Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-08-28 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on August 28, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN PPL 03-13.00: Preliminary Plat (Lot 17, Steele Crossing) Forwarded Page 2 LSD 03-21.00: Large Scale Development (Jones Motor Cars, pp 213) Page 12 Forwarded MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Don Bunch Alan Ostner Alice Church STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Jeremy Pate Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas Craig Carnagey Rebecca Ohman Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 2 PPL 03-13.00: Preliminary Plat (Lot 17, Steele Crsg.) was submitted by James Koch, P.E. of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of James S. Irwin, Irwin Saviers Company for property located at Steele Crossing, Lot 17. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 18.25 acres. The request is to develop the property into five commercial lots (lots 17C -G) of 1.82, 2.03, 2.04, 5.75 and 5.11acres with 1.50 acres for Phase I and II of Van Asche Drive. Bunch: Welcome to the Thursday, August 28th meeting of the Subdivision Committee of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. Today we have two items on the agenda. Since it is a short agenda this morning I would like to have the new staff members as well as the more veteran staff members take a little bit of time and introduce yourselves and give us a brief recap of what your duties are and how you serve the citizens of Fayetteville. Dawn, can you start it off? Warrick: I would be glad to since I'm the veteran staff member here. My name is Dawn Warrick, I am the Zoning and Development Administrator. I have worked in the Planning Division for eight years and I manage the current Planning staff which oversees all zoning and development activities. Bunch: Thank you. Jeremy? Pate: My name is Jeremy Pate. I am an Associate Planner in the current development side of the Planning Division and I have been here for four months so I help review all of the proposals that come through. Bunch: Dawn, can you introduce your new Planner? Warrick: Sure, Suzanne Morgan is here in the center and she has been with us just over a week. She is also an Associate Planner in the current Planning Division and like Jeremy, she will be assisting with the review of development and zoning projects. Bunch: Thank you. Craig? Carnagey: My name is Craig Carnagey, I'm the Landscape Administrator and I administer all the ordinances pertaining to tree preservation and landscaping for the City of Fayetteville. Bunch: Matt? Casey: I am Matt Casey, I am a Staff Engineer with the Engineering Division. I review all of the plans for compliance with our ordinances with water and sewer, streets, drainage and grading. Bunch: Thank you. Commissioners, can you introduce yourselves? Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 3 Church: I am Alice Church and I am one of the Planning Commissioners. I think I have been around for about two and a half years. Ostner: I am a Planning Commissioner, my name is Alan Ostner. In my tenure here I believe I've been here almost a year I think, I don't remember, since July of 2002. Bunch: I am Don Bunch, I am a Planning Commissioner and I've been on the Commission for four or five years. All that being said, we will go with our first item on the agenda which is PPL 03-13.00 for Steele Crossing submitted by James Koch on behalf of Irwin Saviers Company for Steele Crossing. James, would you come on up please? Who has the staff report on this one? Pate: This property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 18.25 acres. The proposal and the request is to create a subdivision of the remaining portions of lot 17 of CMN Business Park II. The subdivision will include five commercial lots varying in size from approximately 1.8 acres to about five acres. Two lots were previously split off from lot 17. Those show on your plat as 17A, Olive Garden and 17B for the Marriott Courtyard. These two lots will not be considered part of this subdivision. Van Asche Drive is proposed to be extended and dead- end in a cul-de-sac allowing improved public street right of way for all five lots. Van Asche Drive extension will be constructed to collector street standards pursuant to the Master Street Plan and dedicated as a public street at the time of Final Plat. Due to the size of the lots proposed and the location within the Design Overlay District, each is required to go through the Large Scale Development process at the time of development. Surrounding zoning is C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and R -O, Residential Office. The surrounding land use does include the future Marriott Courtyard hotel, the Olive Garden, which is existing, several vacant lots. West Mud Creek and the West Mud Creek trail which is planned and the dedicated tree preservation area just to the north. 8" water and sewer lines will be serving this development. Tree preservation is 16.2% which requires no mitigation. The right of way being dedicated at this time is 70'. That will be at the time of Final Plat for the extension of Van Asche Drive as a collector street. That extension of Van Asche Drive will be a full 28' street cross section with 6' sidewalks on both sides. Right now a temporary cul-de-sac is being proposed for the end of Van Asche with curb, gutter and sidewalks to be constructed as development on each individual lot occurs. The developer of each lot then will be responsible for those improvements. Staff is recommending that at the time that three of the five lots have been developed with the subdivision the applicant and developer for the current subdivision will be required to construct the remaining portion of that cul-de-sac to ensure that it will not remain incomplete at a future date. With the current proposal the cul-de- Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 4 sac will need to be paved to public street standards. The intent is to allow for Van Asche to be extended if this future proposed lot 17F proposes to do so. Staff is recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with several conditions and I will go over those for you. 1) Cross access between each lot shall be required. 2) No additional curb cuts onto Van Asche Drive other than those indicated on the plat shall be allowed without Planning Commission approval. For those lots on the cul-de-sac, one curb cut per lot shall be allowed. Shared access is recommended. 3) The cul-de-sac shall be constructed in accordance with City Code, with a paved surface. Curb/Gutter and sidewalk construction around the cul-de-sac shall be delayed until each individual lot develops. At that time, the developer of each respective lot shall be responsible for constructing that portion of the street that fronts onto the cul-de-sac in accordance with City Code. When any three of the five lots have been developed, the current subdivision developer shall be responsible for constructing the remainder of the cul-de-sac with curb/gutter, storm drains and sidewalks. 4) Van Asche Drive shall be dedicated as a public street at the time of Final Plat. Construction of said street shall be in accordance with City Ordinances for a Collector Street. 5) Those lots fronting the West Mud Creek trail shall provide visual and physical pedestrian connections at the time of development. 6) Plat shall reflect the plat page number 174. 7) The legend of the plat shall reflect a coordinating hatched area and title that corresponds to the preservation area shown on the drawing. 8) The removal of trees on the proposed Lot 17D shall be prohibited. The existing grove shall be saved with protective measures in place until future development plans demonstrate that their removal is essential to the project's design. 9) The Trails and Greenways Coordinator shall approve the design and location of the drainage pipe and outflow structure for the detention pond prior to approval. 10) A floodplain development permit shall be required prior to any construction within the floodplain, in addition to grading and drainage permits. 11) The plat shall include a caution note and indicate the location of the existing Fiber Optic line as requested by Utility Representatives. Items twelve through sixteen are standard conditions of approval. Bunch: Ok, thank you Jeremy. Are there other staff reports? Tree and Landscape? Carnagey: They have submitted a tree preservation plan for the subdivision and are protecting the trees along riparian corridor of Mud Creek. The only thing that I would ask of the applicant is on the Preliminary Plat to show in the legend the tree preservation area. It looks like it is not in here right now. It is on the drawing but it needs to correspond on the legend. Bunch: Are there any additional Engineering comments? Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 5 Casey: Koch: Casey: Bunch: Koch: A comment that may be more appropriate for Final Plat but in reviewing the revised drainage report it looks like the lot in the northeast corner, 17F, we probably need to include some sort of note saying that detention will be required at the time of development for 17F. It looks like it is not included in the overall detention design. Also, I was wondering if you can give us some information on your coordination for the outflow pipe by the trail. Is there a pipe there where you've got that shown? They have indicated to me that it might better go towards the northeast. We are expecting to adjust that outflow structure from the detention pond. I have had some problems using the digital file that Steve gave to us but we are planning to adjust that appropriately. That is all I have. Thank you. At this time we will go to the applicant. Will you give us the rundown on your project James? Would you please introduce yourself? My name is James Koch with CEI Engineering representing the Steele sisters and the CMN Development and of course Irwin Saviers, the developer for the subdivision here. We are really excited about being able to bring this forward and start development of this particular lot. I believe that there are several people who are interested in starting their Large Scale Developments in this area and this is going to enable them to do that. Thank you. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address us on this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments, questions or motions. I will start it off with a couple of questions. Am I understanding correctly that this cul-de-sac may be a temporary cul-de-sac and it could be extended into 17F in the future if that one is subdivided? Koch: At the present time we are planning on that to be a 48' radius permanent cul-de-sac that was requested at the time of Technical Plat. That would provide for a fire truck to be able to come into the cul-de-sac and not have to run over the curbs in order to navigate through that area. At the present time we are not planning to extend the road any further. I would anticipate that any future development in this area 17 F, G, E would basically just connect based on particulars with whatever the desired development may be. I don't expect Van Asche Drive to continue further into the lot than what is currently shown with this particular plat. Bunch: Anything within these lots would be private access? Koch: Yes Sir. Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 6 Bunch: We have an awful lot on these drawings. We require so much that sometimes it is difficult to read. Can you show me where the sewer access is for 17F and 17G? Koch: Sure. There is a sewer easement that actually was connected at some time in the past across the creek and the trail easement and actually terminates on 17F. As far as 17G I believe that that sewer service is expected to be provided from this point here we have got a manhole ending on the east boundary of the Marriott Courtyard approved plan here. I believe the remaining lots are served from the sewer that we will construct to the south side of Van Asche Drive. Bunch: A question since this is kind of like a lot split. The elevations of these are a little higher than the elevations of this lot except up in this corner and I just wondered if maybe at this point in the process you needed to maybe put a sewer easement in to allow gravity flow before the project gets further along and all the drawings have to be revised. Koch: Sure. We can analyze. I was expecting to possibly adjust this lot line, not at the present time though to accommodate it. Bunch: I see the multi -use trail is also a utility easement. Koch: That is correct. It is a multi -use trail and I guess the language does allow for utilities in addition to the trail area in addition to the trail. Whether or not that occurs, we are certainly not planning for that at the current time. However, if utilities did need to be constructed along this corridor that would be a legal way to place them on this property. Bunch: One of the concerns that we always have is access to utilities and that sort of thing and also not driving costs absorbedly high. It looks like this is an avenue to accommodate that so that solves that. Thank you for showing that to me. Ostner: This Van Asche Drive is called out as a collector, how does that fall into our Master Street plan? Warrick: Our Master Street Plan actually designates Van Asche as a collector up to Mall Avenue and then going to the west. The extension of Van Asche when it was originally proposed with the Marriott project was proposed with a turn lane at the intersection of Mall Avenue which is a 36' section, three lanes with a turn lane. The right of way being dedicated is 70', which is the standard width of a right of way for a collector street. The type of developments that will likely occur in here, we are looking at hotels, restaurants, and other heavily trafficked commercial type Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 7 developments and we feel like it is appropriate to have the means of that width so in the future we will have that flexibility. Ostner: Actually at this time I'm not concerned about the width, I'm concerned about cross access. There are residential subdivisions that we frequently don't let do cul-de-sacs and here is a commercial opportunity to connect with the street by Red Lobster, the outer road, Shiloh. This is the biggest traffic scenario in town and this would be another opportunity to go around. Warrick: I think the biggest constraint that we are looking at is floodplain/wetlands and a million dollar bridge. That doesn't mean to say that it is not something that can be explored. I think a lot of that may depend on what happens on that lot 17F depending on some of the development proposal that we might see there. I want to say in the mid 1990's we did have that connection shown to the outer road that runs beside Red Lobster, Ryan's and Dixie Cafe. I believe that it was removed from the Master Street Plan due to site constraints and due to the feasibility of actually being able to make that connection. We have two crossings over Mud Creek within the CMN subdivision, one over Mall and one over Steele Blvd. so that other was removed from the Master Street Plan as a connection. That is the history that I know on that piece. Ostner: I understand that there is a great bridge here and another one there. It just seems like with this we are closing off the option. On the north side of the creek is that Ryan's, is there any sort of access planned between Shiloh and Mall? Warrick: There is not a Master Street Plan street connection in that location. The connection on the Master Street Plan is further north on Joyce. There certainly could be cross access connections through developments on the north side of the creek. We have not seen any proposals for the vacant lots up there and I'm not sure but the property lines up I believe to the Ryan's lot and they will have opportunity to have cross connection through the development there, probably not a public street access. Ostner: These are really common to the Planning Commission I suppose but when the Highway Department, when we have asked about this congestion they say hey, we designed that with this road running next to it in mind and you all didn't build it so that is your problem. Here is a chance to help alleviate a lot of it because this is a big problem. That answers all of my questions I suppose. Koch: I would like to add a little bit to that. When these decisions were made about Van Asche Drive the property owner did give up a significant portion of road frontage to accommodate a flyover that is indicated on the Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 8 Master Street Plan and attached with this hand out. That would provide for an excellent way to provide access going north on I-540 and into the Steele Crossing development. I think that you would see a flurry of development occur should that flyover be added to the road system here in Fayetteville. Ostner: I appreciate that. That was my next question. Warrick: There was a dedication of right of way when the subdivision was platted to accommodate that Master Street Plan for that flyover. It is not a funded project on the CIP at this time but it is something that we have tried to protect our potential for that in the future by acquiring right of way from this subdivision when it was originally processed. Another thing that I think we may need to consider, is the possibility for signalization at Van Asche and Mall depending on the amount of development that occurs in this cul-de-sac. It is something that I will be glad to contact the Transportation Department