Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-03 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, January 3, 2002 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 02-1.00: Lot Split (Westphal/Cobb, pp 557) Tabled Page 2 LSD 02-2.00: Large Scale Development (Superior Federal Bank, pp 557) Tabled Page 5 LSD 02-1.00: Large Scale Development (Olive Garden, pp 212) Forwarded Page 18 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Don Bunch Lee Ward Sharon Hoover STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Keith Shreve Kim Hesse Eric Schuldt Tim Conklin Trevor Bowman Paul Libertini Subdivision Committee January 3, 2002 Page 2 Ward: Good morning, welcome to the Subdivision Committee meeting of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission. Today is Thursday, January 3, 2002 and it looks like we have three items on our agenda this morning. Item number one bas been pulled is that right? Conklin- Yes, we did not get revisions. I didn't work with the applicant, there is some concern with regard to our authority to regulate subdivisions in the city. Ware: Ok, our second item on the agenda this morning is a lot split submitted by Bill McClard of Lindsey & Associates on behalf of Benny Westphal and Matthew Cobb for property located at the southwest corner of Finger Road and Highway 62. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 82.49 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 80.95 acres and 1.38 acres. Tim, are you handling this one? Conklin: Yes I am. The property located east of Finger Road should be shown as a lot and a legal description provided. What I'm talking about is Finger Road separates this property in this area. It leaves this piece right here. We are asking for the right of way to be shown as dedicated if it is not dedicated already and in the future, most likely they will probably be selling that property separately, I can't imagine that people are going to buy this property along with this property. I would just like to get a legal description and I won't charge a fee for that, just because our right of way is going through there but I think a legal description should be done with the lot. McClard: You want a right of way through here? Conklin: I would like a Finger Road right of way, 50 feet is being dedicated so that separates the property. You have got a piece of property separated from this one. I try to avoid having one parcel number for property that crosses streets. Carter: If we give him a legal description, he will make this a separate lot and he won't charge you for a lot split. McClard: Will that cause us to have a third lot split as opposed to one lot split? Conklin- I won't count that because the right of way is going through there and we're asking for that. Ward: How big is that piece, about an acre or 3/4? Conklin: I'm not sure how big that piece would be. Subdivision Committee January 3, 2002 Page 3 Carter: It is about 1 to Conklin: The second issue is access to both lots will need to be determined with regard to future development on the remainder which is 80.95 acres. The biggest issue that we must deal with today is the next item on your agenda which is our large scale development. This piece of property is being split out from this 80 acre piece and there will be issues in the future of curb cuts and access to the property. When Wal- Mart was built Finger Road had a stub out constructed and built back to the west. If I could just use your aerial that would be the best way to explain what I'm talking about. The property that this lot for Superior Federal, the location of that is right in this area. There is a current curb cut stub out directly north that you will see on the large scale development. I would like to not have a vote on this until you review the large scale development so we can look how both of these issues go together because staff is recommending that one curb cut be eliminated and access be planned for this future 80 acres. That is where we are at with the lot split. The rest of the conditions are standard. There may be other staff comments on this lot split. Ward: Ok, so are you telling us that you want us to go to the large scale? Conklin: Yes, because there are issues with regard to how many curb cuts that we are going to allow along Finger Road and how future access can be planned for the remaining tract. Typically we don't do planning this way with regard to individual lot splits but this is such a large tract and there are existing curb cuts on Finger Road. We may have to put some conditions in there that they remove those curb cuts. We will have to discuss it. The location of the curb cuts, you would have three curb cuts lined up in a row next to each other based on the current large scale development. Ward: Ok. Bunch: There would be four wouldn't it? Conklin: Yes. McClard: Tim, what is the City's future plan for Finger Road? Conklin- It is shown as a local street. We try to plan curb cuts though and minimize the number and when we get to the large scale development I can share with you my biggest concern is having those two curb cuts that close together. It eliminates almost all the landscaping. It is almost a continuous curb cut all the way through the front and it eliminates a lot of landscaping which is one of the things we try to insure that happens on new developments. Ward: Do either of the Commissioners have a problem with going on to item number three, the large scale development for Superior Bank? Subdivision Committee January 3, 2002 Page 4 Bunch: I have a question while we're still here. Ward: Ok. Bunch: Bill, south of this end holding lot where the new right of way is, it doesn't show any easements. Are there supposed to be easements there? If there are easements shown I'm not picking them up as I read the drawing. McClard: Those haven't been addressed. Bunch: Tim, do we need to address that? Where the new 50' of right of way is adjacent to the lot across the street, we are not showing any easements along Finger Road to the south. Conklin: The utility companies did review this and we did ask for the right of way at Technical Plat Review so they were aware that there would be right of way there. Bunch: The easements are shown north of this end holding. McClard: Well they have to be there anyway, we can add those can't we Mr. Carter? Carter: Yes. Bunch: It is just a matter of housekeeping. Conklin: Ok, I understand what you're saying, I'm sorry. McClard: They need to be there anyway so that is not a problem. Ward: Ok, I'll move that we table the lot split for the time being and go to the large scale on this particular piece of property. Do we need any kind of motion for that Tim or can we just table it for the time being? Conklin: I think you can just table it for the time being and go forward to the next item. Subdivision Committee January 3, 2002 Page 5 LSD 02-2.00: Large Scale Development (Superior Federal Bank, pp 557) was submitted by Bill McClard of Lindsey & Associates on behalf of Bennie Westphal and Matthew Cobb for property located at the southwest corner of Finger Road and Hwy 62. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.38 acres with a 2,891 sq.ft. building proposed. Ward: The next item on that is LSD 02-2, a large scale development for Superior Federal Bank submitted also by Bill McClard of Lindsey & Associates on behalf of Bennie Westphal and Matthew Cobb for property located at the southwest corner of Finger Road and Hwy. 62. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.38 acres with a 2,891 sq.ft. building proposed. Tim, you can take it from there. Conklin: Sure. We are asking that this be tabled until we discuss curb cut issues. Once again, the major issue for staff is that there are two curb cuts existing and two curb cuts that are planned and provided on Finger Road and you can see that with the line located next to this one curb cut. This is a proposed bank for Superior Federal, elevations have been provided. The elevations are photographs of an existing bank, can you tell the Commission where that is at? Peden: That is in Van Buren. Conklin: They did work with staff to not have direct access to Sixth Street which is a principal arterial so we do appreciate that. The biggest concern, once again, is the access into the bank. Paul Libertini with the City of Fayetteville Engineering Division did review this and did recommend that one curb cut be provided and that future access be looked at from this existing curb cut on this piece of property and have access to tie back into this area. That is typical for you Glen, your client, staff and the Subdivision Committee but we do need to look at how future access will be provided for this remaining 80 acres. I think it is important at this time to look at that. The next item on our agenda is the Olive Garden, we looked at that too with regard to future extension of a private drive or a public street on Van Asche. It is something that we have looked at in the past. With regard to tree protection and preservation, Kim Hesse is here. I will let her discuss her findings and information that she has received from the applicant and Ron Petrie is here to address any engineering concerns. That is all I have, thank you. Ward: Ok. Have we got a better way? Are you saying that to the south here the access comes out at Wal-Mart and that is what you are trying to line up with? Conklin: There is an existing curb cut here. This is existing. That comes up to here, this curb cut. I'm not sure exactly what we're doing in the future with regard to this access Subdivision Committee January 3, 2002 Page 6 and this access. Another concern, as I mentioned earlier, was with two curb cuts and this radius is that you end up with a small island in between. Two three lane curb cuts, one way in, left out and a right out. Ward: Is there a way to make it one way in and one way out? Conklin: I suggested that at Plat Review. The applicant is here and Glenn Carter is here, he is the engineer. They can tell you why they think that they can't do that. Hoover: Can I hear from Paul Libertini? I'm just so excited to have our Traffic Engineer here. Libertini: Ron, Trevor and I all looked at this briefly. One of the suggestions that we had is that the two curb cuts that they have now be for ingress only whether they combine those and make one or whether they have two, but that they would only have ingress from those curb cuts and the egress would be from the extension of that side street or a driveway. I don't know if that is going to be a public road or just a private drive. Conklin: We always recommend connectivity between our developments also. Once again, we're dealing with a large piece of property here and we want to start out from the beginning making sure we understand how these developments are going to connect together and have access to each other. Libertini: We are just real concerned because it is so close to the main intersection. There is a signal there, they are going to have stacking there, we've got all the Wal-Mart traffic. At least the Wal-Mart traffic is on the side so they won't have to cut across Finger Road. Anything egressing from the bank is going to have to cut across Finger Road and fight traffic and it just looks like it is going to be a traffic nightmare with all those different driveways. You've got some internal problems in there too, we think, where the traffic could be fighting against each other to get into the lanes. There are a lot of different options you could do with the bank and ingress and egress. Anyway, that was our main comment. We thought that it should be only ingress where the curb cuts are and maybe combine them but that is optional and then egress to the extension of that road to the southwest. Conklin- This is one reason I didn't want you to forward the lot split on because we're dealing with one piece of property right now. The lines, I don't know if they could be moved or not but this is what we are deciding on. On the lot split where the lines should be and for future planning purposes we need to understand if this road is going to go further back to the west to provide access for that entire development, a private drive or are we going to have the two curb cuts right next to each other in that configuration. Staff is not in support of that of course. Subdivision Committee January 3, 2002 Page 7 Carter: Let me make a few comments here. To come up with this layout right here, we have a lot of things to consider as you know and some things that the city is not real concerned with like cost. The property is being sold by square foot. That is one of our concerns. Traffic handling is definitely one of our concerns also because we have gone beyond the requirements of the city to make things comfortable in our entrance widths, parking widths, driveway widths are wider than normally required because we want to make things as comfortable as we can and as efficient as we can for the flow of traffic. We have designed this layout, it has a past of about 15 different layouts. We started with access on Hwy 62 and we began working with staff early on and staff indicated that that wouldn't be a very viable option