the base. Certainly, we don't have to have the cap on the top of the sign. There are a lot of things we could do to cut the size of the sign down that we would be happy to do if we had some idea of what would work or knew how to get a determination of what would work. Conklin: I noticed on your sign along the bypass, you don't have the name of your center. • Green: That's right. Conklin: I think back to Highway 62 and 6th Street like Arena Village -- you might want to think about having a sign that would refer to the center. Little: One of the things that I always ask for and I compliment you on is the address on the signs. People look up and they know they're going to XYZ Company, they write the street address down and then they're in their car and they're trying to find it and we have no regulations on how big your numbers can be. Johnson: I would like to push the members to either come up with some specific suggestions in response to the applicant's question. That is, what do you think would be approved or in the alternative, I think it very possible that since we don't think that's our long suit. Number one, we don't think that is our job. Number two, that we might say you have the benefit of this discussion. You may want to talk more completely with staff and you may want to drive along the frontage roads and the bypass and see what's out there. Then you might get an idea of what has been approved and then you might come back. Little: I always feel bad when we have to ask the applicant to go to a couple of different boards and we have not done this before but if you would like, I could ask the Board of Sign Appeals to meet jointly with the Planning Commission when this one does come to that level. Green: That would be helpful but we would really like to get the development approved • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 16 as soon as we possibly can because as you know we were in here once before and we're ready to start construction as soon as we possibly can. Again, our intent is to create something that is attractive and I realize that there is nothing in the ordinance that would bind us when I say this but if one tenant did take all that space, that sign probably would never be built because these will be professional offices. That is what we think will be in that building for the most part. We Just as soon not build the sign if we were so fortunate as to have one tenant come in and take both buildings. Our intent is to create something that is attractive and not gaudy. Our intent is not to let someone have the opportunity to create an unattractive advertising scene on the bypass, but the buildings are so big, the property is so big, and the situation is so different than anything else along Millsap with up to 20 tenants based on the minimum square footage that we've established that we could have up to 20 tenants in the two buildings. That was a lot of our motivation. I think the question of scale on Millsap is a good question but I think that when you grasp these building, the scale of the sign is totally not out of whack with the size of the building. Ms. Little said the buildings are almost 26,000 square feet a piece. They are 180 feet long and 70 feet wide. They are large buildings. Hoffman: At this level, I agree with the developments there have gone through the engineering and the landscaping and all the other issues, the parking issues and have agreed to a good many things that are very attractive. If we could approve the development at this level excluding any sign on the bypass, we would all feel very comfortable with it. Then as you lease the building, we could put together a proposal to bring it back for a Joint meeting or something like that. Little: That is something you could do. You could approve these two at 75 square feet. That meets all the requirements and you would be done here. Hoffman: We can't issue variances at the Subdivision level anyway. That would give us all more time to consider and know how your leasing patterns are going to go. Green: The only problem with that is we have prospective tenants ask what about signage. That is one reason we wanted to get that resolved now whatever the answer is so that we can tell them so that they don't have any expectation of more than we would ultimately be able to do. Hoffman: You could tell them that they could have building signs facing the bypass. Green: That might be what is comes down to. Our hope would be to minimize signs on the building, but that might not be possible. Johnson My only concern about your suggestion of a Joint meeting with Board of Sign Appeals and Planning Commission -- we've spent 45 minutes essentially talking about this issue • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 17 and I don't know that we've accomplished much of anything after the first 5. Because of the fact that we've got different criteria that we must apply than what sign appeals does, I'm fearful that with the best of intentions, we would all go in 15 different directions and we would be less efficient, not more. I guess there is no way that this could get to Board of Sign Appeals before it gets to Planning Commission. Little: No. They meet once a month on the first Monday of the month. Johnson: Okay My sense is that would be monstrously difficult. I wish that we could accommodate your time constraints, but I think Lorel's point -- the way to accommodate your timing probably is for you to accommodate some of our feelings and if you don't think you can do that, then I don't know how to speed up the process. Green: I'm just not sure exactly what your feelings are. If I knew what your feelings were, we would go back and try -- Johnson: On the Millsap side, we would like to see the sign at 6 feet tall you would have 72 square feet in size. Probably two signs on Millsap -- Hoffman. One sign per lot is all we're able to approve. One sign on Millsap and one on the bypass or two signs on Millsap. Johnson: If you did the two signs