Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-11-01 - Minutese O • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, November 1, 2001 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSP 01-30.00 (Wetzel, pp 475) Page 2 LSD 01-19.10: (Hometown Developments, pp 524) Page 5 LSP 01-33.00: (Karloski, pp 260) Page 24 LSP 01-35.00: Lot Split (Lot 17 CMN ph. II, pp 212) Page 27 LSD 01-35.00: Large Scale Development (Auto Master, pp 601) Page 30 LSD 01-36.00: Large Scale Development (Vista Health, pp 138) Page 40 MEMBERS PRESENT Don Bunch Lee Ward Bob Estes ACTION TAKEN Approved Forwarded Approved Approved Approved Forwarded MEMBERS ABSENT Sharon Hoover STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Ron Petrie Keith Shreve Kim Hesse Eric Schuldt Tim Conklin Sara Edwards Hugh Earnest • • • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 2 Ward: Conklin: Good morning, welcome to the Subdivision Committee meeting of the Planning Commission for Thursday, November 1, 2001. There are six items on our agenda this morning. We will get started and try to get this done as fast as possible. The first one is LSP 01-30.00 for a lot split submitted by Libby McDonald on behalf of Brad Wetzel for property located on the north side of Dot Tipton Road. The property is in the Planning area and contains approximately 4.32 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of2.31 acres and 2.01 acres. Tim, are you going to handle this one? Yes. This is a lot split into two tracts of land. Conditions to address, one, the lot labeled for post split for 1.71 acres does not have access to a public water line. The water line shall be extended prior to filing the lot split or any deeds. At such time the line is completed, inspected and accepted the lot split may be filed. Number two is the applicant shall contain Washington County approval prior to filing the lot split. Those are the two conditions that we have placed on this I am wondering, is the applicant's representative here for this? McDonald: Yes. Ward: Ward: Conklin: Ward: Petrie: Ward: McDonald: Come up please. The main issue right now is the water line, is that right Tim? Yes, I just want to be sure that when we create the new lot that the water line is in and that there is water for it. I will go through staff, Ron, are there any other concerns beside the water line? No Sir. This is out in the county so there is nothing to do with the sidewalks or parks or anything like that. I have a question. I am Libby McDonald, I am representing Brad Wetzel. The applicant has got a perspective buyer for this and the buyer is not planning on building for another couple of years and so we were concemed about having to put that water line in two years prior to him even building a place. Ward: I would assume that it would have to be there. Tim, is that the case? • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 3 Conklin: Typically we like to get the utilities in once we create the lot. Ward: That is the problem, once we create the lot here and then it has no water and no way to get water to it. Really, it has to be done now. Is there a time frame that it has to be put in? Conklin: We were asking that it be put in before the lot is created. I don't know if Ron has anything to add? Petrie: I went back and researched this to make sure that it was correct and according to our standards it has to be put in or I assume some type of waiver from the Planning Commission has to be created. Ward: How big of a water line? Petrie: Two inch. Ward: What is the cost of having a water line put in? McDonald: I think they are looking at around $4,000 to $5,000. Ward: I personally think it needs to be put in if we're going to do the lot split because if you don't do it now it could become a problem later on unless you want to bond it out or something like that, I don't think you want to do that. Is there any other way of doing it? Conklin: No, the city would have to keep up. The safest way is to tie up money but they don't want to tie up four or five thousand dollars now. I'm not sure that is a very good solution either. Ward: My recommendation would be that before it is finalized it has to be put in. You have to have utilities in before you can have a lot. If you do a subdivision we don't allow people to start selling lots they are building on until all of the utilities are in. McDonald: Ok. Public Comment: Ward: Is there any public comment on this? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commissioners. • • • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 4 Estes: Tim, have there been any comments from adjoining land owners? Conklin: Not to my knowledge. Motion: Estes: I would like to move that we approve LSD 01-30 subject to staff conditions, specifically, that the water lines shall be extended prior to filing the lot split or any deeds and at such time the line is completed, inspected and accepted the lot split may be filed. Bunch: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Thanks Libby. McDonald: Ok, thank you. • • • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 5 LSD 01-19.10: Large Scale Development (Hometown Developments, pp 524) was submitted by Robert Schmitt of Hometown Developments for property located on the southwest corner of Fletcher Avenue and Rodgers Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.50 acres with 12 dwelling units proposed. Ward: Our second item on the agenda this morning is LSD 01-19.10, large scale development for Hometown Developments submitted by Glen Carter of Carter & Associates on behalf of Hometown Developments for property located on the southwest corner of Fletcher Avenue and Rodgers Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.50 acres with 12 dwelling units proposed. Tim, what do you have to tell us about this? Conklin: This item was brought before the Planning Commission on April 23, 2001 with a request not to provide the required street frontage in an R-2 zone. Currently Center Street right of way exists between Fletcher Avenue This waiver was approved subject to the project being processed in a large scale development and limited to six units. The applicant has proposed to provide twelve units, ten with two bedrooms and two with one bedroom. Thus, the total number of bedrooms is twenty-two. The applicant is proposing to provide twenty-two parking spaces. The previous project that we looked at was six units of four bedrooms each, for a total of twenty-four bedrooms, so the actual number of bedrooms has decreased by two. The property is zoned R-2 to the east, west and south of this project. The applicant, as part of this approval, is requesting the Planning Commission hear their request not to provide the required street frontage again and change the condition to allow for twelve units. If this project is not approved, the applicant is requesting to build Center Street. Several waivers are being requested as part of that construction. There are three items, one is the item that you heard with regard to this lot not having frontage and approving that with the six units because that was a condition of approval. We're bringing that back to you to consider that and to change it to twelve units. Then you have a large scale development before you, which you are looking at today, and then we have a request to waive our minimum street standards. If the large scale development is not approved, they want to request a waiver in order to build that part of Center Street which would allow them by right, since it is zoned R-2 and the lots are preexisting, to go ahead and build what they want to build on those lots. Keep in mind, the current zoning was established in 1970, so an R-2 which is 24 units per acre, talking with our drafting division, these lots that were created go back as far as 1910. That is just a historical background of how these lots were created and when the zoning was established. All three of these items will be at the next Planning Commission. This item was tabled at the August 16, 2001 Subdivision Committee due to insufficient information. Staff is recommending forwarding this to the entire Planning Commission. Conditions to • • • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 6 address include trees along the right of way east ofthe proposed drive must be trimmed to provide adequate site distance prior to the issuance ofa certificate of final occupancy. Two, the Planning Commission determination of improvements to Fletcher Avenue. The applicant is proposing to widen the street to 14' from center line. Three, no public lift station shall be used for this development. The rest are standard conditions of approval. Ward: Ok, thanks Tim. I will go ahead and get the comments from different departments first and then go to public comment. I will start out with Keith on sidewalks. Shreve: They are proposing a 6' sidewalk with a 6' green space which meets our requirements. Ward: Ok, that is all shown on the plat like it is supposed to be? Shreve: Yes. Ward: Ron? Petrie. One ofthe insufficient items at the last Subdivision Committee meeting had to do with the determination of sewer and how it is going to be used. It is gravity sewer and you need a public lift station which we did not particularly want In the meantime, they have researched the possibility ofa gravity main. They have developed plans for that and it can be done. That is what is proposed for this and that is why