Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-05-13 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on May 13, 1999 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LS99-9: Sisco pp240 LS99-10: Harriman, pp256 LSD99-13: Sunbridge Lot 7, pp 290 PP99-4: Summersby Subdivision FP99-3: Charleston pp370 LSD99-14: Nelms Auto pp248/249 MEMBERS PRESENT Bob Estes Lorel Hoffman Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Kim Hesse Janet Johns Ron Petrie Chuck Rutherford Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Tabled Removed Forwarded to PC MEMBERS ABSENT John Forney STAFF ABSENT • • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 2 LS99-9: LOT SPLIT SISCO, pp 240 This item was submitted by Michael and Wendy Sisco for property located at 6338 and 6432 West Wheeler Road. The property is in the planning growth area and contains approximately 2 acres. The request is to split the property into 2 tracts of 0.32 acres and 1.68 acres Michael Sisco was present on behalf of the lot split. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval subject to all plat review and subdivision comments. Committee Discussion Warrick: This request was made for financing purposes. The only issue raised in the technical plat review meeting was the issue of the leach field easement and whether that met the requirements of the Health Department. We requested that the applicant provide information from the county health department which he did and it is on file. Easements requested by the utility companies have been added to the plat as requested. There are no outstanding issues. Rutherford: This is outside the city limits and sidewalks are not required. Ward: What is a leach field? Conklin: This is an area where the septic system field is placed rather than having one on each individual lot, in this case, the septic system for the lot that is .31 acres will be on tract 2 We had been under the assumption that the septic system had to be on your lot and then you had to have an additional area in case that one failed to put another one in. The county has no problem with this and they approve of it. This can be approved at the Subdivision meeting today. Hoffman: Is there any problem with the gravel drive over the easement? Is it just a easement at that point and it is not actually the field. Sisco: It doesn't affect the field. Conklin: This is existing development. The two houses are out there right now. They are subdividing it for mortgage purposes. Public Comment • • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 3 None MOTION Mr. Estes made a motion to approve LS99-9. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Ms. Hoffman concurred. • • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 4 LS99-10: LOT SPLIT HARRIMAN, PP 256 This item was submitted by Brad Hammond on behalf of Randall Jack Harriman for property located at 3284 Skillem Road. The property is in the planning growth area and contains approximately 3.17 acres. The request is to split the property into 2 tracts of 0.99 acres and 2.18 acres. Jack Harriman was present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval subject to all Plat Review and Subdivision meeting comments and the provision of a 10 foot wide private easement for the water line. Also, the applicant must provide documentation of the right use to the existing access easement or an agreement must be made for a public dedication of access. Committee Discussion Warrick: At the Technical Plat Review Meeting, there was discussion concerning the dedication of additional easements and dedication of right of way along Skillern Road to meet the Master Street Plan requirements. The applicant did make some additional comments on the plat itself. Those have been shown. The only issue that we have is that at Plat Review, we requested that the applicant explore the possibility of connecting to the existing water line on Skillern Road to serve the proposed lot 2. Petrie: How do you plan on serving lot 2? Harriman: From Skillern Road. We have shown an easement going up the west side of the property so it can be served from Skillern Road. Petrie: You need an additional private easement for the private water line. This cannot be in the public utility easement. You need a separate easement from Lot 1 to Lot 2 for that private water line. Hoffman: Where would that be located? Petrie: Adjacent to the public easement. Hoffman: How wide would it need to be? • • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 5 Petrie: I would say 10 feet. Hoffman: Would the driveway that is existing there interfere with that? Petrie: It may be problem with the applicant but it's not a problem with engineering. Public Comment Ronald Harrison, residing on Lancaster Lane, was present and had questions regarding the private access easement. Further Discussion Harrison: This private drive was built at some expense to myself and my neighbors, Joy and Bob Folsum. At the time we built that, Mr. Harriman was given an opportunity to participate in the construction of that and at that time, he turned it down. We spent approximately $2,600 in building this private drive and yet he is going to have access at our expense. I hope you will take that into consideration. Estes: You're referring to the private drive that comes off Lancaster Lane? Harrison: That would give access to lot 2. Estes: Explain to me how the private water line easement impacts that. Harrison: The private water easement does not. However, the electric, phone, and cable will be accessed from that. Those services put connections to lot 2 at the time of construction of the private drive which Mr. Harriman did not contribute. Hoffman: Access to lot 2 is not proposed to be off of Skillern? Conklin: It is proposed to be off this private drive. Hoffman: For a private water line, you will need to dedicate 10 feet adjacent to the existing easement to serve this house. Harriman: That's fine. Estes: That will be under your driveway and there is potential that it will get dug up. Does that present a problem for you? • • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 6 Harriman: No. Conklin: They will have to trench through that drive to get back there. Harriman: They'll put it back. Hoffman: No. That's a private easement and it would be your issue and expense. Conklin: If your intention is to sell that lot, when they get ready to build that house, they will need to hire someone to go out there and install a private water line all the way from Skillern Road. By granting that 10 foot easement, they will trench through your driveway. You'll need to work that out with the person you sell the lot to. Estes: If the private easement was dedicated east of the gravel driveway, then bored under the concrete, that would prevent any trenching. Harriman: Let me talk to Mr. Hammond, my project engineer regarding this please. We'll do what we need to do on that. Hoffman: If we ruled on this at this level, is that something staff could work out between them and make sure that the easement is properly recorded. Conklin: A 10 foot easement will be needed. Estes. Does it make any difference where it is? Petrie: Not at all. We're trying to avoid their tying on to this 2 inch line. Warrick: We will look for that requirement prior to the filing of these deeds. We have to approve the deeds before they are filed of record. Hoffman: That is something easily tracked. Conklin: When they bring the deed in, we go through the approval conditions and make sure everything is complied with. Hoffman: Does a parcel have to have access to a public way? When we do a lot split or a tandem lot, usually it has a 25 to a 30 foot wide access to the street. Why in this case are access this private drive? Warrick: This is a unique situation in that this is in the county. This does not have to meet Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 7 the City requirements for bulk and area regulations. This has been through the county approval process. It would not be before you if it had not been approved