on Millsap at 6 feet high and gave up the sign on 71, you would pass Commercial Design Standards here and probably your project would be approved today. Forney: That's my sense, too. You could do one sign on Millsap and one 75 square feet signage area on a pole no higher than 25 feet on the bypass side, I think would probably be approved. I would support that at the full Commission level and I would support that at this level. I will also say that I would probably support at both levels, that 75 square foot are of pole sign less than 25 feet in height on the bypass and the 2 monument signs with 75 feet total area on Millsap because it is two buildings and relatively long frontage, I think the hard and fast rule of one sign per lot -- we also have to think about confusion and clarity for the person trying to find an address. I think the fact that they developed two buildings, I would be comfortable with the exception of three sign strategy with none of them over 75 square feet and the 6 foot limit on the monuments. Green: When I read the ordinance, this sign is already less than 75 square feet on Millsap because the ordinance talks about display area I think is a question that someone needs to answer at some point because we specifically designed this to be less than 75 square feet and when you measure the display area, I think it is less than 75 square feet. I may be wrong about • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 18 that or it may be that the display area means the entire sign, in which case we would go back and figure out how to make those signs comply if the ordinance means the entire sign. We thought we had accomplished that with these signs. Johnson: Part of my reluctance really is not because of the sign ordinance. My reluctance is that I believe that 8 feet is too tall for Commercial Design Standard purposes on Millsap. I think that sign is too tall for the scale of other signs along that stretch and so it is that reason -- the Commercial Design Standards -- Forney. If you're looking to get your project off the ground approach, I can't promise you that everybody will interpret it the way you have interpreted it. I know that if you don't exceed 75 total square feet of surface, you will find not much disagreement. Green: We could do that. We could cut off the thing that Ms Little said she liked which is the name of the building and the street address specifically, and be down to the 75 square feet. We could do that. We Just didn't think that was the best solution for exactly the reason as she described. We wanted the street address. • Little: that sign. • That is very important. That is not all of your options about what you could do on Green: We could make it smaller. I think it would be tough to accomplish much with. Whatever you need to do today is fine with us. If it needs to go to the whole Planning Commission. Then clearly, we will go back and rethink these signs between now and the Planning Commission meeting and try to come up with something different. I have not read the Commercial Design Standards closely enough to even have an opinion about how they affect us so I would like to go read those if that is part of what influences things here, I need to read that. Johnson: That is the exclusive point that influences our input on these signs. Green: I will go back and read them and try before next week or whenever the Planning Commission meeting is to come up with something that works. If everything else is fine, I hate to be held up by the sign but at the same time, I hate to not have a good idea of what we can do going in. We would be happy if there is a way to do this if we could get the signs on Millsap addressed. I'm not really prepared to say let's cut them to 6 feet as I sit here today without having a little time to think about that. If there is a provision to get everything else of the large scale development approved except for the question of the signs and refer that to the Planning Commission, we would be happy to do that. It sounds like everything else is in compliance. Johnson: It's a whole package. We can't say we like 3/4ths of what your doing, we don't like 1/4th and so go ahead with the 3/4ths and we'll haggle later about the 1/4. Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 19 Hoffman: I am concerned about sending an unresolved signage issue to the full Planning Commission because we'll sit there and if you think we've talked a long time with 3 people, try 9. Johnson: That's true I think you're going to have to come back. You have 2 choices. You're probably going to come back here with your newly proposed signs or you're going to have to go to Planning Commission with these signs and I think it's clear that the 3 of us will recommend denial because it doesn't comply with Commercial Design Standards. What we are not willing to do is to make the full Commission function like a committee which is what we are. So we spend what I think is inordinate time on an issue that I think we should have handled in 20 minutes. Green: May I ask a question so that I can understand the process? Are you saying that if we want to propose something different on the signs than what we have here then we have to come back to the subdivision committee. Johnson: Yes. These signs are so far from being anything close to what this committee would approve based on Commercial Design Standards. These are so far out of scale that you're going to have to do a complete rework. And since the big sign on the bypass is going to be completely redrawn to have a chance to get our approval, we're going to have to see it again. Green: What we would be willing to do in that case because as I said our point is not to get into an ongoing sign controversy at all. I think that what we would be willing to do would be to propose this to you. Go with the two signs on Millsap as they are. I think the 8 feet enables us to get the address on there. I think the setback is such that it doesn't create any kind of