Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-31 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, January 31, 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) Approved Page 2 LSD 02-2.00: Large Scale Development (Superior Federal Bank, pp 557) Page 8 Forwarded MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Don Bunch Sharon Hoover Bob Estes Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Sara Edwards Kim Hesse Tim Conklin Trevor Bowman Kim Rogers Subdivision Committee January 31, 2002 Page 2 LSP 02-1.00: Lot Split (Westphal/Cobb, 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 62W. The property is zoned C- 2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 82.49 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 80.95 acres and 1.38 acres. Hoover: Welcome to Subdivision Committee. Today is Thursday, January 31, 2002, we have three items on the agenda. The first one is a LSP 02-1.00. Edwards: I have one correction. Number three was pulled from the agenda. The applicant pulled that. Hoover: If there is anyone here for item number three, it has been pulled. That is the large scale development by Brian Dandy for the project on Fletcher and Rogers. That one has been pulled so we will only have two items. I will start with number one. Tim or Sara? Conklin: Sure, this is a proposed lot split. The request is to split into three tracts of 82.49 acres, 1.38 acres and 1 acre. The property is located west of the Wal-Mart Supercenter on Highway 62. It is being split in order to developer the Superior Federal Bank. It was heard by our Subdivision Committee on January 3`a and was tabled then so we could look at future access to the entire tract. It was heard at the January 17th Subdivision Committee and was forwarded to the full Planning Commission. An access easement and the existing curb cut across the driveway for Wal - Mart's Supercenter will be utilized. The item is being reheard by the Subdivision Committee upon the request by the applicant to change the Large Scale Development, which caused the dimensions of this lot split to change. We are asking that this can be approved at this level. The public sewer shall be extended to tract 3 when it develops. A note shall be added to the plan stating that public sewer is not presently accessible to tract 3. Tract 3 is being created by the dedication of right of way for Finger Rd. That is something that staff has requested. Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments, the rest are pretty much standard conditions of approval. That is all that I have. Hoover: Do we have any comments from sidewalks or engineering? Bowman: We would like you to verify the location of that sewer, have it shown. There is a possibility that it will reach that tract 3 but our records don't show that it does. If it doesn't just add a note on the plans about that. Subdivision Committee January 31, 2002 Page 3 Carter: I don't think it does and I thought we had it on the plat but I will verify that and we will put that location of the sewer on the plat and we'll put that note on the plat. Hoover: Are there any other staff comments on this lot split? PUBLIC COMMENT Hoover: I will open the floor to public comment. Bale: My name is Pat Bale, I own the next three business buildings on the same side of the road on Hwy. 62. I do not actually adjoin this property that they are talking about but I would like to know if there is going to be anything done on the drainage in that area. We have a flood problem in that area. I flooded in 1999 and in 2000. The drainage from the mountain is far inadequate. I feel before anymore concrete is poured and before anymore buildings are put in that area that the drainage system needs to be checked out completely because there really is not much drainage off the top of the mountain. Conklin: Where is your property? Bale: I own three business buildings on the same side of the highway just west of this property that you're talking about. Conklin: What businesses are those? Bale: Advanced Floor Company and then I have a warehouse and another building that is empty right now. That is the building between this property and Hwy. 62 Auto Salvage. In June of 1999 I had about 8" of water in my building and in June of 2000 I had 4" of water in my building. Every time that we get a great deal of rain, I am down in the middle of the night stacking stock, piling samples and trying to avoid a problem. There has been a time or two that there has been just a little on the floor but there is definitely a drainage issue that needs to be checked out before we have anymore concrete there below the mountain. Estes: Bale: Estes: Ms. Bale, on the plat that we have I see the Medley property and I see the Smith property, where is your property? My property would be north of the Smith property. It is 3513, 3515 and 3517 W. Sixth Street. So you are north of the Smith property and west of the Medley property? Subdivision Committee January 31, 2002 Page 4 Bale: The Medley property, yes. Estes: Ok, we don't have anyone here from City Engineering.. . Conklin- Yes we do. I apologize, I assume everybody knows everybody from the city. This is Trevor Bowman. He has been with us about nine months. He is a staff