HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-10-03 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday,
October 3, 2002 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W.
Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED
PPL 02-15.00: Preliminary Plat
(Crystal Springs, Phase III, pp 246)
Page 2
LSP 02-43.00: Lot Split (Tipton, pp 475)
Page 12
LSP 02-44.00: Lot Split (Walgreens, pp 135)
Page 14
LSD 02-24.00: Large Scale Development
(Walgreens, pp 135)
Page 18
LSD 02-25.00: Large Scale Development
(Lewis Brothers, pp 213)
Page 28
LSD 02-21.00: Large Scale Development
(Nelms, pp 249)
Page 36
ACTION TAKEN
Forwarded
Approved
Forwarded
Forwarded
Forwarded
Forwarded
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERSABSENT
Nancy Allen
Don Bunch
Lee Ward
Alan Ostner
Sharon Hoover
STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT
Kim Hesse
Kim Rogers
Tim Conklin
Matt Casey
Keith Shreve
Renee Thomas
Fire Department
Perry Franklin
Sara Edwards
Solid Waste
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 2
PPL 02-15.00: Preliminary Plat (Crystal Springs, Phase III, pp 246) was submitted by Mel
Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Crystal Springs LTD for property located east
of Pyrite Drive on Crystal Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and
contains approximately 35.13 acres with 101 lots proposed.
Ward:
Conklin:
Ward:
Good morning. Welcome to the Subdivision Committee meeting. Today is
October 3, 2002. It looks like we have six items on the agenda, is that right Tim?
That is correct.
We will start off with the first one which is PPL 02-15.00 for Crystal Springs
Phase III. It was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf
of Crystal Springs LTD for property located east of Pyrite Drive on Crystal Drive.
The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately
35.13 acres with 101 lots proposed. Tim?
Conklin: This is a Preliminary Plat for Crystal Springs Phase III. It is 101 lots on 35.13
acres. It is zoned R-1. Surrounding land use includes R-1 zoning. There is an 8"
waterline being proposed across the property and an 8" sewer line. Right of way
to be dedicated includes 70' for Raven Lane, which is classified as a collector, 50'
for Crystal Drive, 50' for Topaz and 40' for Tiger Eye Drive. The 40' right of
way is allowed for a residential type street when it has limited traffic. Adjacent
Master Street Plan includes the future construction of a collector road for Raven
Lane to be extended eventually down to Mount Comfort Road. We are
recommending that this go to the full Planning Commission, it is a Preliminary
Plat. Conditions to address and discuss, City Council approval for the extension
of Crystal Drive through City property to Deane Solomon Road will be required.
This connection shall be made in order to improve this phase of the development.
There was a lot of discussion back when Crystal Springs originally came through
back in the mid 90's about having more than one way in and out of this
development. At that time the developer actually worked with Razorback Golf
Course and purchased property and they relocated 18' of green and tee in order to
allow for this extension. The City of Fayetteville is involved because we do own
property between this subdivision and Deane Solomon Road. That property will
have to be cut through in order to make that connection. The developer shall be
responsible for cost and development of the road to Deane Solomon Road. 2)
Raven Lane shall be constructed to a 28' wide street. The City may cost share to
widen it to 36' subject to City Council approval. We are not asking the developer
to improve it to collector street standards since it will serve more than just this
development. On lots 190 through 195, I just want a note on there that the
buildable area for those lots is 6,000 feet or greater. A question for the engineer is
are you planning on filling those lots and removing that 100 year floodplain?
Milholland:
Yes. There is a letter that we sent you some time back.
Conklin- The letter of map revision based on fill will be submitted to FEMA.
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 3
Milholland:
Conklin:
Milholland:
Conklin-
Milholland:
Conklin-
Milholland:
Conklin:
Milholland:
Jefcoat:
Milholland:
Conklin:
Ward:
Casey:
What we want to do is when we come back in, we made those lots larger to
qualify them at 6,000 sq.ft. buildable area. What we want to do is to have those
lots that size. Right now if you will look at lot 190 on your plat and 193 and 128,
that is on this lower left-hand side, that dark line is your floodplain line and we
made those large enough, you have to be over an acre right Tim?
Anything within the hundred year floodplain has to have a minimum lot area of an
acre.
So what we will do is we will fill those lots during construction and when we
come back at Final Plat lot 90 will be two lots and lot 93 will be two lots and lot
number 128 will be two lots. That is the same way we did on Crystal Springs II,
that little dead end street. We will do the same thing on that.
Ok.
Right now we can't really submit it because the work is not done. Tim preferred
this route so we used what he suggested. It is on record that we will be asking for
three more additional lots on Final Plat.
Which lots are going to be divided further again just for the record?
Lots 190, 193 and 128. That will be reflected on the Final Plat.
Something that I don't have in this report is my understanding is, and Kim Rogers
is here for Parks, that land was dedicated to meet the park land dedication
ordinance requirements so therefore, there are no parks fees.
That is correct.
There should be a letter in the file.
There is a park going to the lower left hand corner of the subdivision that goes all
the way out to Salem Road. All of that was dedicated in there at one time for all
the rest of the development here.
That is all Planning has with regard to this development.
I will start off with Matt with Engineering, do you have any particular concerns?
We still have some concerns with the proposed sewer, this part along Crystal.
Mel and I have been discussing the grading on that. He has talked with the Health
Department and tried to come up with some ways to serve these lots down at the
end without putting a lift station in but Mel, I talked with Dave Jurgens, with our
Water and Sewer Division, and he strongly recommends not putting in an 8" or
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 4
12" line at the less than minimum grade. We will need to work out a way to serve
those that is going to satisfy him as well as the Health Department.
Milholland: The Health Department recommended the 8", I had 12" at that design grade. It
was approved before five or six years ago. I talked with their District Engineer
and they said that they occasionally have a situation like this come up but he said
that they prefer not to have a lift station but they will work with us on this at the
time of design. They prefer not to have a 12", to have an 8" across there. I have
discussed that with you and they would be more than happy to call and talk about
it and work it out at the time of design. There is a water shed north of this that
would actually accommodate what I think Dave is concerned about, there would
be additional lots coming into it.
Casey: Do you have any building plans for that?
Milholland: We are working on that tract right now but it has not been submitted to the city
yet.
Jefcoat: The rezoning will be tomorrow.
Conklin: Annexation?
Jefcoat: Tomorrow.
Conklin- That has been submitted to Washington County and an Order of Annexation has
been issued already?
Milholland: No, I don't think so
Conklin: When you say tomorrow?
Jefcoat: It is all being turned in tomorrow.
Conklin- Turned into Washington County, not the City of Fayetteville?
Jefcoat: We were going to do it all simultaneously.
Conklin: Typically our policy has been to get Washington County to approve, an Order of
Annexation issued, confirmation of Order thirty days later, and then submittal to
the City so we don't end up at City Council or Planning Commission prior to the
land being released by the County.
Casey:
Will that development that you are talking about tie into this dead end line? That
will help. That would change the dead end line to minimum grade and minimum
flows decreases your chances of blockage.
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 5
Milholland:
Conklin:
Milholland:
Ward:
Shreve:
Conklin-
Milholland:
Shreve:
Milholland:
Shreve:
Right. I didn't go through it with you but I went through it with the Health
Department Engineer, I went through the calculations on that. That is something
that we will provide during design of this to you. I think we have figured about
175 acres up there that could join into this in addition to this subdivision.
We will sure look at it at the time of construction review. I just wanted to let you
know that we are going to have to work on the design with Dave Jurgens.
Sure, no problem.
Thanks Matt. Keith, anything with sidewalks?
I have a couple of comments. We have got a new stub out here for Schlegal Lane
on the north between 151 and 152, is that going to be a public street?
Staff asked that they provide an additional stub out to the north.
They requested that at the last meeting.
Would you add that street width, name information, and sidewalk information to
your table on here? On the lower corner you have got the table of street names,
right of way width, sidewalk requirements, would you add that to it please?
Ok.
Also, on lot 27 of Phase I there was a sidewalk required along the north side of
Crystal Drive which was not constructed at that time. It was pledged to be
constructed when the street was extended and we would like to request that
sidewalk be constructed as part of your new construction on Crystal Drive. It
would be the south side of lot 27, the north side of Crystal Drive.
Milholland: Yes Sir.
Shreve:
Ward:
Hesse:
That is all I had.
Thanks Keith. Kim, do you have any concerns with trees we are looking at on
Crystal Springs?
He has moved lot lines so that the trees are basically centered on lot lines so
hopefully they will be saved.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Ward:
As far as Parks, you have already given the land, that is already done. At this
time I will open it up to the public. Is there any public comment on this particular
Preliminary Plat?
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 6
Price:
Milholland:
Price:
Milholland:
Price:
Milholland:
Ward:
Milholland:
My name is Jennifer Price, I am the president of Crystal Springs Homeowners
Association. This other acreage that you are proposing would that be part of
Crystal Springs too?
I am not proposing the 70 acres right now.
Ok. Eventually will that be part of Crystal Springs?
That I can't say for certain. The clients know about them and they have talked
about it.
Ok, but it is in that field where you have talked about building Phase III, is that
the area you are talking about?
Yes, it would be north. It is nothing really firmed up on it other than the fact that
we are going to look at the conditions that could be met and so forth but they have
talked to us. They understand what is going on.