visibility hazard at all along Millsap and I think the scale is right because the buildings are -- the scale is acceptable because the buildings are so large. As far as the bypass site, we would be happy to reduce the size of the sign to 75 square feet and be happy to reduce the height to something that would be acceptable. We think the two signs on Millsap are real important to get people headed to the right building. We would be happy to reduce the size of the sign on the bypass side down to the 75 square feet and shorten the height to something that you could live with. Johnson: I think you need to tell us what dimensions you're contemplating to get to 75 square feet on the bypass. Green: We would prefer to do a monument sign. We could reduce it down to -- again, do you count the structure of the sign? Little: I have just read that. I'm reading at free standing signs. I'm reading in C district • that it does talk about display surface area. The Hastings's example was a wall sign and that does read a little differently. So, we will go along with the display surface area and it will • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 20 exclude the structure. Green: That will say that the signs on Millsap are less than 75 square feet. Little: Right. Green: As far as this sign, we would be happy to tell you that we would go with a width of 7.5 feet and a height of 10 feet and that gives you 75 feet of display area and that we would prefer to mount if on something other than a pole and I think we could probably do that if we only count the display area. Little: Right. Green: We would shorten the height to something that would be more appropriate in terms of scale. This is 30 feet high as I read the elevation. We would be happy to reduce it to 20 feet and think that would all work out to be something attractive that would enable us to have a base that is similar to this with a much smaller display area Hoffman: Can we approve three signs on this lot? We can't do that. Little: I really dislike mixing the two ordinances. Under overlay, you're entitled to signs per frontage. So under overlay they would have been entitled to 4 signs but under the standard sign ordinance, they are entitled to 2 signs. Hoffman: Two sign per lot. Overlay is not applicable here. Little: It is not applicable here. Hoffman: And over riding all that is commercial design standards. Little: Right. Green: We would be happy to go to the Board of Sign Appeals if we could just satisfy you on the commercial design standards. As I understand it, we could go ahead and start construction while we are going to the Board of Sign Appeals. Would that be correct? Little: Yes. Green: We will be happy to do that. Hoffman: The Board of Sign Appeals would be for the additional sign. • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 21 Little: What you probably ought to approve is one on the bypass and one on Millsap. That way you have approved the two signs they are entitled to. Then they go to Board of Sign Appeals and ask about the other one. Johnson: Am I not right in understanding that the size of the sign that has been proposed to us might be something like 7.5 feet wide and 10 feet tall with the same kind of base. Green: That's correct. Johnson: That might get us the total height of -- Green: We would limit that to 20 feet. Hoffman: How tall is Chili's? Little: 30. Johnson: 20 feet total height. Signage area 10 feet high and 7.5 feet wide. We've not • talked about the total width of the structure which we may not hear that. I don't know. • Little: Using that interpretation, I don't think we have to care about that. I also think with the changes that he's proposed, I don't think this is out of scale with what is there at all. Ho man. You don't think this will read like a billboard if you're driving and pass a 20 feet tall sign? I feel it is very important how we treat these signs because we are setting a precedent under Commercial Design Standard for how we treat the developments across the street to it. We need to be able to have everybody on a level playing field where this sign and everybody else's sign doesn't have to look the same but it has to be -- they are going to be monument size and how tall will those be? Little: 6 feet. Hoffman: The height of the bypass sign is 20 feet. This is exempt from Overlay because the subdivision was platted prior to -- Little: Only because the Council made that decision. Hoffman: I want to pole the committee. Is everybody comfortable with approving this at this level with the bypass sign? Johnson: Probably not when you put it that way. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 22 Forney: This is a very unusual situation. We're talking about approving something that we don't have an elevation on. We're going to have to assume or give them benefit of doubt. Then this isn't governed by the regulations of most of the businesses on the bypass and it sets the tone for trying to adhere to Commercial Design Standards. Hoffman: Can monument signs be bermed to be made higher? Little: They are not suppose to be. Green: We don't have plans to do that. The grading plan calls for fill and that will have to be done but we wouldn't do that. Forney: The thought about making a motion would be to make a motion for a single sign on the Millsap side and some kind of sign on the bypass side and to approve that at this level. MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a motion to approve LSD99-6 with a provision that it be permitted to have one monument sign per lot location to be determined by the developer totaling no more than 75 square feet of sign face area not to exceed 6 feet in height when located on Millsap and in lieu of one of the signs on Millsap a sign 10 feet in height could be located on the bypass site and one 6 feet high monument sign on Millsap including staff comments and suggestion for the additional screening for the dumpsters, increasing the entrance to 15 feet instead of 13 feet and reducing the aisle to 24 feet. If the applicant disagrees with this approval you may come back to Subdivision with a different sign elevation. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Further Discussion Forney: You're thinking there about the fact that everything else in the Overlay District is 6 feet high. Hoffman: I attempting that not to be punitive to you but to bear in mind what this is all going to look like when it's all developed. Forney: We typically have elevations and we're limiting this on the side of caution. I'm wondering if there is not another kind of motion we could make which would be essentially to forward to the full Commission a revised version of this elevation which would have limits set and we would encourage the applicant to bring additional information. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 23 Hoffman: The Commission can override. Forney: We do see Commercial Design Standards issues at the full Commission. I understand that we want to watch out for doing committee work at that level. But, the situation we're in -- Hoffman: If this applicant is unwilling to accept those conditions, he can appeal it to the Commission with a revised sign plan. Johnson: Then it raises the question as to whether or not we're willing for them to come for the first time with a revised sign plan to the Commission and not appeal. Forney: It's not ideal but generally speaking, we try to resolve these things at the Committee level when we can. But, we have a very unusual situation here which puts the Committee in an awkward position. We're trying to make a kind of exception judgement here as a Committee but I think -- Johnson: But, it seems to me that the difficulties that the Committee members have had this morning won't be lessened. They will be heightened at the Commission level with 3 times the number of people and 3 times the number of ideas and so I can it envision it extending 1 hour because we haven't been able to do our Committee work. Green: Does this make any sense or is it even possible to do this -- the signs to us are not the most significant part of the development. Johnson: You wouldn't know it by the discussion this morning. Green: I totally agree that this discussion is disproportionate to the importance of the signs but I think that is caused in part by the fact that the ordinances are so hard to understand. I think if you had a clear cut ordinance, we wouldn't be sitting here having this discussion because our intent all along has been to comply with the ordinance. Johnson: Call your council man. Green: I would be happy to do that. Is it possible to approve the development with -- we would accept your motion. What we would do with it when we appeal to the Planning Commission, I don't know because I haven't had time to think about it. 10 feet is not very high but we would accept your motion and go with that because we don't want to create a sign controversy and the sign is not the most important part of the development. I can't tell you today whether we would appeal or not because I have to go back and look what you can do with a 10 foot sign on that side of the bypass and it's possible that we may come back in and say we would • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March I I, 1999 Page 24 rather have no sign than a 10 foot sign. Hoffman: Shouldn't that have the center's name on that sign. You would do well to give that some thought. Green: If you could approve the development subject to the motion or any way you want to approve it with the provision that we bring the signs back to this Committee rather than the full Planning Commission we would be happy to do that. Johnson: We can't circumvent the Commission. Little: He's not saying that they would necessarily bring the signs back. Green: Right. Little: He's saying if he goes away and he thinks about it and decides it won't work, he'll come back to the Committee. Green: That is exactly right. Hoffman: As long as you understand that we can't approve 3 signs here. Green: I totally understand that and we're willing to go to the Board of Sign Appeals if that is the right place to go. Johnson: Whatever you get from us will be the maximum you can do under Commercial Design Standards. Little: That's right. Hoffman: Then you can appeal the size of the sign on the bypass to the other committee but it doesn't give you two signs on Millsap. Johnson: You cannot do anything more than we tell you you can do if you get our approval. Green: What I heard Ms. Little say a minute ago and it maybe that you are not willing to go along with what she said, she would suggest approving the one on the bypass side and one on Millsap and then let us go to the Board of Sign Appeals for the second sign on Millsap. But, you seem to be saying. Little: That is confusing. I think I did say that. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 25 Forney: If we approve their Commercial Design they are only allowed two signs. That has nothing to do with Board of Sign Appeals. That is our decision. Johnson: That is all you can take to the Board of Sign Appeals. If we approve that, I'm not even sure they have to go to the Board of Sign Appeals. Little: They really shouldn't and I think what we'll do is bring forward an amendment that says things that have been through Commercial Design Standards so not go to Board of Sign Appeals. You all make those decisions because I don't see how we can ever keep this straight. I'm having procedural problems. I feel bad for the applicant as far as what his time frame is to get this approval and who all he has to go to in order to get that. I don't even know what will happen at Board of Sign Appeals. They may want something totally different from what you have approved and I'm bound by what you want. Hoffman: If he wants to bring back additional information on signage to the Subdivision Committee and I feel like by that time you will know more about the leasing. You may not want one on the bypass. You may want a bigger one over here or something. Green: Will your motion allow us to put two signs on Millsap if we should choose not to do the one on the bypass? Little: Hoffman: Yes, but it will be 6 feet over there. Has the Ordinance Review Committee taken up signage lately? Little: Ordinance Review Committee hasn't dealt with the UDO at all lately. The last revisions we sent up were about November 15th or so, and it's sort of stuck. We've really got to get it moving because we still have a couple of errors that have to be corrected. I think our Legal Division has it and we were expecting them to bring it forward. We may have to take the lead since this sign ordinance is really bothersome with the 3 that we have going on. Johnson: What happens with Board of Sign Appeals? Little: Nothing. Green: That's fine with us We appreciate all your time. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 26 LSD99-7: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT ARTHURS, pp406 This project was submitted by Matt Crafton of Crafton Tull and Associates on behalf of David Arthurs for property located 1505 North College Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 2.737 acres. Jeff Bates with Crafton Tull and David Arthurs, the owner, were present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval contingent upon the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards ordinance. 2. Verification that additional grading and drainage information requested at Plat Review has been provided and is adequate for the project to continue in the development process. 3. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 4. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications, and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 5. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 6. 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 to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. A maximum of 12 truck are allowed on the site at one time. A 14 feet sign with information as to where to access site. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 27 9. Additional directional sign at entry. 10. Staff must review the easement for possible conflicts. Committee Discussion Petrie: I have received some additional information and at this time, I am satisfied with the grading and drainage. Little: This actually has an entryway that comes from Memorial Drive. The main entrance into this area is from Memorial Drive so there is a stop light and you turn in and go down to the project that way. Johnson: You enter the project somewhere other than College? Little: That is the only way to enter it. Yes. It isn't shown on the vicinity map. I believe the reason it wasn't shown on the vicinity map is because they don't own the property. They only own an easement. Bates: Right. Forney. There is no association between this and the Texaco in front of it? Bates: No. Actually, it's moving all the Ryder Trucks that are currently along College up on top of the hill. Forney: Where is the sign? I guess it is here in the easement? Little: They own a piece of property that does go down to College so the proposed sign is on their property which is legal and it's a 24 foot high sign and it's a total of 36 square feet. Bates: It will probably just be 14 feet tall. Little: Okay. We want to try to coordinate with the Texaco sign. The Texaco sign is between the tree. Fomey: My concern is primarily about clear access and not creating confusion. I'm worried that if people see your sign and say I want to get one of these Ryders rentals, where do they turn? How are they going to know to enter at Memorial Drive? Arthurs. That's a good question. We originally proposed to try and come up that land but • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 28 it proved to be too difficult. Forney: Was it grade or something? Arthurs: It was too steep. Bates: He doesn't own the property at the entry so he can't put the sign there. Forney. It always concerns me when you have a double depth of a lot in a C-2 zone because you have thoroughfare movement which is dangerous to make turns on and if you have a lot behind a lot -- C-2 needs to have direct access to the thoroughfare. I understand we're not talking about a rezoning here but this is why we face problems. Bates: We had proposed direct access but the City didn't like it. They didn't want it there. They decided it was too dangerous and there were already too many curb cuts on College so they preferred that we use Memorial Drive. Forney: I assume City staff explored the possibility of combining access with that easement and -- Little: For the entrance it was merely a matter of grade and that it was an unsafe grade. It would require retaining walls. Hoffman: Could you put the Texaco and the Ryder sign on the same post? Arthurs: I don't own the Texaco property. Little: That's a separate business. Arthurs: I lease it but I don't own it. Forney: Is Memorial Drive a public street? Little: No, it is not. It's private for the Veteran's Hospital. Jolmson: There won't be any problem with this development using it? Little: There would have been if but they have secured an easement. Johnson: From the VA. • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 29 Little: Right. Forney. What is the address? Arthurs: 1505 North College. Forney: It has a North College address but no access to the street. Johnson: We see no way to get a sign on College? Little: No. This is their property and they could be allowed to have the sign there. The confusion would be that you still have to go on down to Memorial Drive to turn in and go back to this property. Bates: You could note under the sign to turn right at the light or Memorial Drive if you would allow additional text to the sign. Little: You've done the whole thing as the sign so you can use all of that area so you • could have "Enter at Memorial Drive." • Johnson: You couldn't put the sign at Memorial Drive? Arthurs: We don't own that property. The VA owns