by the County Planning Board. Conklin: The County Planning Board did address the issue of streets and access. They are saying the connection to the private drive makes this accessible. Harrison: We gave Mr. Harriman an opportunity to participate at that time we did the improvements to the drive and he turned us down. We think we should be reimbursed for a portion of our expenses because he is capitalizing on our improvements. Hoffman: Have you discussed this at all in the County forum? Harrison: We didn't receive notice from the County that this was proposed to be split. Estes: Who is the fee simple owner? Harrison: There was some discrepancy in the county hearing about this because it was dedicated by Larry Skillern. To my knowledge and the county's, too, there is no evidence that is has ever been recorded. Estes: Salient to the disposition of the private drive, number one, who is the fee simple owner and you will have to do your research. If the fee simple owner is an individual, then you will have to reach an accommodation. If there is no fee simple owner and there has been dedication, then it is not a private drive. Harriman: We have an abstractor working on that. Warrick: I have information from the County Planning Board concerning their recommendation from the approval of this project. They had five items, the first was dedication of right of way along Skillern. The second was a change in the ownership reflected on the signature block on the plat. They also asked that a note be made on the plat that the 50 foot access easement and Lancaster Lane are not county maintained roads. They are the responsibility of the property owners who use the road. The forth was health department approval for the septic system. The fifth was that the plat be signed and filed of record. They did find that the maintenance of the road was the responsibility of the property owners. Estes: We can't make any determination on this item unless the access issue is resolved. Harriman: When I bought the property from Mr. Skillern, he told me that it was an access that he had set aside all the way down to Old Wire Road. I have a drawing from Mr. Edwards who lives behind me that shows it on his drawing. • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 8 MOTION Mr. Ward made a motion to approve LS99-10 subject to dedication of a 10 foot water line easement from Skillern to lot 2 and resolution and documentation of the status of the private drive. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Estes: The thing to do is to get an agreement worked out with all the parties and have something recorded regarding the private drive. Mr. Estes concurred. • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 9 LSD99-13: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT SUNBRIDGE CENTER - LOT 7, PP290 This item was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Bill Keating of Keating Enterprises for property located in Lot 7 of Sunbridge Center. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 1.27 acres Chris Brackett and Bill Keating was present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. The project shall be built in substantial compliance with the elevations that are approved by the Planning Commission. 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 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. 4. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 5 foot sidewalk with a minimum 5 foot green space to match existing sidewalk construction in this area. 5. Large Scale Development approval is 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 as required by § 159.34. Committee Discussion • Warrick. What we have here is lot 7 in the Sunbridge Center which is a continuation of the • • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 10 Sunbridge Business Center which the Keating's are currently developing on the north side of Sunbridge Drive. The 3 commercial structures that are being proposed total 11, 600 square feet. The parking lot proposed for this development connects to the adjacent development providing cross access to the west. The only issue is that the Planning Commission make a determination concerning commercial design standards. Estes: This is the old Nettleship property. Hoffman: Does landscape have anything? Hesse: There is one large tree to be removed resulting from provision of the cross access which was previously approved. Petrie: Did you talk to Chief Jackson about whether there is a need for a hydrant? Brackett: I haven't reach him yet but we will. Warrick: I talked to Chief Jackson and he is okay with the location of the fire hydrant as proposed on this revised plat. Originally, it was suggested in a different location but he has seen this revision and he is okay with it. Public Comment None. Further Discussion Estes: What kind of tenant mix are you looking at? Keating: Probably all office. This is R -O. You would have to get a variance to get a mercantile in there. It seems like the whole area just wants to go office anyway. Hoffman: These are all single story. Estes: This looks pretty consistent with the existing. Keating: It will match lots 4, 5, and 6 which are to the west of this. It will look like one continuous development. Warrick: No waivers have been requested therefore it can be approved at this level. • • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 11 Ward: are. Give us a run down of what the construction materials to be used on the outside Keating: It's consistent with the other structures to the west of this. Wood frame, vinyl windows with a design grid, the roof is architectural shingles and they are hipped. All the signs are sealed gables popping out. That is where all our signs are located. That looks really nice and when someone comes in they can see what type of signage they will be allowed. Hoffman: So there is no proposed free standing signs. Keating: There are no free standing signs. I may try to get a variance for the signs. This is R -O and the signage is very difficult. Warrick: We would be concerned that the signs are consistent with the rest of the development that has been approved out there. Keating: R -O zoning allows 16 square feet per business. Hoffman: If you have one tenant that rents the entire smaller building, they would have two entrances and only one sign? Keating: If one tenant rents a 3,600 square foot building, he can only have one sign. But, if I rent it to 4 tenants, I could put 4 signs on it. I'm trying to get a variance on that. The band around the bottom is chipped limestone which runs around the perimeter of the building. That breaks things up. The sign areas are the synthetic stucco and the sign can will go in that and match the roof. The entrances except the rear exit have a protected entry. The entries are storm door aluminum similar to North Hills. It's actually a green tinted aluminum. All the exterior walls are a red brick blend. Estes: We're going to be looking at some storm water run off EPA rules and regulations. Is this all draining to Sunbridge? Brackett: It all drains to the back of the lot and there will be a new swale that will be constructed that will discharge into this existing junction box that we will modify to have an inlet to the two 48 inch pipes that are currently installed with Sunbridge Subdivision. MOTION Mr. Estes made a motion to approve LSD99-13. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 12 Ms. Hoffman concurred. Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 13 -PP99-4: PRELIMINARY PLAT SUMMERSBY SUBDIVISION, PP410 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for property located west of Crossover Road, south of Meandering Way and north of Ridgely Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 40.18 acres with 52 lots proposed. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends forwarding the plat to the full Planning Commission with recommendation for approval contingent upon the following conditions: Planning Commission determination of waiver request for length of cul de sacs within this development. The Whispering Oaks Lane/Montview Drive cul de sac is approximately 1,400 feet long. The Amberwood Drive cul de sac is approximately 700 feet long. The Street Design Standards section of the UDO § 166.08(13) includes a table which states that local dead end streets with hilly topography shall have a maximum length of 1,000 feet and the local dead end street which have ordinary topography shall have a maximum length of 500 feet. 2. Applicant's participation in a City planned drainage improvement project for this area. Engineering Division comments concerning Capital Improvement Project for Boardwalk Subdivision and Manor Drive drainage improvements. 3. The acquisition of an easement on the Lewis property for the sanitary sewer and drainage extensions is required prior to the acceptance of construction plans. 4. All swales not located within the public right of way shall be private and privately maintained by the POA, HOA or similar entity. 5. All plat review and subdivision comments. 6. 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. • • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 14 Payment of parks fees in the amount of $19,500 (52 lots @ $375.) 8. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standard to include 4 -feet sidewalks with 6 feet green space on both sides of the streets. 9. Preliminary Plat approval is valid for one calendar year. Committee Discussion Conklin: We would like engineering to go over the current drainage project that is proposed in this area and the status of that. Petrie: North of this proposed subdivision at Boardwalk Subdivision, they have drainage problems. The city has placed that project in the Capital Improvement Projects list. They have opened bids recently and this will go before the City Council on June 1, 1999, to get approval to do that construction. What you see before you is the assumption that the City is going to do that. They must agree to a cost share and contribution for those improvements. Beavers: The estimated cost of the project is $657,000. There is $200,000 in the budget. The Council may or may not choose to delay another project and do this one. The cost share with the developer will be based on the percentage of the area furnished by Jorgensen and I think that is about $74,000 of the $657,000. Petrie: A portion of that drainage goes through a culvert under Manor Drive and that is also a part of the CIP project. Jorgensen: That's about $18,000 where it's at right there. Conklin: The important issue that if the City does not go forward with the CIP, the Subdivision cannot be platted in this manner. That is the main issue. Petrie: If the CIP doesn't go through, they could build off site detention or they can request a separate cost share which the City would have to agree with. The detention option would change this plat from what you have in front of you. Brackett: We haven't proposed any detention at this time and we understand that if the CIP is not approved, we will have to come back with a plan for detention. Beavers: Another item that is going before the Council that affects this development is we would have to condemn the Rob Lewis property to build these improvements. I can't speak for the Council if they are willing to do that or not. The developer, in order to get his water out of • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 15 there, if the City were to build these improvements, they would have to purchase an easement from Mr. Lewis and that is another unknown which is beyond our control. Hesse: Did you locate the pine on the plat? Brackett: I did but I apparently have sent the wrong copy up here. It's on the centerline of Amberwood Dr. and it's shown on the revised grading plan. Hoffman: Would you be able to replace that tree with several large new trees? Hesse: That's a wooded site and they will be saving plenty of trees. There aren't a lot of big trees. They'll have to do a lot of clearing. Warrick: In order for the streets to be configured the way they are shown, the applicant has requested a waiver on the cul de sac length and the Planning Commission will need to determine whether to grant that waiver. Whispering Oaks and Monte View are definitely hilly. Brackett: The average grade of the other one -- there is some grade to it but it's not as hilly • as the rest of the project. • Warrick: We're basically suggesting is that the longer cul de sacs could be considered under the hilly condition. Hoffman: The fire chief has some concern about Whispering Oaks and Monte View Drive length -- his recommendation was if there was any way possible to make a loop street. Brackett: Our original layout included Monte View turning to the east and connecting to Summersby Drive which is what I originally came to the Planning staff with. After we pulled these profiles, we found out how steep this was and we abandoned that and used a cul de sac. It's our view that it's a great safety hazard to loop that street and to cul de sac it. We don't have an objection to that if that is what you prefer to do. We'll have to ask for a waiver on the grade. Warrick: It's either a waiver of the cul de sac length or a waiver on the grade at the intersection. Hoffman: Did the fire chief address that? Warrick: He did not. Hoffman: For our next get together on this, 1 would like to have a specific finding from him. Public Comment • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 16 Marynn Bassett residing at 2210 E. Manor Drive was present to discuss the proposed project and apprise the Commission of the drainage problems in the area. Bassett: If you put a 10 story building that would be the equivalent of the drop. I am happier at this point that I have been since 1990 because I think Mark Foster is a very fine young man and he is a very fine builder. We have had several meetings. I have concerns about the water and the fire protection. My main concern is the way they are carrying the water. Living on this property has been an experience. Since they started building on Shawdowridge, we've had more problems than we used to have. It has always been a natural drain. Every time there construction above us, we are inundated again with problems. This carried everything. Even with this plan, they have worked with the water but from lot 18 down, the water is still coming our way. Estes- There is a ditch in front of your property. There is a ditch behind your property. When it rains, the water comes off of Shadowridge and off of Broadview. How does it come down on the back of your property? Bassett: It comes straight down the ditch and crosses the corner of my property and goes • across my neighbor's property, Ms. Hamer. Brackett: There is a pipe under the road at Broadview. Then there is a ditch that goes to culvert which is a part of the Capital Improvement on Manor Drive. Hoffman: With the Capital Improvements Project that is contemplated, will there be any rechanneling of this? Brackett: Our plan shows a new concrete swale that picks up the water from Broadview, carries it through our property and will discharge into some kind of system. We are planning on working that out with Ms. Bassett. It will discharge out into this ditch. This is a rock lined ditch. Bassett: With each new construction, we have more water. The ditch gets larger and deeper. We started out putting rocks in the ditches and we would try and control it. Mr. Hamer has put a lot of work in there by laying down rock to keep the erosion down. This past two weeks has been a real test. They tell us if it's not kept clean, it's our fault. The more dirt and silt we get in here, the more it builds up. Our only recourse is you sue somebody upstream. I don't want to sue anybody. We've always just handled it. If they put in a drain upstream, the velocity is going to pick up. I can rent out canoes in this ditch with rains. I'm not sure a swale would stop it. Even if it does, it still has to cross this property. • Brackett: The initial plan that we had there is a concrete