Ok, are there any other comments from the public? Seeing none, I will close it to
the public and bring it back to our Committee. Mel, did you have any other
comments or questions that you would like to clear up on this?
We would like for the Planning Commission to go on record saying that they
would support doing one of two things. I mentioned this in a previous meeting.
The client has spent well in excess of $130,000 in good faith, I know it has been
six or seven years, but their original property line stopped here, we have got a cul-
de-sac. The Planning Commission at that time said that they would support going
to the Council and asking for a cost share between here and here if the developer
would obtain this land and let it run on out to the street. They did that. They
spent $70,000 moving the drain and relocating it and plus they paid for the land
and exchanged another large amount of land right here to the golf course. I know
that has been a while back. This is part of the land that actually, I don't know if it
is part of the I park, the I park is right here, this goes across the road, and the city
owns about another lot down this way all the way up almost 1/4 mile to the north
strip of land here. I think everybody would agree that this is needful to go out
here but with past history, I told my client I would suggest two options to them.
One is to go to the City and ask the Planning Commission of course to support it,
sell them this tract right here and rezone it for residents. That would make it
residents all the way out to the road. Or, ask the City if they would cost share still
in this connection. I think that is a fair request.
Ward: Is that property pretty much residential more than it would be any other type of
use?
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 7
Milholland:
Ward:
Milholland:
Ward:
Milholland:
Ward:
Milholland:
Ward:
Milholland:
Ward:
Well, right now there is nothing there but a golf course here and a pasture up there
and this is going to be residents here.
It looks to me like that would be a common sense motion trying to go ahead and
square that off and take it all the way to the street. What would you get about
four more lots?
Six lots. There are trees right here so if Kim says make the line right here we are
talking about four lots. That four lots probably wouldn't pay for their cost of
construction of all the utilities, etc.
How much land would that be?
It was something like 270'x330', two acres.
Why don't you make some kind of an offer in writing that we can look at. The
Planning Commission doesn't really have any say so, all we can do is make a
recommendation to the City Council but I think that is a pretty straight offer.
We just want something that is fair. It is going to benefit everybody out here on
that road.
I don't see what other use that property would be used for except residential.
It is about 270' deep and it goes on up here with this corridor and backs up to this
other property back here and stops about 300' down here in this ditch, the flood
area stops there.
Ok. Tim, do you have any comments on that?
Conklin- Sure. First of all Mel, do I have that in writing? Did we verbally discuss it
internally here with the third floor directors upstairs? I think the letter that you
write should be addressed to Mayor Dan Coody and he can forward that to his
directors and carry that forward with regard to that.
Milholland:
Conklin:
Can we write the Planning Commission a copy of that and ask them to support it?
Sure. Whatever you want to put in your letter but I think that as an official
request I think it should go to Mayor Dan Coody and he can hand it off to one of
his directors or the City Attorney to figure out what we are going to do. You have
some questions with regard to the process and there was a resolution that was
recently passed with regard to sell of city owned property, having it appraised,
taking sealed bids. I know there is a concern about yes, you want to buy it, but
the current policy is that everybody has a fair chance at buying city property if we
are going to sell something.
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 8
Milholland: Except the Industrial park.
Conklin: I am not sure how that resolution that they passed last night impacts this either
Mel. I share that with you if you are going to say it is part of Wilson Springs I
Park.
Milholland: I am just saying that is what the resolution really says and whether the Council
goes with that or not, I don't know. I was hoping that the Planning Commission
would see the reasoning behind our request and make a support to the Council and
maybe that will help them go on and do that. Otherwise, my client is still hanging
out in the air whether he can get that or not. If that option is so, the second option
is we could ask the Planning Commission to recommend to Council to support
paying for that section right there. It is improvement to City property if we don't
get the property.
Conklin- There is some past history too that the Sage House was going to be located on the
north side of this proposed street. That is zoned R-2 so the City Council has
discussed leasing that property to the Sage House for future development. That
has been changed now and the Sage House is now on the land on Huntsville
Road. We recently rezoned that. When you say part of the I Park, I don't think
that is in anybody's mind because the Sage House was going to develop it and we
rezoned it to R-2. Once again, just get a letter, address it to Dan Coody and we
can take it forward from there.
Ward: Are there any other comments?
Casey:
I have a comment. It is my understanding that before this additional land was
purchased that we were recommending that the city cost share for this portion.
Since that time, they have purchased this other land and that has greatly reduced
the amount of street needed to be constructed to connect this Crystal Drive to the
development and that is such a small amount now we are not going to recommend
that the city cost share with that portion to connect this development. We are
going to recommend that it be constructed but not that the city cost share with the
developer.
Milholland: Just so we understand the history right, they told our client, the Planning
Commission, if they purchased this right here they would cost share half and half
from the purchased part all the way to here.
Casey: That is not the information that I was given.
Milholland: That is in the record.
Conklin: Mel, what I think we should do is you get your records out and I will get my
records out and we can highlight the areas where who said what and put a
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 9
Milholland:
Ward:
Milholland:
Ward:
Bunch:
Milholland:
Bunch:
Conklin:
Milholland:
Conklin:
Milholland:
Conklin.
Milholland:
Conklin:
Jefcoat:
package together and give that to the Commission and the Mayor and the City
Council and see what happens.
The reason I'm saying that Matt, that is the first time that I have understood it that
way. Tim may have expressed it that way to me but I didn't understand it that
way. I understand your thinking on this now that this is a short distance but that is
about $200 a foot construction and that is not a little bit, that is quite a chunk of
money.
Ok, thanks Mel.
Thank you.
Are there any other comments or motions?
Before I make a motion, once this gets signed in from Deane Solomon over to
Salem Road it becomes a straight shot right by the school. Is there anything that
we can do to slow down the traffic through there? I believe in interconnectivity
with different phases of subdivisions but at the same time we need to be aware.
You can put a stop sign right here and right here if you want to.
Something because on this down on the west end it goes by a school and a large
recreational area and we need to have the safety of people in that area.
I did suggest that they might want to look at doing some type of a small boulevard
through there to help break it up a little bit. I think land was an issue so they
couldn't quite do that. They might put some type of island in there.
What are you talking about Tim?
I am talking about maybe taking some of these trees, putting them in an island and
breaking this up in an entry.
You mean down here?
Yes.
How does that slow the traffic down?
I have experienced that if you have a boulevard and you can't take a straight shot,
you have to turn, you slow down. That is my personal experience and traffic has
put roundabouts in and different things and possibly curving the street and not
making it a straight shot.
We had it curved at that intersection there but we rearranged that.
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 10
Milholland:
Conklin:
Milholland:
Conklin:
Milholland:
Bunch:
Milholland:
Bunch:
Ward:
Bunch:
Ward:
Milholland:
Ward:
Allen:
Ward:
We had it actually curved and approved before but the new standards with which
we were told we had to comply with, required us to do this.
The only other suggestion I could see if you don't want to make it a straight shot,
take Crystal Drive all the way to Deane Solomon and connect it into the existing
Crystal Drive up here at this point, pull it back out and make people go down that
way, that is not a straight shot, make it longer around.
You mean a cul-de-sac in the middle of that street and make it dead end?
Yes.
The Master Street Plan shows it going straight through. I show stop signs right
here and right here.
Would we have a four way stop right here and right here both?
Perry could, I assume, recommend that if that is one of your concerns. You can
put a three way stop here but there is going to be traffic coming this way too.
As this phase goes in the major impact will be down here on the elementary
school and the recreational facility. I guess we could put that in our
recommendation or have Tim talk to Perry.
Probably Perry needs to make a decision. I don't think we should be trying to
regulate traffic.
Not so much trying to regulate traffic, just as these things are designed to take
things like that into consideration we need to maintain connectivity but at the
same time to reduce traffic flow in neighborhoods to try to stop speeding through
neighborhoods.
I think one three way stop sign up there will be the main thing to slow it down.
Ultimately you are going to have a four way stop there.
Commissioner Allen?
Since I am a substitute to the Subdivision Committee I wonder whether or not it is
normal to forward something onto the full Commission with a sewer issue like
this resolved.
Normally it is and if they don't get it resolved, if we tabled everything here it
would never get to Planning Commission. This is more of a technical type of
issue that we are dealing with as far as whether it is an 8" sewer line or a lift
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 11
Casey:
Motion:
station or what not than what we have to worry about normally. Is that the way
you look at it Matt?
Yes. If we can get it to the construction phase if they don't satisfy the
Engineering Division with the Water and Sewer Division then it won't get
approved. We still have got some power there.
Bunch: I move that we forward PPL 02-15.00 for Crystal Springs Phase III to the full
Planning Commission.
Ward: Do I have a second?
Allen: I will second.
Ward: I will concur. Thanks Mel.
Milholland: Thank you.
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 12
LSP 02-43.00: Lot Split (Tipton, pp 475) was submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of D.W.
Tipton for property located at 5855 Dot Tipton Road. The property is in the Growth Area and
contains approximately 13.85 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 11.85 acres and
2.06 acres.
Ward:
Our second item on the agenda this morning is a lot split, LSP 02-43.00. It was
submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of D.W. Tipton for property located at 5855
Dot Tipton Road. The property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately
13.85 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 11.85 acres and 2.06 acres.
Are the applicants here? Come forward Sir. Is Mr. Reid not going to represent
you today?