Engineer for the City of Fayetteville. He is working with Ron Petrie to review development. Trevor is here today to represent the City Engineering Division. Estes: Trevor, could you give us some discussion on the requirements that post development flows may not exceed predevelopment flows and talk a little bit about that and talk about the work that you will do to satisfy the concerns that have been expressed. Bowman: That is fine. The way the ordinance is for our drainage requirements is that the flows coming off the site post development can not be anymore than what is on the site, or what is coming off the site in predevelopment. In this particular case, they are proposing a detention pond basically adjacent to Hwy. 62. Their preliminary drainage report shows that they are going to be reducing the flow off that site. Glenn has to get me some more stuff but at this point the size of this site and the lay of the land is such that it doesn't look like that there is a whole lot coming on to this particular site and a lot of it flows around this site now. Some of the fill was put over on this area when Wal-Mart was built that actually diverts some of the flow around the site. The Engineer, Glenn Carter, has looked at that and will have to submit a final drainage report when they submit final plans and specs to make sure that we are not increasing the flow coming off of this site. Medley: I am here representing Sterling and Jill Medley. They are my parents. They had flooding problems in the past. That is the only reason that we're here. We are just concerned about the flooding problems. The development there, that is fine, just as long as they take care of the drainage problems. We don't want the water to become a problem for us. Bale: It is a problem there and it is something that needs checked out, the whole drainage in that area. I have requested that in the past and I've not been able to get any help on it. I would really appreciate any help that can be done to get in there and check out the drainage all the way around there. I think that as more things are being built all the way around there it is going to cause more flooding in the area. There is no way that I can do much more to mine other than build a retaining wall all the way around and when I do that I am just going to flood somebody else. I could build Subdivision Committee January 31, 2002 Page 5 one but that is going to make it worse for somebody and it needs to be corrected. Conklin: What is flooding? Is it a creek or swale? Bale: It is a creek from behind. The creek just fills up and it is not deep enough. Conklin- Coming down from the mountain? Bale: Yes, from the mountain. All the water from the mountain has to come down and it has to have some place to go but there is no place for it to go. When you get very much of a rain, even the normal water way from behind there over a period of time has got to where there is just really not much for drainage anywhere back in there before it gets to the highway. It just needs to be checked out to see what can be done to improve it. Estes: Trevor, would it be permissible for these people to have some contact with you and you could explain to them how these calculations are done and how that the post development flows will actually be less than they are predevelopment? Bowman: Yes. Estes: If you will get in touch with Trevor I am sure that he will be glad to visit with you. Bowman: I will get you a business card. Bunch: Should we be discussing this on the lot split or should we save it for the large scale development where the drainage issues are developed. We are looking at the wrong drawings on the lot split. Hoover: True. Bunch: I was thinking about development, we have two items for this, one is just to move the property lines and the second item on our agenda is the development for the piece of property on the corner of Finger Rd. and Hwy. 62. That is the one where we have the drawings that show the drainage and where the drainage calculations come in. That is the one that is furthest away from you. Your problem needs to be expressed where it would probably come in the most would be the development on the bulk of this property. The lot split is just moving a line on a piece of paper. Hoover: With that said, I have one question. Tim, we had a similar situation and I can't remember if there was some mountain but there were some yards Subdivision Committee January 31, 2002 Page 6 that were getting flooded all the time and I know that the city came through and did some kind of area drainage plan. I am not making this up, does anyone else remember it? Conklin- This comes up a lot. There is Summersby over off of Wedington there is a big drainage project that the city is completing. Hoover: I guess what I'm trying to say is that the city does listen and tries to resolve these problems but you do need to become active with the Engineering Department so that they are aware of it. They are probably not aware of it every time it happens and the severity of it. I was not at the last Subdivision Committee, so what is different about this plan and what was here before? Why are we back here today? Conklin: We are back because the applicant has requested additional parking