Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-17 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, April 17, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Please note that some of this meeting was inaudible and these minutes only reflect the audible portions. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN C-PZD 03-2.00: Planned Zoning District (Lowes, 557/596) Page 2 LSD 02-26.10 (1004): Large Scale Development (WRMC Medical Arts Pavilion, pp 251) Page 7 LSP 03-14.00: Lot Split (Gaddy, pp 257) Page 11 LSP 03-15.00 & 16.00: Lot Split (Gaddy, pp 218) Page 13 Forwarded Forwarded Approved Approved LSP 03-23.00: Lot Split (Benchmark Automotive, pp 96) Tabled Page 15 LSD 03-10.00: Large Scale Development (Campus Properties, pp 520) Page 16 LSD 03-25.00: Large Scale Development (O'Charley's, pp 212) Page 27 LSD 03-15.00: Large Scale Development (Butterfield Trail Village, pp 175) Page 32 ADM 03-11 .00: Administrative Item (Superior Federal Bank, pp 596) Page 34 Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Approved Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 2 C-PZD 03-2.00: Planned Zoning District (Lowes, 557/596) was submitted by Lance Mills of Ozark Civil Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. for property located at the southwest corner of Finger Road and Highway 62. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, R -O, Residential Office, and R-2, Medium Density Residential containing approximately 21.53 acres. The request is for a Commercial Planned Zoning District for a Lowes Home Center containing 13.9 acres (133,532 sq.ft. building) and a retail out lot containing 7.9 acres with 3.1 acres of tree preservation proposed. Bunch: Welcome to the Subdivision Committee meeting of April 17, 2003. We have nine items on the agenda today. One item has been pulled, that is the Final Plat for Mission Place so if anyone is here for that there is no need to stay. We have nine items. We will start with old business, a Planned Zoning District for Lowe's submitted by Lance Mills of Ozark Civil Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. for property located at the southwest corner of Finger Road and Highway 62. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, R -O, Residential Office, and R-2, Medium Density Residential containing approximately 21.53 acres. The request is for a Commercial Planned Zoning District for a Lowes Home Center containing 13.9 acres (133,532 sq.ft. building) and a retail out lot containing 7.9 acres with 3.1 acres of tree preservation proposed. Sara, what can you tell us about this one? Edwards: What we have is the development of a Lowe's Home Center as well as a retail outlet, which is 7.9 acres, 53,876 sq.ft. of retail space. Along with this there is a lot being split, lot 2B, which will be developed later. There is a correction on the tree preservation which will be 5.9 acres proposed. They meet the required parking with 598 parking spaces proposed for Lowe's and 304 spaces for the retail. Water and sewer are available. Additional right of way is being dedicated along 6th Street. There will be 84% site coverage, which meets our requirement. This was heard at the last Subdivision Committee meeting. I think that we have resolved all of those issues. Off site detention is proposed. The proposal is for a regional detention pond to the south of the property being purchased by Lowe's, which will serve this development as well as future development. We have checked the numbers for that and they have sized it large enough for this future development to the west. Wetland mitigation is also proposed off site and has been approved by the Corp. of Engineers. You should have on the third page of your plans, we had requested a Concept Plat showing that future residential development on the remainder of this property. We still have the same waivers as last time which is a 10' wide contractor spaces, wider aisle widths, 55' in width as compared to the 24' allowable. We still have the waiver from the landscape island in front of the building for utility equipment. We are recommending sidewalk fees in lieu of construction along the tree preservation area and that is in the amount of $12,394.62. They have agreed to the continuous planting of Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 3 shrubs. The offsite tree preservation easement must be filed prior to permit. Large scale development approval is required for development of lot 2B. A traffic signal shall be installed at the developer's expense prior to any occupancy permit. Street lights shall be installed along the south side of Sixth Street every 300 feet at the developer's expense. The street lights shall be a minimum 250 watt full cut off fixture. All utilities shall be placed underground. Right-of-way shall be dimensioned from centerline and include a minimum of 55 feet from centerline along Sixth Street and a minimum 25 feet from centerline along Finger Road. Merchandise display shall be limited to that which may be displayed on the sidewalk in front of the building. No merchandise display shall be allowed within the designated parking areas unless prior approval is obtained by the Planning Division who will verify that the required number of spaces are maintained and adequate traffic flow is maintained. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards including signage. They have resubmitted their Lowe's pole sign. However, it is still larger than allowed by ordinance. Also, they are requesting a Variance for a sign which extends more than 18" above the roof level. They are requesting that it extends 46.25" above the roof. Everything else is standard. Bunch: Is the applicant present? Will you come on up and have a seat? We will try to keep this as informal as possible so we can get some work done. Kim with Landscaping? Hesse: As far as tree preservation, your plans have tree preservation and that should have all the information you need. It denotes clearly your tree preservation area. They have met all of our requirements. We recommend approval. There is nothing on Parks. Bunch: Matt with Engineering? Casey: Sara covered most of it. We are recommending that we accept money in lieu of the construction of sidewalks through the tree preservation areas. They are providing sidewalks along Finger Road and Hwy. 62 as well as down Sherman Way, the private street that is being constructed. The issue that came up at the last Subdivision Committee meeting was the intersection at Sherman Way and they have removed those at our request. There is a traffic study for that and they are going to provide a light there. Bunch: Will the applicants introduce themselves and if you have a presentation, go ahead and do it at this time? Mills: Lance Mills with Ozark Civil Engineering. We did meet with staff after the last Subdivision and I think we got all of the issues worked out. I do want to make a clarification on the proposed Sherman Way intersection, it Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 4 is proposed to have a signal. The sign, Sara we thought the ordinance was 75 sq.ft. Edwards: Our ordinance counts the entire sign, not just the lettering. It looks like you counted just the Lowe's letters so with that it was like 112 sq.ft. Bunch: Is that for the free standing sign? Edwards: Yes. Mills: Other than that I don't have anything additional. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone who would like to comment on this project? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. I have a question concerning the outflow area for the detention pond over here. Is this a property line or just a concept line for the project? Mills: I think that is the property line. Bunch: Can you reflect it in here that this offsite drainage crosses the property line? Mills: We have a declaration that addresses this off site drainage. Bunch: Is that for this regional detention pond? It shows this strip of property. You can see that that part is crossing. INAUDIBLE PORTION Ostner: Kim, with the tree preservation being off site is that going to satisfy the requirement? Hesse: It really does because in the future they are going to separate the property but it just crosses property lines. For our purposes in the ordinance we are looking at onsite preservation and in the future we will look at it as being separated. Mills: Part of that is it is the deed. Hesse: It is one of the requirements. Bunch: Sara, when the Superior Bank was approved roads and access, I don't remember the exact detail of it, they were developing an access on the south side of Superior to line up with the access across the street. Are those temporary or how does that all tie in with this project? Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 5 Edwards: We approved a temporary access for Superior and one is that road. However, they decided to go ahead and construct that road to the point of their regular entrance. It is constructed. Ostner: Is this the Wal-Mart? Mills: Yes. INAUDIBLE Bunch: What about dumpsters? Mills: They will be in this section here and right here. Bunch: Because this is a PZD it will have to go through City Council and become an ordinance so we are dotting our I's and crossing our T's on the documentation. We are pretty new to the process of PZD's so we are learning as we go. This has come through previously. Most of the issues we had at our last meeting seem to be solved. Church: As far as the sign I guess you are not opposed to making it match the ordinance? You just weren't aware of the size of the sign requirements? Mills: We will discuss that and bring it into compliance as far as the pole sign. Bunch: Is this the one here? Edwards: The pole sign. Bunch: As far as the roof sign it is just the parapet that is extending above the roof line. Edwards: Actually they have their letters exceeding our maximum height. Mills: This is going over the top as well. Bunch: Ok, we have two things. Ostner: These letters are too high and require a Variance. Is that 75 sq.ft. maximum and there is no bonus for backing? Edwards: That is the maximum for pole sign and monument sign. They have an area identification sign for the retail store because it serves more than one lot. Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 6 Bunch: They are proposing an entrance sign for the Lowe's and then they have a joint identification for this out lot? Mills: Right now they don't have anything proposed for this out lot, it will have to come back through Large Scale. The detention area has been sized for that. MOTION: Ostner: I move that we forward LSD 03-10.00 to the Planning Commission. Church: I will second it. Bunch: I will concur. I appreciate you bringing it back in. I appreciate you bringing the traffic engineer from Little Rock and for doing a complete traffic study. At the last meeting there were some questions about traffic out on Hwy. 62 getting into this project. Simmons: I am Greg Simmons with Peters & Associates Engineers. We are the traffic consultants for Lowe's. We calculated the service by measuring the light from the intersection of Finger Road and Hwy. 62 as existing service. This is the p.m. peak hour. This is the hour that we knew was critical because that is when the traffic generates to the site and the street traffic. I know there is some discussion about the amount of traffic on Hwy. 62 now going into town. We certainly agree with that. The fact is this doesn't add much to the traffic in the morning that is occurring. We have the service calculations for the Finger section and the Hwy. 62. You will have the access to Finger Road, which is the one that will be signalized. A method of measuring the traffic volumes for the main street verses the traffic volumes on the side street and the intersection is a warrants analysis. All of the requirements are being satisfied to warrant the traffic signal. These requirements are accepted by the Highway Department. They are shown on page 18. They meet three of those warrants, you only have to meet one warrant technically to get a traffic signal. Bunch: A question about the cul-de-sac. Sara, now that we have the overall concept will that be more of a temporary? Edwards: Yes. Bunch: This is tying in this other property again. I think this concept plan helps to see the relationship of the project in relation to drainage and erosion. We have a motion and a second. I will concur. Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 7 LSD 02-26.10 (1004): Large Scale Development (WRMC Medical Arts Pavilion, pp 251) was submitted by Peter Nierengarten of US Infrastructure, Inc. on behalf of Washington Regional Medical Center for property located at 3215 N. North Hills Blvd. The request is to alter the approved large scale development to include a reconfiguration of parking and an alteration of the building facade. Bunch: The next item on our agenda is LSD 02-26.10 for Washington Regional Medical Center submitted by Peter Nierengarten of US Infrastructure on behalf of Washington Regional Medical Center for property located at 3215 N. North Hills Blvd. The request is to alter the approved Large Scale Development to include a reconfiguration of parking and an alteration of the building facade. Sara, what do we have on this one? Edwards: The plan that you actually approved they are requesting a change. They brought in some plans that basically show turning of some spaces. The second part of the request is to modify the building appearance. What you have are the elevations that are proposed. The first one is what is proposed and the second one is what we approved at the Planning Commission. We are recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission because the elevations were approved at the full Planning Commission. Along with that, all of the conditions of the original Large Scale Development shall remain in affect. 2) Planning Commission determination of compliance of Commercial Design Standards. The proposal has changed since the original Planning Commission approval. Staff is recommending that the building incorporate the same architectural style as the existing hospital. Our recommendation includes to add some awnings. The hospital is accented with a lot of awnings around it and we would like to see this incorporated along the south side of this building. Bunch: The original design with awnings is what was approved? Edwards: Yes, this is what was approved. Bunch: Before when this came in you showed us the southeast side so we could see how it tied in with the rest of the building. Can we do that again also? Kelly: I am Thad Kelly with Cromwell Architects and Engineers. Certainly. It is pretty similar. Originally it was submitted as a Medical Office Building. The hospital had some tenants in the wings but they didn't have them actually in. The function of the building has changed a little bit. The second floor is now a lab and the first floor is going to be some offices for some doctors so that contributed to some of the changes to it. The hospital wanted to really use the same language they had before which was really to use all of those arches, all the awnings and everything. The actual rent rate they could get for the space excluded some of those. We are keeping Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 8 Bunch: Kelly: Bunch: Casey: N ierengarten: Ostner: Nierengarten: Bunch: the same language, the same building, the same penetration, the same way it looks. It looks like it is a handsome neighbor but it is a separate entity out there. They wanted it to fit good with the neighborhood but also to have it's own identity. We do keep the same language. The entry is a round structure. On every face of the hospital if you find a round piece that is where you go in and so we incorporated that here where in our original we didn't, we relied on canopies. We are keeping the same language as the hospital as staff has recommended and the same materials, same floor heights and different things. There will now be a sky bridge. You can barely see it but there is a little sky bridge that connects the second floor to the surgery suite of the existing hospital. Sara, there is a better awning than what this printed, I don't think it actually shows. Sara, there is no change to the landscaping or building foot print? It is pretty much the same foot print. Matt? I have no concerns. On the drawing I submitted it was barely shown on the existing line. What we are doing is these parking spaces here on the end of the building we have rotated them 90° and created four handicapped spaces. They are not van accessible handicapped spaces, they are just standard handicapped spaces with space in between them for access. The rest of the handicapped parking on the entire site is van accessible. These are actually the construction plans of the project. This shaded area is the existing parking is going to be demolished as this new building is developed. Is this the ER? Yes. As you can see, the building comes out right here. The reason we propose to leave these parking spaces as they are orientated right now there is no way to get out of them without having to back out into the traffic so we rotated them 90° and created four handicapped spaces instead. What is this area? Nierengarten: That is just going to be some landscaped area with some grass and maybe some trees. That is all I have. Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 9 Bunch: Ostner: Kelly: Bunch: Kelly: Bunch: Kelly: Bunch: Kelly: Bunch: Kelly: Ostner: Kelly: Ostner: Is there anyone from the public who would wish to speak on this project? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for questions, comments, or motions. Part of the appeal on Commercial Design Standards. My only concern is it is almost boxlike, which earlier was solved easily by those huge awnings which aren't working out for you now. I know this circle is to break it up. Because of the nature of the parking lot we had to move the building so it is solid on that facade also. Is the entrance on this facade? No Sir. There is a medical doctor's only entrance here. Across from it there is a fire exit from the existing building. We will heavily landscape the courtyard between there. The sky bridge will be second floor only and below it will be a sidewalk. How wide is that sky bridge? 25'. That is per code as far as window penetrations and those things. The relation between this space and this space here in height? They will be very similar to these. The actual ER is one floor and then it steps back and has expansion capabilities above the emergency room so it steps back and then it is two story probably one room back, a 30' back. Yours is two story? Yes Sir, ours is two story and it is the same floor to floor so our parapets and roof heights will be the same as the existing hospital. That is only right back here and the rest of it where we are adjacent to the hospital is two story. That was one thing they did not want to put a three story there to over dominate. The hospital wanted to be the leader of the neighborhood. That helps a lot. Good. Even from North Hills Blvd. the building is always moving on you. The hospital itself is a very plain elevation but it is always moving. There again, if we could get a few more views so we know. I move that we forward LSD 02-26.10 to the full Planning Commission. Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 10 Church: I will second that. Bunch: I will concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 11 LSP 03-14.00: Lot Split (Gaddy, pp 257) was submitted by John Rownak on behalf of Gaddy Investments for property located at 2980 N. Oakland Zion Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 8.53 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 3.00 acres and 5.53 acres. Bunch: The next item of business is LSP 03-14.00 submitted by John Rownak on behalf of Gaddy Investments for property located at 2980 N. Oakland Zion Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 8.53 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 3.00 acres and 5.53 acres. Sara, can you give us the staff report for this please? Edwards: This is a proposal for a lot split. Water is available. Right of way is being dedicated 35' from centerline. There are no street improvements required for a lot split. We are recommending approval at this level. The only condition is that County approval is required prior to filing. Everything else is standard. Bunch: There are no parks or landscaping issues? Hesse: No. Casey: There is no sewer available is my only comment. Bunch: Would you identify yourself and give us the benefit of your presentation? Rownak: I am John Rownak representing Gaddy Investment Company. As Sara outlined, we are splitting this into two parcels. The 5.53 acre parcel has an existing house and the proposed 3.00 acre tract is under contract and will have one single family house. Bunch: Sara, the number of lots that are on this, does it qualify for a Preliminary Plat? Edwards: What we have right now is four lots existing and they are all being adjusted is what you are seeing on A, B, and E. Those are existing as adjustments and the only split is C and D which is splitting the 8.53 acres. Bunch: This wasn't necessarily one piece of property at one time that has been split and is reflecting these adjustments? Edwards: No. Rownak: Just a little background, Mudd Creek runs down through this area right here and the reason for doing the adjustments is to maintain property on each side of Mudd Creek basically. Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 12 Bunch: What about the road? This all comes under county jurisdiction for road standards. Matt, are we required to have a survey stamp on this from the professional land surveyor? Edwards: Yes. Bunch: Ok. Is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this Lot Split? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for comments, questions or motions. Ostner: I guess my question is why we are looking at so many lots but Sara already answered that. Bunch: Not too long ago you did a lot split across the road from it. I drove out to it and realized I had been there before. Ostner: I don't have anything else. Church: I don't either. I will go ahead and make a motion that we forward LSP 03- 14.00 to the Planning Commission. Bunch: We can approve it at this level. MOTION: Church: Ok, then I will make a motion for approval. Ostner: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 13 LSP 03-15.00 & 16.00: Lot Split (Gaddy, pp 218) was submitted by John Rownak on behalf of Gaddy Investments for property located at 4188 Bridgewater Lane. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 7.03 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 1.99 acres, 2.79 acres, and 2.25 acres. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is also a Lot Split for Gaddy Investments submitted by John Rownak on behalf of Gaddy Investments for property located at 4188 Bridgewater Lane. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 7.03 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 1.99 acres, 2.79 acres, and 2.25 acres. Sara, can you tell us about this? Edwards: Oakland -Zion Rd. and Bridgewater Lane are classified as collector streets on the master street plan and require 35' of R/W. We are recommending approval at the Subdivision Committee level. Again, our only condition is County approval is required prior to filing. Bunch: Mr. Rownak, do you have anything to tell us on this one? Rownak: There is an existing house as you can see, on tract C. The three acres that you see that is not on the survey is previously we did a lot line adjustment to make the one that is not a part of the survey three acres and then go to the seven and now we are splitting it from seven to three tracts. Tract A is going to have a single-family residence on it, it is under contract and the plan is to sell tract B for one single-family residence. Bunch: Matt, do you have any comments? Casey: The septic system is located in the proposed utility easement, it is not what we prefer. Rownak: In the future this little piece that you see is this .99 acre that impacts the public road, there is an easement that goes from that part of the septic system that extends into that. That is going to be a drive going back there. Bunch: Ok. At this time I will take public comment. Is there anyone that would like to comment on LSP 03-15 and 16? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for questions, comments and motions. I have one comment. It is similar to the one I asked on this one. It doesn't say who the surveyor was on this one. There should be a surveyor's title block and certification stamp on the plat. Ostner: I understand that this is only a lot split but you may let your surveyor know in the future we would like a better vicinity map. Some guys like me don't know this town like the back of their hand. Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 14 Rownak: If I didn't know where it was I would have a hard time finding it too. Bunch: Are there any motions? MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we approve LSP 03-15.00 and 16.00. Church: I will second it. Bunch: I will concur. Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 15 LSP 03-23.00: Lot Split (Benchmark Automotive, pp 96) was submitted by Cynthia Haseloff on behalf of Benchmark Auto for property owned by Haseloff Family Trusts and located at 4636 N. College. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and A-1, Agricultural containing 18.10 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.99 acres and 17.11 acres. Bunch: The next item on our agenda is LSP 03-23.00 for Benchmark Automotive submitted by Cynthia Haseloff on behalf of Benchmark Auto for property owned by Haseloff Family Trusts and located at 4636 N. College. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and A-1, Agricultural containing 18.10 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.99 acres and 17.11 acres. Sara? Edwards: This property is located northeast of the Mall. We are recommending that this be tabled. We placed several conditions at Plat Review and those have not been addressed so therefore, we are recommending that this be tabled until those are met. Bunch: One of my questions is is the use of it as a used car lot now practical? Edwards: There are several issues with this site. Bunch: I see one of the comments is the notification of the adjoining property owners. Is that a requirement? Edwards: Yes. Bunch: Another comment is the vicinity map. Unless you recognize the scene of things you have no idea where it is. Matt, where is the nearest sewer? Edwards: Sewer is not available. I am not sure how far away it is but if it is more than 300' then we don't require a connection. Bunch: I would like to have the nearest sewer location shown. Is there an applicant here for Benchmark Auto? Another thing is no easements are not shown. The location of the structures, I can't tell if they are on this property or not. It probably has an impact on what is being split off. Are there any other questions or comments? Sara has requested a motion to table, do I hear that? Church: I move that we table LSP 03-23.00. Ostner: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 16 LSD 03-10.00: Large Scale Development (Campus Properties, pp 520) was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Campus Properties for property located north of Stone between Cross and Lewis. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 3.74 acres. A 78 unit apartment complex with 86 bedrooms and 114 parking spaces proposed. Bunch: The next item on our agenda is LSD 03-10.00 for Campus Properties submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Campus Properties for property located north of Stone between Cross and Lewis. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 3.74 acres. A 78 unit apartment complex with 86 bedrooms and 114 parking spaces proposed. Sara? Edwards: The property is zoned R-2. There is a 78 unit apartment complex proposed with 114 parking spaces. Right now there are nine duplexes on there that are being torn down for this development. Water and sewer are available. Right of way is existing. Tree preservation existing is 18.67% with 9% proposed and off site mitigation along with this. We are recommending approval at this level. They have met all of our conditions. Everything that we recommended at Plat Review has been addressed. We are recommending Lewis Avenue be widened 14' from centerline with curb, gutter and storm sewer and they have shown that. That is our only condition. Parks fees will be due in the amount of $23,973. Hesse: Landscaping is shown on the tree preservation plan. They are meeting the requirements. Can this be approved at this level? I would like to show you some pictures of this project at agenda session. They did a great job of showing us the type of trees on this site. What we are dealing with are some large trees on the site which are basically in poor condition. There is a little grouping of trees on the west side and then they are showing the rest of the preserved trees. Jefcoat: Those two trees that are located along the gas property there, those are somewhat in discretion, our grading overlaps those. Kim is going out and we may have to modify our grading in that area a little bit. One of those trees is in lively and good health. The other one has been abused, it is a 9" elm and it is green. We are going to modify that a little bit to try to save those trees. Hesse: Your packet shows my comments and I have asked to review the grading around those specific trees and try to stay out of the drainage. There are a couple of issues there. They are not in the best condition and are basically scoring the property line. It is difficult. We are going to do what we can to try to reduce the grading and dirt movement around those trees. When you are at the site those trees are really along the north just off the Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 17 boundary. They are showing preservation along the front here. It is questionable when we get to the construction of the sidewalk there. We will look at that closer. We will do what we can to make the best judgment between trees that are to be preserved and what we need to save. Jefcoat: When we get to that point in construction we will just have to see. We have straightened the sidewalk out. Especially the one closest to the sidewalk it is really questionable of how we handle this one. The one that is closer we are going to have to wait and see. Ostner: Will those overhead lines come out? Jefcoat: The utility companies have provided comments and letters that the expense and they don't want to relocate those. It would impact off site service. Edwards: I do need to say that if they requested a waiver, we have a requirement that all lines be placed underground under 12KV. These lines are under 12KV and are required to be placed underground. It sounds like they are seeking a waiver of that requirement and with a waiver it would need to go to the full Planning Commission. Jefcoat: All of the utility companies have sent me letters that they do not want to remove those. Hesse: I remember this discussion from Subdivision and I think the biggest part behind that is when you go underground it impacts all the off site houses that are being served overhead and these are older homes so it is inconvenient and the cost for those older homes to go from roof entry to underground entry for electric. It is impacting other homes. Ostner: It is not going here, it is branching off for the other houses that would be affected also, ok. Bunch: Matt with Engineering? Casey: We are recommending street improvements along Lewis. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot sidewalk along Lewis and Stone with fees in lieu of construction in the amount of $2,610 for Cross Avenue. Bunch: Do we need to address Main Street? Jefcoat: We had comments from some neighbors also. I think a lot of people thought that that might be an improved or extended street but I think that Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 18 we looked at the alignment of the old Main Street and what we decided was that the alignment and right of way line is off set and it is not a straight shot. Bunch: What impact does that have with these lots up here with not building Main Street. What impact would it have for these people to be able to use their property? Edwards: I looked at this a little bit. These properties seem to be owned by one person who goes this way so they do have a means of accessing a street although Lewis would have to be constructed to this point. We are not recommending the construction of Main Street for this project because they do have frontage and they do meet those requirements. Yes, if they were to build each of these lots they would have to construct Main Street, this property owner would have to construct Main Street. Bunch: Have these property owners been notified? Edwards: Yes Sir. Bunch: Have they commented? Edwards: I haven't heard any comments. Bunch: Just out of curiosity, it curves up here and I just wonder what that is, I can't really tell from here. Edwards: It looks like there is an alley. Bunch: Is that just one that is on paper? Hesse: Right now, as you can see on your vicinity maps, this whole lot is heavily rutted. Jefcoat: All of the adjoining property owners were opposed to Main Street. Bunch: Do you have a presentation that you would like to make at this time? Jefcoat: Nothing other than what we have gone over. We have had comments from the adjoining neighbors to the east and along the west are the ones we have heard from and both of their comments were screening and Main Street, which we have addressed. We are accessing water off of Lewis Street so that 2" line will be a 12". Other than that, I don't have anything. Bunch: Is there anyone in the audience that would wish to comment on this project? Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 19 Birmingham: Jefcoat: Birmingham: Jefcoat: Birmingham: Jefcoat: I am Jeff Birmingham. Yes, I have property that is adjacent to this. I haven't ever saw the project itself as far as where the entrance and exit is to the project. I have had people run off in the ditch there by my building coming out of there. I am at 280 Lewis, this is Lewis here. Where is your entrance at and where is your parking going to be? The parking is all on the inside and the entrance is off of Stone? We have got two entrances off Stone. And one on Lewis. This one is out here by me. This is south of the gas. The problem I have had is people come out here, I have only owned this property since September, but when the ice gets on Stone here or on Lewis Street they run off in the ditch. I had one take my mailbox out and one get stuck up here. There is a ditch here. There is supposed to be an alley down through there, as you have got marked there, but all there is is a big ditch going on there. That is what I was concerned with the entrance on that. Of course on Lewis Street coming off Main Street coming off 6th Street, you have got cars parked with the Lewis Plaza apaitments, you have got those cars parked so there is barely a one lane traffic down through there. I am surprised the city hasn't done something about that yet. Emergency vehicles couldn't get through there at times because they are parking on both sides of that street coming down through there coming off of 6th there. If you go down to Lewis Plaza there that Lewis Plaza they are parked on both sides of that road most of the time and you can't hardly get down through there. Your main entrance is probably going to be from the university up through there but if you come off 661 Street on Lewis Street it is going to be rough coming in and out of there. The city needs to put up signs that say no parking on this side and enforce it on that street because emergency vehicles can't get through there if you have an emergency. The other thing I was concerned about was the entrance here and exits here, how busy this is going to be and if ice gets on the street how many are going to end up in my ditch over there. The only thing I can think of is maybe put a culvert across there. There is a culvert up to this alley and put a culvert across there and fill that in so if they do come across they don't get down in that ditch. I had a van buried last winter and over here they took out my mailbox. I don't know if it is bad driving or what. I was just wondering, all of your parking is inside your building with that court yard? Yes. Birmingham: The other problem we have got down here is lighting. Lewis Plaza is Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 20 Crandall: Birmingham: Crandall: Edwards: Birmingham: Crandall: down there and they have got pole lights but none of them work so that is a real dark neighborhood down there. You have probably been down there and noticed that and that is probably why a lot of the crime elements hang around there. I am just happy as hell to see you guys putting in something nice down through there. My apartment is a fairly nice apartment. It was built in 2001, it is a fairly new apartment building so I am happy to see those old duplexes torn down and a new building put in there. We are going to try to keep the place well lit. Normally what we do is just off the buildings on both sides of that parking lot will be shining down on the parking. What does the exterior of the building look like? Is it brick or is it vinyl? It is vinyl just like the other building. I have elevations. Commercial design standards are not required on this building so that is why you don't have elevations. Ok. How many buildings are there going to be? Seven buildings. Birmingham: All two story? Jefcoat: Yes, they are all two story. Birmingham: How many two bedrooms? Jefcoat: We have reduced the two bedrooms. Crandall: Most of them are one bedrooms. Birmingham: The lighting, the traffic and the entrance and exit is all I am concerned about. Jefcoat: I do think if you come down the lot and look at Sang and the improvements that are going to be made where Shake's is that is going to be really good access and also Stone to be constructed. Birmingham: Yeah, that street is not bad. It is just Lewis coming off of 6th Street that they have got that thing blocked right in front of Lewis Plaza. I would like to get that alley vacated. That is just a narrow street there. I have got a sidewalk in front of my building there which goes up so far and then they start with the sidewalk. You could put a culvert there and put a sidewalk Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 21 in there. It will at least stop the cars a little bit if they come through there having the sidewalk there. Jefcoat: You own the property adjacent to the alley way? Birmingham: I have this property over here. I would like that alley vacated. Jefcoat: Come see us, we would be glad to help you with that. Birmingham: I am pleased as punch to see the nice buildings. Bunch: Is there any additional public comment? Albertson: My name is Robert Albertson. I am a property owner of the lot they border on Main Street. Let me first pick up where he left off. I think it is great that someone is going to do something with an eye sore. I agree with you, it is very difficult to get through there with people parking on the streets. I don't know what the law is. My concern is similar to his. There are very, very poor roads in that area. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot sidewalk along Lewis and Stone with fees in lieu of construction in the amount of $2,610 for Cross Avenue. Some of the roads are steep, some of them have deteriorated and Stone Street is one of them. Lindsey is going to bring Stone Street all the way out to Shiloh and that will be very helpful but you still need other accesses and other entrances into that area. I have lived there since early 1972 or 1973 and am very familiar with the traffic that happens just from the school. The worst kind of traffic is from teenagers in our area who drop off their younger brothers and sisters at junior high school and they are trying to get to the high school in time for class. Stone Street is a steep and stone street and Nettleship is narrow. This steep ditch on each side of Nettleship cries out for the city to do something but there are only two houses on Nettleship and I presume that is why they have never done anything. There have been many times tow trucks have been out there. I am getting into a lot of details. My concern is what are you going to do with all the traffic from 72 units. If Stone Street does go all the way through that will get some people out of there. It has been suggested that the University will be running a bus through and if that happens, fine but what if they don't? You have got 72 units and I don't know how you figure how many cars per unit, maybe 1 1/2 cars per unit. That is a lot of cars to have on back roads, the very poor section. Even the street in front of the junior high school is a bumpy, rough road. I am very thankful that something is being done and even if it was just clearing with a bulldozer it would be an improvement. My concern is that you are going to have a lot of traffic on roads that are very narrow and already have existing capacity problems. Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 22 Bunch: Boyd: Bunch: Albertson: Bunch: Jefcoat: Bunch: Jefcoat: Crandall: If this goes to Planning Commission you will have a period of time to look at the existing. My name is Gerald Boyd and my wife and I own the property on both sides of Main Street between Lewis and Eastern for about 30 years. My opinion of this project, it looks fine as far as I'm concerned, except for one point and that is the entrance to the property on Lewis Street. Anyone who uses that entrance or exit, well let's say uses it as an exit, has the choice of either going to Stone Street where there are already two exits or turning left and coming down Main Street. I stepped that off yesterday and Main Street is paved but it is only 16' wide. If we get additional traffic from 87 units going up and down there it is going to create a real mess and people will use it because as it is the people who live along Stone Street now walk down Main to go to the campus. I am sure with all of those cars they will do the same thing. If you are coming from Nettleship onto Eastern it seems like the fastest way to get to this project would be to turn on Main Street, actually you can go another block and turn on Stone Street and get there, but unless there is a legal reason for having that third entrance and exit on that street I wish that you would consider eliminating it. That is all I have to say. Is there anyone else that would like to comment? I am just glad you are watching the trees because I bought a piece of property on Main Street that is right across the street from there. The reason I bought it was because of the trees and I thought there wouldn't be anything across the street from it so I'm glad that you are watching the trees. Is there any other public comment? Ok, I will bring it back to the Committee and to the applicant. I would like to make a comment on Stone Street. When Stone Street was constructed it was constructed as a 30' wide street and if that street was built today it would only be built 28' so it is actually bigger than what we would make it today. That is just as a comment to let you know. Is there any reason to not have access on Lewis? No. I really don't anticipate us generating any traffic towards that. Stone is a straight shot to the university and is a fairly good street. Lewis is a very bad street, just like everyone says. I saw the guy spin out and fall in his ditch last fall. It is not a good situation. That is primarily why we have Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 23 our main entrances on Stone Street to carry the traffic out onto the approved street where it goes. Lewis is traditionally the entrance to the little duplexes which is why we used it. There is no other access to those things. We put that in there as sort of an ingress and egress mainly because that is the way it has always been. Whether it is absolute or not I can leave to the engineer but I think that is basically why it is there. I am not trying to do it one way or the other. Bunch: What about the drainage, what affect would it have? How much of the drainage off this hill are you going to accommodate with your detention pond? Jefcoat: Most of the drainage is actually from the other side across the street. There is a drainage ditch here so from the street above you have the direct sheet flow onto it. Most of the drainage is from a large area. There is a culvert underneath for just the water on Main Street so the culvert improvements, that is where it is all directed. What we are doing is digging it up and carrying it back out to distribute to the front of the development to the northwest. What I am saying is if Main was developed your culvert would move from here to the intersection. Bunch: Most of this is already preexisting flows coming off this piece of property so when you get to Main Street you get more to the responsibility of the city and adjoining owners. Jefcoat: Yes. INAUDIBLE Jefcoat: Bunch: Since this is such a congested area it would be Ostner: The question I had about this extra ingress and egress, since Lewis is sub standard I did want to ask you all if that was really necessary. You have got a nice loop as it is now which is hard to find in most apaituients. There are a lot of dead ends now days. It just seems like that is more of a problem than a helpful thing. Is building one, there is no parking along that building? Crandall: The parking is here. Ostner: Ok, by the stairs. Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 24 Bunch: Edwards: Casey: Bunch: Jefcoat: Crandall: Ostner: Jefcoat: Edwards: Bunch: Edwards: Casey: Sara, there was a comment about holding this project for some other things that hadn't been completed, can you bring us up to date on that? There was some engineering things that were incomplete with other projects and I will let Matt go into those. They are working towards correcting those issues for the other apartment complexes where the detention ponds are not complete. They are in the process of completing those. Also, there is a water line extension. Ok. This has to go to the full Planning Commission since they are requesting a waiver for the power lines. The water line is under contract. As soon as we leave here we are going out and addressing some additional issues that Matt has given us correspondence about. He is not aware that we are going out right after we leave here but we are. I'm going to get it right this time. My only other comment is this power line. I am not sure how to go about it. This is an older part of town and it is in need of this development. This is a nice development and I wish we could do something about it. I wish there were a way to serve those few people. Has there been consideration to burying it and bringing it back up? The telephone company and electric company have provided comments and put those in letters that they didn't want to do that. If I could make a comment there. Utility companies are never thrilled to put their lines underground. It is a lot of work and a lot of money but that is our requirement. I get that at every plat review that I have so I am not surprised that I have letters in the file with their support because they don't like to do it. There are many people who are forced to comply with it and I really do feel that there is going to be a way. I believe there are three houses that are going to be affected by this. I agree with you Commissioner Ostner that there would be a way to run a boar under the street for each of those houses. How many houses are we talking about? I think there are three. There are three houses that pull off the services for this property. Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 25 Jefcoat: Bunch: Casey: Bunch: Jefcoat: Osmer: Jefcoat: Bunch: MOTION: Osmer: Church: Bunch: Edwards: Ostner: Jefcoat: Crandall: There is this complex that really isn't shown. Isn't Lewis Plaza a city project? I think it is a federal project. For the part that could be potentially buried we need to know what could potentially come off of that. Lewis Plaza may be off a different direction. Does it come right off of that? Yes. I know our requirement is you can't make more. It is a lot easier than taking overhead and getting it down, I understand that. We have provided conduits and easements to drop off that pole. Do we have any motions? I will make a motion that we forward LSD 03-10.00 to the Planning Commission. I second it. I concur. Were you recommending against the curb cut on Lewis? I think so. If it is necessary then it might need to stay but I'm not the engineer. If it is traditional and historic then I think it might need to be moved to Stone, which is better equipped. I don't think the developer has any objection to removing it because it is less cost involved and reduces overall cost. The sidewalk was going to be extended up to the property line, the culvert would still be there but it would save curb, gutter and asphalt and all. We would want to keep the dumpster location where it is and we could close that off and get two more parking spaces. Unless Matt had some reason for it to be there, we have no objections. I'm not committed to it. If there is a reason for us to have it we will keep it if there is not a reason then I'd say just cut it off. Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 26 Jefcoat: We will address that at Planning Commission. Ostner: Sara, there are 114 parking spaces is that the standard ratio? Edwards: It is one per bedroom plus 30% over. Ostner: Ok, I think this calculates to about 27%. Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 27 LSD 03-25.00: Large Scale Development (O'Charley's, pp 212) was submitted by Edwards and Hotchkiss Architects on behalf of O'Charley's Incorporated for property located at the northeast corner of Steele Boulevard and Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2 and contains approximately 1.27 acres with a restaurant proposed. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is LSD 03-25.00 for O'Charley's submitted by Edwards and Hotchkiss Architects on behalf of O'Charley's Inc. for property located at the northeast corner of Steele Blvd. and Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2 and contains approximately 1.27 acres with a restaurant proposed. Sara, can you tell us about this one? Edwards: Sure. We have a 6,413 sq.ft. restaurant proposed with 74 parking spaces proposed. This is going right in front of Target at the corner of Steele and Shiloh. Sidewalks are existing. There are no trees on the site. We are recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with the monument sign being reduced to 75 sq.ft. They have not obtained approval from the Architectural Review Committee for CMN Business Park and we are asking them to do that prior to Planning Commission. All utility equipment needs to be screened. Planning Commission determination for commercial design standards in the Design Overlay District. We are recommending that the brick and articulation as well as the awnings be incorporated to the east and west sides of the building as well as on the side that faces Steele, there is a requirement in the Design Overlay District that front facades face all streets so that is what we are looking at. Their site plan looks good. Bunch: Kim? Hesse: No preservation comments. They are meeting our landscaping requirements. Bunch: Ok, Matt? Casey: Most of the improvements are existing. They are required to meet all of the conditions of the approved storm water drainage plan for the CMN Business Park. Bunch: Will you introduce yourself? Williams: I am Roy Williams with Hotchkiss Architects representing O'Charley's. As Sara said, we have modified our plans, our signage meets the requirements staff has asked for. I was not previously aware of the CMN Architectural Review Committee so we are in the process of going through that and meeting all of their requirements. Regarding the building exterior, the comments that Sara made, I would like to walk you through Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 28 the building design. This building design is a little more themed than what Olive Garden may be. O'Charley's theme is a community with a smaller town. This design is with the concept that this has been a building that has been in town for a long time. The restaurant company came in and found this brick box and took it and made it something of their own. They used a stone entry and articulated that and broke that piece out. People will drive by and say something is different there. The same thing with the rear of the building, this is something you would see a lot of times in many older towns. You would see a building where there would be an additional section that came in at a later date with a different material, a different color a lot of times. The feel that the building evolved over time and people are familiar with and a popular place to go to. That is the concept of the building and that is why we use these different materials and articulation. I went through the development last night and looked at various restaurant buildings to see what other people were doing as far as the way they were addressing frontage. The ones that I saw did have signage facing the side street and we wouldn't have a problem with that at all. I think we have a building signage on the west elevation facing Steele. This entry is not designed to handle people coming in and our fear is that if we articulated it the same as the front entry we will have people that are parking along that side trying to enter that door and seeking to have service, not being able to get any and having to go back out and go all the way back around or come through the middle of the restaurant causing traffic confusion for the hostesses and the servers that are trying to seat people. The articulation of the entry canopy, I can see being different over that door, possibly a large canopy that is reflective of what is on front. I would ask your consideration and your thoughts on not applying the same extent of expression on the side, as much as anything from the operational standpoint. It will confuse the operation and make it very hard on the hostesses to seat people in a proper manner. We will have a sign on the west side. The other door is completely exit only, that is a fire alarm door. This siding here, Sara thought it was vinyl and it is not. It is hardy plank, it is more durable than an E.I.F.S. or dryvit material and it serves us very well, we have had great success with it. The color copies you have here, we did some material samples. I didn't bring any with me. Just for your knowledge, that is a little pink looking. The ones I printed out show that it is more of a sand stone color. It is not pink and brown like that. Bunch: At this time is there anyone in the audience who would care to comment on this project? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. Sara, on the front type facade, is your primary concern with this area back here? Edwards: Yes. I wasn't implying that an entrance be made, just incorporate the same elements from the front. My concern is with this siding area. We worked very hard with Target and other developments in the area to use Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 29 brick and some of those elements and we feel that it would be terribly unfair to them to allow this to go forward when you have other developments out there that have gone through great lengths to meet those standards. Bunch: It is in the Overlay District. If this was in an older part of town the concept for a transition of time might work but this is the Overlay District and it has pretty strict requirements and it is visible from all sides. As Sara said, we have worked hard to ensure that the common themes are being shared. Are there any comments, questions, or motions? Ostner: I agree in an older part of town this add on effect would work but out there I don't think it will work. I think if the same materials and methods were carried around I think it would really work for our standards and the Planning Commission as a whole. I love hardy plank. I do, I think it is the thing of the future. I said that ten years ago and it is starting to be true. I think it needs to be carried, either all of this or all of that. As the facade reads on this left elevation I think it needs just a little bit more articulation. This parapet and then switch to stone could be very effective. I don't think we are asking you to do anything other than some excess detail. As she said, some awnings may help you to make this look more like a secondary front than a side is basically how I understand the commercial design standards. I think this left elevation is basically facing the right of way. Church: I think your main entrance is a great looking entrance and I don't think there is going to be any doubt to your customers that that is where they are supposed to go. I think you can do some things with these other walls to articulate them a bit better. Williams: The use of the brick or the split face banding is something that Target did that I think is a nice combination. The continuation of that combination on all four sides is something that we would be interested in. Ostner: Yes, this is very nice, if this was repeated. Bunch: I can't speak for all of the Commission but I can say in general that some of the Commissioners have on other projects in this vicinity looked at all four sides even though they are facing a private parking lot, they are still looking at it as being public view and want a full dress to complete the theme. Your dumpster may need to be camouflaged a little more. The sign looks good. Williams: I don't know if it is outside your ordinance but I want to show you this. For years we have used neon banding on our building to light it because Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 30 the lighting is rather weak, they light a small area but it is just accent lighting to the building. We have used neon for years as the actual banding to show the building up. The reason we started designing our light package with this new lighting that takes the place of neon is because this is actually what it is. It is plastic encased and has a transparent cover. The fuse is in here, basically this is your bulb and your exposed light source. The light source is actually