Mohanna: Not today.
Ward: I bet you will do a good job.
Mohanna: I am Marvin Mohanna and this is D.W. Tipton.
Tipton: He is sitting in for me, I can't talk since I had a stroke. My daughter usually takes
care of me but she is sick today.
Ward: Ok, thank you Sir. Tim, why don't you tell us about this lot split.
Conklin: This is a request to split 13.85 acres into two tracts of 11.85 and 2.06. It is within
our Planning Area. A 2" water line is located on the north side of Dot Tipton
Road. The water line, the property line has been adjusted to show the water line
in front of the lot. The new tract is 2.06. There is no sewer in this area, 35' of
right of way is shown on Dot Tipton Road from centerline on each side for a total
of 70', that is a collector street classified on our Master Street Plan. We are
asking that the Subdivision Committee approve it at this level. They are showing
the water line on the north side so that is meeting that condition and the
remainder, if they could just label that as tract "C" that is all that we have on that.
The remainder tract, since it does not have a house on it, we are not asking for
that water line to be extended further west on Dot Tipton Road at this time. That
is all I have.
Ward: How far are we from sewer out here, quite a ways?
Tipton: We don't have any sewer at all out there.
Conklin: The new sewage treatment plant is back to the east.
Tipton: It is about a quarter of a mile.
Ward: Ok, we have no concerns about Engineering at this point or Sidewalks or
Landscaping and so on. Is there anyone with the public that would like to make
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 13
public comment on this particular lot split? Seeing none, I will close it to the
public and I will bring it back to the Commissioners.
Conklin: Mr. Chair, just one comment. I stamped your property line adjustment last week,
which did not show the adjustment to get the water line in front of the lot. Do not
file that please. Give me a revised property line adjustment.
Mohanna: Ok. Your office has requested five different sets and they are supposed to send it
over.
Ward: How far will this water line be extended Tim?
Conklin- It is not. See the property line how it comes back over this way? That is what
they are doing instead of extending the water line, they are creating this little dog
leg right there. My problem is last week I approved a property line adjustment
over to this part.
Ward: Ok, I see.
Conklin: I am trying to correct that mistake.
Ward: Are there any questions or comments from Commissioners?
Bunch: Just a question. I went out looking at this and there was a trailer on one of them
with the address 5839, is that one of these or is that next door to it?
Mohanna: That is on down. He has a house trailer on this one here that had the lot line
adjustment and then his daughter lives right there in hers.
Bunch: I wanted to make sure I was looking at the right place.
Mohanna: On past that is where we remodeled that one house.
Ward: It looks like a simple enough lot split once the water lines were figured out.
Bunch: If nobody else has any comments, I will make a motion to approve LSP 02-43.00
at this level subject to the Planning Director's comments on the water line.
Ward:
Ostner:
Ward:
Do I have a second?
I will second.
I will concur Thanks Gentlemen, have a nice day.
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 14
LSP 02-44.00: Lot Split (Walgreens, pp 135) was submitted by James Koch of CEI
Engineering on behalf of Whiteco Interra Ventures, LLC for property located at 3939 N. Shiloh
Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.97
acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.74 acres and 1.23 acres.
Ward:
Koch:
Gamsjaeger:
Ward:
Conklin -
Third on our agenda is LSP 02-44.00 for Walgreen's. It was submitted by James
Koch of CEI Engineering on behalf of Whiteco Interna Ventures, LLC for
property located at 3939 N. Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.97 acres. The request is
to split into two tracts of 1.74 acres and 1.23 acres. Why don't you gentlemen go
ahead and introduce yourselves as the applicants.
My name is James Koch with CEI Engineering.
My name is Tom Gamsjaeger with Whiteco Interra Ventures.
Ok, Tim, what can you tell us about this?
This is the site of the Nelson Berna Funeral Home, current site. The Planning
Commission did approve a Large Scale for relocation of this funeral home on
Zion Road, which they are in the process of constructing. They would like to split
the current lot where Nelson's is located on Joyce Blvd. and Shiloh at that
intersection into two lots. It is zoned C-2, there is an 8" waterline that exists on
the property and an 8" sewer line. They are dedicating 55' of right of way from
the centerline of Joyce Blvd. It is a little unusual in this location, I think we have
a total of seven lanes at that intersection. Even with the 55' of right of way we
are not going to have the standard green space between the curb and the sidewalk
however this is somewhat of an unusual situation. It is one of our busier
intersections and it is seven lanes currently so we are not asking for any additional
right of way beyond what the Master Street Plan requires, 55' from centerline.
There is also a 50' dedicated right of way on Shiloh Drive. They are showing
that. As we get into the Large Scale Development one of the comments I have is
the possibility of dedicating additional right of way to get that sidewalk shown on
the public property. If that is the case then I would like the survey to reflect that
additional right of way, if you want that sidewalk on public property verses
private property. I am asking that this go forward to the entire Planning
Commission as part of the Large Scale Development there may be some changes
with regard to access. Conditions that we do need to address and which we will
be able to see in greater detail at the Large Scale Development is curb cuts, the
location of those curb cuts. We are asking that one curb cut be allowed on Joyce
Blvd. and one curb cut be allowed on Shiloh Drive and that those curb cuts be
shared for both lots. We are also asking that cross access to Circuit City back to
the west be provided and we would like for the shared and cross access be shown
on the survey to clarify that. Your actual physical improvements for Walgreen's
are located on lot 1B. I think it is important that we have something recorded of
record that you are going to have a shared drive. Right now you own both pieces.
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 15
Ward:
Koch:
Conklin:
Ward:
Casey:
If you sell one off you want to make sure you can drive your vehicles and share
that driveway.
Are there two cuts there now?
Yes. There are two cuts on Joyce and one cut on Shiloh.
We really don't want two cuts on Joyce. If you look at Joyce Blvd. today it is
very difficult to turn left off of Joyce, you can't even turn left onto the frontage
road. We really want to limit the curb cuts onto Joyce and have it as far back as
we possibly can. On Shiloh if we can share curb cuts it results in more
landscaping and less impervious surface. That is all that we have with Planning
on the lot split at this time.
Ok, thanks Tim. I will ask if there is any comment from any of our staff on this
particular issue on the lot split.
They show the proposed water line here but it still does not show how it is going
to connect to the existing system. We need that shown and the easements need to
be provided. There is also an existing sewer line on the property that needs to be
shown.
Ward: Is that all Matt?
Casey: Yes.
Ward: Are there any other staff comments? I will open it up to the public, is there any
public comment on this particular lot split? Seeing none, I will close it to the
public and I will bring it back to the Commissioners. I am not totally against, and
this is just a personal thing, on the curb cuts for let's say a drug store or something
like that, for an ingress only, an extra cut where people can drive in and then
maybe where you could have a curb cut for both lots going out.
Conklin- As an additional curb cut?
Ward:
There are two curb cuts there now I believe. I am just saying that sometimes it
gets so hectic trying to get so much traffic in and out of one place for let's say two
what could be very busy buildings. Now days with the funeral home it is not that
busy. The few times it is busy there are always police cars and traffic control and
all that kind of stuff. Most of the time it is not though. I can see where it would
be nice to have a curb cut for ingress that people could go in and then circle
around and come out of the drive thru and all that kind of stuff into a common
curb cut for both lots or something like that. That is just my thoughts. I really
haven't had a chance to look at this.
Conklin- They are not proposing two. I hate to give them that.
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 16
Ward: Two curb cuts are there and there are two lots there. You all of the sudden get so
much traffic built up trying to get in and trying to get out.
Conklin: Are you talking about Shiloh Drive or Joyce?
Ward: Joyce. I am not talking about both in and out, I'm just talking about an extra
ingress.
Koch: Just to speak on your comment Mr. Ward, that would affect our parking ratio.
Ward: It might not work?
Koch: That is correct.
Ward: Ok. Are there any other comments or motions?
Bunch: I have a question. I don't know when the right time to discuss it, what would be
disposition of lot 1B? Right now we have part of the building extending over
onto lot 1B and we have a lot in front of us and a Large Scale for lot 1 but
nothing is said about what is going to happen to 1B. Is there going to be a hole
left there until such time as there is a tenant?
Koch: We won't leave an unsightly hole.
Bunch: I realize that it is going to be advantageous to whatever goes in to have something
there but just for the record what are the plans?
Gamsjaeger: We are currently marketing the additional property for some sort of regional use
and we don't have, we haven't identified a specific user for the space at this point.
It has been my experience that if you put a Walgreen's on the corner they bring a
lot of traffic and they are a desirable tenant to co -locate with. I expect this to
move very quickly once we start marketing.
Bunch: After the demolition of the existing building would you be leaving the stacked
parking area and existing landscaping or is the whole thing going to be bulldozed?
Gamsjaeger: What we would do is we would is where the Walgreen's property line bisects that
drive, that east/west aisle drive in half, we would improve the driveway in full all
the way to the north and we are going to do some grading throughout the site as
we construct the Walgreen's. If we don't have a building plan ready to build we
would dress up that, seed it, mow it, plant it to keep it attractive.
Ward: Ok, are there any other comments or motions?
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 17
Bunch: One little comment, is the name on the adjacent owners correct, where it says
Dwayne B. Nelso, should it be Nelson? That is just a housekeeping item.