for the bank, which will be a conditional use. Therefore, the lot needs to be increased in size to accommodate another row of parking towards the west. They have gone out and have conducted a study of their banks and how much parking they need and that will be considered as a part of a conditional use. That is why we are back. They feel like to be successful in Fayetteville, Arkansas they need the additional parking. Hoover: So it increased the size? Conklin: It increased the size of the lot. Edwards: It looks like it was 1.38 and now he has it saying 1.46. Is that correct Glenn? Carter: Yes. Conklin: It is basically one row of parking. They have a 24' drive aisle against that western property line 19' stalls have been added. Basically, when you look at the large scale it is a lot easier to explain. That row of parking was added. Originally, the property line went right here so that is the amount of property. Hoover: The access easement has been added? That wasn't there before. Conklin: Yes, we have come to an agreement to show access lined up with the Wal- Mart access for future access. Hoover: Ok, I remember that, I was here for the very first round. Conklin: We have worked with the applicant extensively to get this worked out. Subdivision Committee January 31, 2002 Page 7 Estes: Is this item back before the Subcommittee for discussion? Is it closed to public comment? Hoover: Yes, we are closed for public comment. Estes: On the agenda it says that the request is to split into three tracts. Are we splitting into two tracts or three tracts? Conklin: Three. The reason why I wanted to clean it up right now. Finger Road at this location is cutting across the property and we are asking for the right of way to be dedicated which leaves this triangle piece, this one acre triangle piece right here on the other side of the road. Because we want the right of way we are requesting that. Estes: Ok, I see it. Conklin: We might as well recognize that as a separate piece of property because we have a road going through it and they are not going to be building over our road in the future. Estes: Tract 1 is frontage on West Sixth Street. Conklin: Glenn, if we forward this on we need to get your line weight up so we can see that. Carter: Alright, I will fix that. Estes: The third one is where the LSD is concerned? Conklin: This is called tract 1, the big tract, this 80+ acres here in the middle is 2 and then the triangle piece is tract 3. Estes: Ok. The little stub out off of Finger Road is the access easement? Conklin: Yes. Motion: Estes: I would like to make a motion that we approve at the Subdivision Committee level LSP 02-1.00 subject to the stated conditions of approval. Bunch: I'll second. Hoover: I will concur. Subdivision Committee January 31, 2002 Page 8 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 West. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.38 acres with a 2,891 sq.ft. branch bank building proposed. Hoover: We will move onto the second item, LSD 02-3, a large scale development for Superior Federal Bank. Tim, will you do this one? Conklin: Sure, this is a large scale development for the bank. It is a 2,891 sq.ft. building. The acreage has changed to 1.46. They met with staff and asked for the possibility of adding some more parking spaces, ten additional parking spaces along the western property line. We moved the property line over once again. That will take a conditional use for over 20%. They already had a conditional use for six additional spaces. They have done a study of their existing facility, which will be provided as a part of the conditional use. Another change we've worked out is the access into the bank lined up with the access for Wal-Mart, the future 80 acre development will be looking towards planning for access to line up at this location. They do have a note on their plat that talks about access will be built when the road is developed and Glenn, I thought we talked about this. This one would be relocated, is that what we talked about? Carter: Would be relocated? Conklin: Moved back over here. Carter: In the future development? Conklin: In the future development when this came in. Carter: I thought it would be added. Conklin: And that would be left? Bowman: I thought we were going to close that off. Conklin: That is what we discussed. Bunch: That was my understanding is that the one closest to the road would be closed because it is a short couple. Conklin- That is something to discuss when we're through with my staff report. Conditions of approval include 1) The Conditional Use to allow the 16 Subdivision Committee January 31, 2002 Page 9 additional spaces. Eighteen are allowed by code and they are asking for thirty-four parking spaces and they have provided information. Compliance with commercial design standards and signage. 3) Upon completion of the future road directly across from the Wal-Mart Supercenter, Finger Road access, a new access to the bank section will be installed off of the future road at the southwest corner of the site. Initial entrance at the southeast corner of the site shall be closed. That is our staff report. 