swale and it will discharge into an inlet at the junction box. We'll pipe it where it needs to go. The problem with this ditch is the • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 17 part that runs along our property line. Once it gets down past that area, it doesn't flood. Bassett: I beg your pardon. We have film showing flooding. It ends up as a pond. Estes: I am very sensitive to the storm water issues that we have, whether it is CMN Business Park or Summersby. We're going to be looking at some EPA Rules and Regulations here pretty soon that are going to mandate that we pay attention to what in my view we have not paid attention to in the past. Bassett: Even if this takes care of it, I think there is a problem farther down on 265 that we've been noting. It's flooded twice in the past year and they have closed it. It would benefit me if Mr. Foster did this development with this reduced number of lots. Brackett: This is not fully designed. This is just an idea. We have submitted a drainage report and we will not increase the flow in that ditch. With the lot layout now and with picking up this water here -- there is another pipe in Broadview. We are showing a new pipe routing the water away from the ditch. It will decrease the amount area that drains into that ditch. Estes: You have a proposed 15 foot drainage easement that comes off of the southeast corner of Mr. and Mrs. Scott's lot. Where will that water go? Brackett: That water goes with the rest of the subdivision and it drains under the street and it will go through the improvements in Boardwalk. Also, with the way the streets are laid out, there is an area on lot 29 and 30 which is currently draining into the ditch but it will no longer drain there. Even with these lots developing, the drainage report shows that there is no increase into the flow into that ditch. The post development flow will be less than the pre development flow and velocity. The flow and velocity are addressed in the ordinance as it now and we will meet it. We will do everything we can to work that out. If it requires us to pipe it all the way to the proposed improvements, we will do that, too. We haven't designed those pipes. We haven't designed the whole subdivision. We only have the layout designed for your approval. That is where we're at now. If we can't satisfy the Bassett's and the Horner's by piping it to this ditch, we will obtain an easement through their property to pipe it to the culvert under Manor Drive. Bassett: My only recourse is to sue somebody. We don't want to sue anybody. Brackett: If there is a ditch, it will be on Summersby property and will be maintained by the property owners association. There won't be a ditch on your property. Bassett: Once this property is sold and I'm flooding, it's too late. Who do I call to tell them to clean out the ditch? And if they don't clean it out, what do I do about that? I have • problems with the utilities, too. Years ago, they put a utility pole in the middle of the ditch. I • • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 18 have been to the City. I have been to the State. -I have been to the utility companies and what I am told is that I have to care of it because it is my ditch. If it's my ditch can I cut the pole down? They send people out to take the trees off the utility line. They left brush and trash which I have cleaned out. Every time it rains, I get more because I am the low spot. They say this is natural drainage. It used to be natural drainage. What we now have is altered drainage. That is what gives us the problem. Estes: If you have to litigate, that is a reflection on us because we haven't taken care of business. Hoffman: We obviously have a lot of work to do. Bassett: The velocity could potentially tear out the rock work and we're going to have more erosion. There is no place for it to go. Beavers: Mr. Estes, you referred to the EPA regulations that are proposed to be law by 2001 to 2003. Estes: If we bring them in to begin a problem solving agenda and when you begin this process, I don't know how you fix it 4 years from now unless you open your eyes and pay some attention to it today. Beavers: Further, that law does not address quantity. That law is strictly a pollution law. It does not affect what we are discussing. We have existing ordinance in place and I disagree with your statement. We don't need the federal government tell us how to control our runoff. Estes: I agree entirely that we should be enforcing the ordinances that we have. Jorgensen: That new bill concerns the treatment of storm water more than the control of the flow of pre and post development. Hoffman: We are not in any way ready to forward this to the Planning Commission. Andrea Scott, a resident in the area, was present expressing her concerns about the drainage problems in the area. Scott: There is a river running between my house and Mrs. Miller's house. From the Clay's house and my house you can look in the woods and there is a huge pond out there. Estes: Is this water that is coming off Shadowridge? • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 19 Scott: Probably. The Miller's have had foundation work. I recently remodeled downstairs and Charlie Sloan was our builder. In order to put hardwood floors downstairs and in order for those not to buckle, it had to have a drainage route under our house. I'm glad this is not designed yet. Brackett: We're going to pick that water up right at the property line of Summersby and use a pipe to handle the water there. There is a 15 foot drainage easement but the pipes aren't sized. Steve Nolan, residing at 2451 Manor Drive was present to express his concerns about the effect of this project on his property. Nolan: We also have considerable water coming off east of Highway 265 and also Lover's Lane going into the Boardwalk area. Petrie: Ridgely Drive is a part of the CIP. Beavers: If City Council approves the CIP request, the water on Highway 265 will be taken south. Paul Nolan, residing on Manor Drive abutting lot 14 of the proposed development, was present to express his concerns about the effect of this project and the drainage problems effecting his property. Jeanette Miller residing on Shadowridge area was present express her concerns about the Park and Recreation Board deciding to take money in lieu of land dedication to keep the wood in place. Further Committee Discussion Ward: On the City Council approval for the drainage construction project, if Summersby doesn't go in, will the CIP happen anyway? Beavers: Yes. It's a separate issue. When Marvin Gardens came forward we were made aware of the problems and this project is a result of that. Hoffman: In terms of the number of Tots are the less than would be allowed under R -I? Warrick: Yes. There are 52 lots proposed on 40 acres. Under the maximum limits of the code they could have had more than 100 lots. • Hoffman: The density is a good thing. What about the length of the cul de sac7 • • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 20 Ward: We need a determination from the fire chief. Hoffman: If you end up redesigning the street for the Fire Department, I would like for you to look at redesigning the alignment of Amberwood with regard to the pine tree. Brackett: The reason that intersection is there, is because of grade. That is a safety issue the reason that is laid out that way. Hoffman: Is there park land dedication? Warrick: They have parks fees in the amount of $19,500 for the 50 lots as determined by the Parks Board. Noland: Does the City plan to put a stop light between 16 and 45? Hoffman: I don't think so. Nolan: We have over 100 cars coming in and out of that subdivision every day if it goes in. Hoffman: My understanding of the process is that when there are warrants for stop lights the Highway Department addresses that through our engineering department. Beavers: It's always after the fact. Bassett: Buffer zones to the north and south have been discussed to slow down the water. Jorgensen: We did increase the depth of those lots after we discussed that. Brackett: They were 150 foot and now they are 200 foot. Bassett: If there is no vegetation on there to stop it we will be getting the mud again. Jorgensen: I think the biggest problem is that there has been no organized effort to control the water that comes off Ridgely. MOTION • • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 21 Mr. Ward made a motion to table this project until after June 1, 1999 City Council meeting where the CIP will be discussed. After those issues have been determined, the preliminary plat should come back to the Subdivision Committee. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. Ms. Hoffman concurred. • • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 22 FP99-3: FINAL PLAT CHARLESTON PLACE SUBDIVISION, PP 370 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Greg House for property located east of Old Wire Road and south of Elmwood Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 12.84 acres with 51 lots proposed. This item was removed from the agenda because the final inspection had not been done. . • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 23 LSD99-14: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT NELMS AUTO PLAZA, pp248/259 This item was submitted by Rick Rogers of CEI Engineering on behalf of Don Nelms for property located at the northwest corner of Arkansas Highway 112 and Interstate 540. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 33.56 acres This property is within the Design Overlay District. Don Nelms, Rick Rogers, and Audy Lack were present on behalf of the project. Committee Discussion Warrick: This is a request for an auto park consisting of 5 dealerships and a body shop. The total building area is approximately 700,200 square feet. The parking areas within the development are provided for customers, vehicle display, for inventory storage and maintenance services. The parking that has been provided for office, maintenance and customer areas is within the allowable range provided by our code. A majority of the project is within the overlay district. It is required to comply with commercial design standards. The main issues are commercial design standards requirements. The applicant has requested a waiver concerning the location of the trees along the front property line along I-540 and Highway 112. The landscaping is proposed within the islands dividing the entry and exit lanes. This does comply with the 25% required green space for the overlay district. There is an issue of 2 off site easements. One is drainage and the other is utility which need to be signed and filed of record prior to the City's acceptance of construction plans. All improvements shall be privately owned and privately maintained. Conklin: We have asked the architect for the project to make a presentation of how their development complies with standards and has a unifying theme and what they have done to design the project to meet those standards. They are not proposing any freestanding signs on the site. All the signs that are on the elevations will be wall signage. Nelms: There will have to be some kind of -- the manufacturers and I have gone around about this, they have all maintained that there will have to be some kind of pylon (monument) sign at each one of these stores. We are trying to get that waived but we have not been successful so far. That is on going. They will not be freestanding tall signs. We're wanting to meet all the standards of the overlay ordinance. The only thing I don't think we can comply with is the internal lighting of signs and I would like to figure out a way to do that. There may have to be a pylon sign for each dealership to comply with their regulations. Lack: At previous meetings, we had talked about entry signs into the parking lots for the • different dealers and directional signs. • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 24 Hoffman: Let's talk about commercial design standards, including signs and we'll have that done with. Nelms. We would like to get the pylon signs waived by the manufacturer but so far we have not been successful. Hoffman: When do you think you might know that? Nelms: I think it will be a battle to the very end. They did sign surveys and then it has to be approved by their corporate entity. Hoffman: Does your plan reflect the possibility of those signs having to be located? Estes: Are you talking about monument signs in front of each of the buildings? Nelms: Anything we put there will comply with the overlay ordinance. I've already told them that we are not going to ask for an exception. The signs will be within the standards. I have asked for them to be waived totally. We probably do need some kind of signage like the small signs directing traffic to used cars. Those will be mainly informational and will be in compliance with the overlay ordinance. Estes: service -- I presume you will want some small monument signs denoting the body shop, Nelms: I would like to not have any of them. The way this is designed, everything is self explanatory. If you look at these buildings, you will notice that on the right side of each one of the buildings is service entrance. They will enter to the right of each one of the buildings where that is clearly visible and the parking is to the left and front of each of the buildings. We designed this to overcome the need for directional signs. Warrick: The requirements for overlay district signs are: "Each separate, non residential lot will be allowed a single ground mounted, monument sign located on the building site. In the case of lots with double frontage, two ground mounted monument signs shall be allowed." That is 75 square feet or less of signage. Of course, wall signs are permitted. Mr. Nelms has done an excellent job of making the wall signage self explanatory and directional. Conklin: We're dealing with one lot under that regulation. It talks about that you can have • a monument for each street frontage. You're saying that you do not want them but if we end up Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 25 needing them, that would be a variance. This is a large development and I don't see it as a big issue if we're talking about monument signs for each dealer. Nelms: I think we can get those waived. Unfortunately, I think I need to get all the monument signs waived from all manufacturers or concede to all of them. We want a homogenous appearance, if we put one at Lincoln Mercury, then we need to put one at Honda, Chevrolet, and Acura. There needs to be one at every one of them or none at all. Hoffman: I agree. You are not proposing any billboard signs on the bypass and I appreciate that. Nelms: We have used green space and we have done everything that we could to abide by the spirit of the ordinance because I believe it is important to have a place to sell automobiles in Fayetteville to bring a lot of revenue to our city and we want people from Fort Smith and Rogers to come here and we think location is suitable and compatible with the city. We want to the proper job for all those concerned. Hesse: I have met with Mr. Nelms and our interior parking lot requirements are exempt for this plan. I did ask for landscaping within the employee parking lot and in the service areas. They have done that. I'm confused where you have service parking and it's adjacent to storage parking. What is in the storage parking? Nelms: It will be a mixture of everything we work on, trade in, or service. Hesse: I would recommend landscaping in that area because it is not new car display. That would add landscaping. My other issue is the variance to waiver perimeter landscaping along the right of way. We need to look at why the ordinance is there. One is to beautify within the overlay district but also we have to look at the impact of this much pavement. Vegetation will help to reduce the heat island affect and the glare from the cars. This is important although I understand the issue of screening some cars. I believe when you have 12 to 16 acres