Koch: Those are the items that I got at the courthouse.
Ward: 1 think it is Nelson.
Koch: Ok, I will fix that.
Motion:
Bunch: I move that we forward LSP 02-44.00 to the full Planning Commission.
Ward: Do I have a second?
Allen: I second.
Ward: I will concur.
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 18
LSD 02-24.00: Large Scale Development (Walgreens, pp 135) was submitted by James Koch
of CEI Engineering on behalf of Whiteco Interra Ventures, LLC for property located at 3939 N.
Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately
2.97 acres with a 14,560 sq.ft. retail building proposed.
Ward:
The companion item on this particular issue is LSD 02-24.00, the property is
zoned C-2 and it contains approximately 2.97 acres with a 14,560 sq.ft. retail
building proposed. Tim?
Conklin- This is the companion item. It is for the new Walgreen's for 14,560 sq.ft. It is
zoned C-2. I already talked about the right of way. If you notice along the site
plan the sidewalk along Shiloh Drive is shown along private property. One
comment or question, do they want to dedicate additional right of way to the back
of the sidewalk to be a public right of way? I believe you do have the proper
width of landscaping, 15' under commercial design standards and it does not look
like it would impact your site plan other than additional properties would be given
to the City of Fayetteville and we would be responsible for the maintenance of
that sidewalk. I would like the Planning Commission to look at the building with
regard to commercial design standards. They are proposing this orange red type
brick. It is their new prototype. From Plat Review they have added columns to
the north elevation to help articulate it. They do have an elevation that will be
somewhat difficult to make it look like a front, and that is the west elevation with
their access for their trucks and screened dumpsters. There is an existing fence
that is along the Circuit City and Walgreen's property line that should help screen
that. Staff appreciates the extra effort with the columns on the north elevation, I
think that helps. Once again, just to clarify on this plan, shared and cross access
between Circuit City and the lot to the north we would like that shown and some
type of easement for the curb cuts. They have requested the use of a pole sign.
Staff has recommended a monument type sign be used. During our discussions
between Plat Review and today I have asked them the possibility of providing a
joint identification sign for both lots as part of one unified development. The
applicant has provided photos of surrounding signs and is requesting approval of a
pole sign at this time. I will let the applicant and owner present their case. There
are pole signs out there. There are also monument signs out there. We have dealt
with some large national corporations, Wal-Mart, McDonald's, Circuit City, that
have been required to have monument type signs. This is at the corner of Shiloh
fronting 71 Business. Once again, I will let them make their argument for that.
Currently Nelson's has two monument signs out there right now. They don't
currently have a pole sign. It is a very visible corner. Once again, one of our
busier intersections in Fayetteville. Overall, staff is pleased with the use of the
brick on the building. I think it is going to look nice and it will be compatible
with surrounding uses out in that area. That is all I have at this time.
Ward: Did we have elevations at all?
Conklin- You didn't receive those?
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 19
Ward: I didn't get any.
Conklin: I apologize for that.
Ward: That's alright. Matt, do you have any concerns with this Large Scale?
Casey: The same concerns I had with the lot split. We need to show the proposed water
line connection to the existing system and also show the existing sewer line.
There were a few minor comments made at Plat Review that were not addressed.
I would like to see those addressed before it goes to Planning Commission.
Koch: Sure. We will have an erosion control plan put together and bring that to you.
Casey: I would also like to get with you at some point to take a look at the drainage, I
have a couple of questions.
Koch: Absolutely.
Ward: Ok, thanks. Keith?
Shreve: The sidewalk requirements along Shiloh Drive is a 6' sidewalk with a 6' green
space. Along Joyce Blvd. we would want a 6' sidewalk and a 10' green space
where it is possible near the intersection of Shiloh we would agree to reducing the
green space due to existing conditions.
Ward: Ok, thanks Keith. Kim?
Hesse: James, for tree preservation, did you provide a site analysis?
Koch: I can't remember.
Hesse: I need that. I need a copy of that, it can be on the site plan or drainage plan or
whatever. They are tearing down an existing structure and so it is very difficult to
say what is there. There are some large trees, they are saving a couple of them
but basically mitigating. There is not room for extra trees on the site so you could
contribute to the tree fund $900. Overall we approve of the tree preservation. We
had discussed at Plat Review that we needed some more trees in the parking lot
islands. If you could revise that. Are you the same owner of the Township
Walgreen's? Their landscaping was really a good example. Other developments
there on Joyce might give you an idea of what we are looking for.
Conklin- Circuit City is probably one of the better examples in Fayetteville right next door.
Gamsjaeger: So you are happy with the Township Walgreen's?
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 20
Hesse: Yes.
Gamsjaeger: That's good.
Hesse: With those changes I recommend approval.
Ward: Thank you. At this time I will open it up to the public. Is there any public
comment on this Large Scale Development for Walgreen's? Seeing none, I will
close it to the public and I will bring it back to the Commission. I think the first
thing we ought to try to discuss is the pole sign, monument sign controversy I
guess. There are two monument signs out there right now. I noticed that one
probably doesn't meet our criteria today does it Tim?
Conklin: I looked at it when I was out there last week. I don't think it does.
Ward:
It is much larger than what we use now days. Do we allow monument signs,
Walgreen's normally has some kind of little reader lines on their pole signs and
we don't allow it on monument signs of course, is there a way to do that?
Conklin: McDonald's does have a reader on theirs at Mall and Joyce.
Ward: Oh, do they?
Conklin: Yes. I personally think it would look better not to have the reader boards for the
signs like that. I would be much more comfortable if we were planning overall
signage with a joint identification sign for both lots at this corner. This will be the
most visible location even for lot 1B. I would be in support of looking at
something that maybe isn't as restrictive as just the monument sign size. The
monument sign does allow them to face it 10' from the property line, maximum
6' high and 75 sq.ft. Anything larger than that they have to start meeting the sign
ordinance setbacks, which is going to put you into the parking lot, if you look at
the current Walgreen's it required it to be further back. That is something you
could consider also with regard to looking at a monument sign, getting it closer to
the street. I am just trying to be consistent with what we have done on Joyce
Blvd. Some of the photos in here describe some signs that are joint identification
signs like you see for Wal-Mart and the Home Depot. That size, all of those
businesses are on one sign, something similar to that, things like the Barnes and
Noble, Pier One and that type of thing I would be more inclined to support.
Ward:
If they put a pole sign or some type of a joint usage sign on Shiloh there is quite a
bit of difference from College to Shiloh. There is very little or no traffic on
Shiloh, it is all on 71 Business. This is a little different. Are you reading what I
am saying?
Conklin: I understand. Panera Bread across the road, their argument was the Bradford Pear
Trees that are up and down the road that were blocking their sign. Once again, I
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 21
am trying to be consistent. We have got Circuit City, McDonald's, United Bank,
Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Best Buy. Yes, this is not internally within that
subdivision but we have some major corporations that were not allowed to have a
pole sign. I don't want them all knocking on my door asking for a pole sign.
Bunch: The McDonald's store in hat area, there were some concerns that they had
concerning the visibility of a monument sign and I think the records show that
since the time that that store has gone in that it is the top grossing McDonald's in
the area so that is an indication that people have a major concern about the
visibility but that area is extremely visible. Panera Bread Company sits in a
depression. Not only did it have all the trees around it but it sits in a depression
and it is competing in a different market than a Walgreen's would compete. Any
of the stores that sell the same types of items that Walgreen's would be selling
that are in the immediate vicinity, most of those have monument signs. One of
the reasons we allowed the pole sign for Panera Bread Company was so that they
wouldn't be at a competitive disadvantage with pre-existing establishments that
had pole signs. What we are looking at here is a pre-existing establishments and
the general closed market here are pretty well represented by monument signs.
Koch:
Yes Sir, I would agree. Perry's Jewelers just up the hill from us has something
similar to a pylon or a pole sign and so does Hooter's. The majority of those
types of signs are along the Hwy. 71 corridor and are not along the Joyce corridor,
those are predominantly shared or monument type signs.
Gamsjaeger: We were attracted to this location because of the Hwy. 71 corridor, the traffic, and
the visibility along Hwy. 71. We feel that this development, the front door faces
the intersection, faces Hwy. 71 and it is really a 71 Development as opposed to a
Joyce Development. Although we have access to Joyce the major presence is on
71. Hwy. 71 traffic moves much faster and you need the visibility to capture the
customer's attention with a big, taller sign. We are also setback from 71. We
have Shiloh and then east of Shiloh we have the landscaped area in between
Shiloh and 71 or College. To have the visibility to 71, which is what we are
trying to trade off of to capture that business we need a pylon sign. A 6' high
monument sign does not allow the customer to see, and we are a convenience
store. We are not a destination store. Wal-Mart or Home Depot is a destination.
We are looking to capture people going by and they want to stop at Walgreen's
and buy something quickly, get in and get out very quickly. To attract that
customer we need that signage. Signage is very important for our visibility and
our ability to get our marketing out there and our message out there that we are
attractive to get people in and out.
Ward:
One of the things that I think would give you much more visibility would be, and
we have allowed this on some buildings instead of putting a pole sign, we may be
a little more lenient to more wall signs on the building. This is going to be a
pretty tall building, it is going to have very good visibility from at least three
sides. I would think that we would be very lenient to even on the north side of the
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 22
building, it would also kind of break up the building a little bit, to have a
Walgreen's sign on the northeast corner along the east side of the building. Of
course, on the front of it you have got the big Walgreen's on the front up high.