and see what kind of comments they have. Up to this point we have not talked very much about it. It is very likely, especially with this being a cul-de-sac situation, we may need to explore the need for signalization at this intersection. It is a little bit tricky because you are coming around the corner and a connection of Shiloh and Mall, there could be quite a bit of traffic in this location. That is something that I will research for you and bring forward some additional information when this goes up to the Planning Commission. I think it is appropriate to get that addressed at the Preliminary Plat stage. Bunch: James, while we are on the subject of the easements and that kind of thing can you give us a quick recap of the deed restricted area and the easements that were granted for the trail? That is quite a big chunk of land that is being dedicated to the City of Fayetteville and quite an environmental plus. Koch: Absolutely. In fact, there is kind of a nature preserve that is taking place along this corridor. Of course EGIS was the coordinator between the Corp. of Engineers. And the owner of the property. You can see their signs if you walk down there because this is a mitigated wetland. They do not disturb, several plant species were mitigated in the course of development of the subdivision. As far as the actual area I don't have that off the top of my head but essentially the multi -use trail easement that you see meandering through this particular lot is adjacent to the floodway, it is just south of the floodway, so that is a 25' buffer between the floodway and the useable land area that we propose to develop with the sell of the lots in this area. So there is quite a bit of area preserved back here. There are several large species of trees to be preserved and quite frankly, it is a beautiful area to walk through. I look forward to seeing the multi -use trail built and the Marriott Courtyard is going to provide connectivity to it. Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 9 This is going to be a nice area to do business and to use as pedestrian access through Fayetteville. There are really some special things down here. Steve Hatfield and the Mayor and myself went out to look at the trees last week and we were all pleasantly surprised at what we found. I just look forward to getting things started here. Van Asche Drive Phase I by the way is presently under construction at this time. I saw that they have started doing the reconstruction of shared access for Olive Garden and providing for access to the Marriott Courtyard traffic. Bunch: With the EGIS report there were quite a few deed restricted areas where there were massive re -plantings of species that are adapted to this type of environment, just off the top of your head can you recall any of them in this area? Koch: Yes, absolutely. As a matter of fact, this area on the northeast corner of 17F and this area of 17G has plantings in here. You can actually walk down into the sewer easement that crosses the creek and walk in and take a look at the creek and see some of the things that are being preserved and are flourishing. Bunch: Some of these things got lost in the shuffle but there are quite a bit of things that are being done to preserve the future of Fayetteville and it is good to see that as it goes from subdivision that it is being carried forward. Koch: Yes, absolutely. I think that this eventually will be something that everyone is proud of, will enjoy using and seeing. Ostner: I have a question about the access to the trail. Did I read that each lot is going to be responsible for that access? Koch: The Marriott Courtyard was approved knowing that we are going to put access to the trail from that lot. Also, there is a sidewalk along Mall Avenue that will provide access to the trail as well. Osmer: It is access over here on 17F that I was really wondering about. Koch: I'm not sure. Ostner: Are they going to? Koch: How would they do that? Ostner: Yeah. Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 10 Koch: Depending on how the development, what type of development actually occurs on that particular lot that would be a subject for Large Scale Development review to approve or kind of tweak appropriately. Ostner: There's no policy in place? Warrick: In the Overlay District there is a policy that we have pedestrian connections. This project is in the Overlay District. Staff will certainly work with all of the applicants when the developments are proposed for he various lots within the subdivision because we feel that it is extremely important that we take advantage of that amenity and that we address it with each of the projects and that we don't just back up a building with service entrances and driveways behind facing that trail. That trial is going to be utilized and it is going to be a huge amenity for the community. We want people to utilize that trail from adjacent developments. If it is a restaurant maybe there is patio seating adjacent to it that it is not just the back door and the trash access. We will certainly look to work with each of the developers when these lots come through Large Scale so that we can achieve something that is beneficial to the community and to the development with regard to our access to a trail. We think that is very important. Bunch: MOTION: Church: Casey: Church: Warrick: Do we have any further questions or comments? I will make a motion that we forward PPL 03-13.00 to the full Planning Commission. Do we need to add an additional condition about the detention required at the time of development of 17F? You can add it now or at the time of Final Plat. It is more for instructions of the purchasers of those lots. We will leave it off for now then. I have a couple of questions. When we were originally placing conditions for this project we understood that there may be a request in the future for Van Asche to be further extended into either 17G or 17F. Based on comments this morning, that is likely not to be the case, you don't expect for Van Asche to really go forward beyond where it is proposed at the cul- de-sac at this point. Staff feels that with that in mind it is appropriate that the cul-de-sac be fully constructed by the developer of this subdivision. We are going to modify our condition that kind of left it up to development of three of the five lots. We think that it is appropriate that with this Preliminary Plat we require the full build out of the cul-de-sac. It Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 11 is proposed to be the 48' radius which is necessary, but we feel like the curb, gutter and sidewalk needs to be constructed at this time. Koch: We were just trying to prevent having unnecessary removal. Warrick: We can talk about it a little bit more between now and the Planning Commission meeting. I am more comfortable having the condition placed on the subdivision because that is the standard method of doing it. We can discuss it a little bit more if you like. Ostner: Dawn, does that change our conditions of approval specifically? Warrick: We will modify item number three when it comes forward to the full Planning Commission to request the staff recommendation that the cul-de- sac be fully built at this time. Ostner: I will second the motion to forward this. Bunch: I will concur. Koch: Thank you. Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 12 LSD 03-21.00: Large Scale Development (Jones Motor Cars, pp 213) was submitted by Mandy Bunch, P.E. of EB Landworks, Inc. on behalf of Mr. Mike Jones of Whitfield Motor Co. /Jones Motorcars for property located at 3535 N. College Avenue. The property is located in the Design Overlay District, zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 6.57 acres. The request is to construct a 4,678 sq.ft. Mercedes-Benz Center and a 13,009 sq.ft. Collision Center with 48 parking spaces proposed. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is LSD 03-21.00 submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Mike Jones of Whitfield Motor Company/Joes Motorcars for property located at 3535 N. College Avenue. Jeremy, is this your staff report? Pate: Yes Sir it is. This property is in the Design Overlay District and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 6.57 acres. The request is to construct a Mercedes Benz center of 4,678 sq.ft. and a 13,000 sq.ft. collision center with 48 required parking spaces. The subject project site is located on the same lot as the Jones Motorcars dealership. This particular location is to the north of the existing dealership approximately at the existing north entrance. A portion of the current dealership must be brought into compliance with the current city ordinance requirements with regard to parking lot landscaping. This is based upon the percentage of new structure added to the existing dealership structure on a graduated scale and additional landscape islands are proposed at the entrance of the existing dealerships to provide for a more visible affect along with the required interior landscaping islands for the proposed dealership. Just to get you oriented, to the north is the Merrill Lynch and Proctor and Gamble structures. To the south is the Jones Motorcars and Lewis Ford automobile dealerships. To the east across College Avenue is Webster University and to the west is vacant. Right of way being dedicated, currently there is 40' of right of way from centerline on College Avenue, which is Hwy. 71B. Dedication by warranty deed, because it is a state highway, for an additional 15' to reach the 55' as required by the Master Street Plan shall be dedicated with this proposal. The only street improvements along College Avenue is to close an existing drive to the north of the primary drive along College Avenue. I believe it is currently unused. Installation of a 6' sidewalk a minimum of 10' from the curb along the right of way line to the west of the subject property is also proposed. The applicant has requested a waiver of the 125' of greenspace fronting the right of way in the Design Overlay District. Staff is not in support of this particular request. The project location currently is vacant and a number of opportunities are available to meet this minimum requirement without undo hardship being placed upon the developer. Staff is not recommending that the 25' of greenspace be required along the existing lot of Jones Motor cars, only that area directly fronting Hwy. 71 B indicated on the project site limits for the current proposal. Basically, from the north driveway north to the project site. Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 13 Existing tree preservation is 13% canopy, they are preserving 10%. Mitigation will be 14 trees. I believe all are on site. Staff's recommendation at this time is to forward it to the full Planning Commission with a number of conditions. I will go over those for you. 1) The plat shall reflect 55 feet right-of-way dedication from centerline. 2) All work on Hwy 71B shall be approved by AHTD. 3) A twenty-five (25) foot utility easement exclusive of the 55 -feet from centerline right-of- way along Hwy 71B shall be granted and indicated on the plat pursuant to the request of utility representatives. 4) With future development of the remainder of this lot, the parking lot and sidewalks shall be constructed to comply with current City ordinances. 5) Planning Commission determination of a requested waiver of the Design Overlay District requirement of 25 feet of greenspace exclusive of the public street right- of-way. Staff is recommending that the minimum of 25 feet of landscaped greenspace exclusive of right-of-way shall be provided along Hwy 71B right-of-way. 6) Planning Commission determination and approval of Commercial Design Standards. Staff believes the showroom elevations indicate a structure that meets the requirements as set forth in the Commercial Design Standards. The Collision Center is less articulated, however is in a location that is difficult to view from the public street. 7) Planning Commission determination of a waiver to allow the use of metal halide lighting fixtures. All lighting shall meet the IESNA standards for illumination of automobile display areas and shall be shielded and directed downward, utilizing full cut-off fixtures. Staff is in support of this waiver request, finding that it is consistent with the approved lighting for automobile dealerships within the City. 8) Planning Commission determination of signage requirements in the Design Overlay District. The Mercedes-Benz dealership is permitted one wall sign for the structure's frontage onto Hwy 71B, in accordance with Design Overlay District requirements. A single ground -mounted (monument) sign a maximum of six feet high, 75 square feet in display surface area, shall also be allowed on the site, a minimum of ten feet from the right-of-way line. 9) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6' sidewalk and 10' greenspace along Hwy. 71B for the length of the current project site limits. The sidewalk shall be constructed through the north driveway to city standards. I believe the rest of the items are standard conditions of approval. Bunch: Thank you Jeremy. Craig, are there any additional landscaping comments? Carnagey: No, just that there will be an establishment guarantee for all of those mitigation trees. That is a standard requirement. Bunch: Matt, are there any additional engineering concerns? Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 14 Casey: We were just discussing the possibility of extending the sidewalks the length of the property. I had made that recommendation at Plat Review that the sidewalks be extended the entire length of the property and that is what we were discussing, condition number four didn't reflect that. Warrick: We need to talk a little more about that. Matt just made m aware that Engineering, which is the division that oversees the sidewalk regulations, they are recommending that the sidewalk be constructed along the entire frontage of the subject property. The area where the property is already developed would not be able to have the sidewalk located at the back of the right of way line for the new Master Street Plan proposed right of way location, it would need to be closer to the existing street front and the greenspace that exists between the front row of parking and the curb of College Avenue. Casey: It would be a reduced amount of greenspace but if you have been to the site the site drops off drastically down to their parking lot, which would be where the new right of way would be and they can construct it down there but it would be through their row of car display area and it would also be impossible to connect with the next property owner without steps or rams so I think it would be feasible to bring it over with a reduced amount of greenspace and construct it along the existing right of way on top of the bank. Warrick: We can modify condition number four to reflect that. Bunch: Mandy, at this time if you all would introduce yourselves and tell us about your project. Bunch, M: My name is Mandy Bunch, I'm with EB Landworks. Today with me is Ken Shireman, who is the architect on the project. I am going to briefly address some of these comments. Basically, we are in agreement with all of the requirements that have been set forth except for the right of way and setback issues. I want to speak to the sidewalk a little bit because I thought we were pretty well set with it being on the project limits only. Ken is going to speak to this other issue but it is kind of like we're asking for two different things at the same time. If he has to give up the right of way and build the sidewalk, the sidewalk will have to be ripped out in the event the street was ever extended or widened in this area. That seems to be the intent over all of the right of way dedication. Those two things contradict each other within my mind so I think that is a big issue of concern. In previous projects like this where we were actually developing on existing properties we have addressed that in sort of a percent frontage type issue where we will improve along the length of the improvements rather than a property owner having to go back in and retrofit their entire property. Those are things that are kind of new to the sidewalk Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 15 requirements. It came up in Plat Review but I thought we were staying with planning comments that were written. To that, I want to talk a little bit about setback issues that we're talking about and then I'm going to let Ken address this. I have been trying to go through the code and look at the Master Street Plan. I realize in light of things that have just happened that all of us support the Master Street Plan, I know I personally do. I know it is of great value and one of our strongest planning tools, especially for future streets. I know when you are adjacent to different developments things always pop up which I think there is opportunity for council to consider different opportunities in those situations. This is one Mr. Jones is not wanting to dedicate that right of way for a couple of issues. I want to talk about the Design Overlay District is defined as the area 660' off of the bypass area. If you look at a straight off set, this is not in question and we are not asking this because I know the Overlay District is a platted area, so we are not questioning that. The spirit of that ordinance was to maintain an attractive buffer of 660' from the main thoroughfare. That is this area and Jones Motor Car is actually obscured completely from the north with a large tree buffer, it is a sloped