we have condition of approval number three. Ward: So they are putting in a private lift station that will pump it up to the existing line? Petrie: They will extend the public sewer main by gravity up to this property and then pump to that gravity public main. Ward: Ok, what else? Petrie: That is all that I have. Ward: What about this dry detention pond that we're looking at down there on the south part of the property, does that meet all of our standards and do we have to worry about putting any kind of rails around that for safety? Petrie: Because it is only 2'/2' deep, we are not recommending that. • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 7 Ward: Ok, Kim? Hesse: No comments. Ward: Eric in Parks? Schuldt: No comments. There was a ruling that this particular development would not have to pay parks fees. Ward: Ok. I will bring it to the applicant next. Do you have any questions Bob, Glen or Rick? Schmitt: I would like a copy of the comments if I could have those. Other than that, no, I have no comments. Conklin: Here are a couple, one for the attomey, one for you Glen, do you want one Bob? Schmitt: Sure, that would be nice. • Conklin: Ok. • Public Comment: Ward: At this time I will open it up to public comment. If you have any comments about this particular project, make sure it is about the project itself, any concerns you have about it. Would anybody like to address us on this particular issue? Davidson: I'll start and get it out of the way. Ward: Ok, please give us your name. Davidson: My name is Sharon Davidson. I have opposed this project from the start? I will continue to oppose the project as it stands, especially until our city itself gets caught up enough to be able to handle these kinds of projects. I would like you to know that I am for some building, but as I spoke in the appropriate place to build things down by Campbell's Soup works, it doesn't work at this time. This man's project does not work for our city, our services, our systems at this time. The drain, I would like to get a tab on our expense for this gentleman's project if I may ask that from the city. Do we keep those records? Can we do that to find out one, just to this point, how much this man's project is costing us to push it through before we re ready. Our systems aren't ready. We haven't even voted • • • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 8 on this sewer tax. Lets get back to this issues of originally when these things were split up, they were split up for houses in 1910, I'm sure. These lots are all in residential areas. They are on the mountain side and top. Lets start with the lot itself, it was originally a single family lot of this one acre that these two guys split. It has one gas meter there. That is what was there. So originally, when we say "Oh, well these lots were already split." Let's understand, they were split originally, for single family houses or maybe a duplex. Let's get to the big problem that allows these guys to come in and say "We want to do this with our property because our American rights say we can do whatever we want with our project." Not the truth, like the right to be left alone which is essentially what we are all collectively saying. We have a right to be left alone and to not be impinged upon by these guys, and for what purpose? To make money. Ok, I go back to 1970, I got my little map, I didn't have time to run in with it with R-2, I sort of understand symmetrical grids, roads. If you will look at things, you have to look at it from a topographical view as well as in your square. I have suspect as to who, why that area, which is all behind College, all the way up the mountainside, on top of the mountainside was zoned R-2, we are supposedly stuck with it but personally, I don't think we are. Again, I ask that you grant no waivers. If they want to force the issue to build Center let's see how much money it will cost us to do that. 1 tell you what, you are going to have a follow up problem gentlemen, because I am in on this problem on the mountainside. You put all that pavement up there and it floods out the holler, there are going to be issues here. These people are understood in this community that they were set up for this R-2 to be ran out of their community when the time came. Of course, Hanna was here for years and pushed development. Why are we having this mess? No sewers, no roads, Hanna just let it all slide and set us up for this great world. I couldn't even get down College the other day, I couldn't even get up through the university today. Ten minutes to go four blocks, we have issues here. We are not ready for this. It is inappropriate at this time. I ask our Commissioners to protect us and not grant you waiver I ask the city to come up with costs incurred so far for you and your supposed right to develop. I say ho, wait, let's see what happens with our sewer tax. Lets see how we're going to be able to manage this. Again, even going on record for the south side development, lets make sure that they don't flood it out, but that is Lindsey and he can cover it if they flood it. That is where it should go, but it is not ready to go there now. Impact fees, this whole place is going, everything is going to compile within the next year and we're going to be in a totally different world and I think everyone knows it. Men like this are trying to get in at the last minute, make that money. We've got empty strip malls as it is. We have places that aren't being rented. This is the issue with developers. They come in, they make their money, and half of them are gone, or like Israel, threaten to leave. This guy is going to be up here with all this traffic, all these incidents and we are going to be paying and paying for him and his "nght" to make money, not to live. I get upset when they say "These men's livelihood" Excuse me, the man's livelihood is aman working for Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 9 a living to support his family. Don't confuse someone trying to make money as their livelihood. Here we go, I'm ready to say I'm ready to have lawsuits if we have to. If there is flooding in the holler by you putting a big of slab of concrete up on the mountainside. We will follow up with road safety and everything else. I am going to be quiet and let other people give you the actual calmer things but this is where I'm coming from and I think if you check it out there are definite problems with R-2 that is zoned on a square road and also the motivation for zoning it that. Again, as soon as that gets flooded out and the poor people move out then the developers can come in and buy it and put up all of their wonderful R-2 units right in a beautiful place of town, destroy the whole mountain. Whoever put the blue box up on the hill on top of Mt. Sequoyah, Thank you! I'm sure you love your view but it is not the stately mansion that was up there that had that whole hillside. Your blue box is like "Hey, we're here!" Ok, thank you for listening. Please Commissioners, understand R-2 is an issue, I'm willing to fight about it. These guys are going to flood it out down there and I don't think they have a right to say that you have to do this. Ward: Would anyone else like to address this committee? Harris: My name is Patrick Harris and I live at 738 Lighton Trail, just adjacent to the property. Dust want to say a few things that first, was about the zoning. This is the first property to be developed in that area as R-2, even though there does appear to be some zoning in the area as R-2. We feel that that is a concern. Particularly, to the east there is a park, to the west is the city's water tanks, to the north it appears primarily R-1 which is where my lot is located. To the south it is R-2 but it is undeveloped. We are kind of entering a new realm, we feel, in that area because nothing has developed, to this extent, in that area. As you can see, it is quite a concern. In addition, the prior approved plat was for six units, this is an increase to twelve, that is a concern. Finally, we have a real issue with number one, the removal of trees and the condition in which they were removed, and the future removal of additional trees to improve the vision and to try to make that corner a much safer place for people to drive because it is apretty precarious location when it comes to streets and right of ways. People were almost hit. I drive up and there are people turning around and it is a dangerous little spot. I know the total number of cars going through there is not dangerous but the area itself and the grades and everything appear to be. Those are my concerns. Ward: Ok, thank you for your comments. Would anyone else like to address us on this particular issue? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and thank you for your comments. I will bring it back to the Commissioners. • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 10 Estes: Ron, I am having trouble with the sewage issue. We have got the private sewer pump that I see and then where does the sewer line go? Petrie: It is to the south of Fletcher. Carter. It is a forced main, it starts here and then goes over to this manhole. It pumps this way and that is gravity pull down. Estes: The discussion that we had the last time that we saw this was about the crossing of Fletcher and Summit, that is no longer necessary is that correct? Petrie: That is right. There will be a gravity sewer down Fletcher Avenue to the existing sewer. Estes: Ok, I see the notation proposed 8" sewer, is that correct, am I reading that correct? Carter: Yes Sir. Estes: So the applicant is going to install that 8" line or is that 8" line in existence? Petrie: They will have to install it. Estes: Where will it go? Carter: There is a plan here if you want to see it. Estes: Yes, I would. Where do they connect? Carter: The proposed line would go to here, every bend we have to have another manhole and then there is an existing manhole here which is too shallow so we will continue on and intercept the line that this manhole comes from and put a new manhole here and we will replace that line so we will just follow Fletcher. Estes: So the applicant is going to install an 8" sewer line from the existing manhole and it will parallel Fletcher and the applicant is going to install this new sanitary sewer line that will parallel Fletcher and will end with the existing manhole, is that correct? Petrie: The existing is here so this part will be replaced. • Estes: The existing is where it is marked proposed? • • • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 11 Osborne: These are labeled backwards maybe Glen. Petrie: This is the existing manhole here, this one will be removed, this line will be replaced and lowered so that the elevations can make it get to the site. Carter: In the profile you can see that the existing manhole is right here and it was too shallow so we intercept this existing line at a point and drop in a new manhole and then replace this one. Estes: Ron, this is going to be a new 8" sanitary sewer line. Are you satisfied that there is the capacity to carry that since we have problems with overflow and back flow in that area? Petrie: Estes: We have on a separate system. There are two main systems that feed the mountain and I have a memo prepared that will be in your Planning Commission packet. This system that it is connected to does not have the problems that the other system that comes up through and back to the east has. That is the older system which is scheduled to be replaced. So this connects with the newer system where we have not experienced the back flow problems. The system that the applicant proposed, that the 8" line connects to is not scheduled to be renovated or replaced? Petrie. That is correct. Estes: I have no other questions about the sewer. I do have a question for Kim. Kim, I know we have visited the tree removal issue from time to time. Before we vote on this do you have a summary of what you and the applicant have agreed to, if anything, and where we are in that regard? Hesse: I talked to the City Attorney about how to deal with the removal of the trees and at that time I found out that basically we can either utilize the fine of$500 or, it is either/or, either the fine or making them replace plus 10% but we couldn't do both. Based off of sentiments from the last issue that we had early to tree removal, we found out that the public wanted us to replace more trees so that is what we've done with this one. The ordinance that we are under right now that this development is going through, doesn't have a very strong replacement requirement. They are meeting that replacement requirement plus 10% with the 8 trees and a few large species and large caliper that is shown on the plat. • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 12 Estes: Do we find that on the plat? Under the tree preservation notes, is that where it is? Hesse: I think it is on the page. Davidson: We're saying they only have to replace with a good species, only a 2", only a baby sapling when there were large, 40 to 50 plus year old trees there and that is why we have this new tree ordinance. Estes: Where are those notes? Under the tree preservation notes? Hesse: The notes that address that are not in here, they are in the tree preservation ordinance. Hesse: Here are where the trees are shown. They are required to put one here for their parking lot, that is not part of those eight. Estes: Thanks Kim. Ward: • Bunch: Thanks Kim. Don, do you have any questions? When this lot split was done, it was three Tots split into two lots, weren't there some conditions placed at that time or is my memory wrong? At one time I think there was some limitation applied by the Planning Commission of only six units for each one of these mirror image lots. Conklin: It was not a lot split. The item that came before you, I was concerned that this lot did not have direct frontage on Fletcher Street and so I brought that to you. They did what is called a property line adjustment and any time that you combine lots together that is administrative. By law I have to sign off on those as long as it meets ordinance requirements with regard to the zoning, there are no conditions that I can place with regard to you have to do something to get a property line adjustment. What you saw was a request since this did not have direct frontage. They had a site plan drawn, six units, six came from the applicant, and I like to put everything in writing when the applicant is telling me something and that is where you got six. They've come back now, he did have six four bedroom units, the parking was based on a total of 24 bedrooms. Now he has come back and said "Instead of doing 24 bedrooms in six units I would like to do ten two bedroom units and two one bedroom units." and that is what we're bringing back to you. Bunch: Am I missing something? I haven't seen anything that is telling me that there has been a lot • line adjustment. When did that occur and what were the circumstances? • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 13 Conklin: That doesn't come before you. That occurred in June, maybe earlier. The applicants come to my office, we have a form, they pay $200, they have three lots, they took the lot that was in the middle and gave half of it to one side and half to the other and we approve it. We check legal descriptions and approve it. Bunch: Ok, maybe I'm getting confused here. I knew that there had been a lot split where the middle lot had been split. Conklin: It is not split though. Ward: It's a lot line adjustment. Conklin: You start with three lots. A lot split is when you have one lot and you end up with two. A lot line adjustment is when you have more than one lot, you have three lots and you end up with two, you're going backwards. You end up with less lots. You are not creating additional lots, you are reducing the number of lots. Bunch: Ok, which one was it that came before the Planning Commission? Conklin: None. You never saw it. What you saw was a request for this. I did a property line adjustment then I was concerned about this lot not having frontage on Fletcher. Bunch: I am confused here. At one time I remember that we had three lots that came before the full Planning Commission and we had some hand drawn, colored in with pencil drawings showing identical developments on this lot and the one next to it and the idea was to make two lots out of three. Conklin: You did not approve that, that was already approved. What I requested that the Planning Commission approve was this lot has Center Street right of way on paper, it does not exist. I wanted to make sure that there were no problems in issuing permits, and our ordinances say that the Planning Commission can grant approval for a lot without frontage. I brought this because it didn't directly touch Fletcher Street. There was undeveloped right of way. You did see a drawing with two developments, mirror images of each other on each lot. That drawing showed six units, that is where the number six came from. Bunch: Ok, there was at that time, I remember a question concerning insufficient frontage but did the lot line adjustment satisfy that condition? What we are looking at today, do we have sufficient frontage on the street? • • • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 14 Conklin: In my opinion, no. That is why I brought it to you because it is an anequated subdivision, a paper subdivision. Center Street was never developed and therefore, to be careful, I wanted to not just assume that Fletcher Street and Center Street right of way were all one in the same and I brought it to you for your consideration of granting that approval Bunch: What is before us now is with the Fletcher Street access? Conklin: What you are looking at now is a large scale development. Bunch: Right. Conklin: Since they changed the number of units and I used the six units that they proposed to build, put it in writing, we are looking at a site plan that was colored, I was concerned that that might change. If that is what they wanted to do I wanted them to put it in writing. Because they are changing that and that item did not come before the Subdivision Committee, I am adding that onto the agenda for the Planning Commission. You need to address that request again, because I put that condition in there and you are going to have to decide whether or not to amend that condition. Bunch: This has been quite confusing I understand at one time that there was insufficient frontage on Fletcher and there were waivers required for that and then the other situation, the either/or was for the applicant to extend Center but then there would have to be a whole body of waivers for grades and that sort of thing. Do I kind of have the jest of it correctly? Conklin: Yes. The applicant, as I told other developers, when