Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-11-13 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on November 13, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN LSD 03-40.00: Large Scale Development (Water & Sewer Operations, pp 642) Approved Page 2 LSD 03-41.00: Large Scale Development (Bank of Fayetteville West, pp 401) Forwarded Page 7 LSD 03-21.10: Large Scale Development (Jones Motor Cars, pp 213) Approved Page 12 FPL 03-12.00: Final Plat (Ash Acres, pp 367) Approved Page 17 PPL 03-19.00: Preliminary Plat (Wildflower Meadows, pp 321) Forwarded Page 21 PPL 03-20.10: Preliminary Plat (Salem Heights, pp 284) Forwarded Page 28 LSD 03-39.00: Large Scale Development (Smokey Bones Restaurant, pp 174) Forwarded Page 36 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Don Bunch Alan Ostner Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Rebecca Ohman Matt Casey Jeremy Pate Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas Craig Camagey Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 2 LSD 03-40.00: Large Scale Development (Water & Sewer Operations, pp 642) was submitted by Mandy Bunch, P.E. of EB Landworks on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located at the end of Industrial Drive in the Fayetteville Industrial Park. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial, and contains approximately 45.74 acres. The proposal is to construct a new Operations Center for the City of Fayetteville Water & Sewer Division with 22,500 sq.ft. office and warehouse, 6,000 sq.ft. storage facility, 1,800 sq.ft. vehicle storage area and parking areas. Bunch: Good morning, welcome to the Thursday, November 13`h meeting of the Subdivision Committee of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. There are eight items on the agenda this morning. One of those items has been pulled, item eight, R-PZD 03-7.00 for Brophy Condominiums has been removed from the agenda. If you are here for that item there is no need to stay. The first item on the agenda is LSD 03-40.00 for the Water and Sewer Operations Center submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located at the end of Industrial in the Fayetteville Industrial Park. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial and contains approximately 45.74 acres. The proposal is to construct a new operations center for the City of Fayetteville Water and Sewer Division. Suzanne, is this yours? Morgan: Yes it is, thank you. As stated, the applicant is proposing to construct a water and sewer operations center. The center will serve as an office, a warehouse and a vehicle storage area. The facility will be approximately 30,300 sq.ft. with 22,500 sq.ft. used as office and warehouse, 6,000 sq.ft. for storage and 1,800 sq.ft. for vehicle storage and parking. A total of 101 stalls are being provided for staff parking and the paved areas to the south and west of the primary structure is to be utilized as an outdoor storage facility providing 108 stalls. Therefore, it is required to be screened from adjacent properties. The City of Fayetteville owns the 45.74 acre piece of property. A property line adjustment has been submitted to create this tract from the surrounding city owned property. The surrounding property is zoned I-2, General Industrial and is either currently being used for industrial purposes or is vacant. Here is existing right of way along Industrial Drive at 80' and Industrial Drive is classified as a local road on the Master Street Plan. No mitigation is required for tree preservation. Staff is recommending approval of LSD 03-40.00 at the Subdivision Committee level with the following conditions: 1) Property line adjustment shall be recorded prior to approval of large scale development. 2) Screening shall be provided along the eastern property boundary to screen the Outdoor Storage area, prior to final approval. 3) Applicant shall update the parking chart on the plat to accurately reflect the proposal. 4) Subdivision Committee determination and approval of Site Development Standards .166.14. Staff finds that these requirements are satisfied with this project. Items five through eleven are standard conditions of approval. Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 3 Bunch: Thank you Suzanne. Matt, are there any additional Engineering comments? Casey: Not at this time. Bunch: Craig? Camagey: Nothing additional. Bunch: Mandy, would you introduce yourself and tell us about your project? Bunch, M: I'm Mandy Bunch working with Cromwell Architects, this is Thad Kelly. I think this is the second or third iteration of this project for the city. Basically, it is to construct a new operations center that will house the offices of Meter Operations, Dave Jurgens and Water and Sewer. It is the relocation of the existing facility on Cato Springs Road with a large warehouse area and also storage facility for construction materials, etc. All of the related parking and utilities are associated with that. There is not anything really special. The gravel area s a little different in the back. What they use here is basically a pipe yard. They have concrete pads for storage of materials. It is pretty normal use in the Industrial area to do that. That's about all I've got to say about it I think. If you have any questions we are here to address those. I have a question about the requirement to screen the east and what staff was considering there so that we can incorporate that. Morgan: It is my understanding that parking facilities and outdoor storage facilities shall be screened from adjacent properties. I was trying to address that requirement. Bunch, M: I will get with you guys later to discuss what you want there. It is pretty well removed. The property tract, the city owns all the way out to this area so there is quite a large distance. Whatever we need to do, I am sure the city wants to comply with it's ordinances so we will get it. Bunch: At this time we will open it up to public comment if there is anyone who would like to address us for the Water and Sewer Operations Center. Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for questions and comments. The recommendation is approval at this level. We do have elevations. What are the requirements in an I-2 area? We have been presented with architectural elevations. Are there any specific requirements in an isolated Industrial zone? Warrick: We asked for the applicant just to show us, since we were the applicant, what it is that we would be getting and what the building would look like With this particular project it is primarily industrial. Our standards are commercial design standards. This does have some accessory offices Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 4 located in the front portion of the building where the public will come to interact with the water and sewer maintenance division. However, the majority of this project is industrial in nature and therefore, commercial design standards do not apply. Site development requirements do apply. Those standards that talk about landscaping along the front property line as well as screening utilities and things like that. We feel like this project is in compliance with that with their site development proposal. This is really just an informational boar d for your viewing. Bunch: Thank you. Are there any other comments or questions? Ostner: I don't have anything. Bunch: The one I had was addressed with the conditions of approval. The parking was typographical. You were showing 4 ADA spaces and there are actually 6 provided and then the question of 106 or 110. I don't understand the parking situation in this area, can you explain that and also what these structures right here are? Bunch, M.: It is probably more information than was needed on the Large Scale level. I tried to address the program that the city developed with the architects to address all of the parking configurations. There are actually different size stalls for different vehicles, some of them are crew trucks, there are some backhoes and trailers, they were trying to plan for everything they've got. Kelly: The storage is for the big vacuum truck needs to be protected in the winter. Bunch, M.: The meter was their meter trucks. They have 26 stalls for them and one of them got moved with a landscaped island. Kelly: Another thing was the personally owned vehicles were segregated from the city owned vehicles. We have where the staff and employees park as well as where the public parks separate from so we can gate it and have that behind a fence. Bunch: I guess since we are looking for approval at this level, could we have a quick conversation of screening on the east side. Staff, will you let the engineer and architect know what is needed? Bunch, M.: Really there just needs to be vegetation on the entire eastern line, is that correct? Warrick: We consider this an outdoor storage area. There is a specific section under Buffer Strips and Screening that addresses outdoor storage. It does discuss that the outdoor storage area does need to be completely surrounded by a view obscuring fence or view obscuring vegetation or a Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 5 combination of sufficient height to prevent the view of the premises from vehicular or pedestrian traffic on adjacent streets. That is something that I'm not sure there is a lot of visibility for this particular area from adjacent streets. That is something that the committee might want to chime in on. This is adjoining everything Industrial to the east, south and west. Bunch: How far is it to the road to the east, that is Armstrong and then it becomes Black Oak? Warrick: It is a considerable distance. Bunch: It is way down there. This is Armstrong and this is City Lake Road out here and this is heavily wooded. Warrick: City Lake Road is the closest public right of way. Bunch: That's a long distance over here to the east. The concern is on the east side? Bunch: It is probably a half mile at least from Armstrong and 500' to City Lake Road. Warrick: I'm not overly concerned about this being a highly visible area meeting screening. Bunch: The only concern would be the trail with the railroad right of way to the north. Bunch, M: Yes Sir, that is this up here. Bunch: The way it is oriented with the tree line up here it is not likely for that to be visible. What is this line right here just out of curiosity? Bunch, M.: It looks to be an easement line. It may very well be the gas line that got shown graphically there. The survey had like two sets of labels in it and all kinds of interesting things. That is where the gas line is located within that 60' easement. Warrick: Staff would be comfortable with the removal of condition number two. Bunch, M: Ok. Thanks. I was going to suggest we change the fence material if that was a big concern because we've got a fence along that entire boundary. Warrick: We can look at it a little bit closer. That would not be a bad idea if we go out there and it if it is determined that it would be visible to use a different kind of fencing material. That is permitted under this code section and it would work. Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 6 Bunch: Ok, so eliminate condition of approval two. MOTION: Allen: I move for approval of LSD 03-40.00 subject to the ten conditions of approval. Ostner: Would that be removing condition number two? Allen: Yes. Ostner: I will second it. Bunch: I will concur. Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 7 LSD 03-41.00: Large Scale Development (Bank of Fayetteville West, pp 401) was submitted by Mandy Bunch, P.E. of EB Landworks on behalf of the Bank of Fayetteville for property located between Steamboat Drive and Tahoe Place on Wedington Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.14 acres. The proposal is to construct a 3,740 sq. ft. branch bank. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is also LSD 03-41.00 submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of the Bank of Fayetteville for property located between Steamboat Drive and Tahoe Place on Wedington Drive. . The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.14 acres. The proposal is to construct a branch bank. Jeremy, is this your project? Pate: Yes Sir, thank you. The applicant is proposing to construct a new branch for the Bank of Fayetteville located on Wedington Drive west of I-540 within the Design Overlay District. A Large Scale Development for the Bank of Fayetteville was approved for this site in August, 1999. That has expired. With the development proposal was a waiver request for the requirement of 250' distance from curb cut to intersection within the Design Overlay District. The existing lot size and drive locations were predetermined by the Wedington Place subdivision plat which this is a lot within that subdivision. The driveway configuration and a similar waiver request was approved by the Planning Commission with the previous Large Scale Development. To get you in the location on Wedington Drive, to the north is all vacant. To the south is Betty Jo corner convenience store there on Wedington Drive. To the east is the Exxon gas station combined with McDonald's, to the west is a vacant lot and then there is the Sonic lot. Right of way being dedicated with this plat includes a minimum of 55' from centerline along Wedington Drive, which is considered a principal arterial. There is also a 25' minimum from centerline along Steamboat Drive and Tahoe Place, which I believe is already platted. The right of way for Hwy. 16 will need to be dedicated by warranty deed. There are no current street improvements proposed for Hwy. 16 with the exception of the sidewalk. The existing sidewalk staff has recommended that be removed and a new sidewalk be put at the right of way line and that would be a 6' sidewalk on all three sides of the property. Within the Design Overlay District there are a number of findings that staff has to make. The applicant has complied with the majority of these. There are a couple of waiver requests, including the curb cut waiver request that I mentioned. There is also a waiver request to utilize metal halide fixtures as opposed to sodium fixtures required in the Overlay District. Elevations have been submitted. They are here behind me and they should be in your packets as well. There is a materials sample photo in your packets as opposed to the actual materials board. They are very similar, if not identical, to the existing Bank of Fayetteville branches. Staff thought it would be appropriate to include those. Approximately 39% of the site has been left in open space as well. Because there are waiver requests, staff is recommending that this item be Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 8 forwarded to the full Planning Commission with a number of conditions. 