All I am saying is that we might be a lot more lenient to a wall sign on the
building itself than we would be to a pole sign. I am not opposed to having a
pylon or a pole sign personally between lot lA and lot 1B but that is only one
person.
Conklin: Your current location, is that your sign down here in the corner?
Koch: Yes.
Conklin- I haven't reviewed that for the sign ordinance, but it probably couldn't be located
right there with regard to setbacks. Have you checked that?
Koch: Yes.
Conklin: It can?
Koch: No.
Conklin- Ok, thank you.
Koch: Actually, the proper location with the square footage of the sign per ordinance
says that it needs to be about where the first island is off that corner. That would
be in general where the ordinance allows for that per square footage and linear
distance setbacks.
Conklin: And if it was a monument sign you could leave it right there. I don't know what
the square footage is, 75'?
Gamsjaeger: 124 sq.ft.
Koch: It was like 75' off of that corner.
Conklin: Actually, I believe it is only 75 sq.ft. on a pole sign too. I don't do the sign
permitting but I think maximum 30' tall, 40' back, 75 sq.ft. There are some
advantages to a monument sign. McDonald's was very concerned about
visibility and once again, they have talked about needing more parking and it is
the number one store and people don't have a problem finding that. You have got
a tremendous volume of traffic coming down Joyce Blvd. It is one of the main
entries into CMN with Target and Wal-Mart, and Old Navy and the rest of that
back in there. I am not sure how Walgreen's works. When people go out to
Walgreen's, I don't know if you have studied that, is it a primary destination point
or is it something that we are going to Target or whatever and we are going to
stop by? I am not sure how that works.
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 23
Gamsjaeger:
Ostner:
Gamsjaeger:
Koch:
Gamsjaeger:
Ostner:
We are a convenience store, we are not a destination. In most cases we are not a
destination unless you are going specifically to fill a prescription. The
prescription business is about 50% of our business. The other 50% is health and
beauty aid, soda, some food items, stuff you need everyday. That is why to
capture that we need the visibility. A pylon sign at a busy intersection is what is
going to be the most visible feature that will allow us to attract that business.
Do you have any elevations of your structure? I am thinking about the
Walgreen's in Springdale, the building itself that Commissioner Ward was talking
about.
This is a new elevation, it is a new prototype. Instead of having the E.F.I.S.
wrapping, which is like the stucco material, around the top of the building, it is all
brick going all the way with a metal seamed canopy over the windows.
I think you can see on this elevation the height of the sign.
Although having some additional wall signage would be helpful for visibility it is
not out at the intersection. We are setback, we have three rows of parking and
two drive aisles separating the building from the property line. The building is
more setback than a typical Walgreen's site plan would entail. The building is
even further back from the intersection.
The only thing that springs to my mind is this wall sign that is on the building, is
almost as high as your pole sign and three times as big. I can't get to it from
College. If I have to turn at the intersection of Joyce I am faced with a potential
monument sign down at street level and that, as you say, this is a unique
intersection because it has got almost a highway/interstate sense of 71. You do
have to turn onto Joyce to access it.
Koch: There is a way to get onto Shiloh Drive here near Georgetown Square Road, there
is an access from Hwy. 71 right there.
Right. I can't see the building up there anyway.
Yeah, there are some trees right in here.
That is correct. A pylon sign would allow us to capture that south bound traffic.
Once they see the building it is too late.
Conklin: Have you talked about a joint identification sign since you are trying to develop
both lots?
Gamsjaeger: I guess by ordinance we are allowed two pylon signs on each lot. Until we have
another user it is hard to know how attractive is that going to be a deal killer for if
Ostner:
Koch:
Gamsjaeger:
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 24
they can't get their own identification. It is hard for me to make a commitment to
say we can do it without having the other user in hand.
Allen: Of course, by the time you see the sign you would still have time to make that
turn and there would be the monument sign.
Bunch: I think one of the things that is being overlooked here is that in other communities
where there is a profusion of pole signs, everyone feels like they have to have one
to compete and to be seen and in this particular area of Fayetteville and also all
along the Design Overlay District we have fewer and fewer pole signs and people
have learned how to look for monument signs and it makes a tremendous
difference. I can drive north from this location and there are so many signs that it
is an overload and it actually becomes harder to pick a sign out from all the clutter
of signs. This is the same type of concerns that we had with McDonald's and
they were worried that nobody would see the McDonald's and again, it turned
into the top grossing one in the area. I can appreciate the argument and the
concerns of wanting the pole sign for visibility but the people in the community
have learned how to view monument signs and actually they have become more
visible than a pole sign because people aren't looking up, they are looking at
street level.
Gamsjaeger: But because there are existing pole signs on 71, we are not part of the subdivision
and I'm not sure how the subdivision was approved but I imagine it was approved
as a planned development which included sign standards and elevation standards,
etc. We are not required to utilize a monument sign and we are just trying to
achieve what is allowed by ordinance and what is up and down 71. Because of all
the signs we feel that a monument sign would put us at a disadvantage.
Bunch: This issue cannot be solved at this level anyway. I think we have probably pretty
well discussed it unless there is some new items that come up we will probably
have the same conversation again at the full Planning Commission.
Ward:
Ok. As far as the building itself is concerned, I don't think there is any problem
as far as commercial design standards. It looks great, I like the idea of all the
brick and so on. I will give you my last little thing on reader signs and wall signs
and so on. I will say that the Walgreen's sign that is there on College and
Township, I do see that reader sign, it is very visible and I also see the pharmacy
sign that is on the wall, it is very visible. Those two signs are very, very visible.
They stand out a lot to me when I am driving by there. You all have good points
as far as the concept there. It is just that in that area along Joyce Street it might be
harder to get a pole sign there or a pylon sign, or whatever you want to call it. I
think it is going to be tough to get that through the Planning Commission to be
honest about it. There are only four of us here. I would say that if it was a pole
sign right between lots one and two between Shiloh up there, that might be a little
different story, that would be located for both lots or something like that because
that is kind of hid. Lot 2 up there is going to be a tough sell because it is right
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 25
below the mountain and will have limited visibility as you are coming from the
north to the south. I can almost see a pole sign being there but along Joyce close
to the intersection, I don't think it is going to happen. That is my read on it.
Bunch: A joint identification sign right up in here.
Ward: Right. That is exactly what I think might get approved. As far as the location and
wanting a pole sign, reader sign as it is now, I don't think it is going to happen
like that. I don't think the Planning Commission will vote for it.
Allen: I agree.
Ward: Are there any other comments?
Osmer: A quick question. If they did a joint identification sign they would get a little bit
larger per square footage?
Conklin: They do get a little larger square footage.
Koch: Tim, the number you were referring to is that from the Overlay District?
Conklin- No, we amended our ordinance to allow monument signs
Koch: As far as the square footage for the pylon sign? We are not in the Overlay
District.
Conklin: No. Once again, I hate to administer an ordinance that I am not responsible for
but I don't believe 124 sq.ft. is allowed, I think it is maximum 75 sq.ft.
Gamsjaeger: I believe the existing Walgreen's sign is the standard 124', I didn't do the math,
just by eyeballing it.
Conklin: That seems high to me.
Gamsjaeger: I don't think it is 75.
Conklin- I think we mirrored the monument and pylon sign size. We can figure that out.
You do have more than one front here. Another idea would be to place a
monument sign here and look at the ability to do a joint identification sign up
above. We do want Walgreen's to be successful in Fayetteville and we do want
you here but we also want to be consistent with Walgreen's and the rest of the
corporate businesses we have on Joyce Blvd.
Bunch: Just some questions about your circulation within your parking lot. What is this
right over here?
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 26
Koch:
Bunch:
Koch:
Bunch:
Koch:
Bunch:
Gamsjaeger:
Bunch:
Gamsjaeger:
Bunch:
Koch:
Bunch:
Koch:
Gamsjaeger:
Bunch:
That is showing the truck driving through the actual parking lot, that it can make
that turn, the radius is acceptable for the turn. We did that primarily to show how
that traffic would come through and that a fire truck would be able to get around
behind the store.
I guess that was my question, I didn't know if that was a structure but I see now
that it is an 18 wheeler or a fire truck or something. You are going to have two
way traffic in through here and then you are showing your access easement here
but this is one way traffic.
That is shared for the adjacent lot.
That means, ok, so that is the only way they can leave or come in and you are
showing an island?
That island is going to be removed. That is just a drive through lane there, that is
why that is one way. Primarily that other side is intended to be in that direction.
That cross access to the adjacent lot is extremely limited.
The cross access would be controlled through a blanket easement allowing cross
access over each other's lots through common areas and each other's driveways
as they may exist.
Ok, so this is typical of the whole length?
Yes, if there is no building area and no islands you can drive over it.
That was one of my concerns is to be able to access there and here as well. I
assume these are dumpsters?
They are not dumpsters, they are actually the compactors they use.
It is the trash pick up location and you are showing the ability to get in and out.
That is correct.
Right, the hatched line is the truck backing up and not a permanent structure and
those are screened.
Ok. One other comment, if you could by Planning Commission, either put it on a
drawing or give it to us a listing of the existing canopy, preserved canopy and
mitigation so we have it in a table form. There are existing trees on these lots and
that existing canopy needs to be readily findable to the other Commissioners.