they find lots that don't have infrastructure, go ahead and build it and I will sign offon your permits. I always give them that option. Go ahead and build the infrastructure that has not been installed, you build it to our standards, by law, in my opinion, I have to issue a permit In this situation, it is fairly unique. You have Fletcher Avenue with aright of way built. You have Center right of way that is on paper that has not been built. They are parallel. It is not like one is going east west and one is going north south and I was very concerned that someone would say "Well, that lot really doesn't front on Fletcher Street, it fronts on Center Street and why did you issue a permit?" Looking at our ordinance, it said a lot with insufficient frontage with the Planning Commission approval, you can grant that as long as you can show there is access. That is what they asked for. That was the first thing, you granted that with a condition saying that you would rather have the applicant here. The developer not build Center Street, bring forward a large scale development with access directly to Fletcher Street. The applicant probably had some concerns about whether or not this was going to be approved and therefore, he said "Well, i f I can't get this approved at the Planning • • • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 15 Commission level, I' lljust go ahead and build Center Street." In order to build Center Street, they can't meet our street standards because they are must more stringent today with regard to grades and intersections, you just can't drop off the edge of a hill. Therefore, they've asked for a waiver of that. If they can get that waiver and build Center Street, they don't require your approval any more because they have the frontage, it is zoned R-2, lots exist, administratively, we're required to issue that permit. Yes, it is not a very simple request that we're looking at. Bunch: Another question, the last time that we looked at this, I believe it was at the Subdivision Committee and it showed a sewer pump station, I couldn't tell if it was private or public. It was actually over on the Dandy lot. Now we're showing one that appears to take up a lot less space. Are there any requirements for screening or fences or any kind of protection for that sewer station to keep it from being sabotaged? Petrie: I'm not aware ofany. To be honest with you, it becomes a plumbing question and I am not familiar with those kinds of requirements. I don't know ofany screening requirements. Bunch: I guess when I'm looking at it, what has materially changed since the last time that this was here other than relocating the sewer lift station and reconfiguring the detention pond? I've gotten lost on the shuffle of how many units there are. It seems like every time we see it, it's been several times, there is a different layout each time and ADA parking has come and gone. It has gone from under building parking to parking on the pavement and it is confusing. What has changed significantly this time to warrant making a decision? In the past it has always been insufficient information. Conklin: I will attempt to answer that question. This applicant is bringing forth a stand alone development on this piece of property handling the requirements for sewer by extending an 8" sewer line, providing a private lift station and containing all of the development requirements based on our ordinances this 'A acre lot as a stand alone development. The last time, I think there was concem about this lift station being on someone else's property and issues with how that was all going to be planned. They have come back and have designed infrastructure and a project that can stand alone by itself on this lot. Ron, do you have anything to add to that? Petrie: That was the issue that I remember in the last Subdivision Committee meeting, I can't really remember any other. Bunch: I'm still confused. Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 16 Schmitt: Maybe I can give you my rundown of the scenario and let you know why we are where we are. When I originally purchased this property, I researched it and found out that is was an R-2 piece of property. I said that is a nice find on Mt. Sequoyah, it is a beautiful area, I want to do a nice project there. I went in to talk to Tim about it, we did the lot line adjustment with the person to the east, Dandy, and at that time, Tim brought up the issue of `Well, I just want to make certain that with this issue here on Center Street verses Fletcher Street, I have a question of frontage." At that time the City Attorney and Rick Osbome and I met with Tim Conklin and they suggested that and we said "Ok, we' lI build a street." as a developer has a right to do so he can access his property in one of these developments that doesn't have the proper infrastructure. We all agreed that that was not in the best interest of the city or us because nobody wants that parallel road right next to the other road, it is kind of an interesting intersection anyway. He said "Well, I suggest you get a waiver from the Planning Commission." We said "Ok, we agree with that." They were very nice and put us on the next Planning Commission agenda, when we got to Planning Commission, we found out that the requirement for us to get that waiver, which had not been brought up at that meeting, was that we go through large scale development. This project does not meet the requirements for large scale development. The only requirement that you have to require that of us is your granting of the waiver. We have tried to comply with every request you have had. We have been back here, I guess this is our third time, possibly our fourth time, I don't remember. Every time that we come back we get another set of"Well, we would like you to do this, we would like you to do that." That is why you've seen so many changes on the property. I guess if we don't get forwarded to Planning Commission today what we would like is a final list of requirements because this has gone on many, many months and it has cost me much money That is my comment on why we are where we are. Bunch: Schmitt: Davidson: Ward: • Just a quick question in response to that, all these changes that you have expressed, how many of them were due to actions that you had taken or not taken like to insufficient information on drawings, things like a sewer lift station on someone else's property and if I'm not mistaken, at one time it was almost like one project, and then another time it is two separate projects. I think there is some misinformation there. At no time was this ever more than two separate projects. There were three original lots there. Oh, Come On! Ms. Davidson. • • • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 17 Davidson. Yes Sir. Ward: I will ask you to leave the room if I hear one more comment from you. Davidson: He is blatantly disrespecting the Commissioners. Ward: I would like for you to leave the room it you have any other comments. This discussion is closed to the public. Do you understand? Davidson. Yes Sir. Ward: Thank you. Schmitt: There were originally three lots there, I bought one, Dandy bought two. When we saw the requirements and saw the potential for the property I bought half of Dandy's second lot and combined it with mine. There are two legal, separate parcels sitting there, R-2 zoned, / acre each, there is only the issue of frontage that we are dealing with here. Bunch: Ok, so in other words, the last time that it was before us, your engineer, who I assume you hired and are paying? Yes Sir. He showed a lift station on the Dandy property. Schmitt: Bunch: Schmitt: When we dealt with the sewer issue, with the Fayetteville engineers, at the time, that was the suggested course of action. Obviously, we would not try to spend money, or spend your time bringing in something that we thought was going to get turned down. We dealt with the city and we tried to comply with their requirements. When we got here, I wasn't here at that meeting, I think Commissioner Estes asked "Are there any other options?" At that point they said "Well, there might be." That is why it was tabled last time because there was insufficient knowledge about whether there were other options. Glen went back and spent many hours surveying and doubled the price of my sewer line research and found out that there were more options and so we have complied with those and we now have gravity flow sewer through the property. Bunch: In looking at the history of it, I think we have a file on it about this thick, that is just what the Planning Commissioners have received. We did look at quite a few different options • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 18 with the different branch lines up on the mountain. In the last time that it came before Subdivision, it did have a sewer lift station on the Dandy property. Schmitt: That is correct. Mr. Dandy agreed to that. Bunch: You are saying that it is the city's fault that you have been impeded in your progress, but when you come in and you show a sewer lift station on somebody else's lot and you say that that is a totally separate entity, and you are accusing us of holding you up and costing you more money. Schmitt: I didn't accuse you of holding us up. Bunch: That is where I am getting confused here. I realize that because this is such a unique situation and it is way back in time and the