so we immediately went to Finger Road and we began making rotations and redesigns and many different layouts until we came up with this one. We tried to keep the distance between these entrances as far apart as we could to allow that access and we also, as a concern that the city has is we tried to keep the distance from this intersection to this intersection the greatest distance that we could. We are right at 200' from the first intersection to the intersection of Hwy 62 at this point. We feel like that is safe and that leaves lots of rooms for stacking. Finger Road is not, traffic doesn't seem to stack up in that lane right now. We don't have traffic counts to show that. This is not just a plan that we came up with but it is a prototype that has been used in many applications for Superior Federal and it has a proven track record. As far as internal traffic movements and problems, this is not an experiment. This has a track record of working and it has been proven many times that it works and there have not been problems with any of the banks that have this. We don't feel like we have an internal traffic problem and we realize that if we went further south that there is a heavy grove of trees there that we thought would be pretty detrimental to the trees and we wanted to try to keep from taking out trees so we tried to make our design stay out here in the area that already didn't have trees. We just got into the edge of the trees there. We feel like our entrances are efficient and won't cause a problem. At the same time, just like we've been from the very beginning, we want to work with staff all that we can to resolve any issues that you think are worthy of concern. That is where we're at right now. Ward: Ok, thanks Glenn. Keith in sidewalks do you have any comments? Shreve: They are showing a 6' sidewalk along Finger Road and a 6' sidewalk along Sixth street which meets the requirements. Ward: Ron? Petrie: We don't have any additional comments. Subdivision Committee January 3, 2002 Page 8 Ward: Kim? Hesse: At this point it is difficult for me to give a final decision without knowing where the final layout is. I have spoke with Glenn Carter on this one. In order to save the trees what we would be doing is taking the property in front of the building or we would really be rearranging the layout of the site which as I understand, has worked in other locations and that is what the bank wants. I think as the final layout is determined there may be some site changes. I think he is working with Engineering on the detention layout and we could save a few more of those trees. Although, they are going to have to remove some of them. Just for you to know, if you do do a site visit, it is a thick cedar grove. At this point, because of what has happened in the past, the ground is saturated and so I'm a little concerned on the long term health of those trees because of the ground saturation. What has happened is when Wal-Mart went in they filled that site of the bank which has retained the water further to the south and held it on that cedar grove. It is difficult for me to say to put a lot of importance on those cedar trees when we're looking at other issues that are also very important. I can't give a decision without knowing what the final layout will be. There is one tree there and that is a 20" pin oak. Ward: Carter: Hesse: Ok, where is that located? In the southwest corner. One of the things that Kim was talking about that she and I have discussed was trying to move the entire site forward. The reason, one of the things that has us backed up here is the requirement to hold 25' away from the right of way before we do any grading in the detention pond. If that is something that could be varied a little bit it may be that we could reshape, cut off this triangular point of this detention pond and get our additional volume required in that right of way if we could get a variance for that. Then everything would move up and save that oak tree. At the same time it moves this intersection closer to this intersection which starts to get into a traffic safety problem. We didn't do that for that reason but it is a possibility. I did a layout for that plan after we talked and just for the Commission to see, what we do is we pull it further to the south. Again, like he stated, that gets you closer to the intersection and it also gets you 15' to the right of way which I don't know is acceptable and then there is also a large waterline. I don't know if you would be coming close to that waterline and you can't do that. There are so many issues that are driving, it is difficult for me to make a statement at this point without knowing what we are going to end up with. Carter: We are still some distance away from our waterline easement, we can't go any to the east but we could possibly move that to the north. As are plan sets, it doesn't press Subdivision Committee January 3, 2002 Page 9 Ward: the traffic issue anymore and that is one thing that we felt was sensitive, more sensitive than a tree issue. I don't know, you may feel differently about that, or others might feel differently about that. I feel like being on a corner and, if you're going to give away not having access on Hwy. 62, it makes sense to have two curb cuts. It would be nice if we could use the curb cuts along the road or what is going to be coming in there sooner or later but that might be twenty years from now. Carter: That is true and one of our notes is requesting a variance for cross access. I don't think cross access would be a problem if we agreed to do it in the future whenever something develops and then this could be used as cross access sometime in the future if that develops and when it develops. Ward: I definitely think cross access is very important on this particular issue. What about on Sixth Street what about a strictly right in? A lot of times when we have got a lot of traffic on a major highway we have allowed strictly coming in only, like a right in. Is that a possibility? Conklin: I would rather.. . Ward: I'm just trying to throw this out, I haven't thought through any of this. Conklin- Staff has been looking at this for a few weeks now. When I look at how many people are going to be turning right on Finger Road, there is not that much development up there on Finger Road for that curb cut. From an aesthetic view also, is it necessary to have two 39' curb cuts? Hoover: What is our ordinance? Conklin: Twenty-seven. Hoover: Where did 39' come from? Conklin: Because you have a left and right out, two 12' lanes going out. Hoover: We can do 39' in