that property. Johnson: On both sides? Arthurs: The Texaco sign is on one side of the fence. Hoffman: Could you put the sign on the easement? Arthurs: I don't think so. Bates: There are some trees in there also. Johnson: Maybe the best we can do on the sign is to say where to enter. Little: That's the best solution I see at the moment. Hoffman: I like the idea that this is addressed off of College. Arthurs: It's going to help Texaco quite a bit. • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 30 Little: It gets them at the light, too, which is real important. Arthurs: Ryder owns Cruise America which means we'll have RV's. They are expanding quite a bit. We also sell Ryder Trucks. Johnson: This faces east? Little: No, south. There is a house and office proposed together and that is the office facade that faces the parking and storage area. Johnson: This faces south. Can the east elevation be seen from the highway? Little: Because it is on a hill, yes. Johnson: That is the one with the most public view. We have to see that for Commercial Design Standards. Warrick: The reason that you need to see the southern elevation is for signage. • Bates: There is a wall sign. • Hoffman: I think it's very attractive and goes along with the VA's theme. It looks like a part of that. Forney: I don't object to the sign in size or appearance. I don't object to the building under Commercial Design Standards I am concerned the safety and confusion about where to go. Hoffman: The sign is going to have "Enter at Memorial Drive." Can they have a little identifying sign at Memorial at their entrance? Just a small sign on their property. Forney: You would have to some how buy access to some of the Texaco lot. The best place I can see the sign would be on the Veterans land. It seems to me at the southeast corner of the Texaco lot, I wouldn't be any more objectionable to having it there than to have it here would also be pretty close to the situation. It would certainly be a lot clearer for the public. Bates: Also, the big pole for the stop light is right there and telephone poles. Forney: Visually it would be a problem. Bates: It would be hard to fit it in there. • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 31 Arthurs: There is already a Texaco sign on the lot. Johnson: The fact the stop light being there may minimize the public safety issue. Bates: It would help, I would think for the trucks pulling out with no stop light. Hoffman: They could turn at Memorial Drive on both sides of the sign. Johnson: John, does that help you any? Forney: It certainly helps that there is a stop light there. Little: Jeff, where does this property line go? Where is the Jordan Rentals property line and where is the VA property line. Bates: The fence line. Little: • there? Bates: • Is this the back of the Jordan Rental property line or is there VA land in between There is nothing in between. Forney: I'm very uncomfortable getting these double deck C-2 conditions on thoroughfares. I'm a little reluctant to endorse it by going along. I don't want to penalize these people for decisions made way back when. This is a situation where through no fault of your own that I am aware of, you have a very difficult situation to develop. If you create an access easement that no one can handle grade wise -- Johnson: Regarding the safety issue about the sign, what do we think it the optimal height of the sign for purpose of -- I think you said the sign might not be 24 feet. Arthurs: 14 feet is probably what it's going to be. Johnson: From the ground to the top? Bates: We were going to match the Texaco sign that is already there. Johnson: How are we feeling about that as a pollution issue? Hoffman: I think it's better because it puts it closer to eye level. I always feel like when I'm driving and I don't want to look up to a sign and take my eyes off of the road particularly in a • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 32 location like this where there are only two signs in that general region. Johnson: 14 feet to the top of the sign. Hoffman: Is it still going to be a 6x6 sign? Arthurs: Yes. That is their standard sign. Little: The top of the sign will be 14 feet? Arthurs: Yes. Hoffman: I think it is important to have a small 2x4 sign up at the entrance. Forney: I think a lot of places are good about having those little, directional signs right next to the driveway to handle the question of where to go. Warrick: The maximum height on the directional signs is 3 foot. Little: There is a maximum size but they are easily permitable. Public Comment Bruce Powell representing the VA stated the main reason he was present was that they didn't know what they were planning on developing at this site. The VA is concerned about traffic. He stated the easement was granted to Askew Enterprises some years ago when they constructed Memorial Drive. Their stated intention was to build an apartment complex for retired persons. He was concerned about bring big trucks in and out with the elderly population that they serve. Further Discussion Hoffman: How many trucks to you have at one time? Arthurs. Usually between 6 and 10. Hoffman: Is there any benefit in looking at the timing on the stop Tight to prevent stacking up at the VA? I realize College is more important in terms of keeping the traffic flowing. Little: Yes. We can look at the timing on the signal. Perry Franklin is in charge of that. • We operates on a complaint basis. If people are having undue delays they call the traffic division and he goes out and looks at the timing. Also, if he notices something he'll take proactive action • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 33 to try and correct. I'm sensitive to what Mr. Powell is saying particularly with the interaction of the trucks and the elderly population. I would like to see a copy of the lease. I don't know if we have that in our file. I would just like to make sure that it wasn't limited by the VA to just a senior housing project. Arthurs. No, it