rules and regulations and ordinances have changed since the lot was created, that there would be a negotiation process to try to even out the internal conflicts in the various regulations. Schmitt. I think that since the last meeting, where there obviously was some confusion, we have • been able to remove any ofthe questions you have there. I think as we have gone around and talked to the city and they have had their public comments and they have said that we have met all of the requirements that they have asked us and I think that is where we are today. Estes: Tim, I have a few questions. When we first saw this, we granted the waiver on Fletcher Avenue, is that correct? Conklin: Yes. Estes: A condition of that was that the project come back as a large scale development, is that right? Conklin: That is correct. Estes: That is what brings us to where we are today. When you administratively did the lot line adjustment, did you place any conditions on your grant ofthat lot line adjustment and if so, what were those conditions? Conklin: 1 don't have that file with me. I believe I put in there about going to the Planning • Commission for a waiver on the lack of frontage. • • • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 19 Estes: Was there anything included in there on how many units? Conklin: No. Schmitt: I think that is covered by the ordinances. Conklin: Any time you get a site plan, once again, I always worry that you are relying on what you see, even though you are not supposed to be considering that in my opinion, on some of these things. If they are going to say they are putting six units there I put six units. If they are going to show you something on a drawing I'm going to give it to you. Estes: Simply stated, what I'm concerned about is that I don't want to vote to send this to the full Commission if when you administratively did the lot line adjustment you placed some administrative conditions and those conditions are not being met. Conklin: No, I did not do that. Estes: Thank you. Ward: I'll give you my take on this. I live on Mt. Sequoyah and enjoy living up there. I have been up there for a long time. I was not comfortable at all with the four bedroom units up there. I think that two bedroom and one bedroom units are a much better take on it. I live around a lot of duplexes and a lot of tenants up on Mt. Sequoyah. It is a great place to live and we all enjoy it. I think four bedroom units changed to the two bedroom units was a good change I am much more comfortable with that part. We already gave the waiver once on the Fletcher Ave. access. To do anything different would be stupid to me. I guess the one thing that we're really dealing with is allowing the 12 units Tim is that right? Conklin: Well the density is allowed under the zoning. I put a condition in there once again, because I thought that is what they wanted to do. The public is looking at that and I wanted to tie that down. The first thing is the requirement of the large scale development and staff has written a report on that. You will have before you an administrative item back to consider the number of units. Ward: I just know that six four bedroom units is not as desirable in my thinking as a total of22 units with one and two bedrooms. There are less people up there, less traffic by doing it this way and I think you have a lot less problems with these type of units. • • • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 20 Estes: It is not 22 units, it is 22 bedrooms, it is twelve units, they reduced the number of bedrooms Osborne: My name is Richard P. Osborne, I am Mr. Schmitt's attorney. I live on Sequoyah too and I was worried when Mr. Schmitt first submitted this. I encouraged the change from four bedrooms to two bedrooms. I think you draw a far different tenant to a four bedroom apartment than you do to a one or a two bedroom apartment. Estes: With regard to the plat that we have, I think I see six lots, is it your proposal to put a duplex on each of those lots? Schmitt: No Sir, they are two story. I put six units on the top and six units on the bottom. That is all one structure. Those lines are drawn in there for floor elevations that will step down the hillside. Estes: As I look at this parking I don't see any ADA, will that be required? Osborne: If it is we will put it in. Ward: What is the requirement on ADA? Conklin: Usually it is one van accessible for every twenty-five. They are required to sign a notice when they get their permit that they will comply with the federal law and it is something that I look at. Ward: What about bike racks? Conklin: They are required to have one per every twenty-five spaces. This will not require bicycle racks. Estes: Will it require an ADA space and if so, where is it going to go? Conklin: I will have to find out. Schmitt: If it is over twenty-five you have to show one? Conklin: I'm not sure. It is a federal law. Typically that is the case. I can't tell you that it is 100% required. I don't have that federal law in front of me. • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 21 Ward: It is still a complex issue. Schmitt I do have a question. This condition of approval, "Planning Commission determination of improvements to Fletcher Avenue, the applicant is proposing 14' from centerline, I don't know where that came from, but how far is the street from centerline right now? Petrie: It is what you are showing on your plans. The question is are you going to do what you are showing on your plans? Carter: That is about 6' in addition. Schmitt: We had talked at one time that we would be willing to improve a section of that corner if that is what we need to do. Estes: The note that I'm looking at is 14' from centerline. Are you telling us that you do not intend on doing that? Schmitt: I'm telling you I hadn't seen condition two prior to this meeting. • Estes: Condition two, I would presume, is taken directly off your plat, 14' from centerline. Carter: That was a condition from engineering during Technical Plat Review we added to the note and I neglected to talk to you. Estes: May I ask another question? There is a private drive that is shown is that right, do I see your drive coming out and crossing that drive? Carter: No, we were just asked to widen the drive to the private drive. Estes: Ok, how do your tenants get ingress and egress to Fletcher Avenue? Carter: Through this driveway. Estes: Ok, I understand. Ward: Any further questions Mr. Estes? Estes: Ron,1 think this is a question for you. The requirement to widen 14' from centerline, is that • to give, we've got summit Ave. coming to Fletcher Ave. and then we have the tenant's • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 22 Petrie: ingress and egress off of Fletcher. Why do we have the 14' requirement? It seems to me that it is to allow ingress and egress out of the project. The majority of the frontage is the driveway. It has to be widened because of the driveway. It is only a recommendation, is to widen it to meet local street standards adjacent to the site which is a pretty typical recommendation. Schmitt: We'll do it. I just didn't catch that before today. Petrie: It is not really to improve access on either site. Bunch: speaking from memory again, the northwest corner ofthis there was a part of some old Center Street right of way. How does that fit in here? I know that this doesn't receive a positive response, that would be the other option. Just out of curiosity, where does city property come in? I don't think I"m misreading, it is not showing how much of this is private driveway and how much is city property. Conklin: This dotted line right here is Center street right of way going across directly across from • Fletcher Street. • Conklin: Between the two dotted lines right here. Carter: It goes along the edges of those dotted lines. We had so many going across, it is hard enough to read now. There is a separate street plan that shows up clearer Motion: Estes: I would like to move that we forward to the full Planning Commission LSD 01-19.10 to the full Planning Commission. The reasons for my motion are that when we saw this the first time we granted the waiver on Fletcher Street issue, a condition of that is that the applicant bring back to us a large scale development which the applicant has done. The issue of the density is less than that permitted by ordinance. We've seen this a number of times, the applicant has done what we've asked each time. Our business is not to make policy but our business is to apply the rules and regulations and once those are met and mandated to act accordingly. If this LSD is approved it is going to preclude any connectivity with Fletcher but under our present ordinances, Center Street could only be built with any number of waivers which I'm not willing to grant. For those reasons that I make my motion that we forward this large scale development to the Commission for its consideration. Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 23 Ward: Ok, thank you Mr. Estes. Do I have a second? Bunch: Yes, I second. Ward: I concur. Thanks for all your comments. • • • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 24 LSP 01-33.00: Lot Split (Karloski, pp 260) was submitted by Edwin A. Karloski for property located at 3080 NE Shelton Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 1.03 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.51 and 0.52 acres. Ward: This is item number three on the agenda today, it is a lot split submitted by Edwin A. Karloski for property located at 3080 NE Shelton Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 1 03 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of .51 acres and .52 acres. Is Mr. Karloski here? Please feel free to come up and sit at the table here. Since this is out in the county, I guess Keith, there is nothing to do with sidewalks or Eric with parks. Ron, do you have any comments on this particular lot split? Petrie: Ward: No Sir. There again, since it is out in the county, Kim won't be involved. Tim, what can you say about this? Conklin: Just no irrigation systems allowed on the 2" existing water line and that is about it. I recommend approval at this level. Ward: Ok, Mr. Karloski, do you have anything that you would like to ask about this particular lot split? Karloski: No questions. Public Comment: Ward: I will open it up to the public, is there anyone here that would like to make a public comment on this particular item? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commissioners. Estes: Tim, have there been any comments from adjoining land owners? Conklin: No. Motion: Estes: I would move that we approve at the Subdivision Committee level the requested LSP 01- 33. • • • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 25 Ward: Do I have a second? Bunch: Before I make a comment, I would like to ask a couple of questions. One is concerning sewer and septic and what the current statutory requirement is on acreage for septic tanks. Conklin: They provided an Arkansas Department of Health permit for the .52 acre tract already granting septic system approval That is correct, right, Mr. Karloski? Karloski: Yes. Bunch: The only other thing I have to say is that this condition about irrigation systems be noted on the plat so that subsequent buyers, you know, the immediate first buyer may be aware of it but the second buyers may not, so it needs to be recorded on the plat. Would your motion include that Mr. Estes? Estes: Bunch: Estes: Yes, it does include the stated conditions of approval. It is not Just a condition of approval to have it actually written on the plat. Yes, that will be a condition of approval to have it noted on the plat that no irrigation systems will be installed from the existing 2" water line. Bunch: In that case, I will second it. Ward: Ok, before I concur, looking at the plat of the property now, I see that tract "A" shows .52 acres and tract "B" shows .52 acres, I think tract "A" is supposed to be 51 acres so you might have that also changed. Conklin: Ok, I see that. Ward: It may be a typo or something, but anyway, you can get that changed to .51 acres on tract "A" and I will concur, thank you Sir. Karloski: Now, what exactly do I need to do as far as putting this information on the plat about the 2" water line? Conklin: You need to get Mr. Frank Belew, your surveyor, to add that note on to the plat and go through the county's process and when that is all approved, bring a copy of the survey or • • • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 26 deed to our office and we' 11 stamp it approved and then it gets recorded over there so it is noted. Karloski: Nobody signs this yet? Conklin: No, it won't be a problem though. Get through the county's process and we'll sign it. Karloski: Ok, thank you. • • • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 27 LSP 01-35.00: Lot Split (Lot 17 CMN ph. II, pp 212) was submitted by Christopher Rogers of CEI Engineering on behalf ofJames S. Irwin for property owned by Marjorie Brooks and located east of Mall Avenue across from Van Asche Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 23 91 acres. The request is to split into 2.35 acres and 21 56 acres. Ward: The fourth item on the agenda this morning is a lot split for lot 17 of CMN Phase II submitted by Chris Rogers of CEI Engineering on behalf ofJames Irwin for property located east of Mall Avenue across from Van Asche Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 23 91 acres. The request is to split the tracts into 2.35 acres and 21.56 acres. You are representing Mr. Irwin? Rogers: Yes Sir, Chris Rogers. Ward: Thank you. Tim, what can you tell us about this? Conklin: This is a lot split of lot 17. They are allowed to split the property up to three times prior to a subdivision. Lot 17 is configured in the event that the developer wants to further divide lot 17 and extend Van Asche Drive, as you can tell, it has been configured in a manner that would allow that extension to occur. Conditions to address include an 8" sanitary sewer line that is required to be extended to lot 17A prior to the lot split being filed All required utility easements required for sewer line will be shown on the plat prior to recordation. Basically, once again, they are creating a lot, there will be a large scale development coming to us in the future for lot 17A and we're trying to create this piece of property in the CMN subdivision for it to be sold and transferred. Ward: Keith, any comments about sidewalks? Shreve: The sidewalks are in place. Ward: Ron? Petrie: On the sewer, the lot split is going to be filed, we can just go ahead and show the utilities like the sewer lines. With the lot split they will be displayed, they will be existing at that time, if you can just show them on the plat, that is all. Ward: Hesse: Ok, Kim, what about landscaping or trees? There is no requirement at this time. • • • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 28 Ward: Eric on parks? Schuldt: I have nothing. Public Comment: Ward: Estes: I will ask for public comment at this time. Is there anyone here that would like to speak on this issue? Hearing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commissioners for this lot split at CMN Park. From looking at the plat it appears that the north line of the requested lot split would allow an extension of Van Asche but we don't have any numbers over there on Van Asche, would it allow for the eastward extension of Van Asche? Rogers: Numbers as far as? I'm confused. Estes: I see this is S87°37'14" east and there is nothing over here on Van Asche. In other words, is this north line? Rogers: Oh, to be sure they line up? Estes: Yes. Rogers: Yes, they do line up. Estes: Ok, so then if Van Asche needs to be extended to the east it will be permissible to do so, that north lot line doesn't impede that? Rogers: No Sir it does not. Estes: That is all I have. Ward: Ok, Mr. Bunch, any questions? Motion: Bunch: No questions. I move that we approve LSP 01-35 at this level. Rogers: I did have one comment if you don't mind. • • • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 29 Ward: Ok. Rogers: We just need to make sure the ownership is correct. The owner is still Brooks and Nanchar on the final document. There are two ownerships on the same lot. Ward: Do you know which one he is talking about Tim? Conklin: Yes. Rogers: It is on here. Conklin: With regard to ownership of this project, yes, we will take care of it. I will look in the file after this and get with Chris to make sure everything is set and done correctly. Ward: Do I have a second? Estes: Chris, is the ownership correct on the plat? Rogers: Yes it is. Estes: I'll second Commissioner Bunch's motion. Ward: Ok, I'll concur. Thank you. Rogers: Thank you. • • • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 30 LSD 01-35.00: Large Scale Development (Auto Master, pp 601) was submitted by Chris Brackett ofJorgensen & Associates on behalf of Daryl Hickman for property located at the southwest comer of South School and 15`h Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.07 acres with a 1,750 sq.ft. building proposed Ward: The next item on the agenda this morning is a large scale development for Auto Master submitted by Chris Brackett ofJorgensen & Associates on behalf of Daryl Hickman for property located at the southwest corner of South School and 15th Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Conunercial and contains approximately 1 07 acres with a 1,750 sq.ft. building proposed. Tim, will you start off with this one? Conklin: The Planning Commission did approve a waiver for landscaping along 15th Street and School Avenue. That allowed a reduction in the required 15' landscaping on those property lines. It granted a 5' landscaped area along 15th Street and an 8' landscaped area along School Avenue subject to an additional one tree for every 30' of frontage to be planted along the right of way for both street frontages in addition to trees required to be planted along the property. Staff is recommending approval at this level. Planning Commission determination of compliance with commercial design standards. You should have the latest elevations Did you hand these out? Hull: They are the same. There was a blue tint because of the copiers. Conklin: Ok, you have elevation drawings and a material sample board of the EFIS they plan on using. The rest are standard conditions of approval. That is all we have at this time. Ward: Ok, thanks Tim. Keith, on sidewalks? Shreve: We are requiring a 6' sidewalk along 15th and School. What is shown meets the requirements. Ward: Ok, thanks. Ron, engineering? Petrie: I don't have any comments. Ward: Kim, on landscaping, of course, we did some waivers on this property originally. Hesse: Right, most of those were for proposed landscaping. I'm