of pavement and cars, people are going to know it's there. Hoffman: Have you talked about putting in low growing species around the parking lot? Hesse: We haven't discussed that. I think trees would be a good idea. The problem is utilities. You could work with trees that don't have a leaf drop like a loblolly pine that you set back from the curb so that the needles don't drop on the cars but they do create some beautification and some transpiration to reduce the heat island affect. I think this is very important. They have done a great job on interior landscaping. They added additional trees but there is so much pavement, metal, and glass, that is going to produce heat and -- • • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 26 Nelms: We put the number of trees in here. We have open space there now and we're not removing any trees. It looks natural to be open there. The front is very important for people to see. The signage rests upon being able to see them. We're not asking for a sign stuck in their faces. We're asking to allow people to see those signs. Hesse: When we're looking at trees spaced 30 feet apart and you're traveling at 65 and 70 mph, you're up higher than the site. I went to Dallas a week or so ago and through Plano and Richardson into North Dallas, those displays had the requirements we're talking about here such as trees 30 feet apart and a continuous 3 to 4 tall hedge. They were even blocking the fronts of cars. Nelms: Those guys have huge signs out there. They have huge flags out there. Hesse: No, they have monument signs. That part of the country, they are so far ahead of where we're at. They've looked at that. Those are monument signs. That's my recommendation. I'm not asking for a lot more trees but you shouldn't waive that. Nelms: Are you saying you want a tree every 30 feet in the utility easement? Hesse: No. I'm saying we can't do that in the easement. That only leaves a couple of small sections. We could push them up against the curb but I don't want to do that because it is in the display area. Hoffman: Could you draw in what you want and give that to them to achieve some sort of compromise and coordination? I am for buffer. I understand about damage to the cars but I think it is possible to transition the eye and break up the pavement. This is not an existing tree site. Nelms. You're going to be looking over the top of every bit of that. You're not actually going to see that. The road is elevated above the site. Estes: Is what is being suggested in the service area? Are you suggesting some islands? Hesse: I'm suggesting trees in the interior parking lot requirements for the employees. I don't suggest that to be done in the display area. Nelms. All the work we do is on new cars and all the deliveries will be prepared from that area. These cars will never be interacted with by the customer. This is a work area. At times of the year, we've got 400 cars. Other times of the year, we have 600 cars and other times there may not even be 250 cars. They have to be put somewhere. • • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 27 Estes: right? As I look at the drawings, I see what appear to be islands in these lots. Is that Rogers: Yes, they are striped islands. Nelms: They may only be striped. I don't think those are locked in here. Estes: If we treated those as some sort of landscaping area and put some tree in there, would that be satisfactory? Nelms: I don't want that. I'm willing to buy this land and pay a high price for it and then give up +25% of it for green space and spend a lot of money to do these things. Where we have cars, I don't want any contact or damage. I want to prevent that damage. We're asking for trouble when you require landscaping in those areas. Estes: You don't want service cars parked under trees. Nelms: They are not only service cars. They are new cars also. Estes: You don't want them parked around any trees. Nelms. If a customer were going to interact with them at the point, I think it would be fine. We're going to create the appearance of having a lot of greenery. Look how much land we've given up just to create green around this. I think we have put a lot of thought into that. If you'll look, the area where you're asking us to put trees blocks the view. It creates more trouble for us to work on them. These are functioning work areas. The customers will not be driving through there. Estes: The trees on the front of the display area, could anything be accomplished by putting trees on the south side of what is shown as Auto Road and on the south side of the future drive extension of Auto Road? What would that do? Nelms: That is a signage issue. Hesse: That really doesn't accomplish anything. I'll just leave it that my recommendation is to keep the green space buffer with 30 foot spaced trees around the perimeter where they do not affect the utilities and to keep all the landscaping as shown and add landscaping to the service areas. Hoffman: In order to not have the trees, he would need a variance? • • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 28 Conklin: Yes. It is an overlay district requirement. Nelms: We have put every one of these trees somewhere else. We met the number. It's just a matter of where they are planted. Lack: It's not an issue of not doing something. It's adjusting to the site specifics to keep the beautification and keep the trees and keep down the heat from the concrete. We have the number of trees required, it just a matter of where they are placed in order to operate our business and make things work there Nelms. It's going to look like a lot of trees out there. Estes: This is an ordinance requirement and we're being asked to waive that. I'm familiar with Arlington and Plano and Collin County, and they don't seem to have a problem with it from a marketing aspect. Nelms: We took this through the Planning Commission previously and we almost had this project done. They agreed at that time to let us group these trees differently other than just soldiers along the front. We don't have the possibility of actually soldiering them along the edges, because the utilities are in conflict with them. We want to group them where ever we put them. Estes: We granted the waiver once? Warrick: That was not this project. It was a different project for the same location which went to the Planning Commission in April of 1996. The overlay district was in effect. That condition was waived but there was a one year limitation on that decision. Estes: I lack the institution history. Did we grant the waiver? Warrick: There were 2 options given for the landscaping. Option A was to comply with the 1 tree per 30 feet along the frontage. Option B was to allow a grouping where the landscaping was placed in designated locations. Option B was approved by the Planning Commission. Please keep in mind that this is a completely different configuration and a different project. Conklin: The waiver was granted because of the utility easements. The waiver was requested on that because due to the utility easement, we could not have trees spaced at 30 foot intervals. Estes: I don't want to prejudice this applicant by changing the rules. If there was a point in time where with a similar presentation, we waived the requirements, I would like to know that. • • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 29 Nelms. We have all that documentation where it was agreed to. Hoffman: I think it is our job to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and to move forward and avoid functioning as a committee at that level. Ward: The grouping of trees was what was specifically granted for Nelms project on the interstate. I'll stick with that. We required 8 acres of land to be green space and it's a flat, grassland now with no trees, no shrubbery, no nothing. We're getting a tremendous amount of trees than what is there now. Hesse: There are some nice trees out there now along the north property line. Nelms: The first plan had the removal of all the trees out there. We've really