That is the only comment I had. Nancy?
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 27
Ward: Commissioner Allen, do you have any other comments? I will ask for a motion.
Motion:
Bunch: I move that we forward LSD 02-24.00 to the full Planning Commission.
Ward: Do I have a second?
Allen: I will second.
Ward: I will concur. Thank you.
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 28
LSD 02-25.00: Large Scale Development (Lewis Brothers, pp 213) was submitted by Mandy
Bunch, PE on behalf of Lewis Brothers Leasing Co. for property located at the northeast corner
of Longview Street and Plainview Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial and contains approximately 10.80 acres with a 9,506 sq.ft. two story building
proposed.
Ward:
Our next item on the agenda this morning is LSD 02-25.00 for Lewis Brothers
submitted by Mandy Bunch, PE on behalf of Lewis Brothers Leasing Co. for
property located at the northeast corner of Longview Street and Plainview
Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains
approximately 10.80 acres with a 9,506 sq.ft. two story building proposed. Tim?
Conklin- This is a Large Scale Development to expand the Lewis Brothers dealership.
They are going to construct a 9,506 sq.ft. two story office building, 182 parking
spaces for display for vehicles, 17 parking spaces for employees and customers.
The building addition adds 19.7% more square feet of building for the entire
dealership. Surrounding zoning includes C to the north, east, and south and R-1
to the west. Surrounding land use is vacant to the east, an auto lot to the north and
east and commercial. There is a 1" waterline in front of the property, a 6" line on
Longview Street, a 6" sanitary sewer line is proposed on the property and a 6"
line on the east side of the property. 35' of right of way will be dedicated along
Longview Street and Plainview Avenue. The dedication for Plainview is not
shown on the current site plan. We can discuss that a little, not right now. The
City of Fayetteville worked to acquire that right of way and fire station and we
didn't acquire the right of way based on the Master Street Plan. I am not sure if
Mandy Bunch, the Engineer will be able to adjust that plan before that. We are
asking that the full Planning Commission take a look at it. Once again, Plainview
Avenue is a collector street with an existing 6' sidewalk. Longview is a collector,
which requires a 6' sidewalk and a minimum 10' of green space. The street is
substandard. We believe that there will be future widening of that street and we
are asking that money be taken in lieu of constructing the sidewalk at this time
along Longview Street. The money collected will be, Mandy Bunch has provided
information this morning with new calculations of $13,464. The sidewalk, we
have discussed and I believe we are in agreement, is for the entire length of
Longview Street from Plainview to College Avenue, 747.66 feet of a 6' sidewalk
at $3.00 per square foot is how that calculation came out. The applicant is
proposing to place $3,675 in escrow for the future widening of Longview.
Planning Commission will need to make that determination of what their
proportionate share should be for improvements to Longview. We worked
closely with the engineer to try to determine what was their proportionate share
for improvements. We used the ITE trip generation software for automobile
dealerships and it came up with around 300 vehicles per day that would be
generated to that site. A collector street is normally 6,000 vehicles per day. It is
very minimal amount of new traffic that would be generated by the dealership.
Driveway approaches will need to be constructed of Portland Concrete Cement to
meet our U.D.O. requirements. Two bicycle parking racks are required. They
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 29
need to add the sidewalk symbol to the legend and the Planning Commission
determination of compliance with commercial design standards. They are
proposing, and my guess is that two of you probably don't have elevations, none
of you do. Ok, I will have the engineer go over the elevations with you. They are
proposing to use some smooth faced concrete block and split faced concrete block
on this building. I am a little concerned about the large areas on the facade that
are going to be using smooth faced concrete block. I will let them explain how
this is all going to be tied together and how it is going to look. My understanding
is that they have come a long way with regard to what they originally wanted to
build out there and I will let the staff and Planning Commission hear their
arguments with regard to using this material. The rest are standard conditions of
approval. The last thing is that they are dedicating right of way, 35' from
centerline for Longview Street all the way to Plainview all the way to College
Avenue so we are getting the right of way all the way to College Avenue. We did
not ask for any right of way or improvements on College Avenue as part of this
development. It was one of those situations where we have been discussing this
for like two months about how much of this new project and how much
improvements do we require for this 19% expansion in square footage of
building. Staff is comfortable with the amount of money calculation and the right
of way that they are giving to us. The only thing that we did ask the engineer, and
I am sure that she discussed it with the owner, was the possibility of looking at
something to dedicate right of way over to Longview that Washington Regional
Medical Center built, it is currently a dead end street. The Planning Commission
did assess around $70,000 for the future connection through the Lewis Brother's
property to Plainview. The City Council over turned that recommendation so we
don't have that money in the pot to extend that street. However, it is important.
Washington Regional Medical Center, since it opened up, there need to be as
many ways as possible to get in and out of that medical center area. That is one
issue that we brought up. This is their proposal and staff is comfortable with it.
Ward: Thanks Tim. Why don't the applicants introduce themselves first.
Bunch, M: I am Mandy Bunch with EB Landworks and I am representing Lewis Brothers.
Flory: Bret Flory with Jordan Associates, we are the architecture firm working on it.
Ward: Ok, thank you. I am going to go ahead and get the staff comments first and then
we will come back to you all here in just a minute. I will start with Matt with
Engineering.
Casey:
The numbers provided for the cost for the road way appear to be correct. It
doesn't look like a large amount of money but if you go through the numbers it all
adds up, it looks a little peculiar with $13,000 for sidewalks and only $3,000 for
street improvements, it looks off balance but it is correct.
Ward: Ok, Keith?
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 30
Shreve: We are in agreement with the money contribution to the sidewalk fund.
Ward: How long does that stay in that sidewalk fund?
Shreve: We have got one year to spend it.
Ward: What happens then?
Shreve: A sidewalk is built somewhere in the area. The city is divided into four quadrants
and the monies in each quadrant will be expended for a project that we think is in
the best interest of the city.
Ward: Ok, thanks Keith. Kim?
Hesse: Because this is a car lot we don't require the interior parking lot landscaping but
they did include some landscaping inside the parking lot. The tree preservation
plan is very clear on how many trees there were, what is being removed. They are
mitigating onsite and those mitigation trees were also put on the plan. They have
met all the requirements. I recommend approval. I want to make sure that the
Lewis Brothers are aware that when they have mitigation onsite they put in
basically a bond for the mitigation trees, the city holds that for three years. That
is to make sure that they survive and then that is refunded if 90% of the trees are
healthy. I just want to make sure that they are aware of that.
Bunch, M: How much is the bond?
Hesse: It is the cost of the plantings.
Bunch, M: Is there a number I can tie to that, is that $200 per tree?
Hesse: We use $225. The applicant may submit a bid from a local landscaper. We will
verify the company to make sure they are real and the bid is accurate. There are
some companies that aren't doing a good job so I want to make sure we are
getting a good job for a good price.
Ward: Ok, are there any other comments Kim?
Hesse: No.
Ward: Is there any public comment on this particular item? Seeing none, I will close it
to the public and I will bring it back to our committee. The two bicycle parking
racks, where are those going to be located?
Bunch, M: Yes Sir, we have those right by the front door in a little landscaped area.
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 31
Ward:
Bunch, M:
Conklin:
Bunch, M:
Conklin -
Bunch, M:
Ward:
Flory:
Conklin:
Flory:
Ward:
Flory:
Why don't you go ahead and talk to us a little bit about the materials and what it
is going to look like. We didn't get to review any of this because we didn't have
any of this in our packet so you are going to have to do a pretty good job of
selling it to us.
If I may, I am going to go ahead and address the right of way issue a little bit. I
talked to Tim about that right of way on Plainview and what I am trying to do
right now is see if we can modify the site to accommodate that. If that is not the
case, if they may dedicate the additional right of way on the opposite side of
Plainview. We are trying to accommodate that on site. We had so many utility
easements requested to try to keep those out of the street tree area verses their
parking area. They are real concerned about having the display vehicles as close
as possible to the road. That is what we are working through right now. We will
do one or the other Tim. We know that we have got to do that with the right of
way.
I feel that the city is a little responsible here too when we are building streets we
need to follow our Master Street Plan.
It is kind of hard without knowing when everything happened.
I don't know why that happened like that. When I was at Council Tuesday night,
Wedington is a state highway but it makes it difficult when the city is involved
and we are cost sharing on public streets so hopefully we can do a better job too.
I hate to come back when the street is already built and ask for more right of way.
Negotiations without a project are much more difficult than negotiations with a
project.
Ok, why don't you go ahead and discuss what your plans are on the building
materials and colors.
This is kind of a unique building because it has three different functions. They
are trying to get their corporate offices all in one place and then also in the back it
is going to be a wash space for their whole dealership and the base of the building
is going to be split faced block this color, palomino is what it is called.
How many feet up?
That is about 4' on the tall side, probably about 3' down here.
This is going to be the west elevation?
Yes. Then the pilasters are going to be out of this brick here. It has got an iron
ore in it, in the sun it has got a nice looking sheen. This is going to be smooth
faced, all the infill. At the top is a band of E.F.I.S. and then there is some brick
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 32
work out of this brick at the top. It is kind of hard to see the detail but there is
some detail there. It is wrapped all the way around. You can see on the plan here
that the base is the same as the back. The main part of the building we wrapped
all the way around to be treated all the way around. Then the wash base we have
just taken off the detail on the back.