1) Planning Commission determination and approval of Commercial Design Standards. 2) Planning Commission determination of a waiver request from the 250 feet from curb cut to intersection as required in the Design Overlay District. 3) Planning Commission determination of a waiver request to utilize metal halide light fixtures for parking lot lights within the Design Overlay District. 4) The applicant shall dedicate right- of-way to fulfill Master Street Plan requirements for a Principal Arterial, 55 feet from centerline, for Wedington Drive (Hwy 16), by separate document. 5) All work with Arkansas State Highway right-of-way shall require proper AHTD permitting. 6) The plat shall be revised to show installation of all sidewalks at the right-of-way line. The remainder of the conditions are standard conditions of approval. Bunch: Thank you Jeremy. Are there any additional staff comments? Camagey: No Sir. Ohman: No Sir. Casey: No Sir. Bunch: We will turn it over to the applicant, let you introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Bunch, M.: My name is Mandy Bunch with EB Landworks representing the Bank of Fayetteville this morning. Ken Shireman is the architect on this project. He is here as well to answer any questions or concerns. This is going to be a standard branch location for the bank with the same materials that have been used with the previous banks. They are proposing, we are in the Overlay District so we have 25' buffer in all directions. The Overlay District boundary is just on the other side of Tahoe Place. There is quite a bit of landscaping provided. I believe the bank will want to provide additional to that because they do at most of their facilities. Right now we are showing the minimum city requirements on the site plan. The only interesting requirement we had from Plat Review was to actually take out the existing sidewalk and move it back to the new right of way location. This was a request of all departments basically based on the Master Trails Plan. Right now I've got a monument sign shown and it is my understanding currently that the bank does not want one but in the event that they do I know there is one allowed for this property. Shireman: If it is allowed I think we should go ahead and request it. Bunch, M.: I am going to go ahead and leave that in and consider it on that basis. The driveway waiver was previously approved with the old Large Scale, there is really no other option. We tried to place those driveways to allow for the best circulation through the bank site for all parties involved. The Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 9 metal halide fixtures is something that came up in the design meeting we had with all of the different electrical suppliers, etc. It is something that the bank is wanting for security purposes. They think that the white light is something that lights it up. One of their major concerns is keeping it so police cars could see in and looking at the parking lot and seeing all of those areas and the video equipment. That was the recommendation of the lighting people and that is the request. I'm not sure if there is anything different. We did add the bike rack that was requested since it is in the Overlay District for the multi -modal requirements. Bunch: Is this basically the same request that came through previously just with these minor modifications? Bunch, M.: Actually, the building was more of a triangular configuration. It was something new that they were going to try. I am not sure why they did not proceed but they have chosen to go with their standard building here. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address us on this Large Scale Development for the Bank of Fayetteville West? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for questions and comments. My question was why the type of lighting, I think you've addressed that. Commissioners, are there any comments or questions on commercial design standards? Ostner: A question on the lighting, just to make sure, is it going to be directed downward and shielded and all of that? Bunch: Yes. That was my understanding. They only have four on the entire site. It is not right in your eyes. I think they've done what they needed to, to safely light the parking and that's it. It is the standard box cut off fixture. Bunch: Are there any comments on the commercial design standards? Allen: My only comment was about the lighting also, I think it is a very attractive building. Bunch: The curb cut is pretty much self explanatory. With the size of the lot, there's not much other that they can do. Did you ever get it figured out where the centerline of Hwy. 16 is so that you will know where to dimension the 55'? Bunch, M: Yes Sir I did. We had figured that out before. I went back after the Plat Review meeting and I knew that we looked at this. It is extremely critical on this piece of property. We are from edge to edge. That was on the previous approved plats for the subdivision that that had shown and it was actually showing the additional 5'. We are showing the additional 5' dedicated. Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 10 Bunch: That is reflected in the document package that we have? Bunch, M.: Yes Sir. Ostner: Just for interest, the 250' is the rule, how far is this currently? Bunch, M: On Steamboat Drive we are 190' from centerline, it is 190' and 195'. They are close. Ostner: You are as far back as your lot allows. Bunch, M: Yes Sir. We are trying to have it so there is a good flow through the drive thru area as well. Shireman: Just to satisfy my own curiosity, on the sidewalk location for Wedington Drive. I know when they installed all those sidewalks out there. At the time they built that I thought they jammed them up pretty close to the curb. We had greenspace requirements at that time. Those sidewalks were constructed by the Highway Department and paid for by the state. Why when the Highway Department constructs something like that, does the city not have any say about the setbacks or anything? It is maybe not a proper discussion at this meeting, I don't know. It is just a waste of good money and I just wonder who's money we wasted? Casey: That was a Highway Department project. I wasn't with the city at the time so I'm not aware of any discussion as far as greenspace is concerned. Unfortunately, it was not built with our ordinance as far as greenspace. We are asking that it be moved back for many reasons. All divisions were in agreement that that needed to be done. Hwy. 16 is a principal arterial and we feel that greenspace is very important. Bunch: Is this going to be a policy in the Overlay District or will it be consistent all the way up and down Hwy. 16? Warrick: It is not a policy, it's an ordinance requirement that the sidewalks be located at the right of way line. Bunch, M.: This is the first time I've seen it on a project. I was a little surprised. Warrick: The timing is unfortunate. I also wasn't involved with the Highway project when it was constructed. We communicate better with other entities, such as the Highway Department, than we did in the past. I will expect that in the future we can avoid situations like this but it just didn't happen in this particular project. Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 11 Bunch: Good question. I think we have all been concerned about that with the budget crisis that we are having. Bunch, M.: I asked the question for sure at Plat Review. I was quite ganged up on everyone of them. Shireman: It looks like there need to be some better configuration. Ostner: They just did all those handicap ramps along Hwy. 71 and many of them don't meet our ordinance but they had their own judge's order that they had to comply with. Shireman: Probably they are doing the same thing in other cities. Bunch, M.: I think there is more coordination when the city initiates a project than when they do. They tend to play by their own rules. Bunch: Since this has waivers attached it will have to go to the full Planning Commission. You are going to leave the monument sign in your proposal and if the bank decides not to put one in you will just delete it is that correct and not replace it with a pole sign? Bunch, M.: No Sir, we are in the Overlay District so we can only have a monument sign. Bunch: Ok. Any motions? MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion we forward LSD 03-41.00 to the Planning Commission. Allen: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Warrick: Is that with a recommendation for approval? Bunch: Yes. Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 12 LSD 03-21.10: 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 13,290 sq.ft. Collision Center with 48 parking spaces proposed, a Major Modification to the approved Large Scale Development plan. Bunch: Next on the agenda is LSD 03-21.10 for Jones Motorcars submitted by Mandy Bunch, P.E. of EB Landworks, Inc. on behalf of Mr. Mike Jones of Whitfield Motor Co. 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 13,290 sq.ft. Collision Center. We have already heard this once before but it has been a change. Since it is a major modification it has been returned to the development process. Jeremy, do you have the staff report on this? Pate: Yes Sir, as you mentioned, the applicant is requesting constructing a new Mercedes Benz Center and a detached Collision Center to the north of the existing Jones Motorcars automobile dealership on North College Avenue. The site is within the Design Overlay District. A Property Line Adjustment is being processed currently to split the proposed new lot from the existing lot. The existing lot would be the developed Jones Motorcars lot. The current proposal requests a major modification to the approved Large Scale Development Plan. Changes to the plat include new site area boundaries, dedication of the required 55' of right of way for the 2.97 acre site, recalculation of tree canopy based on the new site area and minor adjustments to the Collision Center size. Just a brief history, the original Large Scale Development for this site was approved by the Planning Commission in September of this year with all conditions as stated by staff with the exception of the 25' requirement for greenspace and that was reduced by the Planning Commission to 15'. Numerous determinations were also made by the Planning Commission with that approval reflected in the current staff report and with the minutes that are included in your current reports. The applicant did appeal Planning Commission's approval specifically with reference to condition number one, the dedication of right of way along College Avenue. The City Council denied this appeal and therefore, the applicant is processing a Property Line Adjustment and modification to the Large Scale Development plan to comply with the right of way dedication. Currently 40' of right of way does exist from centerline on College Avenue. Additional 15' of right of way to reach the 55' from centerline is required. The applicant is dedicating this required right of way for the affected 2.97 acre tract. Staff is recommending that the developer install a 6' sidewalk for the length of the tract property frontage along College Avenue located at the right of way line. No other street improvements are proposed except the removal of the unused drive and curb cut along College Avenue. The tree canopy Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 13 and preservation numbers have changed just a little bit. The existing canopy is at 12%, preserved is 8.9% and mitigation, therefore, will be 15 trees on site. Just to reiterate the Design Overlay District requirements, the 15' modification as opposed to 25' required was already approved by the Planning Commission. That is the greenspace requirement within the Design Overlay District. One monument sign is allowed for each non- residential site to be located 10' from the property line. The applicant is also allowed one wall sign. Planning Commission determined with their approval of the previous Large Scale Development that the proposed wall signage was appropriate and should be considered as one sign. A waiver request was also approved to utilize metal halide fixtures as opposed to the sodium lighting fixtures required. Staff is recommending approval at the Subdivision Committee level, that is the Subdivision Committee's charge in a major modification, of this LSD 03-21.10 with the following conditions: Sufficient right-of-way shall be dedicated to fulfill Master Street Plan requirements for College Avenue, a Principal Arterial, in the amount of 55 feet from centerline. 2) The Property Line Adjustment to separate the subject tract from the developed tract shall be approved and recorded prior to issuance of building permits. 