wasn't limiting. Little: In that case, a lease is a lease and it stands for what it is unless there is something in there that I am not aware of. In talking with Ms. Arthurs, she agreed to limit to no more than 12 trucks at a time. I can't imagine at there would be more than 2 trucks a day. I'm thinking that it's not a very high volume situation. Hoffman: If you had an apartment complex it would be much higher, I think. Little: It's better than almost any other C-2 situation and you do have to keep in mind that there is residence there as well and it is the Arthurs' residents. There will be owners on site at all times. I believe it has some positives to go along with the concern. Forney: There is no direct association between Jordan Rentals, i.e., Texaco and this owner at all? Arthurs: I lease space from them but that is it. Little: They are going to begin to sell the trucks for Ryder. I did not know about the RV's. She agreed to limit it to no more than 12 on site at a time. Johnson: For the sale of trucks? Little: Rent or sale. I'm not certain how that works. We understood that it was renting and in talking with the Arthurs we learned that they would sell the same trucks. Arthurs: These are consumer trucks. They are not tractor trailers or anything like that. None are longer the 35 feet. Johnson: What is the speed limit on Memorial Drive? Powell: There are some sharp turns there. It's posted as 15. If they can get to that speed in such a short distance, then we'll have problems. Johnson: Do you control that speed limit at the VA site? • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 34 Powell: Yes. Johnson: Reducing the speed limit then would be a proactive way for you to address your safety concerns. Hoffman: I would like for staff to confirm that there are no problems with the access agreement in terms of use of property. MOTION Ms. Johnson made a motion to approve LSD99-7 at this level subject to the staff reviewing the lease and/or easement to confirm that this use is allowable; the sign shall be limited to 14 feet height at the top of the sign and that it indicate on both sides, "Turn at Memorial Drive"; and, that a second directional sign be added at the driveway to the facility. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Ms. Hoffman concurred. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 35 LSD 99-8: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF FAYETTEVILLE (pp372) This project was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of the Bank of Fayetteville for property located in Lot 7, Block 1 of the Glennwood Shopping Center at the southeast comer of Mission Boulevard and Crossover Road intersection. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 0.87 acres. Chris Brackett was present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendations 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. 2. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications, and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lot and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 4. 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 to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. Pedestrian ramp access and striping must be shown and provided through the driveways. Committee Discussion Little: The only thing we have to talk about is compliance with Commercial Design Standards and Planning has no other issues. Rutherford: The sidewalks are in and built. Hoffman: Could you orient me as to how this fits? • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 36 Brackett. Here is the Liquor Store and back behind it is the new Harps and this project is located on the hill. Forney. Is this the only sign? Brackett: Yes, only on the building. Johnson: This is the west elevation facing 265. Brackett: Like if you were looking from the liquor store. Forney: Which elevation would be facing 45? Johnson: That is the north elevation. Brackett. There is a Cafe Santa Fe and there's another building that I don't believe they have a tenant for that part of it. It is a private drive. Hoffman: So does traffic have clear sight distance turning on to 45? Brackett: We believe it will. Hoffman: There will be a bunch of conflicts. Little: There is about 60 feet from this entrance to where they would enter onto 45. They have to work with the traffic from the private drive and the traffic on 45. Brackett: There is more than adequate sight distance. Public Comment None. Further Discussion Forney. Commercial Design Standards look fine. I don't have any problems with it. I am concemed the private drives. If I am a pedestrian walking along Highway 45 on our newly installed sidewalk, what is my way in to the Cozart Center. I'm crossing over 5 lanes. Brackett: They don't have anything right now. To be quite honest with you, I would seriously doubt there would be any pedestrian traffic. If they are coming down that sidewalk, • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 37 they would have had to come all the way in front of it by going around the liquor store and then loop. Forney: What about coming from the east? Brackett. There is another drive and another sidewalk. It would be a lot easier if you were coming from the east. There is a service drive. I believe there is sidewalk. Little: Sidewalk is in front of the strip center. Johnson: This sidewalk through there along 45, we had that sidewalk go back behind the liquor store. It is off street side, back behind the liquor store. That is how they get in from 265. Forney. I recall looking at Highway 265 and seeing a little dirt track two feet from Highway 265 and I saw children on that. If we don't think about that now and students try to get across that street, it is a self fulfilling prophecy. Brackett: I think there is a better access if you're coming from the east to come back. They • wouldn't go across the private drive and then go up. • Johnson: We're coming from the east on 45 and we're walking from the south end