4) Two bicycle parking racks shall be added to the plat. 5) Landscaping and trees shall be hardwood species. Staff is not in support of using Crepe Myrtles due to the insufficient growing height in our area. 6) One additional tree is required adjacent to the parking spaces along the west boundary line. 7) Note three on the plat needs to be removed. All planting shall be placed in landscape beds. 8) Stripes on driveway shall be revised to include an out arrow only. Currently a left turn arrow is proposed. The rest are standard conditions of approval. That is all I have this morning. Hoover: Trevor with Engineering? Bowman. All that I had is you really need to get me that drainage stuff we talked about yesterday. I don't suspect any problems. Their detention pond changed shape a little bit and the whole site was moved forward a little bit so we need to look at the preliminary drainage report again to make sure but after talking with Glenn by phone I don't foresee any problems. Carter: The new numbers are under the detention pond, the required volumes and the provided volumes. Those are on the notes on the right side of the page under detention pond. The required volume changed from 7,039 cubic feet to 7,485 and we had already provided 8284 so that was the thing. I will get you that letter describing those things. Bowman: I need the summary. As far as the traffic and traffic flow, I sat down with Paul Libertini yesterday and I think they are fine with the traffic flow. Hoover: Were there any additional sidewalks? Edwards: There weren't any sidewalk issues. Keith did ask me to bring up the two bicycle racks because it kicks in at 25 spaces. Before the parking lot did not have 25 spaces so the racks were not required. It is one if you have up to thirty and then over thirty so they need two racks. Hoover: This existing asphalt sidewalk, will that remain? Edwards: No, they are replacing that. Subdivision Committee January 31, 2002 Page 10 Carter: Yes, that asphalt along the curb has been explained to me that that is not really a sidewalk. People walk on it but the Highway Department provides that to try to hold down the weed growth along the highway. There is a 5' existing piece of asphalt adjacent to the curb the entire length of this property but we will be required to install a sidewalk according to the current ordinances. We state here an existing 5' and there is a note in there, it may be hard for you to see, a proposed 6' sidewalk that is in closer. Hoover: Is there a landscape easement between the walk and the highway? Carter: There is 10' of greenspace between the curb and the sidewalk. Hoover: Kim, with tree preservation? Hesse: In your packet at the very end it has my comments. Edwards: I attached her comments on the last page of your packet. Hesse: I recommended approval based on this plan. We are saving the large pin oak and we were originally losing it. Hoover: Where is the pin oak? Hesse: That is right here. Most of these trees are small elms. As far as landscaping Glenn, I was going to mention that one tree has to be over in this direction. We don't need all four of these here but we do need one of those in here to space them out and they will have to be some medium sized hardwood species. Did you complete a mitigation form? We will be either mitigating on site or doing a tree fund and we will leave that up to the applicant. Carter: I have an updated mitigation form that I can fax to you as soon as I get back to the office. Hesse: We figured fifteen trees or something like that. We will mitigate for what we lose in this area and we will either try to place them in here or we'll do the tree fund. Peden: Are we still having discussion about mitigating over into the big parcel? Hesse: No, since we're not actually taking this canopy. Carter: I think he is talking about the discussion of the mitigation of the entire site. Subdivision Committee January 31, 2002 Page 11 Conklin. Yes. Carter: Hesse: We are talking to the owners right now about that and there is some discussion about what we're talking about here is trying to preserve. There is an ancient glade of oaks on the property on the 86 acre tract and we are trying to work a deal with the owners now to set up a tree preservation area now for the entire site that would supercede all of this mitigation on this site and we simply wouldn't have any. We would have it taken care of by the owner. It is kind of jumping ahead. On our ordinance, our new ordinance, on commercial subdivisions they have the option of either preserving for the entire subdivision or they preserve for just the amount to take up for infrastructure and then each lot has to go through the tree preservation issues. On this site it would really be to the benefit of everyone to preserve it all up front and to preserve it in a clump. There are some very valuable trees in areas around the 86 acres. If that is chosen, and if we can get that approved through our City Attorney since it is kind of ahead of the subdivision and that would negate what we are having to do with this individual site. This would fall into the 86 acres. Peden: If we are unsuccessful in the big area then we will fall back and work with you on this. Carter: That is why we have got this here now because that is not resolved yet. We went on and showed what we are going