Conklin- Can you describe the north and south elevations as far as material?
Bunch, M: That front does curve out. It arcs out over the front of the building.
Flory: For the signage at the front it arcs out. You can see the shadow curves down so
that stands out a little bit. The south side, which faces Longview, we have a
handicap ramp near the front steps but it is the same, everything continues around.
We have the split face on the base and then the smooth face as the infill and then
the E.F.I.S. band with the brick detail and then brick pilasters that wrap around
the corners.
Ward:
I think the south elevation needs a little more work on it. It is too flat, there is the
high visibility along Longview. I think more detail has got to happen before it
goes to the Planning Commission. I am not worried about the east elevation
because you all have a lot of buildings and so on between that and College and the
front of the building looks fine to me but I think you just need to do some more
highlighting or something, use more brick or bands or something on that south
elevation.
Bunch: You are talking about the south and you have got that offset here, that is going to
make a big difference.
Ostner: It still remains a little shy.
Conklin- The north elevation?
Flory: The north elevation is the same as the south elevation.
Conklin: So when we say the north elevation we are saying both the north and south
elevation.
Ward:
The difference is the south elevation is close to the street on the corner of
Longview and Plainview and the north elevation is a long ways from anything.
There is a lot of parking in between.
Conklin: I am trying, just for the record, the Commissioners can describe to them, does the
north elevation need some work or it doesn't need work or you think it is
acceptable?
Ward: I think the north is fine. The south one is the one I think needs a little more work.
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 33
Flory: Whatever we did to the south we would probably do to the north.
Ward:
Ok. That is just my point. I don't think it needs a whole lot but I think it does
need some. Especially if you are going to use that block like that. Are there any
other comments?
Bunch: I have a question. When you were figuring out the square footage of the building
and the number of parking spaces, how in the world did you differentiate that
from the sell area? You did a good job of getting it all on there, it mentions office
building and sales building.
Bunch, M:
Bunch:
Bunch, M:
One thing that we did do was allocate that area, the employee parking that was
required for the building and actually provided the interior landscaping for those
parking spaces. I am not sure how that we could actually know exactly what they
were going to do as far as parking vehicles. That was the best way I knew to
approach it, was actually to designate an area and actually do the interior
landscaping requirements for those trees.
Part of my question was on the landscaping, setting it aside from the rest of it.
Yes Sir, that is pretty much what I did. It is just hard to break up, with all that
they have going on with this property, I didn't want to diminish their access
within the property, the back portion of the property and then just that access off
Longview I think they will use that quite a bit so I didn't see where we could
actually physically separate it from the rest of the parking lot.
Bunch: What about the chain link fence with the razor wire and the gated area with that
access that you just spoke of?
Bunch, M: I didn't put razor wire on there, I knew better than that.
Conklin: The barbed wire, I am a little concerned about that.
Bunch, M: They have got that existing now.
Bunch: Oh, it is barbed wire, I thought it was razor wire, there is a difference.
Bunch, M: If you look on this small, I apologize because it is small to see but I was trying to
let everyone see everything that is going on.
Bunch: That was good to have that on there, it made it a lot clearer.
Bunch, M: If you can see where they have got existing, all of this is gravel right now. It has
that same type of fence on it and that is what they are wanting to continue. They
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 34
have security issues with people breaking into their lots and stealing cars out of
there that are in for service and that sort of thing.
Bunch: I was wondering if that was a customer impound area that would be a secured
area.
Bunch, M: Yes Sir. It is like a service overflow area where they will park their vehicles that
they are working on so that they are not stolen because apparently they have had
that in the past. They have got some interesting things they have done right now
that won't be there in the future. We will have curbs now so that is a big
improvement.
Conklin- Is there an existing fence with barbed wire on top?
Bunch, M: Yes, it is all the way around the lot right now.
Conklin: City policy is that we have not allowed, one of our ordinances talks about
screening and it says no barbed wire allowed. I have been working with other
developers on that and we haven't allowed that. It just worries me when I see
brand new chain link fences with barbed wire going up in a commercial area. Our
commercial design standards state that no chain link fence closer than the front of
the building and I am not sure how, you have some smaller buildings out here,
how we would look at that.
Bunch, M:
I only put that in there where I was trying to secure the existing area that was
already fenced. I saw that in the ordinance that that was an issue and I was
wondering how that might play out because all of this, they currently use all of
this area for service, etc., it is all fenced and secure.
Bunch: Is that basically a relocated fence?
Bunch, M: Yes Sir. That is what it is, we are just closing that area back up. It is outside of
our improved area.
Conklin: Once again, I am trying to be consistent here. We have told other car dealerships
and used car places who want to put chain link fence up against 71B, College
Avenue with barbed wire, not to do that.
Bunch, M: Can they have the barbed wire?
Conklin: I will look at the ordinance and give you a final ruling on that before Planning
Commission.
Ward: The barbed wire has been there a long time.
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 35
Bunch, M: Yes, it has. They have that, they would prefer that but if that is not a part of the
ordinance I think that they would understand.
Conklin: We really haven't allowed it. I want to follow our ordinances and I will find the
section.
Bunch, M: The Lewis brothers knew of some recent car development that had actually put up
the razor wire and the city made them take it down but they were of the mind that
they could have their barbed wire. I showed that they could have the barbed wire.
That is a question for you.
Conklin: That is a question, it has not been approved by the city.
Ward: Are there any other comments or motions?
Motion:
Bunch: I make a motion, it looks like you have got just about everything on here. It is a
real complete document, thank you for giving us the information to make our
decision. I move that we forward LSD 02-25.00 to the full Planning Commission.
Allen: I will second.
Ward: I will concur. Thank you.
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 36
LSD 02-21.00: Large Scale Development (Nelms, pp 249) was submitted by Phil Hagen of
Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Nelms, LLP for property located west of I-540 and east
of Hwy 112. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately
7.28 acres with a 300,000 sq.ft. outdoor display area proposed.
Ward:
The last item on the agenda this morning is LSD 02-21.00 for Nelms submitted by
Phil Hagen of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Nelms, LLP for property
located west of I-540 and east of Hwy 112. The property is zoned C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 7.28 acres with a 300,000
sq.ft. outdoor display area proposed. Tim?
Conklin- This is a Large Scale development to increase the display area for Lander's Auto
Park. There are 645 spaces proposed. With regard to site coverage in the Overlay
District they are showing 39.1% open space and for the entire development 38.6%
open space. Conditions to address, I have kept the original conditions and added
to those from the last Subdivision Committee. Has the wetland delineation been
reviewed and approved by the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers? If not, when?
Verbally the applicant has stated that the U.S. Corp. of Engineers will provide
their concurrence with the Environmental Specialist's preliminary report
regarding the delineation of wetlands. The proposed development will stay
outside of the delineated wetland areas including physically bridging over the
wetlands in the existing channel They will bring a crane in with a pre-fabbed
bridge and physically band it over the top of the wetlands not touching the
wetlands physically. Based on that information from the Environmental
Specialist, there is no permit that will be required by the U.S. Corp. of Engineers
to span over the wetlands and stay completely outside the wetlands. Since we put
this condition on at the last Subdivision Committee, they have agreed to go to the
Corp. of Engineers and have the Corp. of Engineers concur with their preliminary
wetland delineation. That is what we will receive. 2) Please provide a statement
of qualifications to the Engineering Division for the firm and individual that
prepared the wetland delineation. A statement of qualifications has been provided
to engineering and meets this condition. We met on site with the Environmental
Specialist and actually walked the site with him and received his statement of
qualifications. The Engineering Division is satisfied that this individual is
capable of delineating wetlands. That was the purpose of that. 3) The final
grading plan, storm water plan, and floodplain development permit shall not be
approved and issued by the City of Fayetteville until the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers concurs with the wetland delineation and issues any/all required
permits for work and improvements within the delineated wetland area and waters
of the United States. If the wetlands that are shown on the large scale
development are revised by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and are impacted
by the proposed development, the large scale development shall require rehearing
and approval by the Planning Commission. I will let the applicant after I am done
explain where they are at with the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers. 4) The
applicant shall provide information to the Planning Commission and Engineering
Division on what best management practices (BMP's) are proposed to meet
Section 170.07 (B)(4) of the U.D.O. The BMP's are required to insure that the
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 37
Hagen:
Conklin:
storm water quality will not be detrimental to the wetlands. These additional
"Best Management Practices" shall be approved by the City Engineer. The
applicant has provided BMP's to engineering and are under review. The Engineer
today for Landers can kind of go over what the BMP's are for this project. 5) A
letter of map revision based on existing conditions and more detailed study shall
be submitted to FEMA for review and approval in order to accurately delineate
the 100 floodplain and floodway on the FIRM map. The letter of map revision
shall be completed within one year from approval of the large scale development.
I just want to make sure that it is not going to happen ten years from now. One
comment on that, the bridge is pre -fab that you are going to put over the channel
I have said this probably three times already, but one more time, the no rise
certification needs to be on the existing FEMA study, not the new study unless
you want to incorporate that in there and get that all approved. I want that
conditional letter of map revision approved prior to installation if you are going to
go in that direction verses modeling it on the existing.