sure if you go by the property you are wondering about the trees. There are two elm trees by the street, both of which 1 have approved and even recommended removal of. One of the trees are in pretty bad • • • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 31 shape, the other tree I believe will follow suit. It is not a disease level, it is more of root damage from what has happened on that site previously. There is a green ash here that is in pretty bad shape that we're removing. We are going to save the really large honey locust. Ward: Is it in good health? Hesse: Yes, it is in very good health. The question I had in my original notes were addressing this pine tree. Chris addressed that They are using this area to hold detention. We are going from a 6" curb here to a 12" curb here to hold that water. We had originally requested an island here to save this tree but based on the engineer, they felt that they couldn't compromise that space so that is where I'm at with that. Brackett: What it is, this lot drains onto the lot to the south and there is no place for it. There are drainage concerns south of this. We are going to have to detain on this property and we are using the parking lot in this comer to detain the water. It looks like by the parking that you could just take out this comer and save that tree but that is volume that we desperately need for the water so we can detain and not dump more water to the south so when that issue was brought up I talked to Kim and explained that. As you can see, this dark line that is running around here, that is where the water will be during a hundred year storm. If we take out more water we're going to be cresting the curb or it getting into the building so that is the reason for not saving that tree. Conklin: I have a question. What is the ground elevation right there underneath the tree verses your paved area for the cars? Brackett: Off the top of my head I'm not exactly sure, but we're real close to existing ground. We are not cutting way down or building up this corner. Conklin: I was just wondering if you couldn't just have some type ofconcrete barrier that will allow the water to still flow underneath the tree and not take that volume away. Hesse: What we could request is that during the detailed design project, which you know happens after you're approved, that you do keep that in mind. Ifthere is any possibility of even a small change in that curb line, it may not take much to save that type of tree. Brackett: We will make every effort to work with Kim to try to save that tree. Ifthere is an option, the problem is that we have to have the curb to hold the water back. The curb would be • • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 32 going right through the middle of the tree. I could see where we could put like three pavers in but we still have to have the curb and that would be the only problem. Hesse: It would actually have to be a change in the curb line to save that tree so if there is a chance I would appreciate it. Conklin: I see that now. It seemed like we could keep that volume there just not pave over it, but you have to have something to hold the water back on that property. Ward: Any other comments? Hesse: All proposed landscaping is fine. Public Comment: Ward: Ok, at this time I will ask is there any public comment? Hickman: Which tree is in reference that you just got through talking about? Hesse: That 24" pine. Conklin: The big pine tree down on the southwest corner. Hesse: One thing to keep in mind, a pine tree is a fast growing tree. That is why, if it has to be removed for this design, I will approve that. Dust wish that we could keep looking a little bit as we go further. Hickman: We've discussed this issue before and I wouldn't be here today if there was any question about that pine tree. We would have a fruit stand there instead of a nice, beautiful business. Conklin: I understand, let's dust kind of look at it if you can. Ward: Is there any other comments Daryl? Hickman: No. Ward: Anyone else from the public? Ok, seeing none, I will close it to the public. You can come • up here as an applicant if you would like. I think some of the things that we need to look • • • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 33 Estes: at is commercial design standards and I have no problems with the east elevation It looks fantastic. The west elevation will be the back of the building which will be pretty much hid. On the north and south elevations for the most part, that looks very good. If there is some way that we could do with either color or something to get a little more of that articulation towards the back of the building. We're talking about this back part here. You started here with windows or something, they are going to be real easy from all directions from the people looking this way and this way and coming through. Just add some color or something to this EFIS, I don't have any particular recommendations. Sometimes we say different building materials or something but just enhance that a little bit, that is all I can think of unless some of the other Commissioners have comments on that. Mr. Chairman, my thoughts were exactly the same on the north and south elevations. We've got some unarticulated wall surface which is mandated by the ordinance to not approve. I will not sign your project. In regard to Commissioner Ward's comments, maybe bring the banding around, maybe take a different color of material and put a post or something on the outside, something to break that unarticulated wall surface. Our commercial design standards have five things that we can not approve and one of them is a blank unarticulated wall surface. As Commissioner Ward has pointed out that north elevation and the south elevation have unarticulated wall surfaces. It is not an ordinance that I made, it is an ordinance that City Council passed and we can't approve that. Bunch: Do we have a detail on the sign? Is that a monument sign or a pole sign? While Craig is getting that, Chris, am I looking at this correctly when it is going to be an on the parking lot detention pond? Brackett: Yes. Bunch: So after a big rain, when anybody drives by and looks they will say "Look what the city approved, we've got a flooded parking lot out here." Brackett: Yeah, well either that or you could see the flooding behind the little restaurant behind it. Bunch: It will be at such a level that it won't cause damage? Brackett: At the very, very corner it will be a foot but this parking lot slopes up from both ends so within no time it will be just inches in the parking lot. Estes: Chris, how is the water going to be taken out of that corner of the parking lot? • • • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 34 Brackett. Built into the curb there will be a weir and that will regulate the flow and it will sheet flow from there off the property which is what it is currently doing now. The water funnels down into this corner and then goes on to the parking lot to the south. We are not changing the discharge point. Estes: We're not going to have any period of time where there is going to be 8"-10" of water sitting on that parking lot? Brackett: Right, just in that very corner. Like I said, this curb slopes up and this curb slopes up so when it is a foot here it is not a foot here. Estes: It would dram off? Brackett: Yes, it would drain off. It doesn't hold the water indefinitely, it just slows it down. Bunch: That is no problem with the inventory display area? Brackett: Like I said, it gets out of it real quick. Hull: That was my first question to the engineers, a hundred year flood is what we're talking about here. This is not ordinary. Brackett: This is not just the regular everyday storm. It is a fairly sizeable storm. Ward: Ok, we allow this. We've looked at this before in church parking lots that detain water and hold it. Brackett: It is in the draining ordinance. Ward: Don, you were going to have something to say about the sign, to discuss it a little bit? Bunch: We didn't have any sort of detail on it, Dust wondered what it was and also the possibility on breaking up these unarticulated walls would be to put small wall mounted signs. Ward: That's an option. Bunch: They are showing this is a pole sign but they're not showing how high off the ground it is. It is showing the dimensions of the sign but it is not showing how tall the pole is. • • • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 35 Conklin: Maximum is 61. You need to add that dimension in there. Bunch: We're looking at a monument sign rather than a pole sign? Hull: We need to get up higher to get visual undemeath. I don't know what the ordinance calls out for. Bunch: Where you're located and with those trees. Hull: Those are shrubs. Higher is better for us We'll look at the ordinance. Bunch: With a monument sign, you could alter the orientation a little bit and get better coverage, like 90° where it is visible from all sides. Conklin: The city does allow signs like that too. Two sides facing. That is a possibility. Bunch: That way it would be visible from both sides from the east and the north, for people coming in off Hwy 16 east. Hull: This same logo on the sides of the building is what you're thinking might be a good break up? Ward: That might be something to break it up and to help advertise. If it is going to be visible, which I think it will be, that is the reason I