to do if that doesn't come to pass. Conklin: Just one question for Kim for the record. Barbara Mormon did drop off information back when the trees were removed back in the early to mid 90s. You have reviewed that, is there anything with regard to that information that we need to be aware of or that the Commission needs to be aware of? Hesse: Really, at that time she had discussions with the City Attorney about several different regulations. There were never any tree preservation violations at that time. Conklin: I tell you what I would like to do, just so that the Commission has that information. I will put that in packet for Planning Commission so that you can have that information and read what Ms. Mormon's correspondence back and forth through the city and the City Attorney's office and the Mayor at that time. Subdivision Committee January 31, 2002 Page 12 Hoover: Now that we have had staff reports we will open it to the public. Would you like to respond anymore? Bale: No, I think I have pretty well said what I needed. I just want to try to make sure that we don't do any building that is going to increase the problems that we've already got on this property. I would like to alleviate some of our problem because we definitely have a flooding problem in the area and I just want to make everybody aware of the problems so that maybe something can be done to help us out. I don't want to add to it. Estes: Glenn, would you pass my plat to those folks so that they can have it? Carter: I have got an extra if you would like to have it. Bunch: A question for the people that just spoke. Under the drainage problems, you say that it is coming from up on the mountain? Bale: It is coming from in behind, yes Sir. Bunch: Is it draining well to the front of your property? A question for Glenn and Trevor, that 18" reinforced concrete pipe, I guess I am assuming that sewer that you are showing on the drawing. Carter: Where is that? The one along the highway here? Bunch: Yes, is that state highway drainage? Bowman: It is highway drainage. Bunch: Is part of your problem, this might not be the right place to discuss this, but is part of your problem because that sewer is backing up or because the stuff is coming down off the mountain faster? Bale: It is coming off the mountain faster than it can be carried off. The actual drainage that is right between me and Hwy. 62 Salvage there by the highway, it doesn't get completely full but the water backed up behind it still floods around the whole area there. It comes in from behind, it is not out of a sewer. When it rains very hard the water comes in from in the back. There is a little church there, I don't think there is anyone here to discuss that either. There is a little church back there behind the Medley property that adjoins this property here. The flood in 1999, they also had a lot of water taken in. The area back there is pretty low and there really isn't any place for the water to go. There is an old creek bed that comes through there. The creek bed needs to be cleaned out. I think even if it was cleaned out drainage that came through there would help but there just Subdivision Committee January 31, 2002 Page 13 really is not that much room for the water to go when it gets behind us. It just spreads everywhere when it gets down to the bottom of the mountain. Bunch: Are the drains in adjacent to Hwy. 62 or W. Sixth Street, are they functioning? Bale: I am not sure. The only one that I know about is the one between me and 62 Auto Salvage because the others I'm not aware of. Estes: Down in south Fayetteville somewhere the city dredged the creek out somewhere. We have pictures of what it looked like before it flooded and after it flooded with all the debris and so forth. Conklin- There was a rezoning that occurred where there was some drainage off of South Town Country Club. That was a street right of way vacation. We went out there and dug a ditch across the right of way and cleaned it out along with the culverts. We did that one. Hoover: I would like to close it to public comment and bring it back to the Subdivision Committee. Edwards: Mike McKinney, our Sign Inspector, did take a look at these plans and there is a 10' setback for a monument sign from the property line. Your sign was meeting it before, I think you just moved it up when you increased your detention pond. I don't think it is going to fit with this detention pond at that site. I want you to be aware of that. Carter: Ok, we will work that out with the sign department. Edwards: You need to show that on your plan though, a 10' setback. Conklin: From your front property line. Estes: Trevor, if I understand correctly the detention pond, the volume required and the volume provided, they are exceeding the requirement, is that right? Technically there should be less water coming off this property post development than predevelopment, am I reading that right? Bowman: That is right. Estes: That is in the lower right hand corner of the plat there for the detention pond. Hoover: Do I remember the first time that this came through there were some trees in the detention pond? Subdivision Committee January 31, 2002 Page 14 Conklin- There were. Hoover: What happened to those? Carter: That plan changed. Estes: We are going to have cross access to the Wal-Mart property out on Finger Road, is that what is going to happen? Conklin- That is correct. Estes: Carter: Now because we have got a greenspace between the sidewalk and detention pond there is not going to be the necessity for hand railing or anything? We are going to screen that detention pond with the landscaping. We have one question that we would like to discuss. Tim, in talking about the access. When this does develop into this access road here and this access is built on this end of the property, you talked about closing this one up right here. That kind of closes off these people getting out right here when traffic comes around here and out. What we would like is if we could just move that to here. I understand the problem of when this gets busy over here, people are trying to get out and you've got traffic stacked up, I see how that just doesn't work. If it is possible we would like to move that back so that the traffic coming out of the ATMs could turn left and get out onto the access instead of having to go around through traffic all the way around the bank just to get out. Do you see what I'm talking about? When this develops we would like to move this to here so these guys can come out and get out. If not, they are going to have to try to get through this traffic and all the way around the bank to get out. Bunch: Either that or just come around here and go out this one. Right now they are coming out here and turning this way. Really, the only change is that they would come across here and out this one. Carter: That would interfere with traffic too. People would be coming in and they are lined up and they are trying to get out. Bunch: I could see that too. Carter: That is one of the reasons, the need for this. Is that a problem? Subdivision Committee January 31, 2002 Page 15 Bowman: I think those would be too close together. If we do this one we would not want to do this one. Is that what you are thinking or are you still wanting two on that side? Bunch: That depends on if that is a public or a private street too. Bowman: The only way to get to there is through this anyway. Carter: It is cross access so people in this development can get into the bank without having to go out on Finger Road. Hoover: I have a couple of other questions. I think for Planning Commission we are going to need the tree preservation plan with a legend on it because I don't know what is happening. Is there only one existing tree on this site and then these are all new trees? Is there a legend on here, am I missing it? Hesse: We will have to do that. All of these with that kind of symbol are here. Hoover: Ok. Hesse: If you go out there then you will see a cedar patch. There are no trees up to that point. The trees that were on the pond were going to be their mitigation trees in the first place. Hoover: I think we will need that so that that is clear at Planning Commission. Carter: Ok, I am sorry I didn't bring a copy of the tree preservation plan that shows that and that has a legend that identifies all of the trees by size and type. I should've brought one to this meeting. Hoover: Access, what have we decided on? Conklin: Trevor, Sara and I met with Glenn and the applicant and we thought it was all worked out a week ago. Peden: I know and we apologize if there was any misunderstanding. Conklin: We thought that they build this one, we have got this access lining up with this, when this is built as a part of a larger development that this one would close and this one would be provided right here. Estes: What is this? Is this employee parking? Peden: Yes Sir. Subdivision Committee January 31, 2002 Page 16 Conklin- That is what we thought we worked out but what they intended was to leave this one and add this one here. Estes: I've lost you, what is this one in the middle? Conklin: That is what they are asking about moving this one up to here and then leaving this one here. Estes: You would have a corner here and some landscaping and this would be your ingress and egress. How are people going to come in? They are going to come in across Sixth or they are going to come in across here, go up here and come in here and they are going to Q up here. They can exit out here or they can exit out here. Bunch: On the discussion of moving the access to the south side. If that becomes a private drive then the only thing we would be concerned about would be closing the one up close to the street, is that not correct? If it is a public drive then we would have jurisdiction on it but if it is a private drive for the development then the only one we would have any say so on would be the one closest to Finger Road. Conklin: We can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Let us look at it since we haven't really thought about it until right now. Your request is to have one here and one here, move this one over here and then have one here and one here in the future. Peden; I'm sorry Tim. Really what we are trying to do is give this traffic options. If these are coming out here and we've got this one way they can't get out here, we've got this one shut down. Then that forces all this traffic either back here or back here