our ordinance? Conklin: Yes. Ward: What is your take on a 24' coming in up here and a 39' going out? Conklin- My recommendation at Plat Review, and you should listen to Paul in Engineering, Subdivision Committee January 3, 2002 Page 10 was to do an entrance on this end and an exit with a right and left out on that end. I try not to have a continuous curb cut, 78' of curb cut. Carter: Would it be feasible to agree to the future cross access and then just put curb back in and do away with this curb cut right here? Conklin: Yes, I think that if you are going to have a curb cut right here this has to be removed and curbed back and then when this develops you are not going to have a curb cut right there. Carter: Right, we would have cross access. Conklin: Yes, then further up or however you get back in there. Carter: Well further up, a couple of hundred feet up the road, there is another one. Conklin: Your client chose not to use this one, I'm not convinced that they are going to use that one up there either. Carter: That is the problem with putting in curb cuts before you know what is going to go in there. You can't know where it is going to go, it never seems to work. Peden: I have just been sitting here and listening to the conversation. Certainly, we all have concerns with traffic and we do generate traffic. This profile and prototype, as Glen said earlier has worked. It is convenient for the customers to get in and get out. It is the same philosophy of see stores with pumps on the front, it works. At the same time, customers, like all of us, want options. They want to be able to get in and not have to circle the farm to get out. We have touched on some compromises that I have considered and we have not talked to the sellers but if we do have these two then this one surely would need to go away. I understand that. If we reduce these two down to two lanes, your 27' instead of 39' but leave them in and out. If we are talking about a cross easement down here, surely we wouldn't want a one way cross easement. Conklin: Probably not if that is what we're doing with cross access on that north end. Peden: I don't think that is what we would want to do. Conklin: That is what we are talking about today, planning for the future development of this area. Peden: I understand and it is a good point. Subdivision Committee January 3, 2002 Page 11 Conklin: Once again, Paul you can jump in here on this conversation. From an aesthetic reason it would look better. Hoover: I guess I'm going to go for the safety issue. Paul, you are saying that it is dangerous to be going out. Libertini: You have to think of the future if there is going to be growth in this area, I'm sorry and I haven't been involved in all the discussion so I don't have all the information but if there is possibly three curb cuts that seems to me way to close to the intersection for three curb cuts. With increased traffic you are going to have more and more stacking. The 200' that you mentioned Glen, was that from the centerline of Hwy 62? Carter: Yes, from centerline to centerline. Libertini: Ok, I would like to know how far back you are from the curb. Carter: 150'. Is there an ordinance stating the number of what that needs to be? Conklin: When we look at large scale developments we look at traffic and safety. Libertini: That might work, I have worked in places where they have the driveway 75' from the intersection. That doesn't always work when you have areas with a lot of traffic and cross cutting. In bigger cities a lot of these side streets will be developed and end up with a concrete median out there. That totally kills your access or at least the crossing. Conklin: Paul, what we're talking about is eliminating this one and making these two ways so that our cross access is here. Libertini: I'm understanding that there is an existing one here and getting rid of this and keeping these two. What about the future roadway that we're talking about? That is what really concerns me. Conklin- I just drew this in. This is what I would like to see is you stub this back out and then when this develops you can continue this back in here so you are going to have cross access back and forth but I understand you are not buying that piece of property, you don't want to buy that piece of property to do that but that is what I would like to see, stub it out just to here and then when they develop.. . Libertini: I don't know how it works with the overall contract and all that type of stuff and a lot Subdivision Committee January 3, 2002 Page 12 split. From an engineering standpoint, I wouldn't see it unfeasible to extend the road back there so they could use that right now and not fool around with these. Conklin: Right, I was saying eliminate one of these and make this one driveway. Libertini: I will make one comment about the layout, I am familiar with other engineers and a lot of businesses have footprints to choose from and they can just plop them on any piece of property that they buy and that is fine, but, what is different is the logistics. How far are you from a major street, what is going on across the street, what is going on in the future. I am sure that that layout works but the ingress and egress may be different on this site than on other sites where it does work. I think we're trying to prevent a problem here where we have too many driveways within 200 feet of a major intersection. If there is ever going to be a roadway back there then it certainly makes sense to connect to that at this point in time. I guess one of the options is have two curb cuts here and then close one off when that road comes up, that is a possibility too. Then again, you are going to be tearing up landscaping and we could go ahead and avoid that. Ward: The only problem is that curb cut might not ever be used. Carter: It might not ever be used anyway. Ward: Another bank could go in right there, it might never be used. Carter: From that thinking, it leads me to think that it might be best for us to just close that up and use these two and get our access off of our site and then if there is future development.. . Libertini: I was under the impression that there was going to be a road there in the future. Conklin: Someone thought that at one time because they built a curb and cut it. Someone must have thought that there was going to be one. Carter: That doesn't mean that there is going to be one. McClard: There is a continuation from Wal-Mart across there but I don't know how important that is. Conklin: From an economic standpoint, I think you would want to provide access back into that property