worked hard to try and figure a way to preserve those. We think we have done it. Our present plans are not to remove them. We've looked at this from a perspective of appearance and the over all look. We've worked hard to hide the cars that you're talking about there. We've worked hard to preserve the trees that are there and we think we've done a really good job. Nothing is perfect. Estes: If I was looking at this for the first time, I would not be in favor of waiving the 1 tree per 30 linear feet of green space. The reason is because I can drive to places and see where similar ordinances have been implemented and I don't think it impacts on the marketing of the product. However, this project has been before the Commission in 1996 and a waiver was granted and there is a serious amount of expense in bringing these projects back. I think we need to be sensitive to that and the fact that we've waived it once before. I would like to see every applicant come before the Commission with sensitivity to the ordinances that this applicant has. I think it's an outstanding project and I think it's very well done. I think we need to be sensitive that this was brought forward to us with some historic basis. That historic basis was that there was waiver. I wouldn't be in favor of the waiver today, but it was given once and it looks to me from looking at the documents that this is pretty much put together based on that previous waiver. Ward: A lot of decisions were made at the prior approval and this has not changed ownership. Hoffman: We need to send this project forward with a recommendation for or against the waiver. Are there any other waivers requested on any items? I have seen car lots with good amounts of landscaping. The fact that the plan is totally different than what was recommended is giving me some trouble. How much flexibility do we have that as the project is approved and is under construction, if we see obvious bare spot, is there a way after we have granted permission to request additional landscaping. Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 30 Nelms: No one in this room can honestly sit here any say this is exactly how it's going to look. When you drive down the road and see this year after year, you'll see the plants grow in and we will maintain that. There is other greenery that will be included. I hate to talk about what we're going to do because you'll make me do it. Our plans are for the displays to be individual automobile displays and we will bring in and it will probably be moveable but we'll bring in planters that will contain a lot of greenery. We want this to look good and we're going to stay after it until it looks good. We're considering walking trails but we haven't brought that to you. We're going to spend money to continue to make it look good. If it needs more greenery in the front then we're going to put it there. Hoffman: Thank you. Do the other members want to recommend the waiver on the landscaping? Ward: Conklin: Yes. I want to be clear on what we're waiving. Petrie: We had several comments at plat review about landscaping in the easement. We • also talked about locations of some of the drainage structures. • Rogers: We have submitted revised drawings. We relocated the Weir structure and the detention as far away from the sanitary sewer as we could. Hoffman: Are the roads okay? Petrie: Are there other buildings proposed? Nelms: In between Chevrolet and Lincoln Mercury, there is a place to put one more store in there. Estes: What is the issue on the detention pond? Petrie: They had originally located a detention pond on top of a sewer line. This is now a little more feasible. You show a 6 inch water line being stubbed out. That should be an 8 inch line at the south end of the project. Rogers: Okay. Petrie: Do you feel pretty comfortable about getting these off site easements? Nelms: Yes. The person I'm going to have to get these from has already agreed to them. • • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 31 I don't know whether you have that letter or not. The first time that we did this project, the people that owned the drive in land agreed. We had proposed to remove that area of trees and retrench that and redo that and plant some trees along there. We looked at it this time and decided we didn't really want to do that. We wanted to try and save those trees if at all possible. We're going to have to go back and revisit. We have a letter that says that they are agreed to and we'll have to revisit that with them and see if they are still of that mind. I talked to them as recently as one year ago and they were agreeable at that time. Petrie: There is a 15 foot drainage easement also. Hoffman: Is there any talk about putting this underground? Warrick: We were told at plat review that there was no overhead electric. Nelms: We understand that if we don't get that, we have a problem here. Petrie: They have shown a 15 foot drainage easement located to the north of this property. They are rechannelizing and it is a shared drainage easement. Nelms: The lady that owns the drive in theater there and its a common drainage issue between the two properties. They can get their drainage fixed for nothing. It's just a matter of getting the documentation together and sending it to them. They have a large buffer of land there. Rutherford: They have met the sidewalk requirements. Hoffman: We don't need a sidewalk on the bypass obviously. Rutherford: We're showing sidewalk on about half of the frontage area on Highway 112. That area is way below grade and it will never go anywhere. Conklin: We had originally asked them to dead end into I-540. Nelms: That's gonna look kind of goofy. People will be driving down the road for the next 15 years wondering where that's going. Estes: What is the purpose of that? Conklin: When you get to the bottom at that grade, you will have a sidewalk that runs north. • • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 32 Rutherford: There are sidewalks in that area. Nelms: There is a creek there you have to cross. You can't walk on that road. Warrick: Just north of the drive in there is new development to the north and they have sidewalks installed there. Hoffman: In developments this size, that generate lots of traffic, would typically look at connectivity and Master Street Plan issues. Have there been discussion? Conklin: Highway 112 is classified as a principal arterial. They are dedicating the right of way for the Master Street Plan. At plat review, we asked the applicant to take a look at when property develops to the north whether or not there would be a potential for access into this development. They did provide a note on the plat that Mr. Nelms had acquired property and has an easement to VanAsche. Other projects of this nature that we looked for cross access were Wedington Place -- Hoffman: For right of way or was it cross access through the parking lot? Conklin: We have public right of way through that project. Also, Kantz Place. Neighborhood Wal-Mart at 45 and 265 has a public street through there. We are looking at property zoned C-2 all the way to VanAsche including the drive in. The piece that Mr. Nelms owns is zoned A- 1. If he does come back before us, I would anticipate that you will probably hear a request to rezone this in the future. This area has the potential to generate a lot of traffic. Businesses that are there or might develop there in the future may want to look at making one of these streets public to the north. I urge the Commission to consider how future development will interact with this. The freeway is to the east and we aren't looking for anything that direction. Estes. considered. That drainage ditch to the north and the tree buffer that is there would have to be Conklin: The Planning Commission always addresses that issue on a project this size. We need them to make a determination of whether they will be able to tie in to the development. Nelms: We were asked to do that. That is in the spirit of the overlay ordinance. You have