tree area. There are several businesses between this area. The Overlay District boundary actually comes through the property in this location because the right of way from the ramp area was off set. We are on the very tail end of the Overlay District. What we have done with this plan, based on things that happened before, we showed the 25' setback off the existing right of way. Bear in mind where the curb is located right now we are 32' off the existing curb on 71B. There is quite a generous buffer there considering that. If the 15' of right of way is considered we are only 10' off with our curb so if we come in the entire length of that the entire row of display area is lost. We have had several discussions with staff and realizing that this is property that is not currently developed but there are still certain constraints on this property that makes it hard for Mr. Jones to use his property proficiently for display area in this location. There is a large slope in this area that is requiring us to build walls already to extend some display area in this location. You can see that with the boundary of his property 60' back there that is not usable without a considerable amount of expense. As well as the fact that he is at the limits right now with the impervious developed area on the site. There are issues there that he is losing the functional benefits of his property by sliding things back to the west. Also, this slope in this area is quite extreme and we can't go down it at all so we've lost 25' within this boundary so he is really operating within a small, narrow window between the existing facility and his western and eastern boundaries. With that, I'm going to be quiet. I think I have addressed at least the technical things that have led us to this point. Shireman: I am Ken Shireman. The reason that Mike is building the new center is obviously, he wants to sell more cars. In order to get more cars from Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 16 Mercedes they are requiring a dedicated Mercedes showroom. Right now he is using this existing facility so as part of that we are going to build an entire new collision center also. It all has to do with in order to get more cars from Mercedes he has to be able to properly display and properly show the cars and have rooms to keep the cars on the property. That really is what is driving the project and we think we have designed a very high quality project. It will be the highest quality, the or one of the highest quality dealerships in the city. That being said, we all want a quality project and we want nice landscaping and we want everything I think our position would be if, and when, Hwy. 71, somebody says yes, we are going to widen Hwy. 71 I think we will say yes, we'll talk about giving up the right of way then and then everybody else does too I think that is a stretch. I think that is a long ways down the line before that comes about, if it ever happens. If we give up the right of way now and it forces us to comply with the greenspace requirements then it backs up and we lose this whole row of cars then we have lost a lot of some of the most valuable display space that we have on the property. It hurts us economically and it hurts us from a site planning standpoint. That is really what is driving our desire to ask for a waiver for that. We just want the business to be successful and we want to properly display the automobiles. I talked to Mike and this business has been in the City of Fayetteville nearly 70 years. We talk a lot about encouraging new businesses to come to the City of Fayetteville but I don't hear a lot of talk about nurturing the businesses that we have here in the city. We certainly are good to the University but we are also talking about a business that has been here for a long time. I read two articles in the paper recently about the decreased sales tax revenue that the City of Fayetteville has due to businesses moving north. I am personally talking to one doctor now who is going to move from Fayetteville to Rogers. I know another business that is moving from Fayetteville to Rogers and I'm talking to another one that is going to move from Fayetteville to Springdale. They are getting closer to that economic center of you know, they've got Wal-Mart. That is what is happening to us and I just think that as a city, as good citizens of the City of Fayetteville that we need to encourage and nurture businesses that are here and that have been here and are going to continue to contribute to our sales tax base. I wish sometimes that we had somebody in the City of Fayetteville that would go and say "Mike, I understand that you are going to increase your business, how can we help you?" It seems like people throw out things and they want people to give and give and give and give and build and build and build sidewalks, plant trees and it is fine. I like it, it makes a gorgeous city but it costs our clients a lot of money. That is the bottom line. Everybody is in business really to make money and that is really what we're all about. We want a quality project but I just want it to work for Mike. I want him to be able to properly display cars and we want a nice looking facility. That's really what it's about. Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 17 Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address us on this issue? Shireman: Mike is here. Do you have any comments Mike? Bunch: He can make a comment at pretty much anytime because he is the applicant. This is comments for other people in the public to comment. Anytime you want to bring him up as part of your presentation you are quite welcome to. He is the applicant really. Seeing no public comment, I will bring it back to the Committee for questions, comments. Staff, is there anything that you can enlighten us on? First off, the issue of the right of way, that is a City Council determination isn't it for a lesser dedication? Warrick: Right. Up until this meeting we were not aware that there was a question with regard to dedication of the right of way. We understood that a waiver with a variance request was going to be forwarded with regard to the width of the greenspace requirement along the front property line which staff does not support but we did not understand that the right of way was an issue. In my opinion, it is kind of an either/or. If the right of way is dedicated then the setback is required and the 25' setback would not comply, the site plan as proposed would not comply with that setback requirement. If the right of way is not required it will require the City Council to accept a lesser dedication or in this case no dedication of additional right of way with the Master Street Plan to comply with the Master Street Plan. If the City Council felt that that was appropriate and approved a resolution amending the Master Street Plan to request to approve a lesser dedication then I believe they might be able to meet the setback requirements for the 25' greenspace. I guess staff needs to understand what procedure we're going through and which way we are going to be treating this project. My understanding was that we were looking for a setback reduction and that is not really what has been discussed this morning. Bunch, M.: We have kind of been talking back and forth with staff through the Plat Review process and I sent the, actually applied for the setback variance, which I understood would be subject to your approval and then we would have to go to the next board. The only reason it was submitted already was because we were going to lose another month and I was hoping we could address that on that level but the date actually fell before the Planning Commission so the whole fire drill was null and void at that point. Dawn, I apologize if you guys were surprised at all but after the last meeting we had there seemed to be no other way that Mr. Jones wanted to proceed other than to not dedicate the right of way. That is why I showed it as requested right of way on this plan and not as the dedication, that needs to be clarified. Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 18 Warrick: That is why we asked for that note to be changed to a dedication because we didn't understand that that was going to be your process. Bunch, M: That is why I showed it that way, just for a graphical representation just so the Planning Commissioners could see and staff could see where that line was and how that affected the property. Warrick: It really changes the conditions as far as whether or not this Large Scale can be approved. We really don't have a graphic that shows what the alternative would be. If the Planning Commission chooses to approve the large Scale and recommend to the City Council either a lesser dedication or not a lesser dedication I think it is important that the Planning Commission needs to be able to see what the difference will be. The alternative is, if this goes forward to the full Planning Commission and staff's recommendation is made part of the Planning Commission motion not to approve a lesser dedication but to accept the full 55', which is required by the Master Street Plan, then I believe we would be looking again at a revised Large Scale if the applicant chooses to process a project based on that determination if that is the final outcome at Council level. What we are looking at here is based obviously, on not making the dedication as far as the graphic that we are looking at. I don't have any problem with the applicant making that request but I think it would be appropriate then if the applicant chooses to go forward with the project, if that request is not approved by the City Council we would need to look back at least at the Subdivision Committee level at this Large Scale to determine the site layout and make sure everyone is comfortable with it because it will change if that is the condition. Bunch, M: If the Planning Commission were of a mind to approve it subject to the variance being approved by the Board of Adjustment how would that work? To me those are the two options. Our only option is sliding everything back or losing something and I'm not sure that he is willing to do that to bring the project forward. To me, at this point the plan shows that a. we meet the 25' setback if the Council were to approve a lesser right of way dedication or b. We have to have a 10' variance setback. We have got either A or B. If we had both of those options would we have to go back through that process? Overall, the whole concept of this can't change appreciably. The buildings wouldn't change, everything would just slide a little bit so it wouldn't be a huge technical issue to overcome. Warrick: I think staff's recommendation would be that it come back to the Subdivision Committee level for the final review because, like you said, I don't think that it would change easements and other utility considerations that can be addressed at the plat review level but it will require us to look at a revised plan if one of your options is not approved as far as your Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 19 variance request or your right of way dedication request. If one of those is approved then this site plan would suffice, this site plan would hold. I think you need to determine which way to go with it and we probably need to sit down and talk about it a little bit more so that we understand what is going to happen and what we need to do about getting a project back to the Subdivision Committee for final approval. Bunch: We were of the mind that the Planning Commission could decide either or for us and at that point we would either, based on things have gone, either appeal things to the Council level at some point but we wanted to continue on the process and felt like we needed to go to the full Planning Commission meeting and get the full body before we did that. That would be the correct process right? Warrick: The Planning Commission does need to review it either way and if it is a situation that you are going to request a lesser dedication the Planning Commission is required to see it before it goes to the City Council for that request. Bunch: That is indeed what he is requesting. To me it is kind of an either/or option either the Planning Commission would support the lesser right of way dedication which I don't anticipate or they would at least consider the functional issues of his business and maybe support or at least say that it was subject to that setback variance. Warrick: Bunch: Bunch: We can try to clear up out staff report to identify the issues a little bit better. Do you anticipate coming through with two sets of plans and we could pick A or B? We could prepare exhibits that show that. Right now the plan, as it exists, the curb is 25' off of the existing right of way so if a lesser dedication were approved then it actually does comply with the Design Overlay District requirements of the 25' green buffer. If it is not approved we would be requesting at this point a 10' landscape setback off of the right of way that would be required. I can prepare exhibits to show it clearly. Shireman: The bottom line is where we have the curb shown is where we would like to have curb regardless of how we get there in order to properly use the land. That is what is driving this. Bunch: Do you think in the interest of saving time, it is one expense to prepare multiple presentations and then another expense to have the time subsequent to revisit this with the various committees. Do you think it Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 20 would be permissible for the Planning Commission to review an either/or type plan to have option A and option B presented? Warrick: What I believe the applicant is requesting is that the Planning Commission make a recommendation of lesser dedication and if that is not favorable then they are requesting the Planning Commission to consider recommending a setback variance for the greenspace requirement in the Overlay District. Then the applicant would proceed in whichever method they chose, whether they go to the City Council with a resolution to amend the Master Street Plan or whether they go to the Board of Adjustment to proceed with the variance request on the setback for greenspace. Staff is not in favor of either of those options. The applicant knows that we feel that it is important for them to comply with those ordinance requirements. We are dealing with a piece of property that is vacant currently. We will certainly process this however the applicant chooses in hopefully the most straight forward manner that the Planning Commission can review it and make a recommendation. The applicant has presented a plan that they want to build. This is a site plan that they want to gain approval with in one fashion or another. We just need to give them direction as to which process is most appropriate. If the Planning Commission doesn't choose to recommend either one of these options to the Board of Adjustment and/or the City Council then the applicant still has that option to go to either of those places and make the request in absence of a Planning Commission recommendation. I don't know if that answered your question or just brought up a few more. I think it is appropriate that we go to the Planning Commission so that we can give them some direction. Shireman: One other issue that gets involved, one of the first thing I did on the project is I asked Captain Farrar to meet me on the site and so Danny met me out there and we went over everything and he originally wanted a 30' fire lane around this building and what has happened in order to do that we needed a certain distance between these two buildings to make the driveway work in here for loading and unloading so we are backed down to a 29' and he agreed that 28' would be alright for a truck to go all the way around the building. It might be as simple as backing the building up. When we start backing the building up this terrain is so steep here and this retaining wall gets substantially greater very, very quickly. It is economics as much as anything. There gets to be a lot of a wall in a hurry. It is not a simple solution there for us from an economic standpoint too. Bunch: I noticed your pervious and impervious area ratios that you pushed the limit on those so any widening, this area over here and this area back here were described as being little utilization but that is your percentage of impervious area even though it is steep and that kind of thing. Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 21 Bunch, M: Bunch: Bunch, M: Bunch: Shireman: Warrick: Bunch: Warrick: Shireman: Warrick: Right. That is really kind of an important point in that there is not much else you can do to develop this piece of property. This is his business and this is all he can do at this point unless this entire area is reworked and that building was taken down. That is the future of his company. There is nowhere else for him to go and meet the impervious requirements. I was surprised myself because this is such a large area and it was so close but that wouldn't be affected necessarily with the plotting. I think Ken's point is he would actually have to lose square footage of what he wants to do on his building to make it work. If it is pushed to the limits. Yes Sir, it s. Any adjustment for any one of the reasons is going to have an impact. That is your decision to make. It is your application and you have to take a look at it. Are there any questions on the signs? I guess we're looking at this going to the full Planning Commission at some point in time we need to look at signs and if you're in agreement with what has been recommended on signs and if you are not then let us know about it. Are our color boards here at this meeting? We brought the small packets, we neglected to get the big board down here. The sign proposal does have more wall mounted signage than is permitted in the Overlay District. They are over their allotment on the Mercedes showroom structure because this is a corner sign and it has two sign faces. The structure only faces one street and therefore, it is permitted to have one wall sign in the Overlay District. I don't think size was an issue, it was really just the number of signs. You are talking basically of a corner mount extension with a logo on it? Right. We incorporated it in as part of the architecture of the building. We have not seen any changes in the sign proposal so I'm assuming that a variance is requested on that. Shireman: If worse comes to worse we have signage on the south side of the building and we are showing signage on the Hwy. 71 side of the building and signage also on the south side of the building. If worse comes to worse and we have to lose the signage on the south side of the building we can give that up if we have to. It is not as important as the Hwy. 71 sign. Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 22 Obviously, with the restraints of the ordinance we will have to request a variance on that. We've talked about that. Bunch: You are looking at a monument sign? Warrick: There is a monument sign proposed in the new island north of the northern entrance drive. Shireman: Bunch, M: Warrick: Shireman: This shows the elevation also. Do you need an elevation of the monument sign? We need an elevation of the monument sign. The collision center building on the back of the lot, we have some signage there too but that building is way back here. They are basically treated, as far as Mike is concerned, they are two separate businesses really. There is the Mercedes business and then the collision center business and then this business here so there are actually three businesses on that lot. Bunch, M: They need to get with staff and Dawn to either revise the submittal or prepare a detailed request for a variance. Ostner: This northern curb cut, how far is the distance between these two curb cuts? Shireman: They are there. They are just existing curbs. We just left them. There is one little drive that shows to the north there right here, this existing curb cut is closed, we don't want it anyway so we just used the existing curb cuts. They were of course, ok, and people are used to them so we thought well...why not. Warrick: If we were looking at a new curb cut proposal we would require that they be 200' in distance as set out in the Overlay District for distance between curb cuts. In this case they are looking at utilizing existing curb cuts that are already in use. Church: I have a question about the lighting. I can certainly understand why you need the metal halide lighting in order to do business as a car dealership I think you definitely need that. I guess we have had a couple of dealerships come through recently and that has been a big issue. My question would be are those lights are on timers, do they go off at a certain point during the night or do they stay on all night? How does that work? Jones: Those are set on timers, our lights are set to go off at 11:30. Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 23 Church: Great, thank you. Bunch: Another thing that we need to address is Commercial Design Standards. If and when this goes before the full Planning Commission we will need renderings of the elevations of the buildings. Shireman: Warrick: We have got them all. The city has those. Were those not in your packets? I can hand these down for you to take a look at if you like but we will be sure that you get those between now and the Planning Commission. We will have a board at the meeting. Bunch: Which wall is this? Shireman: That would be the north wall. Bunch: That's the wall facing the tree line and ditch? Shireman: You never see that actually, you never see that part of the building. Bunch: So this would be the south? Shireman: That is the west side. That is the east face of the collision center. Bunch: I guess when these are presented they will need to be described so the Commission will know which faces they are looking at. Ostner: This collision center, this isn't the existing building is it? Shireman: This is the existing building right here. The canopy, it just extends. We have covered that drive and it doesn't really touch the existing building, we are just overlapping the top of it a little bit. Ostner: Back to this issue, this doesn't show a 25' greenspace. Bunch: Minus the new right of way dedication it does. This is 25' to the existing right of way. Shireman: The current right of way. Ostner: This does show the 25' buffer but it doesn't meet the new 15' right of way requirements. Shireman: That is correct. Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 24 Ostner: I want to make sure which one I'm looking at. I'm already getting down to two different ones. Shireman: That is exactly what we did. Ostner: I don't want to further cloud the issue but didn't another developer bring forward a concept plat to get a feel of the Planning Commission before he went further with his development on a tough issue on whether or not we were going to require a road? Warrick: After processing one or two iterations of a Large Scale and wanting to get more firm understanding of what the Commission was wanting with regard to access we did look at a concept plat not too long ago and Ms. Bunch is familiar with that project. Bunch, M: That is probably a path we don't want to go down. Ostner: I just wanted to make that clear. I understand these curb cuts are existing but this is a hill and traffic travels really fast here. I am concerned that they are so close together from a safety standpoint. Bunch, M: Interestingly enough, we kind of looked at this when we worked on the Lewis Dealership. Car dealerships don't really create a lot of traffic in and out for the size of development, the size of structures and paving area. A comparable retail establishment would generate a lot more traffic. I don't know that there have ever been any accidents at that location. I don't foresee the traffic is going to increase appreciably. For sure we wouldn't increasingly increase the traffic on College. I personally don't see that as a big issue because he has been operating that way for several years. Shireman: It has been there since 1979. Ostner: We are not quite doubling the business with more of the same? Jones: I would like to address that being that I live on that street and seeing the traffic that goes up and down. The problem is not directed from the dealership. The problem was originally created when the stop light was put in right below us between Merrill Lynch and Coldwell Banker. That has stopped traffic. When that light turns red the traffic backs up all the way behind my dealership. Because of the fact that you are going down hill, we see an accident once a week. That is because people come over the top of that hill and they are not being slowed down. In my opinion if you are going to correct that problem on that hill, you are going to have to put a stop light up the hill by Lewis Ford and slow them down up the hill before they come back down. It is not a problem getting out of my dealership. The problem is the stop light creating an overrun of traffic Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 25 backing up. We didn't have much problem until that stop light was put in place and now that it is there we have a wreck once a week in front of our dealership. Anywhere from the Merrill Lynch building all the way up to the Village Inn up on top of the hill and that is because traffic comes in so fast and backs up so quickly, they don't have a chance to see it and react and as a result that is where the traffic accidents come from. Bunch: Are you speaking of rear end collisions on north bound traffic primarily? Jones: That is correct. Bunch: What about southbound traffic coming by your place? Jones: Southbound traffic is not an issue because they are not getting backed up. Bunch: The signal is regulating the traffic in front of your place? Jones: That is correct. Plus there is nothing stopping it. You are going to create anther problem when another light is put in whereas north bound they can't see it is a topography problem more than anything else. Bunch, M: That will probably happen when Longview is extended in the relatively current future. Shireman: That is what led us to turn our signage at a 45° angle around the corner so you can get a good shot of it when you are coming down hill. If you are looking up the hill you aren't going to see it until you're there. Bunch: One thing