We are not submitting any modeling of the existing study. We will submit that to
FEMA to get that corrected.
A variance for the use of metal halide lights shall be required by the Planning
Commission. All lighting shall meet the IESNA standards for illumination of
automobile display areas and shall be shielded and directed downward. 7) I
haven't talked with our Landscape Administrator about this, she may have a
different recommendation. Originally they showed the trees within the 25'
landscaped area to be spaced out according to the Design Overlay District
requirements. They have come back and asked to space those out. I put that in
three as a point of discussion. With regard to the existing Lander's, we did allow
them to group trees. I kind of view this a little differently because it is more
additional area for display and it is not a primary frontage. At that location you
are just trying to figure out how to stay on the road if you are going to be going
towards the mall at that curve or if you are going to stay over to the left and go up
to Rogers. I think it is a little different. People are probably not looking at cars at
that point, they are just trying to stay on the road. The rest are standard conditions
of approval. Thank you.
Ward: Ok, thanks Tim. For the record go ahead and give us your name.
Hagen: I am Phil Hagen with Crafton, Tull & Associates.
Ward: Ok, thank you. I will start with Matt in Engineering.
Casey: No comment.
Ward: Keith, is there anything with sidewalks?
Shreve: Just a note, along Hwy. 112 they are going to extend the existing sidewalk 120'
and they are showing that on their drawing, we are happy with that.
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 38
Ward:
Hesse:
Ok, thank you. Kim with Landscaping. In the past, I guess we covered all of this,
we did allow them to group on the original Nelm's project so I guess that is
something that you would consider again.
I think it is an interpretation. What the ordinance will allow you to do is group
them in groups of 25 or more. I kind of looked at that and that is why I think they
need to be spaced out a little more than that. This is a pretty long area where
there are no trees. My recommendation is that you include the trees along there.
On tree preservation, your numbers are exactly the same. Are they really exactly
the same? I was actually thinking you had more trees with this submittal.
Hagen: We do. We had moved that line to the north.
Conklin: For the Subdivision Committee's information, what we are trying to accomplish
here is to save 15% trees as a part of the entire Lander's Auto Park and so Mr.
Don Nelms purchased this property ten years ago or something like that. What
we are trying to do is look at the entire site, existing Landers and the additional
display area, save 15% tree canopy, stay outside the wetlands, put a tree
preservation area easement on top of the trees and on top of the wetlands and
preserve that area in perpetuity. That is the goal we are trying to achieve with this
and to make sure that in the future we are having the open space that is required
and the tree preservation and we are environmentally protecting the wetlands.
Hesse:
They are saving 16.8%, I would want a note that if you do have some proposed
trees in the channels that you are draining into. I don't think they will count. We
really need to space some of these out, we can move these around.
Ward: Ok, Kim, will you have a final report for us before the full Planning Commission?
Hesse: Yes, I will revise that. Do you have copies of the tree preservation and mitigation
in your packet?
Ward: No.
Hesse: I will get you a copy of that.
Ward: Ok, is that all staff had? I will go ahead and open it up to the public and see if
there is any public comment on this. Seeing none, I will close it to the public and
I will bring it back to the Commission. Tim, do we need to get some more of the
Corp. of Engineer's signatures and finalized before we take it further? How long
does it take?
Conklin: Let's ask Phil here about where we are at in the process with the Corp. Do you
have any idea?
Hagen: Yes. Our wetland consultant spoke with Joyce who is over this region two weeks
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 39
ago. She said to go ahead and send his preliminary delineation report to her and
they had a pretty lengthy discussion over the phone and she would get us a letter
saying that they are not going to reserve jurisdiction on this because we are not
impacting wetlands. We are not doing any construction in the wetlands. She said
that she would have that within two weeks so we should have that any day. He
was going to call her yesterday and follow up on that. She was on vacation for a
week of that, she may be playing catch up.
Ward: I think something like that we really kind of need in the file before we go much
further.
Hagen: We sent them an application for a nationwide permit and they sent it back saying
we didn't need a permit at all. That was two months ago.
Conklin: Do you have the letter that they sent back to you?
Hagen: No, it was all done verbally. We will get this letter and get it in the file.
Ward: Ok. I think that is real important to get all that stuff for this. I think it is
important to have that in our files.
Hagen: Ok. I would like to point out another change from the last time this was before
you. We had the detention area in the parking lot but I believe there were some
concerns from the citizens concerned about Clabber Creek about the discharge
going straight from the parking lot to the creek. We redesigned our detention
pond, which we are going to plant with wetland vegetation and use it as a
biofilter/detention pond before we release it back to Clabber Creek to filter out
any of the pollutants. Also, as part of our best management practices, we are
going, during the construction phase of this we are going to construct a berm all
along Clabber Creek and divert all the water from the site into the detention pond
which will use the preservation basin. There won't be any discharge from that
construction area directly into Clabber Creek. We are also going to construct a
silt fence in there. Those three or four things are what we are doing as far as best
management practices.
Ward: On that best management practices, what else would you need on that Tim?
Conklin: I am going to give that to Matt.
Casey: The methods that he just described are fine.
Ward: Do we have something in writing that our City Engineer and staff are in complete
approval of all of this?
Casey:
We will review the final construction plans with all the details of the BMP's at the
time the construction plans are submitted. As far as a preliminary with what is
laid out looks ok.
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 40
Ward:
Casey:
Ward:
Bunch:
Ward:
Conklin:
Ward:
Allen:
Hagen:
Conklin:
Hagen:
Conklin:
Hagen:
Allen:
I am sure engineers are familiar with all this language but most of us are not.
I will add that they have gone above and beyond to address the issues that were
brought up at the last Subdivision Committee meeting that this was looked at.
They have gone to great extremes to try to take care of the concems of the
citizens.
Ok, thanks. Commissioner Bunch, do you have any questions?
That pretty much answers most of mine about the practices and addressing issues
which were brought up in the last meeting, which is why it was delayed to come
to this meeting. I don't think I have anymore comments on it.
On these parking lot lights out there, I guess you are going to use the exact same
lights that are out there, they look the same.
They are going to be the same type of lights that are out there but they may not be
as bright, I'm not sure what the design IESNA standard is, I know what the
standard is, I don't know whether the existing lights meet that standard or not. It
is the national recognized Illumination Engineering Society of North America
standard and it is used by professional engineers to design lighting. The one thing
that it will do is it will make sure that they light it appropriately but not light it
excessively. That is the reason why that condition is there.
Ok.
How might this impact the little drive in theater in terms of the lighting?
We have been in contact with them and I believe they don't have any objections
to the Large Scale as far as the lighting. You said at one time that they called and
said that they had no objections.
They called and with the tree preservation in these areas that should help.
We are also planting trees by the detention pond too. This corner is heavily treed
on their property, there is quite a bit of buffer there.
The tree preservation comes through here and it goes through the fence and it
comes out of the channel along the east boundary line and it turns back this way.
This is heavily wooded all right up in here. That would be classified as wetlands
on their property back behind here.
That is correct.
This seems so heavily lighted now, it's just because there is not much
development near to it. Are the lights that you used, are they standard?
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 41
Conklin: I have learned a lot working on this lighting ordinance for a year and a half, more
than I ever thought I would learn about lighting. When you build something out
in the middle of undeveloped area that is completely pitch black and you light it
up it really stands out, especially if you are trying to sell automobiles and the
lighting standard that they have to be able to see the cars and what they
recommend actually makes it brighter looking when you are on the bypass. That
is why it looks so bright out there because there is nothing else adjacent to it.
Until we have future development, as you are driving across that road you are
going to see Lander's.
Allen:
Conklin:
I remember thinking that a refinery once was Tulsa when I was a little kid driving
over there, I just don't want this to be taken as a town.
That is why we worked on this lighting ordinance for a year and a half and we are
going to get the IESNA standards and that should help prevent lighting from
being to excessive. Once again, I haven't measured the lighting out there. It is a
contrast. According to Michael Green, who is a local engineer, he said the
contrast is the biggest issue, especially on this location. Why does it look like it is
glowing? That is why.
Bunch: I have one little comment and then I will make a motion. Is there any way to put
a foot bridge between these parking lots over in this area so that when people, just
from the standpoint of the ability to use your display area, I know the staff out
there use golf carts and run around all over the place, but it looks like you need an
access to the south end of this.
Hagen: The area you are talking about with the three trees shown, that is a pretty low wet
area. There will be sidewalks on both sides of the bridge.
Bunch: Ok, so all of this will be accessed from here for foot traffic.
Hagen: I really believe that this is going to be more overflow parking. I don't know that
they are going to have a lot of actual sells going on in this area. That is what they
have indicated to me at this time.
Bunch: I was there yesterday looking at it and they didn't have room for much of
anything else, they have got a lot of inventory out there.
Hagen: There are future plans for a dealership up in the north display area.
Bunch: I wondered what the future Phase II was. Is that actually proposed to be a
building?
Hagen: Yes, that is the future plan for that.
Subdivision Committee
October 3, 2002
Page 42
Motion:
Bunch: I move that we forward LSD 02-21.00 to the full Planning Commission.
Ward: Do I have a second?
Allen: I will second.
Ward: I will concur. Thank you.
Bunch: Thank you Phil for addressing all the issues that were brought up at the last
meeting, we appreciate it.
Ward: We are adjourned.