from the thousands and thousands of people that are going to Wal-Mart. Bunch: Also from a traffic standpoint it is easier. Subdivision Committee January 3, 2002 Page 13 Conklin: You sure don't want to get on Hwy. 62 and try to turn back into that site. Bill McClard is here and from a real estate perspective it seems like he would want to plan some access back in there. Steve Clary did out at Wedington Place. He has three points of access off of Wedington with shared access for that whole development to get back in there. Libertini: Just one more thing, if you did use that as access now you could eliminate some of the pavement that is on site. You could eliminate one of these curb cuts and also this lane that comes back this way and you wouldn't have to build that pavement that comes back out here if there was pavement over here for a future roadway. Some more thoughts and some more options. This wouldn't have to be here and this wouldn't be here. That could get you more landscaping or whatever. You could change some things around, put your asphalt over here instead of over here. Carter: The asphalt and the existing curb cut is in not very good shape right now anyway. Libertini: No, I was just considering the proposed. The way it is I would certainly say that in the future that they eliminate one of those curb cuts and make a connection to a roadway on the side if it ever gets built. Carter: It just seems to me like it would be an imposition on the bank to build this access for something that might not ever happen when this access will immediately be used and can provide cross access to any other developments. You know, is it this one in favor of that one or that one in favor of this one? I think the one that we know we are going to use is our best shot and if we need to continue through back here for cross access, I think that would be our.. Libertini: I guess that is kind of true. If you built a two lane driveway over here you would use it. Conklin: Is that entire property for sale right now? McClard: It is. Conklin: It is? Ok. Do you think there is a potential for this property to be sold and developed? McClard: Always. Ward: It has been for sale for a long time too. Conklin: I understand that but they are actively trying to sale it for development. I guess the argument that I'm making is that they are actively trying to sale it for development. Subdivision Committee January 3, 2002 Page 14 We could be sitting here a month from now talking about the same thing with something over here. Ward: Or two years from now. Conklin- Or two years or ten years but it probably is going to develop out there. It is zoned commercial. Ward: I would like to go ahead and keep it moving on. Is there any public comment on this particular issue? Seeing none I will bring it back to the Commission. I will give you my take on it. What I see designed here, I feel like where the line where the entrance is I could see that being a total entrance only and then the other entrance that you have where it may be strictly an exit type of thing. I could see that working pretty well. You also wouldn't have to be quite as wide on any of those. I think they would have to have two ins or outs or something, I don't think that you could just put one entrance and exit there together. I don't see how they can, they don't have anything on this property to the south where that curb cut is proposed or is sitting there now, it makes it kind of hard to work with it. Conklin: They don't own this property either yet. Ward: Right, but they definitely don't own this piece, they don't have a contract on it. I could see how this could be developed with just another business being built here and that curb cut meaning nothing. McClard: Definition please. Is this meeting a meeting to give us some input of what we need for our next meeting or is this a meeting that is going to give us a final approval or disapproval? Ward: Normally this is where it could be approved. A lot of things we can approve here and it is done here for final approval. Usually with large scale developments they are forwarded to the full Planning Commission. In order to forward it to the full Planning Commission, at this point I don't think we are ready to make that decision. McClard: I'm not sure that I am ready for you to. I'm not so sure that it doesn't make some sense for me to go back to the owners of this property and get some input from them on exactly where they want the access to the balance of this property. If they are not going to make that decision it might give the bank the opportunity to kind of look at what you are trying to do and what we have heard this morning. Can we ask for a week and actually come back in front of the Planning Commission or do we need to come back in front of you? Subdivision Committee January 3, 2002 Page 15 Ward: I think you need to come back in front of Subdivision one more time. What I would like to do also is kind of get over all the other issues with this like signs, commercial design standards. I would like to get over all of these things to make sure that we're at least in agreement at this level if there are any problems. I don't want to get through one problem and then all of the sudden we've got three other problems when you show up again. The next thing I would like to do is talk about the commercial design standards. We have got some photos of another location. Bunch: Can we get some direction on these? I understand that they might change but just to give us an idea. Edwards: The ones on the board, the top one is on the north which would be facing Hwy. 62 or Sixth Street. The bottom one is to the east and would be facing Wal-Mart. You should have in your packets another set. The top would be the south and the bottom would be the west. Ward: Ok. There is a description of all of the different materials, split face concrete block and the brick veneer and so on and colors. Does anyone have any problems with these types of issues? What about the bright red bumper guards Tim? Conklin: I think those will pass. Ward: Lets talk about the sign. Bunch: Can you tell me the location and whether it is a monument sign or a pole sign? Conklin: They are showing a proposed monument sign right there. Peden: Can I ask a question? It is my understanding that in lieu of facing stiff restrictions on a pylon sign that the monument sign would be more appropriate in keeping with the city. I understand that pylon has to sit so far back off of Hwy 62 that it would probably not be beneficial to us. If that is correct then we are proposing a monument sign. Ward: Peden: I don't think Tim can give you the sign regulations off the top of his head but we do allow monument signs closer to the road. They are allowed 75 sq.ft. of total signage with a 10' setback so it is probably going to show better than a pole sign sitting way back. This is not our typical sign. We typically have a 24 to 26 by 8' in width. I'm not sure that it is shown on there and with a marquee on it. I understand that each city has different sign ordinances. Subdivision Committee January 3, 2002 Page 16 Ward: What about signs on the building? Peden: As you see on that top photo up there, there will be an unlit brushed aluminum sign. Ward: On the north elevation? Peden: That is on the north elevation facing Hwy. 62. Ward: What about facing to the east which would be Wal-Mart? Peden: There will be nothing. There on Hwy 62 is the only place we would put it. We will have directional signs, entrances and exits, whatever we agree on. That would be the sign on the structure itself though. Bunch: Is this a double sided sign? Peden: Yes and illuminated. Bunch: The suggested orientation? Peden: I saw that on there and we would suggest to make a change there. I caught that too. Bunch: Ok. Ward: Are there any other comments? What else do we need to talk about Tim? Conklin: I don't think there is anything else. The plan is to table it and bring it back to the next Subdivision Committee meeting. McClard: When would that meeting be? Edwards: January 17`h. McClard: I'm going to be out of town that day can I leave Charles and the engineer to handle this? Conklin: Sure. Bunch: One thing that might help us when we have the next meeting would be to have the tree preservation plan, have access to it so we can see where the existing canopy is and what is proposed because that is not in our packets. Subdivision Committee January 3, 2002 Page 17 Carter: Ok. Hesse: Here is an extra plan for that. Carter: We can get some copies of that in your packets. Bunch: The lot split will probably be able to be approved at this level. The large scale will have to go forward to the full Commission, just to give them an idea at how much time they are looking at. Conklin- Sure, I think it is important to bring both forward together, the lot split too. There are issues over access and depending on what we work out and what the Commission agrees to if it is an offsite access easement that you use for a future drive or where the lot lines are. I think the large scale details would impact the lot split. Motion: Bunch: I will move that we table LSD 02-2.00 and the associated lot split, LSP 02-1.00 to be brought back at the next Subdivision Committee meeting with more information. Hoover: I second. Ward: I'll concur. Thank you gentleman. I hope we got something accomplished. Bunch: While we are here, are there any questions that you have that we could possibly answer to help you in making a decision between now and the next meeting? McClard: Thank you. LSD 02-1.00: Large Scale Development (Olive Garden, pp 212) was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Darden Restaurants for property located on the northeast corner of Mall Avenue and Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.35 acres with 8,077 sq.ft. restaurant proposed. Ward: Our last item on the agenda this morning is a large scale development for the Olive Garden submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Darden Restaurants for property located on the northeast corner of Mall Avenue and Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.35 acres with 8,077 sq.ft. restaurant proposed. Tim, are you doing this one? Conklin: I am going to attempt to do this one. This is the proposed Olive Garden. It is located on a portion of lot 17. The lot split was approved several weeks ago by the City. A Subdivision Committee January 3, 2002 Page 18 conditional use will be required for the additional parking spaces as requested by the applicant. The ordinance allows a maximum of 48 parking spaces. The applicant has provided 153 parking spaces. That has been reduced from 158 at Technical Plat Review to install five additional landscape islands in the parking lot. That number is down by five parking spaces. Staff is recommending it be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. We do have the issue of the conditional use with the additional parking. Conditions to address and discuss, there is some right of way for the future flyover on Hwy. 71, College Avenue on to the Fulbright Expressway. There is a 40 foot right of way that exists between the north or the south property line of Olive Garden and the Highway Department right of way. Staff is requesting that the POA for CMN or Olive Garden be required to provide the maintenance of that just like we require the maintenance of other rights of way or we do require landscaping. Item number two is the conditional use for 145 parking spaces. Number three, they are proposing a curb cut on the north side of this project. It will be offsite. There is an agreement with the owners of CMN to allow that curb cut to be constructed and built on this property. Mr. Milholland and his client who is CMN have discussed with the city in the past with regard to the possible extension of Van Asche Avenue or the possible extension of a private drive. At the time that Van Asche or a private drive is constructed, this curb cut will be eliminated and will be realigned along the eastern aisle of this project right here where it says future access. Since the road is not constructed right now we are not going to require that that access be built all the way back to the east. Bunch: Would this access that is closest to Mall Avenue be eliminated then? Conklin: It will be eliminated at the time that access is built. There are agreements that we have in our file between Olive Garden and CMN with regard to that access. The rest are standard conditions of approval. They have provided elevations. I would like to compliment Olive Garden on the screening of their freezer with building material. They have also screened their dumpster with the same building material. It will be a fairly nice elevation facing to the east where the dumpster will be. They are requesting, one thing that I didn't add in here that we probably need to add, they are requesting a sign on that east elevation. It is the second on the bottom elevation where the Olive Garden sign will be facing the east. They would like to have that sign until development occurs on this future property to the east of this site. Staff is in support of that variance request for that sign for the Olive