fewer entrances. We also addressed it with each one of the dealers being allowed only one entrance. Hoffman: You may have a problem with just one entry with trucks delivering and customers getting in and out. • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 33 Nelms: We named the street to the north Transport Drive and that is where all the transports will go in. They will have a set route they will use. That is a minor amount of traffic. Car dealerships don't create near as much traffic as a Wal-Mart or something like that. It's basically people that come for service. You could get by with 15 cars coming to any one dealership other than the service. We aren't a high traffic generator and we plan on keeping this dedicated to the car business. All future development will be for the automobile business until such time as I'm not here anymore. Ward: Is there green space to the north which would be a good cross access? Does it line up with anything at all? Conklin: The property line between the drive in theater and the part he acquired to the northeast at some point in the future what type of business will want to locate near you? Parts store, restaurants -- Nelms: We can control the theft out of here to a certain extent by the way this was designed. This is a good arrangement from that standpoint. Someday, we may border the perimeter with low rails to keep cars from being able to be driven out of it. Enclose the parking lots -- we're going to try it first without that and if our insurers force us into it, we will comply. Hoffman: How do you feel about showing a parking lot connection to that land that you own and it could be curbed off and nothing would have to happen there. Nelms: That's a creek there. It may not be able to be developed. It may be wetlands. It is very unlikely that there will be any connectivity through that. Conklin: Do you ever perceive other dealerships wanting to locate near you? Nelms: We would consider one other dealer and then maybe an auto related type business in the corner. That piece of land there is the northern entrance to the city. When you come into Fayetteville, that is the first piece of property you are ever going to see and Tomlinson has that building and hopefully those things long term will be gone. We're going to have the piece of property that is going to be "Hello, Fayetteville." I'm going to be pretty careful what we do with that long term. Hoffman: Are these to pieces separate parcels? Nelms: Yes. Estes: What is the area that appears to be a stubbed out city street? • • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 34 Petrie: That's a drainage structure under the highway to the east. The storm water discharges onto Mr. Nelms' property. Nelms: I think there are wetlands in that area. Lack: We have been approved by the Corps of Engineers. Public Comment None. Further Discussion Nelms. We have a poor easement to VanAsche. Rogers: In our contract to purchase, we have made provisions for access to VanAsche. We drew this in as a concept. The easement is fictitious. It was to show you what it might look like. Nelms. Ultimately, if the State builds a cloverleaf or something there fine. If they don't, that road is not something you want to drop a lot of traffic on. Hopefully there will be sale of land that we could eventually purchase. Hoffman: Do we want to show any possible connection or not worry about? Estes: The design of the property is compatible with the overlay district. I'm stumbling over the connectivity issue. Hoffman: The Restaurant on the Corner and The Grill and the 112 Drive In -- Warrick: There is another commercial development in between them. Hoffman: If there was a large development, it's possible connectivity would be needed. Conklin: I'm looking out for the whole area and Mr. Nelms has plans for the area in the future. This is a unique area. You have highways on 2 sides and you wouldn't have streets crossing that. It's more for internal circulation. Nelms: I want to keep the tree line because it shields our body shop and trash collection facilities. We spent a lot of money to organize our company where all of the trash goes in one place. That tree line is our barrier. The drive in doesn't want any light and it's their light shield. • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 35 Also, it's for security. Our body shop is back there and cars are disassembled and for appearances, we would like to keep that covered up. We're trying to make this as presentable as possible year round. Where we're at now, I've sold to Walgreens and I also own another piece of land and they asked to purchase that to provide connectivity between the 2. The areas you're talking about now are very specific. They are not customer's cars. They are parts trucks and delivery trucks. It's almost like a construction site. You would not want people to use it. Conklin: I noticed that it would not be a highly public area. Ward: What about the landscaping in the island dividing the entry? Do you have that figured out? Rogers: That's not a problem to provide landscaping in there. Ward: We also need to discuss whether we feel these buildings meet the Commercial Design Standards. They are articulated. They blend together. They have unique designs and don't look like boxy structures. Hoffman: 1 like them. Particularly the Honda. Nelms: We're not going to take credit for that. The Lincoln-Mercury building is what is called a signature design. This is a new national building and you will see these all over the country. That is what stopped this project to begin with. Acura is in the middle of doing what Honda did. Acura and Honda are owned by the same company. They are designing a signature building. We did the Acura building. We think it is very nice and they thought it was very nice. They are going to have within the next 30 days, their signature design. We don't know what it's going to be. We would like understanding on your part that we would be able to go back and change the fascia of this to conform colorwise and shape. We know their entry will be very similar to what we've got. Each of them have an entrance and a service department on the right. The parking lots have similarities. The size and footprint of the building will not change. The structure won't change but we would like some leeway to be able to come back and present any changes. Hoffman: Tim, do you want to take responsibility for that? Conklin: What we have done in the past, is taken you on tour and shown you the plans and you have let staff somewhat administratively approve. Warrick. I'm comfortable in doing that as long as it's not something significant. • Nelms. The shape of the Acura building came from the shape of the land and how it drops • • • Subdivision Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 36 off to the west. The land falls that way and the angle is parallel to it. CEI did a really nice job. Estes: Is the franchise anticipating a trade mark change? Nelms: They are talking about changing the colors. The calliper won't change. I don't think the lettering will change. If it's a significant change, we will not be planning to use their design. I can say "no" to them. MOTION Mr. Ward made a motion to forward the project to the full Commission subject to all comments and recommending support of the waiver on landscaping, also allowing each building to have 1 freestanding monument sign if the dealerships adamantly require it. Also the resolution of detention must be achieved and off site drainage easement documents filed of record. The Subdivision Committee recommends to allow staff to determine small changes to the Acura building such as the color and bring anything significant change back to the Planning Commission. Also the 6 inch water line must be changed to an 8 inch water line. The Subdivision Committee recommends that no cross access be provided and that 1 ingress/egress is acceptable under the design overly district requirements. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. Ms. Hoffman concurred.