back here and they shine through giving it a softer appearance and they show through and that gets rid of a lot of the flicker. That is the thing with neon, a lot of people don't like it and there are a lot of ordinances against it but this doesn't have any of those properties. It is really taking the place of neon in many applications. I wanted to show that to you because we are very excited to have that as an accent to show the building off. Edwards: I don't see it in here but I feel like neon is forbidden in our Design Overlay District but I will double check that. Williams: I wasn't sure if it was or not. Bunch: Check for banding. Church: I think we discussed that too when we did Bizy's and that was an exception. Bunch: That is in the city as opposed to the Design Overlay District. Williams: This is not a strong, flashy, bright light like you have the concept of neon being and that is why it is taking the place of neon. Church: Where would it go? Williams: It goes right at the top of the parapet here at the arch and typically there is a line in there and what would be a line right at the top of this here. Bunch: If Sara would research that for us. Williams: It would be in the areas where we have the masonry wall. Bunch: Can you recall anyone in that vicinity that uses that technique? Church: Not in that area. The only thing I can think of is Bizy's that has the neon on the outside of the building. Williams: I don't think I have heard of Bizy's. Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 31 Church: It is a local restaurant. Bunch: As far as the Overlay District I don't think we have any. Ostner: I am pretty sure that the Olive Garden and a couple of others use up lights in the landscaping. Bunch: It is a very good question. Thank you for meeting the sign criteria. MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we forward LSD 03-25.00 to the full Planning Commission. Church: I will second it. Bunch: I concur. Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 32 LSD 03-15.00: Large Scale Development (Butterfield Trail Village, pp 175) was submitted by Kevin Yates of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Butterfield Trail Village for property located at 1923 Joyce Boulevard. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 45.75 acres. The request is for the addition of a new 22,347 square foot Alzheimer's care unit with 34 additional parking spaces proposed. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is LSD 03-15.00 Butterfield Trail Village submitted by Kevin Yates of CEI Engineering Associates on behalf of Butterfield Trail Village for property located at 1923 Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 25.75 acres. The request is for an addition of a new 22,327 sq ft Alzheimer's care unit with 41 parking spaces proposed. Sara? Edwards: They are proposing 22,347 square foot Alzheimer's Care Unit and the construction of a new parking with a total of 41 parking spaces. Seven spaces are being removed with the expansion. There will be a net gain of 34 spaces. We approved a Large Scale on this site and those are currently under construction. It is pretty much surrounded by R -O. We are recommending that this be forwarded. There is a Conditional Use required for an Alzheimer's Care Unit in an R-2 district. Conditions to address are: Fire hydrants shall be installed as required by Fire Code; Planning Commission approval of a conditional use to allow for Use Unit 4, Cultural and Recreational Facilities in an R-2 zoning district; The required bicycle parking racks shall be u -shaped as required by ordinance; Fifty-five feet from centerline shall be dedicated along Joyce Boulevard. Everything else is standard. Bunch: Kim, do you have any comments for landscaping? Hesse: I just wanted to say we are taking out a lot of these trees. The purpose of that is the function of the building basically it needs to be connected to the existing building and the only space you can do that is in the existing court yard. It is kind of hard to say. These trees are probably 20 years old and are in good health, probably larger than what you would see in other areas. I do need to go out and see them but like I said, they really didn't have a choice on where they could put the expansion. Mitigation on this is big. When we have a final what I would ask you to do is have a drawing that shows me where those trees would go and what the species would be. They have a large area that has been through our process. There are a lot of areas that are great for mitigation trees. I know it is difficult for you to understand that. They will be planted at the time of permit with this development. Moore: That is a little unpredictable with the building. Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 33 Bunch: Matt with Engineering? Casey: I don't have any comments. Bunch: Is there anyone in the audience that would wish to address us on this project? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for questions, comments, and motions. Osmer: Can you tell me is this all existing? Moore: Yes. This along here is proposed and the drive and all that hatched area is new, it is all future. There is the modification of the drive here. This building is there. Ostner: Is this the courtyard? Moore: Yes. There is one tree right here and then there are some other trees for drainage purposes that are going to take out in here and the new sidewalks. We are trying to keep as many trees as we can out there. Bunch: Are there any other comments or motions? Church: I will make a motion that we forward LSD 03-15.00 to the Planning Commission. Ostner: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Ostner: Are elevations required for this? Edwards: It is kind of marginal. It is real similar to what is out there. Moore: It is the same wood shake, we are using hardy plank. Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 34 ADM 03-11 .00: Administrative Item (Superior Federal Bank, pp 596) was submitted by Don Cobb of D -Sign, Inc. on behalf of Superior Federal Bank for property located at 3045 W. 6th Street. The request is to amend the approved monument sign to a freestanding sign. Bunch: The next item is an administrative item for Superior Bank submitted by Don Cobb of D -Sign, Inc. on behalf of Superior Federal Bank for property located at 3045 W. 6th Street. The request is to amend the approved monument sign to a freestanding sign. Is there a representative present? Edwards: I would be happy to present it. I have worked with them for a while on this. Bunch: Ok, comments Sara? Edwards: We just talked about Lowe's and this is right next to there. They had a monument sign approved and they can't put it in the area because it is right in the middle of their detention pond. What they would rather do is a pole sign with a 40' setback and based on comments that we have heard at the Subdivision Committee I feel that we are going to go ahead and allow Lowe's to have their pole sign as well as their retail so this would not be inconsistent with that. Wal-Mart has a pole sign out there. In your packet originally you approved a monument sign. They are proposing a sign that meets the sign ordinance with regard to size, height and setback. They have elected to go to a pole sign with a 2' wide screen surrounding the pole. It is 20' tall. We are in support of the request. Ostner: The location is still the same? Edwards: Yes. Ostner: That is far enough back for this size? Edwards: Yes. Bunch: If this were where it was approved it would be right in the middle of their detention pond? Edwards: Yes. Bunch: It is not going to be flashy or any of that kind of stuff? Edwards: No. Bunch: Ok. Are there any motions? Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 35 MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we approve ADM 03-11.00. Bunch: I have one question to add to this. Does this have to go to the full Planning Commission for the consideration of the sign? Edwards: If you want to you can do that. Staff felt that it was a minor enough change that it could be approved at the Subdivision Committee level if you felt comfortable. Bunch: Do you think we can make a decision for the whole Planning Commission? Church: I think it is ok to make it here. I will second. Bunch: I will concur with it. Sara, we appreciate you helping us with a nice long agenda. I guess with that, we are adjourned.