traveling west. Forney: Yes. Hoffman: Here is the school. They will be coming from the school. Brackett: This is where the strip mall is and this is where the Harps is. There is a private drive that comes in here. There will be another building here. There will be all kinds of sidewalks around. Forney: I thought that was a service drive around there. Brackett: It is a service drive. Hoffman: Is there a crosswalk from Hunter's Ridge across 45 for the school? Brackett: I couldn't answer that. Little: A striped crosswalk? • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 38 Brackett: Well, regardless, if they come right from the school and they are on this side of the street and if they want to go to Harps or anything over here. They are going to turn around the sidewalk that will be around this and this now is just dirt That is how they are going to get in there. They're not going to come all the way up and then cross the street and go up. There's going to be more than enough opportunity. Hoffman: Was that pretty well thought out on the bigger plat? Little: We did a great job on the perimeter sidewalk on the bigger plat and that's the reason that we have this configuration here. On the internal ones, we are doing those as we go along and I'm trying to figure out what John's question is. I know there is continuity around the perimeter. Are we to be concerned more with what happens here? Forney: That is what I'm concerned about. Johnson: The east boundary of this property. Little: There will also be sidewalks with subsequent developments. We have talked • about that from the traffic management standpoint. The bank was concerned and they wanted to have room for 4 cars to stack. • Brackett: You can have 3 stacked. Whoever does their traffic for the bank says that the drive through requires 60 feet of stacking. There is no way this site can handle that. We don't have near that. They added another drive through lane and they need to have the drive through lanes be able to stack up to right around where those arrows are, if possible. Little: For peak hours only. Normally, there will be one car in the whole thing. But, on Friday afternoons from 4 to 6 the whole thing may be full. Warrick: We understood that the importance of that is so that those cars are not backed up in the major access drive or the major development and that they are on the site for the bank. Brackett: As far as the sidewalk, I really believe that there will be no one coming from the west and going into Glenwood. Little: Did Chuck talk to you at all? Normally, we wants sidewalks continuous through the drives. Brackett. That's not required on a private drive. Little: Well, no, because remember on a house when we're doing a subdivision, its the Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 39 same thing. We have the sidewalk continuous through the drive. Brackett: But that is on longer right of way when it's a house. This is an access easement. If we had a drive going in to it which was a private drive for the development, it's not sidewalk. Little: In answer to my question, Chuck didn't talk to you about this. Brackett: No. My understanding on that was that this sidewalk is not even required by the bank wants it. Little: You do have a lot more internal sidewalk than we would normally see. I'm Just trying to get to where Mr. Forney's coming from. I do kind of understand his concern and the only thing we might could do because we have narrowed it as much as we can at this point to address the width. The only other thing to do might be having the sidewalk continuous through there so there is a space for them to walk Brackett: We could stripe that. It would not be a problem at all. Hoffman: I know that if you've got a sidewalk even if it is not a required sidewalk, you have to ramp it. So, if you ramp it and you have a stripe here that would be a better situation. Little: Those curbs actually do have to come out. I know that. Conklin: You're saying a sidewalk wasn't required on 45? Brackett: No. Little: We're talking about the internal ones. Brackett: If you want stripping that is fine. What I am saying is that sidewalk will hardly ever be used. Little: What we're asking for now and John, you tell me if this is it -- you need the sidewalks to be ramped so the curbs have to be removed and then in those areas that are the entrance and exit lanes, we need it stripped where the pedestrians are supposed to walk. Is that in agreement with you? Brackett: That's fine. Forney: That's the best we can do. I agree with staff that we have a good system of perimeter walks around this entire development. Do we need the sidewalk to go continuous • Subdivision Committee Minutes March 11, 1999 Page 40 through the access road? Little: That is built and I don't think it is there. Brackett: It isn't. Little: While you're painting can you paint the other one, too? Will you ask Mr. Cozart if you can do that? Brackett: I can ask him but we have no leverage with him. I'll bring it to his attention that the Planning Commission would like to have that. I don't think that should be a requirement of this project. Little: We can understand that. Brackett: That sidewalk was built with the development and anything addressing that sidewalk should have been taken care of then. But, we don't have a problem with that. • Little: Okay. Let me know if you need me to talk to him at all. • Hoffman: I think the Design Standards are met. I assume the materials will match what is shown in the elevation. Little: They were provided by the architect for the development. Hoffman: We know the materials list? Little: They will match. Johnson: We can see here that we're going to be having red brick primarily used and a metal seam roof and drivit in these places. MOTION Mr. Forney made a motion to approve LSD99-8 subject to comments of the sidewalk being ramped and stripped through entry drive and all other staff recommendations. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson concurred. 0