about Mercedes Benz signage is you probably don't have a lot of impulse buys. If people want a Mercedes they are going to find a Mercedes dealer. Shireman: Maybe some people do. Jones: The other thing that is a problem with my signage is we've been working with the city since 1990 when we acquired the Mercedes Benz franchise. They asked us to put up a pylon pole sign. We have been here for the last 15 years trying to get that done and it has never happened and according to you all it never will. One of the factors is that I feel that I am at a tremendous disadvantage because of the tree line that is on the north side and because the trees hang out over the dealership, you cannot see my dealership until you are actually upon it going southbound. Until some of those trees are trimmed back on the front, particularly the ones along the highway, the trucks are doing a pretty good job of it. I am not seen going southbound because of that tree line right there. That is why it is particularly critical for me to have a monument sign or some signage out Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 26 by the highway because right now people go past me all the time and say they didn't see me. I have got a 150 sq.ft. sign on the side of the building but you can't see it until you're past it. Bunch: Sir, can you identify yourself for the record please? Jones: I am Mike Jones. Shireman: We did discuss this area up here on this very steep bank that does have some trees on it . We have talked about the possibility of replacing those trees with some sort of an ornamental ground cover like they have done at the mall out there. I don't know what that is but to do a really nice ground cover here and get it so you can at least see over top of it. Bunch: That is your decision and your submittal to make. Our job is to see whether to give you more time to address these issues and come back to Subdivision Committee or to if you think you'll be in good enough shape to forward it to the full Planning Commission, that is a decision that we need to make today. I guess we will poll staff and the applicant about a motion on the floor. Do you think this needs to go back for further consideration and come back before the Subdivision Committee or do you think you can have it prepared for the Planning Commission because there are a lot of alternates and a lot of issues here. Bunch, M.: I think the options are clear. The owner wants his curb there so what he is requesting is not to have to dedicate the right of way so he can meet the other ordinances or indeed, to request a variance if that is denied at City Council level. There are really no other changes for us to make. I can prepare 8 'h x 11 exhibits that clearly show those setbacks and dimensions and provide those for staff at the submittal deadline. Other than that, I don't know what we need to submit that would require a lot of consideration. Bunch: Mr. Shireman has mentioned a possible removal of the trees, which would require negotiations with the Landscape Administrator and possibly more mitigation. Bunch, M: We just discussed that in a meeting yesterday, which is why this has not been shown on this. The discussion is that if indeed, the utility companies have to, that is all easements, all utility easement, 50', that that might need to be dealt with when the utilities try to access. Shireman: Some of them might be automatically dealt with when they put an 8" waterline in down through there. That might automatically deal with some of that. Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 27 Bunch, M: I told Ken and Mr. Jones yesterday that I would need to speak with Craig to talk about that. Shireman: This is just something that we had a conversation about yesterday. Bunch, M: I feel on a technical basis that there has to be something there just because of the slope and we need to discuss that with Craig on whether or not he would even accept that option. Bunch: In that case, if you intend to explore that do you think we need to come back to the Subdivision level? Bunch, M: No Sir. I think it would just waste two weeks of all of our time. Ostner: I am not elected. I am in charge of supporting the Planning Division and our code book and I am willing to forward this to the Planning Commission but without the right of way dedication I'm very concerned because that is a big issue in our community. Three nights ago a man stood in this room and told us that we are going to be in a big trouble if we don't widen our roads in this town as a way to permit our current developments to sustain. He predicted College being bumper to bumper sitting still for an hour a day like some other towns. I don't like that idea. Shireman: Like it is in Springdale right now. Ostner: Right, or Rogers. This is a very real problem. This right of way is part of the solution. It is not someone else's solution, I think your solution in keeping traffic moving on your frontage to do business. Bunch: The same way with sidewalks and alternative transportation. Ostner: I do understand the dilemma of pushing the building back. I am more interested, more leaning towards a variance, I guess the greenspace doesn't come as big of an issue as the setback I suppose, but to me the right of way is crucial. I have reservations but I will go ahead and make a motion that we forward LSD 03-21.00 to the full Planning Commission for review. Bunch: Before we move any further, staff, can we sufficiently explore and also the applicant, the sidewalk issue of the additional requirement on sidewalk? Warrick: We're going to talk about it a little bit more. Obviously, we are putting the applicant on notice that we are considering the whole frontage as a sidewalk requirement and we are going to talk some more about it. If that is not made a part of this project the only time that we would be able to see that achieved is upon a redevelopment of the entire southern portion of Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 28 this property. I don't really know how likely that is to happen. At least not in any foreseeable future. I think as staff we need to talk a little bit more about it but that is the way that it stands right now is that the Engineering Division thinks it is important that we explore that requirement and so I am going to support their recommendation. Bunch: Does our Unified Development Code support that that can legally be done in that manner or is this one of those things that is a percentage deal? Warrick: The sidewalk requirement is not a percentage situation and with the size of the project that is being developed in this property, we are talking about a total of almost 18,000 sq.ft. of project. The ordinance requirement falls in for a property that is 2,000 sq.ft. or larger so we will provide that information to you. MOTION: Ostner: That is the other part that the sidewalk is important to work that out. I will make a motion to forward LSD 03-21.00 to the full Planning Commission with all conditions as stated. Church: I will second it. Bunch: I will comment before that if it is not sufficiently, there is quite a bit left undone at this point, if it not sufficiently completed, would the motioner recommend at the agenda session it be returned to the Subdivision Committee if it is not completed? We are doing this in the interest to save the applicant time and I think if that time does not permit between now and the agenda session to accomplish all of these goals that we automatically put it back into the Subdivision and that way you don't have to get back on the agenda again. You are automatically there. Bunch, M: Can you explain to me exactly what you are wanting to see here so that I will understand what I need to get to you? Bunch: Resolve the sidewalk issue. Since we didn't have the drawings of the signs, commercial design issues, your drawings a brief look that we took, didn't show the different materials. Identify the elevations. Either offer, whatever you wish to apply for on the issue of he 25' greenspace and the right of way considerations. Ostner: The right of way consideration brings in the setback issue. Bunch: Right, the setback with the greenspace and the right of way issues and any waivers that you wish to apply for and also the issue of landscaping and Subdivision Committee August 28, 2003 Page 29 possible tree mitigation. Any sign issues. Alice, can you think of anything else? Church: That's it. Bunch: The full length of the sidewalk. Those are the main things that don't seem to be resolved at this point in time. Does that answer your question? Bunch, M: Yes. Bunch: In that case I will concur with the motion then. Staff, do we have anything else on the agenda? Are there any announcements of meetings or anything that we need to notify people about? Warrick: I don't have anything further. Bunch: We are adjourned.