suggested some color bands or something. Bunch: As long as it is not large and out of scale. Hull: Right, you have to keep within that square footage coverage, I understand. Estes: Tim, are there not some restrictions on the wall signs? Two wall signs are permitted by ordinance, is my memory correct? Conklin: There are some restrictions. This does raise another issue. The more important issue I think is on this north side. It does face 1 5th Street if you consider that a front and that would be allowed on that side We would have to check with Inspections on the south side and see if they would let you have a sign on that wall. Hull: I don't know that we would want that. We would really be looking at the parking lot of a Thai restaurant. • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 36 Hickman: The north sign would be better. Bunch: The north line is permissible and we would accomplish two things, it would give you better advertising and break up the building. Motion: Estes: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we forward to the full Commission LSD 01-35, the reason that I'm not making a motion that we approve at the Subdivision Committee level today is because of the two issues of the commercial design standards and the signage issue as articulated by Commissioner Bunch. Ward: When would be the next meeting? Conklin: For the Planning Commission? You are forwarding to the Planning Commission right? Estes: Yes. • Conklin: That is going to be the 13th. Estes: That is quicker than bringing it back to the Subdivision Committee right? Conklin: Yes. • Estes: That is another reason I make that motion is because they can get approval quicker by sending it to the full commission than they could by tabling it now and bringing it back to the Subdivision Committee. Ward: Let me ask the applicant, is that going to mess up your plans in the next ten days and slow you down? The two things we're talking about I guess is the final approval ofthe signs and actually.. . Hickman: I may help you on the sign. We have that identical sign about one mile south that we got a sign permit for within the last eighteen months. As a matter of fact, that sign is coming from that existing facility to this site. Bunch: My concern on the sign was that the drawing showed the sign but it didn't show what we were approving if we approved it at this level. That is what I wanted, just to see what we Subdivision Committee • November 1, 2001 Page 37 • • did have and what has been presented and knowing that it will be, that satisfies my conditions. Tim, Chris, Craig, Daryl, having a triangle sign or whatever it is. Brackett: I believe since he is moving a sign up here I don't think they want to change it since they already have the sign. Hickman: Brackett: Hickman: Which sign are you in reference to? The pole sign. Ok, we don't have a free standing sign at the other location. We have two wall mounts that address a basic situation that we have here which is a hard corner. We have one facing the south and one facing west at that location. At this particular location one would be facing the east and one would be facing the north. I think that you all may be misinformed ifwe ran these lines, from right here to the edge of the building, this is porch. From the edge of this building to right here is 301. You've got windows coming back almost halfway. There is a decorative, which doesn't show in this picture, a decorative expansion]oint in the middle of that building. I really think you would be disappointed in what you saw ifwe, this particular signage would be put on this north elevation, which is 15th Street. Ward: That is right, would you want to put that sign on there? Hickman: Yes. Ward: I think that would break it up, that is the main issue I'm looking at I think it would help you too. Hickman: That would be fine. Motion Withdrawn: Estes: With that statement made, let me withdraw my motion. Ward: Ok, I would like to have a motion to approve at this level with all these comments. Bunch: We are looking at breaking up the north elevation with a wall mounted sign, comparable to the one that is shown on the east elevation, is that correct? • • • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 38 Ward: Yes. Bunch: What about the pole sign or a monument sign? How far off the ground is this lower edge? Hull: 6' to the lower edge. Bunch: We are talking about a total of 11' tall to the top of the sign? Conklin: Six feet tall. Bunch: I thought you told me it is 6' off the ground to the lower edge, so six and five is eleven. Conklin: Oh, I thought this was a monument, sorry. Hull: It is a pole sign, that is six feet. Conklin: Ok, let me make a statement here. I don't know if our Inspections Division has reviewed this for compliance with the sign ordinance with regard to setback. As long as it complies, that is fine. I thought it was a monument sign and that is why I kept saying 6'. When you said six I thought you were saying it was a monument sign. Hull: If you come down into the traffic at the corner, the visibility of the intersection if you put a monument right at eye level, six foot is going to put it up enough that they can see through. Conklin: I'm not arguing that, I just want to make sure. I can't approve that sign without Inspections. Brackett: It would have to be approved by the Inspections Division anyway. We'll meet their requirements. Motion: Bunch: I will move that we approve LSD 01-35 at the Subdivision Committee level with the comments concerning the wall mounted sign on the north elevation and that the pole sign meets Inspection Division requirements. Ward: Ok, do I have a second? • • • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 39 Estes: Does your motion include compliance with commercial design standards Commissioner Bunch? Bunch: Yes. Estes: I'll second. Ward: I'll concur. Thank you. It looks like a good project for that part of town. Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 40 LSD 01-36.00: Large Scale Development (Vista Health, pp 138) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen ofJorgensen & Associates on behalf of Vista Health for property located at 4253 Crossover Road. The property is zoned C-1,Neighborhood Commercial and R -O, Residential Office containing approximately 9.44 acres. The request is to add a 30 bed medical facility. Ward: The final item on the agenda today is the large scale development for Vista Health submitted by Dave Jorgensen ofJorgensen & Associates on behalf of Vista Health for property located at 4253 Crossover Road. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 9.44 acres. The request is to add a 30 bed medical facility. Conklin: The request is to expand the medical facility. It is for an 18,241 sq. ft. building with 48 parking spaces. It will contain 30 medical beds. Conditions to address include Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver to allow a 33' parking aisle located on the west side of the project. The requirement is for a 24' aisle. The applicant is requesting the waiver in order to facilitate the turning radius needed for delivery trucks; Number two, Planning Commission determination of compliance with commercial design standards including signage; and three, Planning Commission approval of the requested additional use for a medical facility in an R -O district. That will be going forward to the Planning Commission along with this one. We are asking that this be brought forward to the full Planning Commission, the rest are standard conditions of approval Ward: Ok, thanks Tim. Keith? Shreve: The existing sidewalk along Crossover Rd. meets requirements and they are installing two new bicycle racks which meet requirements. Ward: Ok, thank you. Ron? Petrie: All of my comments have been addressed. Ward: Kim, on landscaping? Hesse: They've addressed all my comments. Public Comment: Ward: At this point 1 will open it up for public comment. Is there any comment from the public on this particular issue of the Vista Health building? Seeing none, I will close it to the • Subdivision Committee November 1, 2001 Page 41 public and bring it back to the Commission. Chris, do you have any presentation that you would like to make? Brackett: No, this is just a continuation ofa use that is already existing on the property. The public probably wouldn't even recognize the difference in the zoning. It is just a line on a map. We are just continuing the same use and I believe it fits. Ward: Ok, thanks. I'll bring it to the Commissioners, do you all have any comments about the commercial design standards? Lets look at the elevations. The south elevation would be facing the apartment complex, is that right? Brackett: No, that is the west elevation. The south faces the parking lot. Conklin: They are matching the architectural design of the existing facility. Staffhas no problem with what they are proposing. Ward: Ok. • Key: My name is James Key, I am the architect. I wanted to share these with you. I am sure you've all seen the site at your agenda session. These are photos of the existing facilities. Motion: • Estes: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we forward LSD 01-36 to the full Planning Commission with further conditions to be addressed and discussed as contained in the staff report and for consideration of the requested conditional use. Bunch: I'll second. Ward: I will go ahead and concur. Thank you. Meeting adjourned.