because when this goes down this is coming up. Estes: I've lost you. The people Q up here and they go through and this is one way then this is that free flow back there. Peden: It is not going anywhere because when this comes up this one is going down. Those folks can't go anywhere. Estes: Why are you taking that one down? Conklin: We were concerned about the location of the curb cut and having everybody that close trying to get out. Peden: That is ok and we understand that but then we have forced all of this traffic to feed back here and make a loop and come around. If this one can Subdivision Committee January 31, 2002 Page 17 go away or just move here then these folks can have options. If you want to make that a one way then that is fine with me. Conklin: Ok, we will make a recommendation. Peden: Tim, I am sorry. Estes: The ingress and egress of the property will be out here. Conklin: Out here and right here for right now. In the future we are trying to figure out how this is going to work. Estes: We are going to close that and we're either going to open that or open that. Let me say this, with my limited understanding of traffic patterns and Qing and so forth is that that needs to be there in the center and not over here. That needs to be there. Edwards: That doesn't let anybody into the bank. Peden: That forces all of the lobby folks into this one area. Estes: Isn't that a good thing? Don't you want to keep them away from these people leaving the Qs? Peden: That is the reason we want them here. Then they could go in here and go back here and stay off Finger Road. We could make it a one way out and make this two way and that two way and that would solve the problem. Estes: Ok, so you need this one way out, you need ingress and egress there. Conklin: We can get a formal recommendation on this. We will have Engineering look at it. Estes: You want that closed because of the curb cut? Conklin: Yes. We are going to have a lot of traffic coming in here. It is 80 acres. For example, a Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market, that is 25 acres. We are talking about a substantially large, very large potential development here. Hoover: I would leave it that the staff and the applicant are going to resolve this access and you will make a recommendation. Conklin: I don't know if we will resolve it but we will say yes we agree or no we don't agree and we'll let the nine Commissioners decide. Subdivision Committee January 31, 2002 Page 18 Bunch: Is this what we did at Olive Garden? Estes: Yes, we also had this discussion regarding the McDonald's too. Hoover: We haven't talked about the commercial design standards. Will there be elevations for Planning Commission? Conklin- We have distributed elevations and we have reviewed elevations. Hoover: I remember that before but we will need them again. Bunch: Have there been any changes? Peden: No, we haven't changed anything. Bunch: This was just brought back to us more for parking stuff, I thought we had already looked at the rest of it. Hoover: Parking and tree preservation and that access. Motion: Estes: I would move that we forward LSD 02-2.00 the Large Scale Development for Superior Bank to the full Planning Commission for consideration and I would ask that we have made available to us the tree preservation plan, the elevations and material board. That the staff and applicant resolve the ingress and egress issue on the south of the property for presentation before the full Commission and that of course, the full Commission considers all of the conditions of approval as stated by staff. Bunch: Before I second, just a question. When this was brought back to Subdivision, this did go to full Planning Commission right? Conklin: No. They met with us Wednesday before Planning Commission agenda session and they wanted to change it and we told them we couldn't make the changes without taking it back and so we're back. Bunch: Plus the conditional use for the additional parking requires going to full Planning Commission. Conklin: Yes. Bunch: I will second Bob's motion. Subdivision Committee January 31, 2002 Page 19 Hoover: I will concur. I do have one additional question though. Tim, have we been giving banks additional parking? Conklin: We have and it hasn't always been a rubber stamp approval either. You need to take a look at their parking comparisons. Hoover: I want to let the applicant know that when you make your presentation that you will need to address your parking situation and why you need additional parking. Documentation is good. Peden: At Tim's request when we met with he and Sara, he asked if we could do a study and a comparison. The only really high traffic volume I could come up with would've been that Friday and I think it was the 25`h. We took a couple of status periods and I gave that information. You have a copy of that. As I mentioned on there that was like an off Friday that was not a 1st or 15`h or whatever. Two or three of those, I don't recall now but two or three of them we were land locked from day one and we maxxed out but your point is well taken, thank you. Hoover: Just so that you are aware of that, that could be an issue. Peden: Thank you. Hoover: Thank you, we will close the meeting.