Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-15 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, May 15, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 03-38.00: Lot Split (Kulish, pp565) Forwarded to Planning Commission Page 3 FPL03-03.00: Final Plat (Fairfield, pp359) Not Heard Page 7 ADM 03-11.00: Administrative Item (Ruby Tuesday, pp 588) Page 7 LSD 02-29.10: Large Scale Development (Sequoyah Commons, pp 485) Page 14 LSD 03-13.00: Large Scale Development (Duncan Avenue Apartments, 561) Page 30 LSD 01-40.00: Large Scale Development (Sunbridge Center Lot 9, pp290) Page 44 ADM 03-7.00: Administrative Item (University Square, pp558) Page 47 Denied Forwarded to Planning Commission Forwarded to Planning Commission Approved Forwarded to Planning Commission Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Don Bunch Alice Church Alan Ostner STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Renee Thomas Craig Carnagey Jeremy Pate Rebecca Turner Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 3 LSP 03-38.00: Lot Split (Kulish, pp565) was submitted by Kurt Kulish for property located at 2008 E. Huntsville Road at the corner of E. Huntsville and Dockery Lane. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.54 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts containing 0.27 acres and 0.27 acres. Bunch: Good morning, welcome to the Thursday, May 15, 2003 meeting of your Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. We initially had five items on the agenda. It looks like our agenda has been extended I think we have some announcements. Dawn, could you help us with that please? Warrick: You do have an extended agenda. There were two items that we elected to tack onto your five item agenda. Those are administrative items that did not require public notification and we are requesting that you hear those today. One is an extension of a Large Scale approval and the other is concerning signage in the Overlay District and Commercial Design Standards on an already approved Large Scale Development. Before we get too far into things I have a couple of other quick announcements. We do have a new Landscape Administrator on board, he started Monday, Craig Carnagey here to my left. He is in the transition phase working his way into that position and he is available to us and we are glad to have him on board. Also, on your agenda today while we did add two items we are removing one of the other items. Fairfield Final Plat, that project is not ready to be heard by the Subdivision Committee. They have not completed their final inspection at this date. The only other thing that I have to add is due to some copier technology problems this morning what you have in front of you is almost all of the agenda as far as the report and Mr. Pate will be bringing the rest as soon as he is ready and it should be here as soon as we get to the items that that covers. Bunch: Alright. Is our item number one complete? Warrick: Yes Sir. Bunch: Our first item of business is LSP 03-38.00 submitted by Kurt Kulish for property located at 2008 E. Huntsville Road at the corner of E. Huntsville and Dockery Lane. Dawn, would you explain this to us please? Warrick: This is a lot split request and the request is to divide the overall tract into two parcels, each containing approximately 0.27 acres. Existing on the site are two single-family homes, both of which are non -conforming. One of which encroaches into the front Master Street Plan right of way area. Surrounding land uses to this property are all residential in nature. Zoning surrounding the property is all R-1 and R-2 to the north. R-1 on all three other sides. Water does exist along Dockery Lane and Hwy. 16. Sewer is also existing. Any existing structures which are not currently connected to sewer must be connected before the filing of this lot split. With regard to right of way dedication Hwy. 16, Huntsville Road is classified a principal arterial on the city's Master Street Plan, it requires 55' of right of way Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 4 from centerline and Dockery Lane is classified a local street requiring a minimum of 25' of right of way from centerline. The applicant is proposing to dedicate all of the necessary right of way with the exception of the area that an existing structure encroaches along Hwy. 16. For a lesser dedication of right of way the City Council will need to hear that after it is reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff is recommending to forward the project to the full Planning Commission. Conditions that we are recommending include the existing structure encroaching upon the right of way will require a lesser dedication so we will recommend this contingent upon Council approval of that lesser dedication and I believe that that is the only outstanding condition of approval. The others are all standard. There will be a parks fee requirement for the new residential lot that is being created. Bunch: Is the applicant present? If you would please come up and not be quite so formal here. Do you have a presentation that you would like to make or tell us about this project? Kulish: Just basically I think she has pretty well summed it up. I am just requesting to split off the back half. This existing shed which will then be non-compliant, will be removed and we are not really seeking to do anything different with the property other than it exists now other than split into two lots. The two structures that exist on the front are just to be maintained as is. Bunch: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to give public comment on this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for questions, comments or motions. Ostner: I have a question. This is an R-1 zone and we are creating a house with two houses on it. Warrick: There is already a lot there with two houses on it. The action that you are considering does not increase a non -conforming situation. The non -conformity is pre-existing and therefore, under our ordinances, can remain until such time as one or both of those structures is destroyed or needs improvements beyond what our ordinance will permit for non -conforming structures. Ostner: So you all aren't planning on tearing down that house? Kulish: No, we would like to keep the house as is since it is existing. Bunch: On that same thing, is one of those structures being used as a duplex? Kulish: No, they are both single-family. Bunch: I just wondered, there was a sign on the corner that said duplex for rent. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 5 Kulish: It is actually in reference to one further up the street there. Bunch: Engineering do you have a report? Casey: I just have a question. Are the existing structures on sanitary sewer? Kulish: As far as I understand they were on septic at one time and both have been connected to sewer since then. Bunch: Parks? Turner: Dawn has covered it. There will be parks fees of $555 for one additional single- family lot. Bunch: Is there any comment from Tree and Landscape? Carnagey: No comment. Bunch: A question about the porch on the Stone structure, the drawing that we have shows a 35' existing right of way and apparently some additional right of way to the property line. Our report says that there is not enough right of way on Dockery, what about on 16? Warrick: On 16 the requirement is for a dedication of 55' from centerline. The new line does encroach and cover a portion of that existing structure, which is why the City Council would need to consider a lesser dedication to meet the Master Street Plan requirements. Bunch: Ok. Our staff report shows that the encroachment is along Dockery rather than on 16, is there an encroachment on both? Warrick: No, the encroachment is on 16, we can modify that to reflect the correct information. Bunch: Ok. Are there any other comments, questions, or motions? MOTION: Church: I will make a motion that we forward LSP 03-38.00 on to the Planning Commission Ostner: I will second. Bunch: Does your motion indicate the change from Dockery Lane to Hwy. 16 for a lesser dedication? Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 6 Church: Yes. The encroachment is on 16 so the lesser dedication would be on 16 and not on Dockery Lane. Bunch: I will concur, thank you. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 7 ADM 03-11.00: Administrative Item (Ruby Tuesday, pp 588) was submitted by Mark Rickett of Rickett Engineering, Inc. on behalf of John Bruton of Ruby Tuesday for property located north of Highway 62 and west of University Square Plaza. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.43 acres with a 4,600 sq.ft. restaurant proposed. The request is to amend the sign package approved with the LSD for this project to include one additional free standing sign. Bunch: The next item on our agenda was the Final Plat for Fairfield subdivision which has been removed from the agenda. We will move onto item three, which is ADM 03- 11.00 for Ruby Tuesday submitted by Mark Rickett of Rickett Engineering on behalf of John Bruton of Ruby Tuesday for property located north of Hwy. 62 and west of University Plaza. Dawn, can you give us the staff report on this please? Warrick: Sure. The Large Scale for the Ruby Tuesday restaurant has been approved and actually this week the building permit has been issued for that project. The applicant has requested to modify the approved sign package that went through review under commercial design standards with the Large Scale Development. The request is to add one additional free standing pole sign on the site. If you will remember, the approval included a joint identification sign for the Ruby Tuesday restaurant which would allow it I believe 150 sq.ft. of sign space to advertise the restaurant. It is a joint sign that shares space with one other project in this development and it is located at basically the corner of the private drive and Hwy. 62. There is a site plan included in your packet. You can see the proposed monument sign is at the southeast corner of that property. This property is largely located within the Design Overlay District. However, the area where the proposed pylon sign is located is outside of the Overlay District and it is south of the restaurant building towards the western property line still close to Hwy. 62. Then also included in your packet is an elevation drawing that shows what their proposed pole sign would be. The second free standing sign by our ordinance is not permitted. One free standing sign per lot is what can be approved through the sign ordinance. Also through the Overlay District regulations. The applicant has chosen to propose this as an additional sign requesting a variance to those regulations. We brought it to the Planning Commission because the Large Scale Development that you approved and the commercial design standards package that was along with that indicated one joint identification sign at the corner of this property. Staff is not in favor of recommending the second sign for this lot. The joint id sign that was approved for the property has twice as much sign face on it for this particular user and we feel like in order to maintain consistency for maintaining just one free standing sign per lot and also encouraging monument signs as opposed to pole signs staff is not recommending in favor of this request. Bunch: Are there any other staff reports on this item? Is the applicant present? Dawn, is this also tied into another LSD that preceded Ruby Tuesday when the motel went in? Warrick: The Hampton Inn is the shared user on the joint id sign, just north of this. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 8 Bunch: I think that determination was that not made prior to finding a tenant on the lot where the Ruby Tuesday is? Warrick: I believe that is accurate, yes. Rickett: Do I need to state my name? Bunch: If you would state your name. Rickett: I am Mark Rickett with Rickett Engineering representing Ruby Tuesday. Bunch: Ok, plea your case. Rickett: I don't have a compelling argument I don't suppose to do this. However, in talking with the development coordinator yesterday, Dan Patton, who was at the Planning Commission meeting for the LSD last time. They would be willing to forgo the monument sign if in fact they had a pylon sign approved. They are not necessarily asking for two signs on this site but asking for the option of one or the other. Bunch: If the monument sign were replaced with a pole sign would the pole sign also be a joint identification sign? Since this is tied in with a parent development because I think the lot on the frontage on the highway came from the lot that the Hampton Inn was on. Rickett: That is correct. I don't know the particulars of their contractual agreement with Hampton Inn or the seller. In this case I think that is Mr. Krushiker. My understanding of what the attorneys have told me is that they control the sign that is on their site. They understand that it was approved as a joint use sign but the language in the contract, according to what I'm being told, and I don't have a copy of that contract, is that they have I guess jurisdiction over that signage. Hampton Inn's signage can't prohibit or inhibit Ruby Tuesday signage. I don't know how that plays in with the city's expectations but that is what I've been told. Bunch: Speaking from memory here, when we went through the Large Scale for the Hampton Inn we questioned the property owner at the time when the subject of the joint identification sign came up and I think that comments were made to the effect of well we own the land so therefore we will have the opportunity to control it and our action was based on information from the property owner and apparently the property owner didn't follow through with what they had told us. What course of action do we take here? That sounds something more like for the courts than for our body. Warrick: I believe that the property owner would still have control over the content of the sign and maybe even the square footage that is divvied up between the various Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 9 users. For our purposes we are considering first of all whether or not to have two free standing signs and if we just determine one free standing sign is appropriate for the site whether it be the joint identification sign or the proposed pole sign for this particular development for the Ruby Tuesday restaurant. I think that you still have some latitude with regard to that particular decision. Bunch: Basically our decision here would be whether or not to allow the additional free standing sign and should we decide not to allow that then it would return to the two property owners to hash it out between themselves. Warrick: I believe that is accurate. Ostner: If they are copasetic to one sign or another could that be done administratively if either one is within our ordinance? Warrick: I think that if it is different than what you approved under commercial design standards with your Large Scale we are going to want you as a Planning Commission to determine which you feel is consistent with your decision with regard to commercial design standards. Signage is a component of that, compatibility, unification of a development if there are more than one lot, so those are things that I think you would need to consider. Bunch: At this time is there anyone in the audience who would like to make public comment on this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for additional comments, questions or motions. Church: I have a question. Have we made exceptions as far as history, what we have done in recent years, have we done pole signs at all? Warrick: The Planning Commission has granted pole signs. Obviously it is something that is within the ordinance to permit if it is not within the Overlay District. The Overlay District does prohibit new pylon signs. The Planning Commission has consistently encouraged monument signs just for aesthetics and maintaining a unified design theme and compatibility with the overall developments that have been proposed. That is part of our consideration with making our recommendation. In this particular case if we end up with two free standing signs it would also require the Board of Sign Appeals to grant a variance to the sign ordinance, which only permits one on a commercial lot. Ostner: Just to be clear, if this lot didn't straddle the Overlay District boundary, there would still only be one sign per our ordinance. Warrick: Correct. That free standing sign could either be a monument sign or a pole sign if the Overlay District was not of issue. In this particular case, there is area on the lot that is not contained within the Overlay District. We cannot extend those Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 10 requirements onto that particular portion of the lot therefore, the pole sign could be erected on that portion of the property under the sign ordinance. The Overlay District wouldn't restrict that particular part of the property. Your answer is yes. If it was anywhere in town in a commercial zoning district and we were looking at a single commercial lot one pole sign or one free standing sign is the ordinance maximum. Ostner: I was just trying to understand why because there could potentially be lots of lots that straddle the boundary all along there. It would seem unfair for those who straddle the boundary to have an extra sign for me. I would be in favor of allowing one sign or another. This has to go to the full Planning Commission but that is not exactly our choice here. Warrick: I think that you could place a restriction on that. Under commercial design standards if you feel either one of the sign proposals is appropriate then the applicant would of course have to pursue a sign appeal through the Board of Sign Appeals if they choose to keep two. I think they have indicated that they are amenable to possibly just having one, is that correct? Rickett: That is correct. Warrick: That is an option for you. Bunch: The staff recommendation is for denial of the requested amendment. If, in fact, it is denied what is the procedure for the applicant if they wish to pursue it further? Warrick: That is a good question. If the Planning Commission denied it I think, and I will have to research this to be sure, I think this is a situation that can be appealed to Council. I am not real sure on that though. It would be a part of the Large Scale Development if it is a commercial design standards concern so I think that it could be appealed to the City Council. I will verify that for you. I need to look it up and be sure. Bunch: The recommendation is for denial. Is that at this level or at Planning Commission level? Warrick: That is your option. This is part of a Large Scale Development. The Subdivision Committee may approve Large Scale Developments at this level. I feel like you could make that determination at this committee level if you choose. It certainly can be forwarded to the full Planning Commission if you wish. Bunch: Should we choose to deny it at this level would possibly the first stage of due process be to the Planning Commission as opposed to the Council? Warrick: Yes, I think that would be appropriate. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 11 Bunch: Commissioners, do I have a motion or any additional comments? Church: I guess I tend to agree with Alan that you should go with one sign or the other. I don't think the site really justifies having two signs. I guess that is kind of the way that I'm feeling at this point. Bunch: I tend to concur that it is a highly visible site not only from the street level but also from interstate level and the signs on the sides of the building are quite visible so additional signage seems to be more in keeping with adding clutter rather than trying to keep up with the Jones and not have economic advantage for other competing businesses in the area. I would tend to go with one sign. Ostner: Do we have any idea where the Overlay District boundary is? Rickett: I hope it's on here. Warrick: It is right here. It is probably about 50' east of the proposal. Bunch: It is going to run parallel to I-540 so basically this location is outside. Warrick: They have a pie shape in that southwest corner that would be outside of the Overlay District. Osmer: Where the proposed monument sign, this is going to be a street, this is an access road leading into this. Is this just a parking lot? Warrick: It is the University Square development where the old Marvin's IGA had been that they are converting to retail. Ostner: I am just wondering about this frontage. The parking lot now is it going to stay or is another building? Warrick: There is not another building proposed to be in there. The Large Scale Development did not include new structures from the University Square. Ostner: Ok. Ostner: The building does have an attached wall sign that you still get to do. Bunch: This is somewhat of a situation that was precipitated by the owner of the parent piece of property. Personally I would tend to lean towards denial and allow the two property owners to work out their problem between each other. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 12 Ostner: I think I tend to agree with Commissioner Bunch. This has sort of already been through the conveyor belt and lengthy process. Bunch: This basically makes the third time that we have heard this same sign issue. Warrick: One option that you do have as a Subdivision Committee is to forward this to the full Planning Commission with a recommendation either for approval or denial. Typically if you send things forward to the full Commission you do recommend one of those actions at that level. MOTION: Bunch: The question becomes do we need to belabor the Planning Commission with another item that they have seen for this will be the third time or do we feel like we are denying them an opportunity to look at something that they have already looked at twice? I would also tend to have denial at this level and then put it in the ball park of the applicant that if they wish to appeal it to the Planning Commission that that is their choice. In fact, I guess I will go ahead and make a motion. I move that we deny this request at this level. Church: I will second. Ostner: I will concur. Bunch: Your option is to appeal to the full Planning Commission. Rickett: The denial is for two signs, is that correct? Bunch: It is for the additional free standing sign. Rickett: If they were amenable to one sign, one or the other do I need to make a new request essentially? Warrick: I would say it is probably important to understand the committee's expectations. If the request is amended to be an either/or situation in that I guess staff would be looking to you to give us some guidance as to which one is preferable to the Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission with regard to the free standing sign for Ruby Tuesday only or the joint identification sign for the Ruby Tuesday and the Hampton Inn combined. Bunch: The drawing that we're shown here, it would be real hard to change that up to be a joint identification sign. It doesn't meet anywhere close to the criteria for a joint identification sign. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 13 Warrick: You are looking at a sign that would be a single user sign. I just expect that if the option is given and we end up with a pole sign for Ruby Tuesday under the ordinance they could do that if that is what we end up and we eliminate the joint identification sign then we will probably be back here with a request from the Hampton Inn for a free standing sign or something different on their site. I honestly don't remember what they had approved, if they had an additional free standing sign approved or if they just have wall signage on that structure. I think that would be my concern, that we would again be back trying to determine what to do about that site because we have now eliminated 150 sq.ft. of signage for the Hampton Inn by saying let's take the option of a single free standing pole sign for the Ruby Tuesday restaurant, which may not be bad but I think we may be back here again to determine that issue. Bunch: If my memory serves me correctly since the Planning Commission decision on the Hampton Inn and on Ruby Tuesday was contingent upon the information provided to us by the property owner, I think we are better off to send it back and let the property owners and the businesses settle it with themselves and then once they have a joint effort then bring it forward once there is a consensus with the applicants. This could go on forever and ever with each one bringing forward a sign deal so let's just cut it short and say get it together and then come see us. Warrick: My understanding would be that you would deny the option of a second free standing sign and the rest of it needs to be worked out amongst the property owners. Bunch: That is correct. Ostner: That would be my vote, that is how I voted. Rickett: So assuming they do that we come back here at some point in time? Warrick: Yes, let me know. Bunch: If what you come up with is different than what has already been approved. Rickett: Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 14 LSD 02-29.10: Large Scale Development (Sequoyah Commons, pp 485) was submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Greg House of Houses Development for property located between Olive Avenue & Fletcher Avenue, south of Spring Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 2.06 acres with 39 dwelling units proposed (48 bedrooms). Bunch: The next item on our agenda is a Large Scale Development for Sequoyah Commons submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Greg House of Houses Development for property located between Olive and Fletcher. Is the applicant here? Dawn, do you have the staff report on this? Warrick: Yes Sir. The proposal is to construct seven apartment buildings containing 39 units, one and two bedrooms town homes for a total of 48 bedrooms. Included in the development are proposed improvements to Olive Avenue, construction of a connection to Walnut via Center Street and a construction of 56 parking spaces. Surrounding land uses include primarily single-family homes and vacant property, which is zoned both R-2 and I-2 and also some duplex and single-family home mixed uses. Water and sewer are available to this site. No right of way dedication is required. There is currently adequate right of way along Olive and there is existing 30' of right of way on Center Street. Adjoining is also 60' right of way for Fletcher Street extension. Street improvements proposed included within the development proposal is an extension of Olive Avenue to connect to Center Street west to Walnut. There is an attached letter included in your packet that addresses this. Access to the project would then be from the existing Olive Avenue and then also up Center Street through the connection to the project at the end of Olive. There are no adjoining Master Street Plan streets to this project. Tree preservation, the existing site contains 100% canopy coverage. The applicant is proposing to preserve 21.25%. The requirement in this zoning district is a 20% preservation so mitigation in this case is not required. With regard to comments from the Solid Waste and Recycling Division, they do support the applicant's proposal. They have made one recommendation and that is to place a dumpster container on the proposed site that is in a more convenient location to buildings one, two and six and seven. That is not a requirement, that is a recommendation for better Solid Waste service to the development. Staff is recommending that this project be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with several conditions. Those conditions include 1) Applicant shall improve Olive Street its full width adjacent to the proposed project with curb and gutter on each side. Sidewalks are to be constructed on the east side only in accordance with City standards. 2) Applicant shall provide a connection in existing street ROW for Center Street between Olive and Walnut Streets to include a 20' paved section. 3) Approval shall be subject to the vacation of a 15 foot existing utility easement, which runs north/ south through the property. 4) A utility easement shall be granted a minimum of 10 feet on each side of all water and sewer lines to provide for maintenance of the line. 5) All buildings will be required to meet setbacks based on height. 6) Lighting shall be shielded and directed downward, away from adjacent residential properties. The remaining items are standard conditions of approval. One of which refers to the Parks fees Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 15 requirements. The Parks and Recreation Board did vote in this case to accept fees in lieu of a land dedication in the amount of $15,327 for the 39 units. That is all we have. Bunch: Dawn, before we get a presentation from the applicant when this went to the full Planning Commission was that a conceptual? Warrick: Yes. Bunch: Can you give us a little history on that and also if the City Council has taken a look at the road situation? Warrick: I can address the concept plat that was taken to the Planning Commission March 246. With that the applicant was looking for Planning Commission recommendation with regard to the street connection. Specifically Center Street, the existing 30' right of way whether or not the Planning Commission was in agreement with staff's recommendation to require that a connection be provided within that existing right of way to provide connectivity from the end of Center Street, which currently dead ends at Walnut up to Olive Street, which is where this project is proposed to be located. At that meeting on March 24th the Planning Commission did recommend a referral back to Subdivision Committee with that connection being included as a part of this proposal. The design work for that was required to be done and then brought back to the Subdivision Committee. Bunch: The other question had to do with a question at the time with whether or not it was a cost share and rational nexus on road improvements. Warrick: I am going to ask the applicant's representative to address that. This did go to the street committee. Mandy, if you could talk about that? Bunch, M.: I am Mandy Bunch with EB Landworks. We did kind of take a step back and look at the traffic. One of the major concerns that was voiced by the Planning Commissioners was that I don't see a local street anywhere around here. We were approaching it from a new way and Greg has been open to this, one was improving Olive to a residential street standards and us using those traffic numbers for evaluation basis rather than the service volume design for the local street, which is 4,000 cars per day. Basically we are looking at two options as far as a proposal that he is willing to consider at this point, which is taking it to full residential street standards with a hammer head turn around to meet the new international fire code or to do the connectivity, which is the main issue that we are discussing here. What we did after the comments about the traffic numbers was actually the city had also requested, the Planning office, had also requested that we do our generation numbers based on the number of units rather than the number of beds because that came out a higher number and that was 259 compared to I believe it was 161 previously. Basically what we end up with is around 400 cars per day which is Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 16 Bunch: Casey: within the realm of the residential street standard and then also the staff wanted to consider Center Street if we constructed it with all the waivers requested as a residential street as well. To make a long story short, and I know I have already made it long, basically it is 43% of the traffic would be attributed to this development. It would be a proposed 43% by Houses, Inc. and a requested 57% by the city as opposed to the original 2% and 98%. Does that kind of bring us up to speed? I guess it started again. At this time I will go ahead and finish with staff reports. Engineering on sidewalks? I just have a clarification on the findings in the staff report for water and sewer. Sewer is available along Olive and water is available but it is a low pressure line at this high of elevation and an extension will be required on up the hill to the high pressure line going into the tank. The applicant is aware of that and it is shown on their current plans. Bunch: Ok, Parks? Turner: No additional comments. Bunch: Landscaping? Carnagey: No additional comments. Bunch: Ok, applicant do you wish to continue your presentation? Bunch, M: I will let Greg start. I am sure he has got other things to say, I was just hoping to talk about those traffic numbers. I don't have that report. Can we just hit the highlights of Center and Olive? House: From the last time we were here, we were asked by staff to amend our plat to show the increased parking that we agreed to from the I think we had included standard one space per bedroom. We have increased it by on site I think it is approximately 10 or 11 more spaces without increasing any bedrooms and also off site by 9 spaces so I think the ratio is about 1.44 spaces per bedroom now. We also had to submit some cross sections to show how we would construct, and estimates for the construction of Center Street from Walnut to Olive would play out as part of our overall cost for trying to come up with a rational nexus for the cost share. Those are the only real major changes if I understand to our plat from what the Subdivision Committee has seen before and with the concept plat. This kind of flushed out what the Planning Commission approved as far as the concept plat in our last Planning Commission meeting on this issue. Everything else remains the same. I think from a tree preservation standpoint we haven't had any real major affects or changes. The real issue was how to deal with these off site Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 17 improvements. What we did, and I submitted a letter with this latest submittal, it is in the packet dated May 6th to the Planning Commission. We are trying to bring this forward in a way where we can get a determination rather than piece mill it. What we have suggested is looking at this in two different ways. One is improving Olive from Spring to the end of our hammer head turn around basically as a dead end street to full residential street standards so that it meets all the requirements of a residential street. That, we believe, brings us completely within code for this development. That would entail no cost sharing. The developer would pay for all of those improvements and it meets the traffic requirements. We submitted a new report from Ernie Peters, I didn't see it in this packet. Warrick: I don't know if we got it in the packet, we did receive it. House: He looks at it in two fashions as well and says if we treated it as a residential street, even though on the Master Street Plan it is called a local street which means 4,000 cars per day, Mr. Estes brought up the fact that that just didn't seem reasonable so we said we will look at it as a residential street. He addressed it that way in his report. As an alternative, because the Planning staff has asked for this and the neighbors have asked for this, the idea of connectivity to the downtown will improve the whole hillside, I guess they think. I don't necessarily agree with them but we will do it if that is what everybody wants. That is to construct Olive, to improve Olive in essence all the way from Spring to Walnut but with some waivers on street width and I think it relates to something about grade issues and some of the technical things that the Engineering staff has been working with Mandy on. Again, Ernie Peters has said that this will work as well from a traffic standpoint. In fact, I think their estimate is, and this is with the Planning staff's approval as well if I'm stating correctly, that approximately 1/2 of the traffic will go out each way and that reduces the traffic going north on Olive which is one of the neighbor's concerns obviously that are presently on Olive. What we have said, and this is pursuant to the ordinance, that we want to have a cost sharing to do these portions of the street that don't have to relate to our property in our opinion and we are proposing 43%. In our opinion that comes from the Planning staff's figures based on number of units in relation to what can be built there that effects what can be built on the portion that the new street would serve if I understand correctly. Bunch, M: It is kind of the surrounding area. They look at all of the acreage and attributed traffic to that. House: While we had thought the number was considerably less we have agreed that we would pay for 43% if the city decides to connect that badly for future development. Warrick: I was just going to say that amount is consistent with staff's recommendation. We have a memo dated April 18th that I neglected to get in your packet but the 43% developer contribution is accurate according to the numbers that staff came up with regard to traffic generation for this project and the increase from existing traffic in Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 18 Bunch: Warrick: Bunch, M: House: Bunch, M: Bunch: House: Bunch, M: this area. Planning Commission has already voted on the connection. The requirement with the concept plat was for it to come back to the Subdivision Committee and then to the Planning Commission connecting Olive and Center down to Walnut. That is the option that the Planning Commission has already considered. The cost share is something that would have to go forward to the City Council. The Planning Commission nor staff has the authority to dedicate city funds to cost share. The City Council would be looking for a Planning Commission recommendation with regard to a cost share in this situation. I guess I misunderstood when we had our meeting previously when we approved the concept plat. It seemed at that time that the general consensus that it would have to go forward to the City Council for the cost sharing before we saw it again in this process and that was also to offer the applicant an opportunity to know what was happening before they invested anymore greatly in engineering and architectural work. I am still confused as to why we are hearing it and we haven't had a determination on the cost sharing because that is the key to the whole thing is whether or not the city wants to put any money up to connect those streets. To some degree it is a chicken and egg issue though because if there is no project there is no reason for cost share consideration. The Planning Commission has to approve a project. I can add a little to that hopefully. It was the opinion of the staff that we had to address and fully identify and define all of the waivers that we are requesting prior to that and have that agreed upon. I know that is why Greg has come up with the option here is can we approve it with one or both of these options considered that the City Council says no we aren't going to give you any money. Would the Planning Commission consider it if he improved it to residential street standards similar to our first proposal but not with the cul-de-sac and then in this regard if the City Council approved it. He is looking for approval of the project, which is what Dawn is saying. We are trying to get the Planning Commission to say yes, this is a good project, we want to move forward. So we don't have to start all over again if they don't want to cost share. Again being the operative word here. That is why we went back and then we had to submit more information to get back to see you guys again. That is why we are here again. Excuse the interruption, do you have anything else in your presentation? No, I'm just available for questions. I don't think anything is any different than what I discussed with staff. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 19 House: Otherwise, we agree with the recommendation provided we can work out the cost share. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. If you would please come up to the podium and state your name, address, and let us know who you are and give us the benefit of your comments. Chaddick: I am Susan Chaddick. I live at the corner of Spring Street and Olive and I would just like to be clear that the residence of Olive, what they really want is a downsizing of the project. We feel if there was less density that we could go with improved Olive and not ask for the second access by connecting Olive and Walnut through Center. If we proceed with the density as is then we will have to urge you to support the connectivity. I would just like to say publicly to Greg that the density continues to be our concern. My personal concern is the parking issue. I just fail to believe that that is adequate parking. You are not going to have people living in that facility at what I understand the rental rate, lease rate, is going to be. There will be people not doing shift work so that you have some changing in parking. I think the folks that live there will all essentially be coming in in the evening and there is just essentially not going to be enough parking. I don't have any kind of data or statistics to prove that, I can only say that having lived there. We are single residence now and when anyone has an event on our street the parking is on both sides of the street. That is a huge concern of mine I realize that the proposal meets ordinance but I am also seeing developers trend toward allowing more parking and I would simply urge again and again that Houses Development consider additional on site parking. Thank you. Bunch: Thank you. Is there any additional public comment? Bryant: My name is Lois Bryant, I own the property on the corner of Center and Walnut. My dad owns the house that is sitting right smack in the middle of your extension of Center Street. My question is this. From the markers that are there now you are about to take off a good 15' of his front yard, that includes rock walls, that would include a hundred year magnolia tree that has been there as long as I've been alive. Who is going to replace all of this if you open up Center Street? If you are opening up Center Street why just open it up to Walnut? You may as well just go all the way down. If you come to Walnut I would say in less than five years we are going to be right back at this again and someone is going to want to be opening it up from Fletcher down and the rest of Center. Bunch: The applicant will respond to your comments at the end of the public comment period. I am sorry, we are not going to have an interchange. If you have any other comments if you would give them at this time because we don't want to have people coming back several times to the podium. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 20 Bryant: That currently is our main concern. We see it coming but the thing is the house that is there now has been there well over 60 years. Most of the property, the rock walls, the rock walkways, everything has been there for years and years and years and years. If it has to be it has to be but who is going to absorb fixing our property? Are we going to have to move dad's house back in order for us to have the city's setback requirements because if you take off pretty close to 15' he has got about 5' left. I realize that is only one home there and all the rest of the property is vacant lots but even with the vacant lots if those people ever decide to do anything with them it is pretty much land locked in. Bunch: Ok, thank you. Is there any other public comment? Caulk: Bob Caulk, I am here speaking as a representative of the Mount Sequoyah South Neighborhood Association. Most of the things I have had to say are already on the record by earlier meetings and I am not going to repeat them because they have been covered by the two previous speakers. I just want to add one thing. That is I think it is a very, very bad precedent anytime you are going out and building a new street that you consider building it not up to standards. I think that is a very bad precedent to set anywhere. If you are in a situation where you have to build a street not up to standards you should be looking at another way of doing the project. Thank you. Bunch: Is there any other public comment? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee. Applicant, would you care to respond to some of the issues that have been raised by the public? Bunch, M: Regarding the parking, we started with about 50 stalls, I think we had maybe two extra and that is why we have gone to this new site plan. As Greg suggested, I think it is 1.34 parking stalls per bedroom. I think that is above what is typical around right now. Right now with the topography and the tree preservation and the utility easements we really don't have room to do that on site. We will continue to endeavor to get more parking if possible but right now we have a defined area that we can work in within our greenspace restraints with our tree preservation and we have got to make it work within those confines. We are already constructing retaining walls that are upwards to 10' tall to maintain the trees and to accommodate the parking. I don't know that we can do anything additional in that regard. I think we've made a lot of effort in that direction. Regarding Ms. Bryant's comments that is one thing that as soon as we started talking about Center Street popped up, the house is probably located around 5' off the right of way. I don't know how I'm figuring, especially since this will be a joint venture with the city, that we will approach non -conforming uses or if something else became evident we would have to talk with the Bryants later through detailed design to see what would have to happen there. That 15' is something that has been their yard, as she said, for years and years and years but it is the right of way of Center Street and it is only 30' wide. That is sort of going into Bob's concerns and suggestions. That is Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 21 another reason that we are trying to give the option is that there is only 30' to construct Center, which is why we are calling for the 20'. The traffic engineer said it is adequate to pass the traffic and it is reasonably the same cross section that is on most of the streets in Mount Sequoyah and probably less steep but we feel like it is a safe enough issue to do that but there is no way to construct a full 28' width street within 30' and the 24' street is not going to be able to be in there either. There is just not enough room on one side or the other to squeeze in anything other than 20', which is why with ongoing meetings with the staff came up with the 20' section. I don't know that I've got anything else to be able to address other than those issues. They are issues to be contended with and that is why again we are looking at the two options here. If Center Street is not the way to go then we would like to get Olive to the way that it is supposed to be and move forward with that. House: I will just add that we can build Olive completely to the street standards for residential streets, as Bob Caulk suggested. Which, again, our parking study shows even when you treat it as a residential street, much less a local street, meets the requirements as far as the added load we are providing is still within the parameters for a residential street. Back to parking, the 1.34 doesn't even consider the off site parking that we are creating as well for overflow for visitors and so forth. The code only requires one space per bedroom and we are doing almost one and a half. Bunch: Concerning the issue of retaining walls on Ms. Bryant's yard or her father's yard. Bunch, M: That is another thing that has come up. That is why we have kind of gone around. Leading up to your original question, why are we here because we weren't going to do more detailed design and spend more money in that way until we decide where we are going to go. What we have done is the city has staked the right of way and we have used all existing data to look at the topography of Center Street to see how we can construct it short of doing cross sections every 50' and doing a detailed survey. Once we get the go on whether the project will proceed or not that is how we will proceed with designing the roads. We will have a detailed survey don't and then all of these items will come up and at that point we will have to discuss them with Engineering. That is the standard process for that. Again, it is a really unfortunate situation with the Bryant's property because it has been there for years and years and the house is 5' off the right of way. It is something that would not be approved now or for years. That is a tight spot and that is one of the reasons that we are looking at other ways to do it and have been the entire time. Bunch: Since basically we are in the chicken and the egg situation saying we can't decide this until we get this or this or that. What would you be proposing as far as if Center Street were to go through, how would the situation at the Bryant residence be addressed as far as trees, landscaping, retaining walls, and such. At who's expense and what form would they take and at who's expense? Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 22 Bunch, M: Generally how that would progress would be the need for modifications to the property, any property that is going to be adjacent to that. It would need to be put back in the same shape as found. The tree, it would be my best educated guess that that is in the right of way and so that can be removed. It is actually the city's tree. The wall, if it is still necessary to be setback would have to be constructed on their property so that the slopes were protected and maintained. It would have to be put back into a safe, reasonable condition and that would all be part of the cost to improve that road. It would fall under that ratio. Bunch: The same thing with any improvements along Olive should they go to the north of the limits of this for any improvements that were made on Olive between this development and Spring Street? Bunch, M: Yes Sir, I'm sure the neighbors will make sure we do that. It is going to be kind of tight. They have been accustomed to having a very narrow road for quite some time and we will have to bring that up to the full 20' in all of the sections. We are going to try to minimize the work there and then look at an overlay after construction has been done to improve the situation of surface of Olive. There is not a huge amount of work going along there. If it were to be brought up to residential standards there will probably have to be some intermittent patching and replacing of deficient materials and then an overlay and then curb and gutter as well as a sidewalk added. That would be in option one with the residential improvements. That would be the case that everything would have to be put back in as good as condition as it were before. There is actually 60' of right of way available on Olive but again, they have become accustomed to quite a narrow street so it will be a change to them as well. Ostner: It sounds like that same right of way comes really close to the houses potentially on paper. House: Even to design it as a residential street wouldn't need anywhere near the whole right of way so it wouldn't impact the beautiful trees that are on Olive. We would only be adding about 4' if we went 2' on each side if it was brought up to residential street standards. Bunch, M: It would be really close to just adding a curb and gutter on each side. It wouldn't go way into their yards. Bunch: Condition five on the conditions, all buildings will be required to meet setbacks based on height, has that already been shown on the drawings or are we looking at another potential change in the layout? Bunch, M: It is a matter of shifting this building number five 3' further into the property. It is not a huge change at all. It is just a matter of taking this building in. They are a work in progress. They are buildings with a lot of interest and really nice looking Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 23 things that are multi-level so we were trying, the architects are working with the staff to define exactly where the height of the building would be measured and that has happened and it needs to be incorporated on this site plan. It is a matter of 3' back from the setback line so it is not a problem. Bunch: Item four for the utility easements, does that have to do with they are not showing any utility easements on the east side of Olive right of way? In fact, they don't even really show the right of way on the west side of the project where it borders Olive, is that what the note refers to? Bunch, M: This is the right of way. It is so wide that it looks like it is not shown. There is a 30" line that has been a source of question because there is no existing easement and they have requested that a 10' easement be granted on that side of it. Also, with the additional comment about the water line having to be taken up the hill now. Basically what that amounts to, we had a meeting Tuesday afternoon to look at these little issues. We have got another 5' easement to dedicate so it is basically going to take it to the setback line. It is not a problem. It has already been considered in the tree preservation calculations because we weren't going to be able to use that for that area. Bunch: Plus you have the vacation of the existing easement from the old plat. Bunch, M: Yes Sir and we are waiting on one form to get that submitted properly through the process from the Water and Sewer Depaitment. Bunch: I guess I wasn't understanding that since it is within the right of way then it doesn't have to be delineated as an easement on this. Bunch, M: No Sir. Bunch: Commissioners, do you have any additional questions or comments? Casey: Can I address the cost share issue? Bunch: Yes, please. Casey: What we have seen in the past with the off site improvements the Planning Commission can approve the project with the condition that the off site improvements be constructed. In this case it would be Center Street. At that time the applicant can go to the City Council with a cost share proposal and the three options available if the city does not have the funds at the time or does not wish to participate then they can either not do the project or wait until the city does have the funds or the developer can do it at their own expense. Those are the options available. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 24 Bunch: Ostner: House: Bunch, M: Ostner: Bunch, M: Warrick: Bunch, M: Bunch: Casey: Bunch: Casey: House: Thanks Matt. Did we get staff comments on the whole project? I think we did. I have a question. I just want to be clear. Your letter addresses it, but on condition number one applicant shall improve Olive its full width adjacent to the proposed project. To what width? I was just asking Mandy that when we sat down. My understanding is that it is 28' of pavement plus curb and gutter. It is 28' back to back. It is pretty much 20'. What we were proposing was no curb on the west side and staff has said that we have to put a curb on there and I think Greg has agreed to that. That is the only difference between staffs condition number one and what we proposed in the letter was the curb on the west side. I understand. I was misreading it, condition number one is only adjacent to this project, not off street. Yes. Interestingly enough, that makes it a local street even though we are considering it as a residential street for traffic. We are also looking at on street parking also so the width will accommodate some of that. Right. It is a little skewed there. Matt, in the past when we have forwarded projects that were questionable as you just described on the cost share did the staff and/or applicant provide the numbers for street improvements? We would look to the applicant's engineer for providing cost estimates. If you are talking about the percentages that is something that we work out together, like we have done here on this one with the 47. You use the numbers generated by the applicant as far as overall cost of the project? Yes. I think we came up with ball park around $50,000 total for this section. Not the whole thing but the part we are asking for the cost share on. Our portion would be approximately 22,000 and the city would be 27,000 or something like that. We are not talking huge sums here. Bunch, M: We have got that and I can incorporate in a letter for the package you guys get at Planning Commission. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 25 Bunch: Bunch, M: Bunch: House: Ostner: Bunch: House: Casey: House: Bunch, M: Casey: Ostner: House: Bunch: Bunch, M: House: Bunch: I am trying to get as complete of a package as we can if this does get forwarded to the full Planning Commission so we won't have to ask these questions a second time. It has been done. They are complete. Can you describe the limits of that construction, is it from where to where? My understanding is it is from the intersection of the unimproved portion of Olive and Center, present unimproved portion, which is the southern most part of our project, the southwestern portion, going west down to Walnut. That way. So basically starting in the curve from there down? Yes. I believe Matt has seen these numbers. I thought they were a lot higher than that. The first time they were but after you guys got together and talked about the cross section and so forth and the waivers and what was necessary. He has seen a couple of reiterations but I don't think he has seen the final one. I will get those to him. I thought the city's portion was going to be about $50,000. The original price tag I remember started at $100,000 on March 24th when we reviewed this last time. I believe we have been able to do some more work out there as far as taking some topographical shots to determine the slope. The numbers have come down considerably. As part of this project are there any improvements to Olive Street or sidewalks other than just adjacent to the project? Just the bringing up the rest of it to a full 20' from Spring to the project beginning. That is if you take option two. I am getting lost again. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 26 House: If you take staff's recommendation, yes, there is. Olive is just 20' from Spring to where it first comes to our property. From our property to Center Street it is the full width, 28' with curb and gutter on both sides, and then a portion of Center Street down to Walnut is again back to 20' with no sidewalk or curb and gutter. That is the type of street that is all over Mount Sequoyah right now. Again, I will just reiterate, this is Tim Conklin's idea. He is the one that suggested we approach it this way. We have not been that in favor of it. We were much more in favor of going with our option number one. We think it is simpler, easier for everybody to get their hands around but we will do the connectivity with the waivers if that is what the Planning staff wants and the Commission and so forth. Church: I think we talked about this at length at Planning Commission. From my memory, we had to go with option number two. That is what the Planning Commission was recommending. I think after the discussions that the Planning Commission had they were leaning towards going with that option too. I don't think anything has changed that drastically with the information that you are bringing to us now. I am kind of confused about where we go from here too. Bunch: I think that one of the previous options if I'm not mistaken, was to run Olive to the Center Street right of way and stop. That was the hammer head approach. House: I think it is close to the edge of that anyway. Bunch: In that general vicinity. Is there a limitation to how many units you can have on a cul-de-sac? Warrick: There is a maximum distance requirement required on a cul-de-sac. The issue, I think Commissioner Church has appropriately addressed it, staff will consistently recommend, we have recommended from the beginning, or at least from the last Planning Commission, that we have a connectivity between through Center Street between Walnut and Olive. That is what the Planning Commission voted to see in this project on March 24, 2003. The Planning Commission voted to connect this project, by way of the Center Street right of way. It was determined that at that point we would bring the project back to the Subdivision Committee with that connection. That is why we are here. Staff is not going to change our recommendation that it connect and I would hope that the Planning Commission not change their vote with regard to requiring that connection. The applicant is within his right to request that there be options and I think that is what he has provided to you in his letter. For us to go back and redesign the connection that has already been voted in favor of, I am very hesitant to take that path. Bunch: I agree. Basically what I was trying to get here was to expand on the option or the direction that was chosen of taking the Center Street access but to make sure that in the process since this has been an on going thing and moving around quite dynamic that any improvements to Olive north of the project were also included. At one Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 27 time we had spoken of sidewalks all the way to Spring Street and that sort of thing. I didn't see them in this report and I was just wondering why, where they went and if that got lost in one of the other options. Warrick: The recommendation if the connection is made according to the Planning Commission vote and staff's recommendation, to connect Olive to Walnut Street by Center Street right of way would be to improve the existing Olive Street where it is currently built out to Spring only to bring it up to a 20' section in all portions. There would not be an expectation that it be built with curb and gutter on either side to a full standard street section. I think that is what is reflected. Bunch: The same with sidewalk from this project north to Spring Street? I just wanted to make that clear because it has been discussed in the past. Warrick: That is not part of the recommendation that you are looking at now. The sidewalk requirement would be adjacent to this project only. House: I might mention, and Tim is not here, but I did discuss my letter with Tim about how to keep this project moving forward rather than going up and then something happens like Matt talked about where the city says we don't have the money, go start over. Tim thought this was a good idea to approach it this way. He is not here to tell you that but that is what he told me. I don't know if he mentioned that to you or not. Warrick: No. I think it is appropriate to look at it as an option but I think it is important to remember the actions that have already been taken on this particular project. The Planning Commission did vote to have that connection. Bunch: In lieu of all of those options that we have had in the past I think one of our goals here needs to clearly define the path that is being proposed so that it doesn't get clouded by all the different options that have been offered in the past so that everyone involved knows what the expectations are and knows the scope of the project since there have been so many different offers made and different options to clearly define what is in the table now. Ostner: It would seem to me to include option number one as part of the history when it comes to the full Planning Commission. That is how Mr. Alexander approached it with we tried this, we thought through this, we wanted to do this, however. Then option number two. I think that would work. I think the Commission would understand that. That way if things had a big problem later on with the city cost share it is all in the record. I don't want to make it more confusing. Include the thought processes but take it off the table is what I'm trying to say. It seems to me that Olive northward to Spring is kind of important. I like the fact that the parking is from one bedroom per space to 1.3 spaces per bedroom. I think that is a significant improvement but I think Olive over to Spring is important too. I would Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 28 Casey: like to see a sidewalk. I know it is narrow, I know it might involve a little more cutting I think the neighborhood is interested, I'm not sure because there is a loss of front yard but I would like to put that on the table. I don't know how feasible that is. Can I speak about the sidewalk? One thing that we need to keep in mind about the sidewalks for the existing portion of Olive are the resident's driveways. They are on a hill going up hill and down hill on each side and we start putting sidewalks in there it is going to make their driveways worse. It is going to make them steeper and we run into that problem with his option number one as well. If we widen it out and put curb and gutter without improving their entire driveway all the way to their house it is going to get steeper. That is something that we need to consider. Bunch: The transition from the street to the current driveways are pretty steep and if it goes full width with curb, gutter and sidewalks then it would be a major expense for each of the property owners. Either that or just not be able to get into their driveways in most weather, not to mention snow and icy weather. Are there any other issues? Do you think you can get all of this done in order to go to the full Planning Commission? Bunch, M: As far as plan changes, we can move the building and show the easement. Warrick: I was going to say plan changes would include a building shift and some easement locations. Bunch: We are not looking at substantial rework of anything here, just basically some minor definitions and delineations. Bunch, M: A letter with those numbers. Warrick: Compiling some additional information. A letter with cost share or cost estimate information. Staff will pull some more information together as well to provide more background to the full Planning Commission when it goes forward. Bunch: Are there any other issues or motions on this item? MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion we forward LSD 02-29.00 to the full Planning Commission with the conditions listed. Bunch: And with the additional requests for information? Osmer: The cost share information, yes. Church: I will second it. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 29 Bunch: I will concur. Thank you. Warrick: Mandy, we will need 30 copies of the plat and revised information by 10:00 Monday. Bunch, M: Do you think we need all the sheets? I am definitely going to leave the profiles out. Warrick: I think you could probably leave the profiles out and we will need the rest. Bunch, M: Alright. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 30 LSD 03-13.00: Large Scale Development (Duncan Avenue Apartments, 561) was submitted by Mandy Bunch on behalf of James Mathias of Mathias Rentals for property located west of Duncan Avenue and north of 12th Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 2.0 acres with 36 units (60 bedrooms) and 66 parking spaces with a 0.466 acre parkland dedication proposed. Warrick: Bunch: You should now have in front of you the second half of our staff reports for this morning so we can move onto the next item. Ok, the next item is LSD 03-13.00 for Duncan Avenue Apartments submitted by Mandy Bunch on behalf of James Mathias of Mathias Rentals for property located west of Duncan and north of 12`h Street. Can we have our staff report please and if the applicant would, please come forward. Warrick: This proposal is for an apartment unit on approximately two acres with parkland dedication of 0.466 acres. The project will consist of three buildings containing 36 units, one and two bedroom apartments mixed for a total of 60 bedrooms. The applicant is proposing 63 regular parking spaces, 3 ADA spaces and 2 bike racks. Surrounding developments include single-family homes primarily in a R-2 zoning district as well as an Industrial development, which is zoned 1-2. Water exists along Duncan Avenue to serve the proposed development. There is a 6" sewer line existing along Duncan. Part of this project will propose to replace that with a new 8" PVC for approximately 650' by the developer which will serve the project. All existing service lines will be connected to the new 8" line when it is installed. Duncan Street will have a dedication to meet the 25' right of way requirement from centerline. Duncan is classified as a historic collector and requires a 50' total right of way. Duncan is proposed to be improved a minimum of 14' from centerline with curb, gutter, and storm drain and a sidewalk along the west side. As I mentioned, Duncan is classified as a historic collector. Tree preservation, there is an existing canopy of 27.24% on the site. The applicant is proposing to preserve 14.05%. The requirement is 20% and they propose to meet that requirement by providing on site mitigation with 16 trees. With regard to park land, the Parks and Rec. Advisory Board has determined that 0.466 acres shall be dedicated for park land with a payment of $2,266.25 to meet the balance of the city's requirements for that dedication. There are wetlands that have been delineated on the site. The proposed plan is under review for a nationwide 404 permit. There is a letter attached to your documentation today and the Corp. of Engineers has concurred with the wetland delineation for this property. Staff is recommending that this project be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with 12 conditions of approval. 1) Planning Commission determination of offsite sanitary sewer improvements. Staff is recommending that the existing sanitary sewer line be replaced for approximately 650' with a new 8" PVC line to provide sufficient capacity to serve this development. All existing service lines shall be connected to the new 8" sewer line at the cost of the developer. 2) Dedication of ROW 25' from centerline along Duncan Avenue per MSP requirements for an historic collector street shall be Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 31 required prior to filing. 3) Duncan Avenue shall be improved by the developer a minimum of 14' from centerline, with curb and gutter, storm drains, and sidewalk along the west side of Duncan Avenue in accordance with the Master Street Plan and Chapter 171 of the Unified Development Code. 4) The Board of Adjustment must approve a variance of the required frontage for the project. Required frontage is 90'; the request for a variance is for +/- 46.49 feet of frontage for the lot which will remain after the parkland is split off to be dedicated to the City. 5) Lot Split to create parkland tract shall be processed and approved by the Planning Commission. 6) All overhead electric lines less than 12 KV shall be placed underground. The other items are standard conditions of approval with a note that the Parks and Rec. Board's determination of land and money to satisfy the requirements for this project. That is all I have. Bunch: Thank you Dawn. Staff report with Tree and Landscape? Carnagey: No additional comments. Bunch: Engineering? Casey: Yes. You got a memo from me in your packet. I will summarize it. It is addressing the concerns from last time this was at the Subdivision Committee meeting. One of the concerns was the sanitary sewer. I visited with Dave Jurgens, our Water and Sewer Superintendent, regarding the water and sewer in the area. The sanitary sewer was improved a few years back to within I think 650' of the site. They went in and did pipe bursting and replaced the 6" line with I think he said it is a 9" line the way they pipe burst it. We are recommending that the developer continue those improvements up to the site. The existing line will handle the existing flows but we don't believe it will for this new development. I think that is going to push it over the edge. We had some complaints about sewer overflows at the last meeting so we are recommending that these improvements be made and they are aware of these recommendations. The water lines, the capacity is there to serve the development. It is an old line. All of the lines in this area are old. The City of Fayetteville currently has a program for replacing these lines and this is on the list. It has been identified as an area that needs to be upgraded and this will be done by the city so we are not recommending that the developer do it at this time because there is sufficient capacity. The drainage problems that were mentioned last time, as a result of that I met with Mandy and we discussed what needed to be done. I requested that she look at the drainage areas going to the Duncan Street culvert that is just south of this project. That is where this project drains to. There is an existing 36" pipe that goes under there. Our current city requirements in our drainage criteria manual are that any new storm sewer be designed to carry the ten year storm. The numbers that she provided me were kind of a worst case scenario that included ultimate build out upstream to the industrial area to the west and that is with no detention. It is worst case because that will probably never happen. We have detention requirements that should not increase above what is there now. The Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 32 Bunch: Turner: numbers that she provided show that a culvert will almost pass the ten year but not quite. Under existing conditions we didn't crunch the numbers but we feel pretty comfortable that the ten year culvert will pass the ten year storm event at this time. It does meet the current city requirements. We are going to recommend that our Transportation Division go out and perform some ditch maintenance along Duncan because there is some erosion problems at this time and hopefully that will help some of the problems but we are not recommending any off site drainage improvements at this time because the developer is proposing detention that will decrease the site runoff to this drainage area. Thank you Matt. Would you care to give us an update on the situation with the parks now that we have a land dedication? I would just like to commend both the developer and the neighborhood association for working so well together to find a solution. The developer came back with a redesign to meet the needs of the neighborhood association, which resulted in a near '/z acre park for the neighborhood, which meets a lot of their needs, as far as getting them park access without crossing a major thoroughfare. We are really excited to work with the neighborhood association to see how the park will be developed in the future. Bunch: Thank you. Applicant, do you have a presentation at this time? Bunch, M: I am Mandy Bunch again with EB Landworks. The owner is James Mathias, he is right here with us. There was originally another building in this location. The site is about 2.46 acres I believe prior to the park land dedication. The site originally by ordinance allowed up to 58 units. The original proposal was 48 units and now we are down to 36 units. I also incorporated the park dedication that was a big concern of the neighborhood. They were having to cross a major thoroughfare to access a park and they were real concerned to having actual street frontage so that it was accessible to the neighborhood. Basically what we've done is we've eliminated any building within 350' of the street. There is an existing mobile home park directly to the north and an industrial concern to the west. Generally I think this is a real good spot for multi -family and the entire region in fact, is zoned R-2, even though there are several single-family homes. Mostly in this general area and to the south as well there is another mobile home park. The density is just as dense or more dense in several locations but the direct adjacent homes would be considered R-1 I believe by all of the land that they've got. One thing I want to talk about a little bit with the wetlands that has been a concern. There was approximately .29 acres delineated and the Corp. has concurred that. With the current plan we are actually preserving .1 acres of that, which is around a third of that and then we are also mitigating that with the wetlands is being considered as a wet swale, basically it is a low swale in the area that due to the soil conditions has developed over a period of time. They are going to replace that or mitigate that with a new wet swale on the western boundary of the property. If you consider all of the mitigative things that we are Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 33 approaching with the wetlands we will be mitigating or preserving up to 62% of the original. Also, a thing to note with this proposal our impervious area is 53% of the overall area. It is not extremely dense. It will be fairly green. We have maintained large buffer strips around the adjacent property owners at their request and will actually be off setting a future fence further onto our property to maintain the wildlife habitat at his request and also as an avenue to reach the Corp's goals as well. We are upgrading the sewer downstream, this has been a staff requirement. I am not sure what else to say. We are here for any questions. I think Mr. Mathias has gone a long, long ways toward meeting the needs of the neighborhood and he is proposing something that is far less dense than is allowed by ordinance. We are here to get this through this process today and hopefully not make a whole lot of changes from here. Thank you. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. If you would come to the podium and speak. Also in reference to public comment, we do have in our packets minutes from the last meeting so we are aware of public comment that was taken the last time. If you would at this meeting please address anything new and the changes. I don't think we need to reiterate the comments that were made the last time, we are all quite aware of them. If anyone would like to make public comment please come forward at this time. Woody: I am Mitch Woody, I live on the south side of this proposed apartment complex. I would like to commend the developer and the engineer too because of the work that they are doing about the park and the greenspace. My main concern is, I did say something about it once before but I have pictures there now that show. The main drainage that I'm concerned about is coming from the north side of the property. On the west side of this proposed complex the land doesn't actually run from west to east. If you look from the fence over you can see where behind the Swanson plant it does. In this case it runs north and south. My main concern with that building on the south side is that the water is going to run directly from the trailer park straight down that western edge and go right through that building. The detention pond I don't think will take care of that. The detention pond should take care of the water flowing down the main part of the property but as a formal real estate broker I have walked a lot of land and I don't think that this is going to address that particular issue. One other thing I wanted to ask about is if it is possible to get a city bus route through there. I know we have city busses running all through the university and all around and it would be awfully nice if we have a set of apai tments there if we could have a city bus route. Bunch: That is a little beyond the scope of us here. Do you have any other comment? Woody: I thought it was but it never hurts to mention these things. My main concern is that third building. If water is going to be coming straight down from the trailer park along the west side of that property then I don't think the detention pond on the west side, that little sliver that is behind the building, is going to catch the kind of Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 34 water that we are talking about flowing down through there. I looked at the City Engineer's drawings after our last meeting up here and it showed the contours coming from west to east or from northwest to southeast. I am sure these engineering drawings were based on that. In fact, one picture there shows the Swanson property on the west side and you can clearly see that that land is sloping straight down, straight from the north. I am just concerned because if we are basing these drawings on contours that don't exist then we may have a flaw in the future that might be a real problem. I have seen the engineer out on that site one day last week. He had some gentleman with him and they walked all up and down through there. I didn't get a chance to visit with the engineer but it looked like they were out there paying close attention to what they can do to address the problems. Mr. Shepherd pulled me over the other day and showed me where the Swanson plant with all this massive area of drainage that they have behind their plant has now been left to grow a little bit rather than mow it as short as the yard. They may have 20 acres out there. If you have that much drainage and you mow it that short it is not going to trap much water. I don't know who convinced the Swanson people to let their yard grow but that was a good move. I guess that is all I have to say. My main concern is just the drainage and the third building. I have no problem with the first two buildings to the north. That is high ground. The way the engineering drawing and the drainage is setup with the detention pond I'm sure it will work just fine. It is only that third building on the south. I really believe that the detention pond needs to be across the entire, let's say from the way it is drawn on the east side, if it can be drawn further over to the west, almost to the western fence, I believe that will go a long way towards solving the drainage problem. Again, my house is one that is in the main flow of this creek and it is already about to take out a large portion of my retaining wall. If that goes then who knows how long it will be before the yard goes if the flow continues like it is. I have a little bridge that was washed away twice in the past two years. I don't know what is going to happen if it gets any worse. Anyway, thank you very much. Bunch: Thank you Mr. Woody. Albright: Good morning, I am Brian Albright, I live at 1224 S. Duncan and I am also here to represent Herman Swafford who lives at 1229 S. Duncan on the other side of the drainage, which connects to Mitch Woody's property. One of the concerns that we have is the drainage. Herman has asked me to ask you guys if he wants that little drainage ditch deeper can the city do that or is he responsible for it? Casey: The city does not currently have any drainage easements through there so at this time it would be at the property owner's expense. Albright: If he wanted you guys to do it could you guys do it? Casey: The city has a policy of not maintaining or doing any improvements to private drainage ditches. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 35 Albright: Ok. On the other side, Stanley Sullins is my land lord, he lives at 1224 S. Duncan and they are also concerned with the flow of the drainage. That is basically about it. I want to add one more thing. This state is known as the natural state and I wish to keep it more natural. Thank you. Bunch: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to comment? Boudrey: I am Betty Boudrey, I live on the south side of the proposal. There are three houses there and we have all lived there for like 40 years on 126 Street, which is directly behind this. It is a quiet neighborhood and I would like to have the fence 8' on the south side, the privacy fence. Right now as far as I now me and my next door neighbor are not having any trouble with the drainage so I hope that they don't fix it where we do. Right now it is ok for my house. Mitch has a lot of problems and Herman but I don't know what's happened, we used to have problems but right now we do not. Please leave my trees on my property. Bunch: Thank you Ms. Boudrey. Are there any other comments? Shepherd: I am Aubrey Shepherd. We are on the north side of the property and on the east of part of the property. We've been, I've walked the neighborhood and talked with many, many residents so I have heard many different concerns. Wanda Peterson is here today, you heard her talk about it last time, she said she didn't want to bore you with it again, it is in your packet. There are still major concerns after last week where we saw on television there were floods 9' above any previous recorded flood states in some states. The houses, I don't remember if it was Tennessee or which state when some of the big storms went through, 9' higher than it had ever flooded historically. These same storms are going around us this year. We had a little bit of rain this week. I looked behind Mitch's place and the ditch going through there. There is a lot of water coming from the old Campbell Soup property, the Pinnacle property, is coming through 12th Street as well as through what we call a ditch back there that comes between Ms. Boudrey's property and Mr. Mathias' development. The property up for development is the only portion of the drainage of that little branch that holds its own water currently. It does that with a natural detention pond. It does have the type of soil that water soaks in. That is true in our yard also. We don't have any drainage out of our yard. We walk on pallets to make sure that we cannot bog down when it is really wet because water stands there and it gradually soaks in. I grew up in Louisiana so I sort of like swamps so it doesn't bother me that my water is full of water as long as it is going to soak in in a reasonable amount of time. Therefore, I am not as uncomfortable with that who won't have land downstream that someone has mentioned, such as Wanda in the past, and they have their flower garden all the way down within 20' or 40' of the creek and the creek of course, as you can see, for instance, we have got a picture of Wanda's yard on our website. It is www.aubuniquc.com. It shows 1973 and this is one of those cases where there was a lot of rain, a big storm. It was a case when I Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 36 believe there was a stoppage. There were times historically when debris piles up at 156 Street and slows up the outflow under 15th Street and that aggravates the problem. This kind of thing does develop periodically on any stream. Of course, if you have a culvert or a ridge sometimes you have to clean it out. That was done and it helped the problem. One of our concerns is that there is a great deal of development slated all over the Town Branch Watershed. I will say this as I said before, I hope that studies will be done as you go into your Long Range Planning Department comes into force so that basins of this sort are looked at carefully ahead of time before developers buy in the area and maybe the city can give them an idea of what sort of problems they may have with this sort of thing before they buy in and start making plans and then find out that this has some characteristics and it is related to another problem and it is going to impede our operation. Upstream from there property is being bought for the trailer parks. All the trailer parks are, there are three up stream from our house along Town Branch and the prairie that we are talking about here for development, it is the lowest part of the prairie with drainage down to this ditch. It is what they call moist soil mounded prairie historically. The trailer park immediately north is the same type of soil as the gentleman testified at the last meeting, crawdad mounds are out there, the chimneys and the other characteristics. These trailer parks hold their own water quite well. Anytime you come in with a lot of paving, parking, and a lot of roofs then you will find that drainage will change radically and you will have much, much faster runoff from this property. This is true of this development and as I say what makes it a little more critical than it might have been in the past, if it had been done 30 years ago there was nothing else going on in the area. There are things coming right behind these guys and I hope that the city will soon have a Long Range Planning in force and they will be studying some of these things before it happens because it is critical. I also wanted to suggest that possibly Mr. Mathias apply for a waiver from the sidewalk requirement. This will be approximately 100' of sidewalk across the front that goes no where. The existing homes, Mr. Woody's property on the south and ours on the north do not have sidewalks. I was out there during the big rain the day before yesterday and the little ditch along there absorbs the water. There is grass growing in it, it has been mowed but it still helps the water standing there wasn't running any faster off of that area. That is something that you lose if you curb and gutter that area of the street. The sidewalk will not connect anything, it will not help anybody get off that property. You are still going to have to go across to get to the existing sidewalk and you will lose just that much more absorbent soil that helps to decrease the drainage, to protect you from drainage downstream. While I understand the need for it in new development because someday when it comes along, I'm not sure if there is a provision that he could put up some small amount of money that goes toward that future improvement or something or say that he will participate in it if it is done. In the immediate future it would be worthless. I would rather you save his money to do something else more important such as that sewer work that our neighbors who live on the east side of the street, many of them have had sewer back up so I would rather the money go towards that and also to the extra 2' on Mrs. Boudrey's fence and Mr. Craft's and Simpson's on Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 37 that side of the street if he chooses to do that and give them more privacy from the development. The thing about the vegetative barriers that I've asked for, they are important for the wild life. We have got birds nesting all over the property in question right now and this will be along the fence line where trees naturally grow up. That is where they exist in many cases all over town and out in the country too. It is also important because of the noise. During construction there will be a lot of noise obviously and with that many more people living there, there will be a great deal of noise. There will be extra light. If you live near the area then those things are very important and we appreciate you taking that into consideration. That is not something that the city has to do but it is something the developer can do voluntarily that actually may save him money in the long run. You don't have to run a bulldozer to destroy that vegetation and then pay somebody to plant a little bush that will take another lifetime to become shade. It is very important that you keep all of those things. Bunch: Aubrey, can I interrupt you here? Shepherd: Is my time running out? Bunch: No, this is something that has already been accomplished. Could we move on to the things that haven't been addressed? Shepherd: Ok, several people also agreed with what Mitch asked that he consider removing the building that is in the main wetland section. That has been something expressed by several people. That one does create the greatest risk that the detention/retention area would fail in a major storm. I hope you will look at that. This is a real concern to people downstream. Some of you have been out there and looked at it and have looked at everything downstream from there and some of you may not have. This is a real danger and their project, Mandy has done a great job designing but a ten year flood projection is no longer a valid projection. We have had what are called 100 -year floods a lot in the last ten years all over the United States. That means that every little bit of soil left that will allow the water to soak in. One last point that I haven't made to anyone here in this meeting is I would hope that some sort of study would be done of the underground water because I don't know what will happen. We have underground water under the prairie area over in the trailer park. That is why the crawdads come out of there. They are not creek crawdads, these are the berm crawdads They have been identified as a distinct subspecies in the Ozarks. This is typical. It is also true across the street on Ellis and other areas down south of there and upstream. If you find that there is a layer of water I would like to see it. Bunch: Aubrey, can I interrupt you again? We are getting to something that I don't think is covered by ordinance. Are you willing to pay for the survey and then give us the benefit of it? Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 38 Shepherd: Peterson: Bunch: Peterson: Bunch: Peterson: Bunch: Peterson: Bunch: Peterson: Bunch: Hawkins: The simple point is that we need to know whether the water under adjacent property that is the underground water that is shallow will be affected by construction, either by filling or by digging for foundation work. That is something that I would appreciate him considering for this process. I know it is not something that you normally address Thank you very much. I am Wanda Peterson, 1325 Ellis, I have lived there for 45 years. We have a water problem too. If you don't mind I will tell you what we've done to deal with it. Ma'am, when you address these water problems can we address problems that are impacted by this project? The existing water problems have been there for years and years and years and from the public comment that has been made probably no one should have a house in that area. None of you should live there. That is true, it should never have been built on. 45 years ago they didn't think about that. That being said, can we limit the public comment to the impact of this particular project and how it relates to the problem? It is all the same area, it is all the same drainage basin and I think you just need to hear some of the things that we have had to do living there for 45 years to deal with it ourselves. The last meeting that we had where there was public comment these things were described and they are in our minutes. Not what I wanted to tell you about. If you have a new thing, if you have something new please present it but we have had considerable comment on drainage. Apparently you are not interested so I will just let it stand at that. Are there any other comments? Would anyone like to deal with things other than what has already been discussed? I am Lauren Hawkins, I live at 1101 S. Duncan. I want to comment Mr. Mathias and Mandy Bunch for their work and trying to resolve these various issues. It is difficult. Right now we have greenspace which seems like the most buildable land. They propose to build on wetlands. Even with the detention that they are planning the pavement proposed will increase that water flow tremendously, whether this is a detention that will, I assume, take that into account to be more detention than what is needed right now. I have to again get back to I find this really inappropriate to this single-family housing neighborhood. I realize that it is zoned. What is legal Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 39 does not make it right. There were two homes there. What is a reasonable return on an investment, doubling that to two duplexes? Three, four apartment warehouses really seems an incredible increase to our neighborhood and really inappropriate. It gets back again to is this a matter of being a working class neighborhood. I think those are my comments. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Shepherd: We have a creek clean up this weekend and Jennifer Creole has done a tremendous amount of work organizing it. We hope everybody comes out and gets familiar with what you have been tormented with for the last couple of meetings. We are going to be down there getting down and dirty in the creek and picking up the things that wash from the campus and 6th Street and everywhere up stream and that is this Saturday at 8:00 a.m. Wal-Mart bags are popular but they are easy enough to take care of and useful for recycling. This is 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., Jennifer is going to have lunch for everybody who participates and some other activities. It will actually be a good time and a good place to be this Saturday. Even if it rains, if it rains a little bit you will just get in the spirit of it and enjoy it more. It is rain or shine we are going to clean the creek. Bunch: Can you tell me where the meeting place is? Shepherd: You meet at the Hill Avenue Church of Christ at Hill and 11`s slightly before 8:00 a.m. if you can get there but we will let you register during the process. You do sign a waiver saying that you are not going to sue the land owners if you get run over by a big old snake down there while you are in the creek. This will be a nice time and please participate. I have some things that I want to put on the record and hand to you. Thank you. Bunch: Is there anyone else that would like to make public comment on this particular project? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for questions, comments and motions. I will open it up. Matt or Mandy, there has been quite a bit said on slopes and drainage could you address? Mandy I guess first on Mr. Woody's questions and comments about the direction of slope? Bunch, M: I want to preface this I guess by saying what we are tasked to do under an ethical moral obligation as well as one to comply with the drainage ordinance is to make sure that after this development is constructed that the area does not have problems or problems that are existing aren't worsened. One thing that Mitch, Mr. Woody, was discussing was water that may be coming directly off of, I am going to use this, the water coming down from the trailer park if it is directly coming down the Pinnacle Foods property already there is absolutely nothing I can do to stop that because that is not on our property. What we have done is introduced a large swale on that western boundary that is actually diverted through the detention pond because there is a berm constructed on this side of the ditch. That is what we have done to physically impede that water going directly to the ditch through the site. Anything that goes through the site we are endeavoring to get into the detention Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 40 pond, period. The detention is designed, it is not strictly for the 10 -year storm. We have to analyze from the 2 up to the 100 -year storm. The pond actually decreases the 100 -year storm by 5% I believe at a worst build out scenario. The worst build out scenario, I know Matt mentioned this before but you might be able to see a little bit better with the picture, this is existing Pinnacle. This is the remainder of their property. The analysis I did considered this entire property developed in a similar fashion as this for the culvert analysis. I believe that we have addressed the drainage issue as well as we possibly can within this site. I know that there are some downstream problems here and there are most likely houses constructed in the floodplain along Town Branch Creek which runs in this area. A large majority of the water that is north of this property flows directly to the creek. It all flows this direction. There is just a piece of this trailer park that flows through parts of Aubrey's property and through this property. That is what we are trying to pick up, anything that touches this boundary, pick it up, convey it, take it to the pond before it is released to the ditch. Bunch: Does Matt with Engineering have anything to add? One thing that seems to have been brought up is it looks like an awful lot of the drainages in this area are private drainages and seem to be possibly improperly maintained and it is not a city problem, it is a neighborhood problem of people not keeping the drainages across their property clear and possibly causing flooding on their neighbors' property. Casey: Yes. This is all private. We do not have any existing drainage easements through here so it should be privately maintained. Unfortunately it doesn't always get done even if it is a city drainage easement. It would be up to the individual property owners to maintain that and take care of that. I have talked with our Transportation Division about different areas when this has come up and their answer has always been we have the crews maintaining our own and that is more work than they need right now. They do not want to get off onto private property and take the liability and the time that it would take to do that. Right now that is the current policy. We stick within the city drainage easements and the city right of ways and maintain those only. Bunch, M: I know the neighborhood is a long standing neighborhood. I think things are changing. I know things have been changing with the city in implementing detention policy but what happens generally is in the past developments were allowed to drain directly to downstream ditches and over a period of time of course they grow larger and then it is on the responsibility of the property owner to maintain water that is coming from region and that is a particular problem for them. Especially if you just look at the aerial and see Pinnacle Foods. Not that they have done anything wrong per say but that water has been generated over a development that hasn't been detained. Things are progressing with the city but I think this neighborhood has fallen victim to several things happening and no one making changes to what they are doing with the water and a large majority of the University drains through that Town Branch as well and they don't detain generally. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 41 Bunch: Can you address the 8' fence, Mrs. Boudrey's comment? Bunch, M: I don't think that is a problem at all to raise that fence. Creole: I would like to comment on that. Bunch: We have already closed it to public comment. Creole: I would like to comment on the additional things that were said after it was closed. It will be quick. Bunch: If you will make it quick we will make a departure from what we have done here. Creole: I am Jennifer Creole, I live at 1116 S. Duncan. I don't think it is that the private residence haven't been maintained. They maintain, they try. When I have been talking to people about the creek cleanup they are all like don't move my rocks, don't move my bricks, it is holding the creek bed back but when you walk up on 6th Street there are 22' culverts and washouts over your head. It is not that they haven't been maintained, it is the tremendous amount of water that once it rains that flows through Town Branch. The residence try to maintain their private section. If you come down there and look, there are 22' culverts filled with water right under the railroad tracks coming right from 6th Street on. There is a tremendous amount of water that is coming through that neighborhood and through that creek. After it rains behind my house it is up to my waste in that creek so there is a tremendous amount of water just in that water shed that we are coping with already the cumulative fact with more development is there but it is not the lack of the residents. They are trying as hard as they can to maintain their drainage and maintain their yards from washing away. That is all I wanted to say, thanks. Bunch: Unfortunately, the city has no jurisdiction over the state and an awful lot of that does come from the University. Mandy, do you have anything else to address from the comments from the neighbors like possibly the sidewalks on Duncan or possibly staff's comments on sidewalks and whether or not to put sidewalks in on the west side? Bunch, M: I have tried that sidewalk route before and I always lose. Bunch: Especially since it is a park dedication. Bunch, M: Yes Sir. I understand Aubrey's concerns, he wants everything to stay natural. I am sure Mr Mathias would prefer not to build it if he didn't have to but I don't believe that that will be. It is not a city requirement I generally question. The only thing I do want to talk to you Dawn, I can do this outside of this meeting next week about the lot lines we talked about. There are actually three existing parcels and I am Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 42 wondering if we can do that with an adjustment rather than a lot split rather than going back through the entire. I am a little concerned about the time restraint on that because I think the next meeting would be June 23`a Warrick: There are existing lots within this tract that can be adjusted to create the two parcels. If we are reducing the number of lots or maintaining the same number we can likely process a lot line adjustment instead of a split. Bunch, M: It will go to the in-house plat review meeting but then it is taken care of administratively. Warrick: It does not require Planning Commission approval. Bunch, M: We need to get that Board of Adjustment in on Monday from what I was looking at. Ostner: This may be just a typo, in the packet we talk about 650' and this says 550'. Bunch, M: We know where it has to go so it may be a difference in calculation. We are going downstream and then to the east. Ostner: Whoever measured it, it is the same difference. Bunch, M: Yes, it's the city ruler. Ostner: On the lighting it says building mounted fixtures will be provided. Do those include cut off or glare blockers? I am not even sure what our ordinances require. Bunch, M: I am not sure. I know what the proposed ordinance was. Warrick: We have not adopted an outdoor lighting ordinance. We do have a restriction within the parking lot ordinance that provides that all lighting shall be shielded and directed downward away from adjoining residential properties. That is a condition that we have recommended. Ostner: It is mostly the building mounted fixtures I was talking about. Bunch, M: James, are they generally pointed downward from the building? That is something that we can look at. I am sure it won't be a problem. Ostner: Other than that, from my perspective you all have done a terrific job of listening to the neighborhood and working with them and majorly redesigning your project with a basketful of drainage problems that you all didn't ask for but that the site was tied up in. I would like to make a motion that forward LSD 03-13.00 to the full Planning Commission for approval. Church: I will second it. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 43 Bunch: I will concur. I want to make one comment that the density has been reduced to an RMF -18 type density so it has a considerable reduction and that is with the removal of the parkland so actually it was less than an RMF -18 density. This is an infill project that is sensitive to the neighbors where you have been able to eliminate a building, expand detention, create buffer strips, plant trees in people's yards. Considerable things have been done here and you are to be complicated on it. Bunch, M: Thank you. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 44 LSD 01-40.00: Large Scale Development (Sunbridge Center Lot 9, pp290) was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Keating Enterprises, Inc. for property located on Lot 9 Sunbridge Center. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 1.24 acres with two office buildings proposed. The request is to extend the LSD approval until November 5, 2003. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is LSD for Sunbridge Center Lot 9. It was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Keating Enterprises for property located in Sunbridge Center. Dawn? Warrick: This is a request by the applicant to extend a Large Scale Development approval. The project Large Scale Development was originally approved by the Subdivision Committee November 29, 2001 with a condition on that approval that it be valid for one calendar year. We have passed November 29, 2002 and the project has not been constructed at this point in time. The applicant has requested an extension of the approval in order to allow permitting of the development and without having to bring it back through the review process. Staff is recommending approval of an extension to November 5, 2003. This would be consistent with the ordinance which was adopted November 5th of last year for projects that were approved prior to July, 2002 which did not have a specific condition on them with the deadline. I have included in your packet a copy of that ordinance. Basically had this project not had a specific condition of approval on it for a one year deadline then it would've fallen under the ordinance that was passed by Council and it would be granted up to November 5, 2003 to be permitted and under way in order to fall within the provisions of that ordinance. That is what staff is recommending, the extension to November 5th of this year. Bunch: Would this in anyway impact the normal extension process should they need more time? Warrick: I believe that they could still fall within the provisions of this ordinance, which does allow for a formal request of the Planning Commission if an extension beyond this date is requested. Bunch: Chris, are there any comments? Brackett: Chris Brackett with Jorgensen & Associates. I am here representing the owners. The owners had developed a lot of office space in this area and they believed when we started this that they needed this area but after we got it approved it kind of showed that they probably should delay it and now that they are getting some interest they would like to build it. Bunch: I don't see any staff here for staff comments. At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone who would wish to speak on this administrative item for Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 45 a Large Scale Development? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for questions, comments or motions. Church: Can we approve it at this level? Warrick: That is a good question. I believe you can because the original approval was at the Subdivision Committee level and this is the level where that condition was placed on the project. I believe it would be appropriate for you to approve it at this level. I would say that all of the conditions of approval that went with the original Large Scale are still in place and are still applicable with the exception of the deadline. Ostner: What was the condition? If this wasn't a Conditional Use we wouldn't be here today right? Warrick: No, this was a Large Scale Development and the Planning Commission, excuse me, at the Subdivision Committee level approved the project with a condition that it be valid for one calendar year. That was just a standard condition of approval. At one point in time probably in 1997 or 1998 staff began placing that as a standard condition on items. There were some that we missed it on. It was not an ordinance requirement until November of last year when this new ordinance was adopted placing an expiration on various types of development projects to include Lot Splits, Conditional Uses, Large Scale Developments. Previously we only had an ordinance deadline on Preliminary Plats with a one calendar year provision for those. Ostner: Have there been any rules adopted since it's approval? Warrick: That is a very appropriate question and that is why the time frame is pertinent that we don't go too far into new projects and have new ordinances that would change the conditions of the property or the development. I don't believe that there are ordinances that would modify this particular project to any great degree at all. Bunch: When the City Council passed the extension across the board for the ones that did not have a sunset clause on it was there anything in that that required coming up to current standards for ones that were not up to or were they extended as approved? Warrick: Bunch: Warrick: They were extended as approved to a time specific which is November 3`d of this calendar year, 2003. Basically this project fell in a slot so it is just being extended at this time to meet the same criteria that all the other projects were given? Correct. I would add that you are probably going to see another one of these with the Golden Corral project in the new future because conditions have changed with regard to their ability to develop that site but that is not of issue today. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 46 MOTION: Church: I will make a motion that we extend LSD 01-40.00 to November 5, 2003. Ostner: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Good luck Chris. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 47 ADM 03-7.00: Administrative Item (University Square, pp558) was submitted by Bob Hill of the Nickle Hill Group for property located at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Shiloh Drive, within the boundaries of the Overlay District. The request is to amend the approved Commercial Design Standards to allow for four wall signs and a variation in color around the bank building. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is University Square submitted by Bob Hill of the Nickle Hill Group for property located at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Shiloh Drive within the boundaries of the Overlay District. The request is to amend approved Commercial Design Standards to allow for four wall signs and a variation in color around the bank building. Staff, can you give us the report on this? Warrick: This is a bit of a combination request. The University Square project was a Large Scale Development that was approved by the Planning Commission April 8, 2002. In that project when it was brought forward the development identified all of the existing structures on the property as a part of the comprehensive redevelopment proposal. This is the site basically at 6` and I-540 with the exception of the gas station the old Superior Federal bank and the Marvin's IGA and then a strip of commercial development, which we talked a little bit about when we were mentioning Ruby Tuesday earlier, which is adjacent to it. When this project was approved by the Planning Commission April 8, 2002 elevations for the Large Scale were submitted for review. Those elevations showed a consistent red accent stripe or element and awnings throughout the development. Updated and improved facades for all of the buildings were proposed with consistent materials and colors. With that I am going to pass around the elevations that you saw at the Planning Commission when this project came forward. The building that we are specifically addressing today is the stand alone bank building. It was previously occupied by Superior Federal Bank and First Security Bank is now proposing to be a new tenant in that location. The elevation for that particular structure is the last one in the packet that you have in your hands. Also specific to that particular site in 1990 for the stand alone bank building was permitted and installed. That activity, the signage location for the original Superior Federal bank happened prior to the adoption of the Overlay District in 1994. Current status of the project, with regard to commercial design standards a new tenant for the stand alone bank does propose to repaint the red accent stripes and a parapet cap piece with a teal blue color, which is the signature color for that company. With regard to the Design Overlay District signage the bank proposes to install four wall signs. One on each side of the structure. The Overlay District does permit one wall sign on the side of the structure which faces the street right of way in instances where the structure has frontage on more than one public street in the Overlay District two wall signs may be permitted. That is a specific Overlay District issue. The applicant does prefer and propose to place wall signage on all four sides of the structure. I have included with your information, and I will go over my recommendation in a second, but I have included with your information a copy of the Overlay District ordinance as well as information from commercial design standards and the variances section with regard to the Overlay District. The recommendation with regard to the Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 48 commercial design standards approval and the treatment of colors and materials on the structure, staff would recommend that the accent striping and parapet cap remain the unifying red accent color, which provides uniformity and consistency throughout the development. Teal blue awnings and signage would permit the tenant the ability to customize the space to their corporate identity and staff would not be opposed to awnings and signage having those corporate colors. With regard to the sign proposal staff recommends approval of the proposed 48 sq.ft. wall sign for the south, or the front elevation, which is permitted by ordinance. In addition, staff recommends approval of one additional wall sign on the west elevation, which is the front entrance of the structure. That does require Planning Commission approval under the variances section with regard to the Overlay District. We have had information brought forward. I will let the applicant kind of go through the process that they have gone through to get to this point. A sign package has been requested by the applicant of the sign company and they are represented here today with regard to the four signs that are proposed. I think I am going to let Bob, Jim, and Nancy kind of go through where they are and how they got there. Bunch: Ok. That being said, can you all introduce yourselves and give us the benefit of your presentation? Hill: I am Bob Hill with the Nickle Hill Group. I am basically here today to tell you that the owner of the property, Narry Krushiker, is in full support of the tenant who wants to do what they want to do to identify their building and their business. When the Large Scale Development went through it was a picture of here is what we are going to make it all uniform but we certainly don't have a problem with a business in an independent building there that is part of the shopping center but that is their corporate identity and the owner of the shopping center does not have a problem with them repainting the trip to their corporate colors, which is teal. As far as the sign issue goes, again, the owner of the shopping center is in full support of all the signage that the bank can be allowed. I think that there is a good argument to get the four signs, and certainly three. The south side is facing onto Hwy. 62, which is a main thoroughfare, the west side is their main entrance. The east side faces I-540, which is very good visibility and effectively is frontage also by the way. The shopping center has a curb cut onto the access road at Shiloh. This building is a part of that shopping center so it does have frontage on another road and should be allowed signage in that direction also. For the fourth sign if you would please allow it I think it would help them also if it has one on the north side because there is a lot of traffic in the shopping center generated by the north building. Of the 40,000 sq.ft. shopping center 24,000 sq.ft. of that is in the north building. The way shopping centers work is you try to attract businesses that work together and create a good tenant mix so that the businesses in that shopping center can feed off of each other if you appreciate that term I guess. One business attracts another business and when other businesses attract there they can see the sign for First Security Bank. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 49 Bunch: Can you show us on this picture where the changes would be made? Taylor: I am Jim Taylor with First Security Bank. With the modern technology of digital imagery we are able to show you a little bit of what we were looking for as far as identifying the building. Again, the teal is our signature color. We use it in all of our literature, our adds, our buildings where possible. We use it everywhere. Nancy had contacted the city and I will let her talk about that, earlier before we ever ordered the signs or before I ever signed the lease and she was told from the city that we could have up to 150 sq.ft. of signage per side per building, per side of the building. Based on that, we went ahead and ordered the signs and the signage is here and ready to be installed. This shows you two looks if you will of the building. We should've moved this down to this corner on the east side. This is what our signage would look like if we retained the red parapet wall and accent trim. It does clash a bit. This is what we propose it would look like with the PMS321 Teal, which is our signature color, accent pieces, parapet wall, awning and signage. Couch: I am Nancy Couch with Northwest Arkansas Signs. I believe that the color of the teal and the red just really clashes. I have been in the sign business for 32 years now and this is my job to help the customer visualize what their signs are going to do. That is why I did this layout mainly for Jim so he could say yes or no I want you to move this sign over here. I had called down to the city and my main concern was on the back side, the one where he wants us to move it, there was no sign back there and there were signs on three sides of Superior. I just wanted to make sure we could add the fourth sign. I told the guy who I spoke to, I'm sorry, they say that there was a Don Hancock there but I can't swear what his name was. Taylor: This is the former Roadrunner Total parking lot that is vacant now and there is a pipe fence across there but this is what faces 1-540. Couch: I had told whoever I was speaking to on the phone that I wanted to put three 4x12s and one 4x8 illuminated sign and of course he read to me out of the ordinance where we were allowed up to 150 sq.ft. per side. I was told about the Design Overlay District later after I had the UL numbers to go get the permits, I was told there was no problem. Kris said you can't, it is the Design Overlay District, you are only allowed one sign. I was like wait a minute, I was already told that I could put one sign per side. That is where we are. The signs are here and that is several thousand dollars in signs that were ordered. Taylor: That is kind of where we are. We just wanted to show you where we were coming from. Of course red was the corporate color for the previous tenant and so we want to incorporate our corporate colors into the building and you know, this is our fourth location in Fayetteville. We have a significant presence in Fayetteville and Northwest Arkansas and most of you are probably aware of our big building on Joyce Blvd. We try to be good corporate citizens. We want to have a good Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 50 presence here in Fayetteville and Northwest Arkansas and we will continue to do that. Hill: If I could go back to one other tenant in this same shopping center. When Dollar Tree came before the city to get a waiver for additional signage they were allowed three signs. They are on the end cap on the large building. The reason they were able to have three signs is that there is a drive that goes through on the north side that circles around on the west side of the shopping center that runs back through to 6`h Street and we anticipate a lot of traffic through there and a lot of visibility so they are able to get a sign on the north side. They obviously had visibility from I- 540 on the east side and on the south side was the front of their business. We I guess have the same proposal for you on this building except it has four sides instead of the three sides the Dollar Tree had. Taylor: Our predecessor did have three signs on the building. Couch: The reason I called was because of the fourth sign. I wanted to make sure that we could do it before I spent several thousand dollars buying a sign we couldn't put up. Bunch: Staff's recommendation for the color, I realize red is a unifying color but the architectural features also appear for that shopping center to be unifying and does this, when these colors are next to each other it is not very unifying. You all said it clashed. Hill: It is a little Christmas like. Bunch: It is not necessarily out of scale but it is pretty flashy. Warrick: That is why it is here for the Planning Commission to make a determination. We are just making a recommendation. I don't have any personal stake in this. There are architectural features on those structures, on the stand alone that ties it to the other buildings within the development. Couch: I could see if you were in the center of that shopping center and you wanted to paint teal and you had red over here and red over there it would make a huge difference but since this building is kind of off set and not right up with the other buildings I don't think that is going to be that big of a deal. Bunch: Obviously in the retrofit of the shopping center from Westgate to University Square there are some variations in the architectural features but there is still some unifying themes, the arches, the pilasters, that sort of thing. Taylor: The brick is the same. Even the exterior lighting here ties back into the rest of the center. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 51 Bunch: Since it is a stand alone building it is not like the end cap being teal and the rest of the things being red. Warrick: You will need to consider both of these things separately. If you want to look at the color changes and make a determination on that and then address the signage that is perfectly fine. Bunch: Do we need do to that at this level or forward it to the full Commission since these were, I guess the signs will have to go to the Board of Sign Appeals? Warrick: No, if you choose to allow more than one wall sign it will require full Planning Commission consideration. I feel like the colors are probably more it is your interpretation as to whether or not there are other features that unify this into the development and would not necessarily require the consistency in the color accents. I feel like that is something that the Subdivision Committee, if you are comfortable with it, I don't have a problem with that being handled at this particular level. The signage is something if you choose to permit more than one sign which faces a street right of way then it would need to be heard by the full Planning Commission under the Overlay District ordinance. Church: Can I make a comment on that? Bunch: We haven't taken public comment yet. Church: I didn't see anyone. Bunch: Well, we have to announce it anyway. Would anyone like to make public comment? Seeing none, Commissioner Church? Church: I just know with the building that has been going up out at CMN, we have really been pushing the businesses to put wall signage on the sides of the building. That has been a big push. I have a little bit of shopping center experience and I know that having businesses aware of other businesses in a shopping center is absolutely essential. It sounds like a big portion of the square footage is on that side and certainly on sides that face major thoroughfares I think the signage is essential. I would be in support of the signage on four sides. I don't think there is anything obnoxious about the signage being on four sides of the building. Couch: We are only using 1/3 of the space at the most that we are allowed, the 150 sq.ft. Church: Yes, they are very tastefully done and I would be in full support of the signage on all four sides. Bunch: Is there a joint identification sign for this shopping center or possibly two? Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 52 Hill: There are two. There are two monument signs, one on I-540 and one on Hwy. 62. Couch: No one has put any names on them. Hill: They are unused currently. Bunch: Is First Security allowed to advertise on those? Hill: They are allowed to, they are not required to. I don't know if they are going to. Ostner: That was going to be my question. If they are at an intersection and there are as I recall two available street signs and I would tend to disagree. I think that the signs facing the street right of way are sufficient, especially since you get twice that too. You get the two signs at the street and the two at your building facing the right of way. I think the argument is different that the interior of the north and west sides face buildings and parking lots not public street right of way as Dollar Tree had the unique situation. Their situation was also different. They only got two wall signs and the facade was separate. I think if you all had been oriented another way I would be in favor of giving two right of way and a third front if you would've been facing west or north. On the color issue I see there are perils in trying to unify places with color. I would love for this building to match the other building, and it does in the massing and the curve and the pilasters. My vote would be willing to give up the color issue but I think four signs on all four sides is excessive. Hill: Can I make a comment on the monument sign? I know that this center had a pylon sign to start with when Mr. Krushiker bought it. To get the approval from Large Scale we had to remove the pylon sign and put up two monument signs. I think there is a reason none of the tenants have chose to put their signs on it. If you drive down the interstate, drive down the access road, or drive down Hwy. 62 those plaques are going to be worthless. I really think that. That is just an observation of mine. None of the tenants have chosen to put plaques on it. They are about this long and this high and you can't see that signage from the interstate. I appreciate the theory behind it all but for those little plaques it doesn't work, you can't see them. Bunch: The question then becomes rather than have us deal with every tenant in this development, we have already had one earlier today for the third time that has to do with these owners. If there is a problem with the tenants and the signage and the visibility for business purposes would it not be better to come back with a proposal for something other than your current monument signs with a different type of area identification sign to address the whole area as a unit rather than go through the expense of coming back for each individual tenant. Not only the expense of monetarily but the time and the staff time and everything else and our time to have to sit and say how do we grant this one? We gave these people this, can we give these people less or can we give these people more? I would encourage you if you Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 53 are the representative of the development as a whole, not just the bank, to have a consistent and collective approach to it to come back and try to get something established for the whole area rather than just you know coming by with every single group having to be a special case. Hill: I want to address the Ruby Tuesday issue. Ruby Tuesday, that land was owned by Mr. Krushiker also. There are a lot of things that intertwine between that and University Square but Ruby Tuesday is not a part of University Square, it is not a part of the shopping center. There were a lot of easements and cross easements and things that kind of tie it together but it is not a part of this shopping center. I think that this is the last building and the last occasion that we will have where we are coming to you because it is the last place where we have more than one sign showing for a tenant. If there is an option to put a pylon sign up there we would like to know about that. Bunch: One of the things that we had with this other than the signs were the private drives through it and the roadways and the dedication and the sidewalks and that sort of thing and even though the owner has apparently sold the Ruby Tuesday property it was very much a part of this whole development scheme. Hill: Yes it was. Bunch: And how it was presented to us. It is rather awkward from having a cohesive unit at one time that various pieces were consolidated. At one time it was several pieces of property. The existing Hampton Inn, the new Hampton Inn, where the Ruby Tuesday is now and this one. University Square was kind of presented as we are going to develop this whole thing together and then we will sell pieces off. There were certain assurances that were given and design and concepts that we based our decisions on. I would like to see the owner be consistent with what he proposed to us initially when he brought a development in that leaned heavily on the pieces of property adjacent to it saying we own these pieces of property, this is what we are trying to get done. I think the same thing that he presented it to us in that fashion, I would like to see the owner come back to us in the same fashion with the sign issues because for consistency, it was presented one way one time. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Hill: If you are referring to Ruby Tuesday coming in this morning for a variance and asking for another sign. That is beyond our control. We sold that and our contract, contractually we agreed with Ruby Tuesday to have a shared monument sign, which was approved with the hotel and the city was very helpful in trying to figure out where we could do that on Hwy. 62 and I-540 also. Bunch: On this are you representing the bank or are you representing University Square? Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 54 Hill: I am just here with University Square to tell you that the owner of that property is in full support of what the bank wants to do is my purpose for being here. Couch: I do want to say that on the monument sign that they have there, they have been limited to a 6' height. The monument signs have a limit of 6' height. Warrick: The Overlay District is very restrictive with regard to signage. On non-residential free standing signs, I will just read this section of the ordinance. Each separate non- residential lot will be allowed a single ground mounted monument sign located on the building site. In the case of lots with double frontage two ground mounted monument signs shall be allowed. With regard to wall signs, one wall sign may be installed per business. Sign area shall not exceed 20% of the wall area or 200 sq.ft., whichever is less. A second sign may be allowed if it is determined that the structure has more than one front facing a street or highway right of way. Couch: Is that in the sign ordinance? Warrick: This is the Overlay District regulation. Couch: I wasn't told that this was going to be the Overlay District. Warrick: I checked around. I talked with every staff member who has dealt with the sign ordinance since the beginning of this year. We had a shift in the administration of the sign ordinance and I have spoken with every individual who managed the sign ordinance or who has had a hand in it and no one remembers speaking specifically about this site. It very well may be that they just don't recall Nancy. I am not saying that you didn't call and check on anything. Couch: I would've never spent this kind of money on signs without knowing that I could have them. Warrick: Had someone called in and said I have a piece of property that is in a C-2 zoning district, I've got a stand alone building and I would like to put signage on all four sides the answer would be yes you can place signage on all four sides. Couch: I specifically said the Superior building in University Square. Warrick: This particular property is governed by zoning, by the sign ordinance, and also by the Overlay District. I am sorry that you probably got some mis-information We have not had any application in hand that I have seen to reflect any agreements or other that may have happened with regard to approvals on the signs. Regardless of that, in order for anything different other than this ordinance provision to be approved, the Planning Commission does have to go through their process of reviewing it and approving something. That is why we are here. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 55 Taylor: Couch: Warrick: Couch: Church: Bunch: Church: Bunch: Church: Ostner: Bunch: Church: Bunch: Warrick: Church: To address the issue of four signs or a sign on each side. If you are in the shopping center even though it is not a dedicated public thoroughfare there could be a question as to what actually is in that building and so that is the reason we wanted to identify ourselves for the patrons of the shopping center that they would know that this is First Security Bank. This is our location in this area of Fayetteville. I think it is different than being a cleaners because there are more people looking for their bank. That is why staff would recommend approval of the sign on the west side. That is the front entrance to the structure. On the west side there is actually less traffic. We really can't decide anything on the sign issue anyway. Right. We need to make a recommendation and forward it. We can do something on the color banding. We need to treat those separately I guess. I think from staff's comments that we can and sure treat it separately. I will attempt to make a motion on the initial item anyway. I will recommend that we approve ADM 03-7.00 as far as the color variation goes, that we allow the teal color to be the stripe that is on the building to be changed to the teal color instead of the red and the awnings included also in that. Ok, I will second that. I will concur. Good luck with your teal. Now to the sign issue. We are going to have to forward this to make a dispositive action it has to go forward. Are you sure we even recommend? Is that what we should do? We can forward it with or without a recommendation is that not true staff? You can. I know that the chair of the Commission will likely look to one of you to report out what your recommendation or at least discussion was at this level. I don't think it is necessary to recommend anything. I am sure we will all express our opinions. I don't know at this point if we all agree. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 56 Ostner: Bunch: Ostner: Bunch: Taylor: Bunch: Taylor: Warrick: Taylor: Warrick: Taylor: Bunch: Taylor: Bunch: Warrick: Bunch: Warrick: Taylor: I would like to add to that, I did not fully understand which way this building faced. The fact that it faces west does exactly make it similar to Dollar Tree. I would be in favor of three signs. It is a stand alone building. It is separate from the rest of them. I thought it faced south. It does, oh, you mean the main entrance. There is a south facing face to the building. This is it. Superior had their ATM located here. Ok, that is the southwest elevation. That ATM is no longer there. Mr. Taylor, where do you propose to locate your ATM? I believe on the Large Scale it is in an island. 1 don't see it on there. That is part of that building permit that we submitted. The trenching and the conduit and everything has been run there. The striping has identified an ATM. Will there be identification on your ATM? It will be identical to the ATM that is located in the Overlay District in front of the Atlanta Bread Company. I don't recall what that looks like. The Atlanta Bread Company is not in the Overlay District. That is why I was having trouble with it because the Atlanta Bread Company is no where near the Overlay District. It is not in the Overlay District but it is in that development where the Hobby Lobby and Office Max are. It does have some identification on it right? That would be on which side of the building? That would be in the center aisle of the parking area. It is not a part of the building. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 57 Warrick: At the entrance to the development from 6th Street this is the bank building, this is the location proposed for the ATM. We need to check that for setback. Bunch: That could be another sign also. Warrick: It will be. All of the ATMs identify their bank. Couch: They usually put ATM on the side and then their name on the front. Taylor: We have certain regulations for the signage on ATMs. Bunch: Who's regulations? Taylor: Banking regulations, we have to identify those. Bunch: I have been in towns or cities where they have shopping centers with over identifying, where everything looks almost the same and for our of towners it is very difficult to find what each store is unless you actually drive down into the shopping center and drive around and look real closely. I understand from a business standpoint that there needs to be some identification visible from the roads. Couch: First Security Banks are all over the state so if you are traveling you can go oh, there is a First Security Bank, I can go in and get some cash or whatever. I think it is very important, especially coming from I-540. Bunch: I understand that since it is a bank that is consistent throughout the state and we are a University town and this is one of the entrances to the University area with the Walton arena and the stadium that often times people coming up for ball games would probably want to see this so it makes it a little bit of a sticky issue. Taylor: As far as if the ATM skewed your opinion on the signage of the building, it is basically its own separate entity. The question I would ask is if it were another bank's ATM would it affect your opinion on this? They will be stand alone different entities. Bunch: When we are looking at three signs verses four signs say if it comes down to the decision that Dollar Tree has three signs. You are allowed two. The question first comes do you get a third sign and then do you get a fourth sign. The ATM where it is located will announce to people in the shopping center that there is a First Security presence in this shopping center. Again, we are looking at people from out of town and driving by on public rights of way, you are allowed a sign on the south side and the east side. Warrick: The east side faces a vacant lot. It is not a directly adjoining the interstate. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 58 Taylor: It has a side with the interstate. Warrick: l guess my question goes to whether or not that really is. Bunch: Whether or not a second one is allowed, much less four? Warrick: The second sign may be allowed if it is determined if the structure has more than one front facing a street or highway right of way. Ostner: I thought this did. Warrick: I am looking to the Planning Commission to give me an interpretation. If you believe that that is the case then the east face would be granted a sign. Bunch: As it sits now with nothing on that site that may be the case. Bunch: That is one of the reasons we are looking to the shopping center owner to give us some guidance there. What are the plans for that site? Is it going to be sold, will a building go in? Hill: That is separate ownership. Bunch: If it is separate ownership then I see the point there. There is an intervening property and it technically does not face it. Hill: It is going to be the ownership of that shopping center's position that that bank is a part of the shopping center. It is a separate building within that shopping center but the shopping center has frontage on I-540. Warrick: And has been granted a sign on the wall at the area that it adjoins Shiloh Drive. Hill: Right, but the shopping center adjoins Shiloh Drive at that point so we feel that any building or any entity within that shopping center should be allowed signage that is facing I-540. Warrick: l understand your point. Ostner: That same logic, if that is the logic, it would have to also pertain to the L main body, which of course doesn't. Hill: It does face I-540. Ostner: I know but those shouldn't be allowed three. Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 59 Bunch: Hill: Bunch: Technically the L that faces 6th Street, if that logic applies across the board, would be allowed on the end that faces 6th Street here. Is this Dollar Tree up here? Yes. All of these are facing I-540, all of these are facing 6th so this right here could conceivably fall under the same logic as Dollar Tree for consistency. Hill: I am working with someone on a lease for this center and I don't know what they will do. My suspicion is that they will ask you for two signs because they face two directions. Bunch: Church: Bunch: Taylor: Bunch: Taylor: Ostner: Taylor: Bunch: Ok, we have run on for quite some time here. Why don't we try to consolidate this and since it has to go to the full Planning Commission give them the benefit of our comments but we do need a motion to forward. I have a feeling that this same conversation is going to occur with six other members. I haven't seen the site in a month or two so I think it will help to go out and take a look again to get a better feel for how much signage is needed. I am not ready to say I am set on two signs or three signs or four signs. I need to have another look before I make a determination. These are all lighted signs? Yes Sir. I think that is a very good comment Possibly go look at it at night too to see just how much is needed. On the east side there was discussion, there is a property between, but the line of sight coming from I-540 to that building with the minimum setbacks that would be there on the adjoining property since it is on the corner and you have setbacks we would continue to have a line of site and visibility from I-540. Where we propose to put the sign on the east side on the south portion of the east side of the building you would have a continuous line of site regardless of what happened on that lot. If we are just making comments for the record, I agree with Commissioner Church. I need to go look at it. I also would request an overall site plan in our packet. I would request elevations of the monument sign for the entire complex and I would like an elevation of the ATM. That has been submitted to the city for permit. Would an 8 '/2 x 11 site plan work? Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 60 Ostner: Oh yeah. Bunch: Showing the relationship of the building and proposed signs to the rest of the shopping center. Ostner: Yes, and those pictures are very important and these pictures are very important. My initial take is that the rule does read any lot with two frontages gets two signs. Even though this building has another building blocking it I think to be fair they should be called two right of way frontages. I tend to think the ATM should count in the sign count and not be just an extra add on. I would amenable to an eastern sign, a southern sign and the ATM. Taylor: You wouldn't allow us to have a sign over our main entrance to the building? The ATM is across the parking lot. It is not adjacent to this building. It is as close to Jim's Razorback Pizza as it is to our front door. Couch: There are a lot of ATMs that aren't near the bank. Bunch: This one right here would be the main view for people coming in traveling east bound on Hwy. 62. Hill: This might be helpful. I took a picture. This is like the entrance into the center from Hwy. 62. This is the ATM site and this is the front entrance here. Bunch: I think we need to go look at it. Right now what we need to look for is a motion to forward. MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we forward ADM 03-7.00 to the full Planning Commission on the issue of the wall signs. Taylor: When is that meeting? Warrick: May 22nd Church: I will second it. Bunch: I will concur. One thing we can look at is if you are allowed two signs there is maybe some latitude in where you put those signs. They don't have to necessarily go on the east face or the south face, even though you have south frontage, if you would rather put the south frontage sign on your west face over your main entrance, I am sure that that would be an option. Correct me if I'm wrong Dawn, would that be an option? Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 61 Warrick: Taylor: Bunch: Osmer: Bunch: Taylor: Osmer: Bunch: Church: Bunch: Couch: Bunch: Ostner: Couch: Ostner: Hill: Bunch: I think that is an option. What if we put a non -illuminated sign on the west side in addition to the illuminated sign? Are we talking about all signs or just the illuminated signs? We are talking about all signs. In a sense you are looking at having you might say seven signs. Two area identification signs, four sides of the building and your ATM. That is an awful lot. The ATM has two signs. That is a lot of identification. Again, the ATM I wish you would consider that completely separate. It is just so close. That has more to do with the people inside your shopping center, the circulation within the shopping center on the private drives. You are looking basically for identification for those patrons. We are looking at seven signs, which is an awful lot of identification. That is if they go on the monument sign, is that what you are saying? Right, if they go on the area identification signs. I think these are more important than those monument signs. Those monument signs are worthless. That is your all's decision with that. We have had good experience with monument signs. Out at Joyce Street they were received poorly. We have spent hours and hours in this room. Yeah, they are huge. No, they are hip high. McDonald's comes to my hip. There is a big difference between a single user monument sign. Some of them on Milsap I think have been alright but you are driving 25 miles per hour instead of going down the interstate. We will bring you pictures of our monument signs. On the interstate that is a whole different ballgame trying to attract traffic off the interstate. We are looking at a signalized intersection right next to this where you do have traffic cueing and we just recently had a traffic study that told us what Subdivision Committee May 15, 2003 Page 62 happens on that. You have one way traffic on Shiloh and it is quite a ways from the ramp. I don't think there is any way that you are going to be able to get an identification sign that would allow people on the interstate to take the 6th Street exit. That is just too far away. The potential customers that are coming down Shiloh, there is a signalized intersection there and they are coming right by that monument sign. If somebody were south bound on I-540 and they look down and see this shopping center the next exit is way down there, that is Cato Springs and then trying to figure out how to get back to this location from Cato Springs is not easy. Taylor: Part of our signage would to build the awareness so they would know the next time they came through there that yes there is a First Security Bank location there. It is not necessarily that one impulse stop or one stop at that time. Bunch: I understand that but if you had one on the east side that would be visible from Shiloh and from I-540 both. Let's be realistic in what we are looking at here and in what the request is because we do have traffic that stacks up quite a bit on 6`h Street and on Shiloh. Dawn, do we have any other announcements or anything? Warrick: No Sir. Bunch: I guess we are adjourned.