Garden. That is all I have with regard to the Olive Garden. Ward: Do we have the location of that sign? Conklin: It is going to be on the building, a wall sign. It will have to meet our ordinance requirements for wall signs. Subdivision Committee January 3, 2002 Page 19 Bunch: Will it have to be eliminated if the property develops? Conklin: That is what they are requesting. I am really not opposed to leaving that sign up on the building. However, that is all they requested was to have the sign there until future development occurs which would block the sign and they agreed to remove it. Bunch: It sounds like it would be more advantageous to stay there. Especially if you put the flyover in and the traffic coming around to the east but that is their decision. Conklin: That is their decision that is why I'm not opposed to leaving it up permanently. Milholland: I am Mel Milholland of Milholland Engineering, we have a representative of the Olive Garden with us and he concurs with your thoughts of leaving it on there. Ward: Could you tell us on these elevations which one is facing north and south. Conklin- Sure. I will let you make the presentation. Terwilliger: My name is Neil Terwilliger and I'm with Darden Restaurants. This is the eastern elevation, this would be facing out towards Mall Drive, west. This is the elevation that would be facing Fulbright Expressway, south. This would be facing towards Van Asche, north. Ward: Ok. Hoover: What are the materials? Terwilliger: This is a cultured stone and the balance is wood trim, brick headers over the windows and cast stone around up here. Jefcoat: You should have samples of those. Conklin: The vents for the ovens and stoves, where are those located? Terwilliger: All the roof top equipment is contained within an area in here, it is all down behind this. HVAC units for the entire restaurant as well as the exhaust fans for bathrooms and so forth, the kitchens, cooking, all of that is in this area right here. This, just for your benefit, what Olive Garden did about four or five years ago was go across Italy and did a study. A new president came in and he wanted to remake the concept of what it was, it was about twenty years old at the time. He wanted to bring it into the next generation. This is modeled after a Tuscan farmhouse in the Tuscany region. Subdivision Committee January 3, 2002 Page 20 Conklin: Terwilliger: Ward: Shreve: Ward: Petrie: Ward: Milholland: As a result of being over there and studying this, we actually opened up an Olive Garden culinary institute which is the second part of the process of authenticating the concept. We do a lot of testing over there. We use it as an awards program for the managers across the country. I think that fifteen or twenty of them every year that win the right to go over there an train for two weeks. It has been very well conceived. As you can see, it is top quality materials It has a very nice look to it, it is something different than we have ever done before. The design carries through on the inside too. How many of these have you built in the U.S.? There are probably, depending on how many we have opened in the last week or two, there are probably about thirty of them. This is our prototype, we have got twelve or thirteen of them under construction right now. Everything that is in Planning is this building. Keith with sidewalks? There are existing sidewalks along Mall Avenue. Ok, Ron? One of the requirements that we have placed on CMN. On the final plat it says "The individual tract developer shall employ an environmental specialist to ensure that the spirit of the permit of the corp. will be complied with." There has been some discussion as to who can sign off as an environmental specialist. The only requirement is to employ an environmental specialist firm is that we get confirmation from the Corp of Engineers that they accept that. We just want to make sure that is a condition. Ok, does anyone have any questions about that? That is the first I've heard of it. Tom Jefcoat is licensed in that area. He was not a designer that was used on the original development of CMN. Tom was not employed with me at that time. The purpose of me hiring him was to fulfill this requirement. I knew the city was headed toward and I think CMN was the first one that we put on the final plat to have someone of his expertise and that also is easiest to write a letter to state that we fulfilled the spirit of the corp. which is on the final plat. I feel like Tom has the capabilities. He has written a statement. The final plat does not state that the Corp. has to approve that. It just says that we have to have a professional, he is a professional. We feel like that we fulfilled it with his comments rather than going back to the Corp. and ask them again. Subdivision Committee January 3, 2002 Page 21 Ward: Ok, Ron? Petrie: We believe that one of the reasons that is on there is really to get an independent analysis of it. With the design engineer of CMN and this we want to feel confident that we are getting an independent analysis of that. Ward: Ok, who would make the final decision? Petrie: That is what we would like the Corp. of Engineers to make sure. It is their permit, all the wetlands out there are being regulated by them. Ward: We need a letter from them stating Tom's an expert? Petrie: Not necessarily an expert just that they agree that this plan meets the spirit of the permit that they issued. Milholland: Let me say this. We can't dictate and the city can't either the Corp. of Engineers to respond. I think what Ron said earlier was that they basically want the Milholland Company to have an employee to write this letter. They want to know if he is qualified. If we used Tom who has credentials as an employee of Milholland and Company, we've got to get the Corp. to approve it. We can't make the Corp. approve that. My interpretation of the final plat, which I did for CMN, was not necessarily by an independent but by a professional. He is a professional and he can provide his credentials. We will be glad to talk to the Corp. but I would hate to go on the record of approval subject to the Corp. responding because we can't dictate the Corp. to respond. Petrie: We have a telephone. We can call and talk to them to get their confirmation. I am not saying that it has to be a written confirmation, we just want confirmation. Let me also say, in no way are we trying to say that they are not professional or capable. We are not familiar with those credentials. Ward: I understand. Kim? Hesse: There is no existing tree canopy on the site. They have got all the requirements for landscaping. Their parking lot looks very good. I'm very happy with it. They've provided everything I need. Ward: Ok, at this time I will open it to the public. Is there any public comment? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Subdivision Committee January 3, 2002 Page 22 Conklin: Terwilliger: Conklin: Terwilliger: Ward: Terwilliger: Ward: I would like the Olive Garden representative to discuss why they need this much parking to give you a better understanding of their experience. It is over and beyond even the ordinance that we proposed which was one per four seats plus one per employee at maximum shift. Are you familiar with those calculations? Yes I am. Basically it is when we look at any particular site whether it be in Fayetteville or California or anywhere. We look at a formula that we use based on the 462 Olive Gardens that we have. Not all of them have parking because they are intercity locations. The company has pretty much mandated to us that we need to have something close to or in the vicinity of one for every two seats that we provide plus some provision for employee parking because most employees don't rely on mass transit to any great degree and therefore, drive their own automobiles to work. What we did is we looked at the seats, we looked at what we projected in terms of the peak hours and the peak volumes that we anticipate doing and basically one to two seats and plus what we figure to be thirty, that would be the most employees we would need, assuming every one of them drove to the restaurant, we would come up with somewhere in the vicinity of 150 parking spaces. We actually had a few more. We did lose several of them. There are times when there is probably even more need because you have waiting. Friday and Saturday nights and sometimes Thursday nights depending on the peak volumes that there could potentially be more than that number of people there. We feel pretty strongly about this and I won't say that we have ever walked away from sites with less than 150 parking spaces but there have been a lot of places that we have looked at that we just can't go because we can't get the number of spaces we need. That is not from a municipal standpoint, it is just that the land won't supply it or whatever and we're pretty adamant about that. Is there a bar inside? Yes there is. There is a lounge. Is there any way for busses to get in there or R.V.s to park? No there is not. We don't make provisions for those. Typically, that is not the customer that we are after. Just because what it does is you take 50 people, if you are talking about a tourist bus or something like that, it totally inundates the kitchen and this type of restaurant is not set up to be able to handle something like that. You are saying with an 8,000 sq.ft. restaurant that there are about 30 employees at any given time? Terwilliger: At the largest shift, yes. Not at any given time but typically on a Friday night from 5-9 and Saturday night from 5-9, that is the type of staff we are going to be looking Subdivision Committee January 3, 2002 Page 23 for. Ward: Sharon, do you have any comments about the commercial design standards? Hoover: No, I think it looks great, thank you. Terwilliger: Thank you. Bunch: Does it meet your all four sides criteria? Hoover: Absolutely. I think the interesting thing in this discussion is that if we had mass transit we might not need so many parking spaces which is a good point. Ward: Will there be some kind of letter of who is going to take care of this common area there on the south end? Is there going to be a POA or is the Olive Garden going to take care of it? Terwilliger: We will maintain it. Ward: That is one of the conditions there. We will need some kind of letter stating that you will maintain it if that is the Olive Garden's decision. Milholland: I think that was discussed at the time that we went through phase II of the final plat. I'm not sure about that whole area. I know the issue was discussed, I don't recall the details. Terwilliger: I would think, I'll have to discuss it internally because this is the first that I'm aware of it but it is something that given the investment we are making here, we are going to want to control that. That is our front door. I don't know how many cars a day are on Fulbright Expressway but we don't want them looking at 25' of 6' high weeds and then the upper half of our building. Conklin: That was my concern. You are doing such a great job with your building we don't want you calling the city saying " When are you going to mow the grass in front of the Olive Garden because the customers can not see." Ward: On the monument sign, Tim, does that meet all of our criteria as far as size and lighting? Hoover: On our new lighting ordinance, I don't know where we ended up on illuminating signs. Subdivision Committee January 3, 2002 Page 24 Conklin: I made a recommendation to not get involved on that. Hoover: Ok. Conklin: I thought that was probably going too far with regard to the color and how the colors were colored and that kind of stuff. The Committee has not told me if they like that idea. The sign is 6' high and maximum sq.ft. It has 75 sq.ft. Bunch: Is it externally lit? Conklin: I will give this to Mike McKimmey in Inspections and have him look at it. Terwilliger: t think it is both internally and externally. t think there is a spot light to sort oflight up the sign itself but the Olive Garden and the grape are internally lit. Ward: Ok. Are there any other comments? Bunch: Since it has a conditional use it has to go to the full Planning Commission. Do we need to have a copy of the landscape plans or just a note from Kim that says everything is acceptable? Conklin: That will be in the staff report. Bunch: Since there are no trees there to begin with it is just a matter of landscape and overlay design standards. Are any of them bartlett pears? Hesse: They actually used a large species. That is a little bit unusual. They will work in our region. It will be nice to see. It is a very extensive plan and I think it will look nice. Bunch: Is it specifically this location or is it an Olive Garden theme? Hesse: It is probably more an Olive Garden theme, they are using Russian Olives which you don't see planted very often but they do grow here. They are using vines on the building. Bunch: It fits in with the biodiversity concept. Great. I move that we forward LSD 02-1.00 to the full Planning Commission. Hoover: I'll second. Ward: I'll concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee January 3, 2002 Page 25 Terwilliger: Thank you.