3) A six-foot sidewalk shall be constructed in accordance with City Standards along College Avenue for the subject lot's frontage only. The sidewalk is to be located at the right-of-way line. 4) All conditions of LSD 03-21.00 shall remain applicable, with the exception of the modifications herein. Bunch: On this Property Line Adjustment, is that being handled administratively? Pate: Yes Sir, it is. Bunch: It is not a Lot Split? Why is it considered a Property Line Adjustment instead of a Lot Split? Pate: There were two parcels for this property originally. The original property line was just to the south, I believe it went through the structure. It is being moved north. Bunch: Thank you. Are there any additional staff comments from Tree and Landscaping? Carnagey: Nothing additional. Bunch: Parks? Ohman: No Sir. Bunch: Engineering? Casey: No Sir. Bunch: Mandy, can you introduce yourself and tell us about your project? Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 14 Bunch, M.: Yes Sir, my name is Mandy Bunch with EB Landworks representing Joes Motorcars. Mike Jones is also here. I know we are all familiar with each other and the project. Ken Shireman is also here if you have any questions about the building. Basically, what you see before you is pretty much what you approved except for the Property Line Adjustment issue. The sidewalk is shown located appropriately per the requirement. This is the right of way dedication line. We had shown it before. The issue was Mike was going to lose over 20% of his primary display area if we complied with the right of way dedication requirement across the entire tract. Since he did have two tracts it was well within his opportunities to move that line and actually address the property being improved currently rather than affecting his existing operations. That is what we proceeded with after some discussions from Planning staff and after Council discussion. It was a tight vote at Council. It turned into a quite interesting situation. We are hoping that this will meet your approval at this time. We are not trying to get around anything, we are just trying to make it so he can run his business like he needs to. Jones: Basically it is just an agreement the city and I came up with that would satisfy both of us at the same time so we want to go ahead and continue with the project and you all are basically the last step in the stepping zone. We are doing everything to satisfy the city's needs and my needs as well. Bunch: This makes a lot of sense to not lose your existing display spaces that you have been using all of these years. One of the things that is being lost with the Property Line Adjustment is some of the parking lot amenities that were placed in through here. Jones: There were only three additional planting islands that were in that part of it. Again, I feel like I compensated with that. Even on our old site I agreed to put these islands in this area for traffic flow as well to preserve that part of it. I can take care of that issue. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address us for this Large Scale for Jones Motor Company? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee. In the future if you should want to sell this it is very advantageous to have this Property Line Adjustment but is there an access easement that has gone along with it? I know currently you own all of the property but by deleting the curb cut on Hwy. 71 we need to make sure there's an access point. Jones: We will address that if that should ever proceed or happen. That part of it will get an easement probably from that north entry that you see there. Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 15 Bunch, M.: Does that have to happen with the Property Line Adjustment? I know that was not a comment of the Property Line Adjustment. Warrick: It is not a requirement. It should be something discussed should a change of title be considered just as Mr. Jones stated. Jones: That could be addressed later? Warrick: Sure it could. Bunch: I don't know what the rules are on Property Line Adjustments, on Lot Splits we normally look at those things. Bunch, M.: I believe the only comments on the Property Line Adjustment were some minor zoning, some labeling. There weren't any conflicts with actual frontage requirements or other issues. Bunch: What was this right in here? Bunch, M.: That is where our utilities are coming through. Ostner: Just out of curiosity, I don't think it is really relevant anymore but since this lot isn't really included, it is just being split, are you all planning on doing other improvements like sidewalk? Jones: Not at this time. We are doing these landscaping islands, there will actually be three. This corner is presently just a rounded curb and it doesn't have an island coming back so this will be added to one where the light pole, flagpole will be and then this last one out here. Primarily that is going to be used to maintain traffic flow more than anything. Ostner: The elevations are the same? Jones: Yes. Bunch, M.: The only change to the building was, Mike has been working with the collision consultant and working on the best traffic routes through the building actually and the building got a little bit more narrow and was elongated partially and then what we were able to do was bring that northern drive further back to eliminate some of the retaining wall and get it further away from the trees up on the north here. It worked out pretty well. Jones: It gave us some additional space where we were confined in that hillside. Bunch: Has this been reworked or is that still the same? Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 16 Bunch, M.: Actually, it is reworked. We originally showed it as two way access and now this can operate as one way. As is the practice of most of the car dealers in the area, they don't generally stripe out the display area so that they can change their display. What we were trying to do was maximize the opportunity he had for display within the landscape setback and right of way dedication, etc. It is not exactly a standard parking lot dimension right now. It has got 20' aisles for one way access. It is adequate there but also gives him the opportunity to double stack some cars and still maintain access through there. Bunch: This area and then portions of this back here satisfy your parking requirements of 38 spaces? Bunch, M.: Yes Sir. The requirement is a little bit different. It is basically off of a service bay to where you have maybe even like a quick lube or something like that would be applicable there. For the collision center it is a little bit different because each car actually comes in and stays inside the building for quite a time period and then are moved out here so we were able to through discussions with Planning, we moved some of our required spaces into this area and we've got them in this area as well and then the required interior landscaping we moved to the front so it would be more beneficial for everybody. Bunch: That makes a lot of sense. Commissioners? MOTION: Are there any additional questions Ostner: I will make a motion that we approve LSD 03-21.10. Allen: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 17 FPL 03-12.00: Final Plat (Ash Acres, pp 367) was submitted by WBR Engineering on behalf of Rob Stanley for property located at 109 W. Ash. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 1.33 acres. The request is to create 6 residential lots on the 1.33 acre tract. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is FPL 03-12.00 submitted by WBR Engineering on behalf of Rob Stanley for property located at 109 W. Ash. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single -Family, four units per acre, and contains approximately 1.33 acres. The request is to create six residential lots on the 1.33 acre tract. Jeremy, was this processed as PUD when we still had the PUD approval? Pate: Yes Sir it was. At this time the applicant is requesting Planning Commission approval of a Final Plat for Ash Acres PUD pursuant to ordinance requirements. Six residential lots are to be accessed off of the private street ending in a cul-de-sac for emergency and sanitation vehicle access. 40% of the site is proposed to be left in open space. The Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development for this subdivision was approved in June, 2002. A density bonus for the PUD to allow six units on the 1.33 acres, which is one more than what was allowed by right, was approved with 40% of the site to remain in open space. A tandem lot accessed by way of a 30' permanent access easement through the proposed development was also approved by the Planning Commission to allow access to the Kilgore property south of lot 5, that is the property down here to the southwest. Staff has received only one correspondence with the mailing to adjoiners from surrounding property owners. That is form Mrs. Mouldenhaur at 2700 Loxley Avenue, that is to the east of the property here. A privacy fence is desired along the east boundary of the project to keep people from walking through her property and that is just a phone call staff received. Surrounding land use is RMF -24 and RSF-4, primarily single family homes. 25' of right of way is to be dedicated from centerline of Ash Street. Staff is recommending approval of the Final Plat subject to the following conditions: New street names shall be approved by the 9-1-1 Coordinator. Street signage indicating "Private Drive" shall be coordinated with the Transportation Division. 2) Parks fees in the amount $2,820 shall be paid prior to signing of the Final Plat. 3) Correct the signature block for tree preservation easement areas, as noted in the attached memo from the Landscape Administrator. Items four through six are just standard conditions of approval. Bunch: Thank you Jeremy. Are there any additional staff comments? Parks? Landscaping? Engineering? Ohman: No Sir. Carnagey: No Sir. Casey: Just one comment. Bill, if you can add a note to the plat that lists the Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 18 linear feet of public sidewalk that was constructed during this project. That is just for some record keeping within the city. That is all I have. Thank you. Bunch: Bill, can you introduce yourself and tell us about your project? Rudasill: My name is Bill Rudasill with WBR Engineering representing Mr. Stanley who is here with us today. The project is a six lot planned unit development subdivision which will accommodate five new homes and one existing home. There is a private drive proposed into it and it is constructed and ready to go. He is anxious to get started building. That's where we are. Bunch: Thank you. At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address us on this Final Plat for Ash Acres? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for comments and questions. I guess I will start it off. Matt and Bill, can you all tell us about this drainage? This is taking care of the offsite right? Rudasill: Yes, there is offsite coming down through here. This is the drainage basin right here, it releases into the street and then it comes down the street and goes into an inlet that is positioned here. Bunch: My question is, is it even going to hit that inlet? Rudasill: Yes. The sidewalk has been raised and there has been a swale cut behind this and the street has been tilted so that it will go towards that inlet. It will collect in this pipe and be carried downstream into the existing storm sewer. We extended the storm sewer up to catch this. Bunch: I know at one time there was an underground detention basin in here. Rudasill: That was proposed but we managed to get the detention we needed back here. That was because of the easements and everything that were up here that was not allowed so we went back here and were able to detain it back there. Bunch: This is primarily serving the water that is coming onto this site from elsewhere. Rudasill: Right. We have tree preservation up and around this detention basin in the back and then we saved as many of the existing trees as possible along the property lines. Bunch: Staff, were you satisfied from the comments made at Technical Plat that there is enough delineation of the open area and the tree preservation and that sort of thing that is properly described? Pate: Yes Sir. There have also been some legal descriptions added to this plat Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 19 from Technical Plat Review with the preservation areas. Bunch: Do you have any comments or questions? Ostner: I would like to understand, just for my own understanding, this is gathering water from off site in this area. Rudasill: Yes, it is being detained at a lower value. The onsite water is being turned lose but the offsite water that comes onto us, we are retaining letting it out at a lower rate than it comes onto us so the combined discharge is basically lower. Ostner: Basically, it is a shallow detention pond. Rudasill: It is a dry detention pond, it will drain down and be dry most of the time so if anybody wants to mess around in there in dry weather then they can do something, that is part of the open space. Ostner: But it drains into the street, it is not underground. It must be a pretty flat site or difficulties putting it underground. I have just never seen a detention pond kick into the street and I'm interested in how that is working. Rudasill: It works fine, it works real well. Bunch: Overhead electric, has it been removed? Rudasill: It is gone. It will be taken off. I will take that off the plat. It was something we missed. All utilities are underground. Bunch: There is adequate access to this lot back here. That was a concern when it first came through. Stanley: There will be a concrete driveway there off of the new street for that house. Bunch: Staff, can we approve this at this level? Warrick: Yes we can. Allen: I might just comment that this is near where I live and our neighborhood association had some concerns. Mr. Rudasill met with our neighborhood association and their concerns were met. We were pleased that he came to see us and everyone felt it was a good project for our neighborhood. Bunch: How do they feel at this time since the work has been going on? Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 20 Allen: I have had several neighbors ask the status of the project and were interested in what was happening. Stanley: I'm sure they are ready for construction to be done. Allen: I think they are. Stanley: I am too. Once it is and we've got everything sodded and all I think they will like it and it will be a nice improvement to the area. They will be nice homes. Allen: It will be a nice buffer between Gregg and the neighborhood. Bunch: This is an interesting situation where you have to detain water coming onto your property. Usually it is what is leaving. That is a little departure from the normal. Are there any additional comments or motions? MOTION: Allen: I will move for approval FPL 03-12.00 subject to the six conditions of approval. Bunch: Matt, should we add your comment about adding a note to the drawing for sidewalks? Can you repeat that for us? Casey: I just need the linear feet quantity for the public sidewalk that was installed as a note on the plat. Ostner: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Stanley: Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 21 PPL 03-19.00: Preliminary Plat (Wildflower Meadows, pp 321) was submitted by Keystone Consultants on behalf of James Coger for property located west of Holt Middle School and North of Mount Comfort Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 18.38 acres. The proposal is to develop 48 single family lots. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is a Preliminary Plat for Wildflower Meadows submitted by Keystone Consultants on behalf of James Coger for property located west of Holt Middle School and North of Mount Comfort Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 18.38 acres. The proposal is to develop a subdivision with 48 single family lots. Suzanne, is this your project? Morgan: Yes it is. The applicant is requesting to create a residential subdivision of 50 lots, 48 lots will be single family residents and two for detention. The location of the proposed subdivision is north of Mt. Comfort Road bordering the Planning Area to the west and north. The northwest corner of the subject property is to be used for detention and is partially located within the floodplain. An original Preliminary Plat for this property was submitted on January 21, 2003. However, desiring to create a subdivision with smaller lots and wanting to connect to sewer the applicant pulled the proposal. The property was annexed into the City of Fayetteville and zoned RSF-4 after having been recommended approval by Planning Commission on August 26, 2003 and approved at City Council on September 16, 2003. Water and sewer will be extended to serve this development. 70' of right-of-way on Morning Mist Drive, 45' of right-of- way from centerline of Mount Comfort Road, and all interior street rights- of-way are proposed at 50' The adjacent Master Street Plan streets are Morning Mist Drive a Collector and Mount Comfort Road a Minor Arterial. For tree preservation, there is no mitigation required. Staff's recommendation is to forward this to the full Planning Commission with the following conditions. Conditions one and four both address that street names should be approved by the 911 Coordinator and comments regarding the street names are included in your packets. 2) The following changes shall be made on the plat: City limits shall be identified on vicinity map; All zoning designations of A-1 for County/Planning Area shall be removed; A note indicating the provision of maintenance for the detention ponds and open space shall be included on the plat; A note indicating the use of shared drives for those lots accessing the collector street and a note limiting the access of lots to only interior streets shall be included on the plat. 3) Parks fees in the amount of $ 24,790 for 48 single family lots shall be paid prior to building permit. 5) At the time of development of the subject property the developer shall verify that Mt. Comfort Rd. between this site and Rupple Rd. has a minimum paved width of 24'. 6) At the time of development of the subject property the developer shall verify that the intersection of Rupple Rd. and Mt. Comfort Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 22 Rd. has drive lanes with a minimum width of 22' each — this refers to the `Y' of Rupple Rd. where it intersects Mt. Comfort Rd. 7) At the time that it becomes available, the existing duplex on the adjacent property (a companion request) shall be connected to the city's sanitary sewer system. Items five, six and seven were conditions of approval from the Annexation and Rezoning. Items eight through twelve are standard conditions of approval. Bunch: Thank you Suzanne. Are there any additional staff comments? Parks? Ohman: Yes Sir. Since this report was written there have been changes to the park land dedication. Parks Board voted to accept a combination of money and land for this project so as to provide a trail corridor that would connect to the eastern property's dedication on Clabber Creek. What we will be doing is take a dedication of .15 acre for a trail corridor only and that leaves $23,125 remaining in parks fees so both the fees and the deed will be necessary prior to signing the Final Plat. Bunch: Is that park land dedication up in the northeast corner where Clabber Creek trail would come across? Ohman: Yes Sir. It is basically where the floodplain line intersects the property north to the property boundaries. Bunch: Tree and Landscaping? Camagey: I have nothing. Bunch: Engineering? Casey: To clarify conditions of approval number five and six, where it reads that the developer shall verify that Mt. Comfort Road has a minimum paved width of 24' and to verify Rupple has 22' under each of the legs of the "Y" I might add that if any of the areas are found to be less than the 24' or 22' they will have to be widened, it is a condition of approval of the annexation for this property. The applicant is proposing to widen Mt. Comfort across the entire project site to a minimum of 14' from centerline including pavement, curb and gutter and storm drains. That's all I have. Bunch: Matt, on drawing number six of the applicant's proposal, is that properly described where it says 22' minimum paved surface where they are showing their offsite improvements? Casey: Yes Sir, those are the areas that will have to be maintained as a minimum 24' and 22'. The areas for Clabber Creek Phases I and II were not highlighted on this but they will more than likely will meet that requirement through the improvements being made for the subdivision. Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 23 Bunch: At this time we will turn it over to the applicant. Will you introduce yourself and tell us about your project? I will make a comment, I made the same comment when this came through before for annexation. I am a distant relative of the applicant but I have no financial interest in this so I don't see any need to recuse from this process. Bates: Good morning, I am Geoff Bates, the engineer on this project. It is really just a regular old subdivision with nothing out of the ordinary. We are just adding streets, storm drainage, water and sewer. We have the appropriate number of lots. The developer was here earlier and he looked over these conditions. He doesn't have a problem with any of the conditions of approval. I do have one question on condition of approval number two, what is a note indicating use of shared drives? Do these lots have to have shared drives or is it their option? Morgan: It was discussed at Technical Plat if you recall. No revisions or comments were made when this submittal came in. Bates: I wasn't sure if they had to have them or not. Clabber II has lots all the way down this street and they don't have shared drives. Warrick: We looked back at that and Clabber II could be improved with shared drives because we are trying to insure the effectiveness of those streets. Excessive curb cuts cut down on the efficiency of a through way like that. We have a situation here where there could be three curb cuts onto Morning Mist Drive. Other lots have the ability to access side streets. We would encourage you to think about it at the time of Final Plat we would need to understand exactly what the situation was. We would encourage shared access on at least two of those so we could reduce by one or maybe two the number of curb cuts that would happen. Bates: 39 through 41 would be the only ones that would have to access Mt. Comfort Road. Warrick: Those are the only ones I see that would have to have access on that street. The others all have another option. Bates: We can add a note saying that all the other lots will have to or they can't access Mt. Comfort Road. Warrick: I think that's already stated in there. Bunch: I didn't see that note. Warrick: It is part of the same condition. That's staff's concern is trying to reduce the number of curb cuts as much as possible. In this case we are talking Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 24 about three lots, that is not excessive but at least two of those lots could have shared access to help achieve the functionality of that street. Bunch: At this time we will open it up for public comment. Is there anyone who would like to address us for this Preliminary Plat for Wildflower Meadows? If you would please come to the podium and share your comments with us. Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for questions and comments. I will start it off. Geoff, the first one I have is for all these cul-de-sacs butting right up against the property line, what is the easement requirement and if so, do you have easements? Bates: There is an existing utility easement all the way down through there. All the ones that the utility companies asked for, none of them asked for easements down through here. There easements are coming back behind the lots. Bunch: As far a s a construction easement to go on someone else's property. Bates: We are not grading there, there's enough room to get everything graded out before we get to the property line. Bunch: I would make a comment on the map that you provided, that is very beneficial. Sometimes it is hard to tell where these locations are but not only does this give us a good idea of where it is but it shows some of the other developments in the area and it is quite beneficial, thank you for that. Commissioners, are there any comments or questions? This drawing six that you added in, you are showing the adjacent subdivision and how the method of laying this out is somewhat consistent with the adjoining subdivision. That is also quite helpful. Ostner: That's very helpful for me. The question I have is this future ideas for expansions of the project don't have near as many cul-de-sacs. I am comparing the two sitting next to each other. I am just wondering why. Bates: We gave him for or five different options and that is the one that he liked the best. I can't say I liked it the best but it is the one that he chose. He is the one paying the bill. Bunch: With a long, narrow piece of land like that it does limit it. Bates: It wasn't quite wide enough to put two streets, that is what we initially tried to work better for connectivity and everything. It was not wide enough for two streets so that forced him to have all those cul-de-sacs. Casey: One item that I forgot to mention earlier, unfortunately, I didn't get the information to Suzanne to make I part of our conditions of approval. This is in the established area for the Rupple Road Bridge assessment. I Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 25 have figured out the assessment value. I didn't bring that with me today, but we will see as a condition of approval for the Planning Commission the recommendation for off site bridge assessment for the subdivision. I will include in your packet a memo listing how that number was established. Bunch: Which bridge is that Matt? Casey: It would be the Rupple Road Bridge north of Mt. Comfort. Bates: Up from the school? Bunch: That is part of what is holding up the continuation of Rupple Road. I think we will see another subdivision today that has probably the same responsibility. Casey: Yes. They had an assessment at the time of their first approval as well. Earlier this year or maybe last year, we drew up an area and created a map showing an area that would impact that bridge so any developments surrounding the Rupple Road bridge will have assessments for that bridge. Bunch: Since we have at least two projects coming through here that will have assessment associated with that, would you give us an update when we come to the full Planning Commission to show us how close we are to the bridge. How close are we to getting the bridge? Casey: It is not currently on the CIP list but we are making assessments in hopes that someday it will be constructed. As far as I know, it would be this development, both phases of Clabber Creek, Salem Heights and Salem Meadows have all been assessed for this bridge construction. Bunch: While we are talking about that how about sewer? Is this going to be served by the Clabber Creek Lift station and do we need any upgrades to that? Casey: Yes, I am currently working with Mr. Bates as far as improvements to the lift station. Bunch: That will also be in the report when it comes to the full Planning Commission will be any necessary upgrades or contributions to upgrades/ Casey: We can make that a condition of approval it was something we were going to work out during construction phase. It can not get approval through us or the State Health Department without the upgrades. We can add that as a condition of approval at the Planning Commission level. Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 26 Bunch: I think it would be a good for clarity to include the sewer upgrades, just for no other reason, a matter of record keeping. Ostner: I have a question. I didn't quite understand, I think I understand number five that Mt. Comfort needs a minimum paved width of 24'. That is basically this part right in front? Bates: No. This goes all the way back to the annexation. The only way we could get staff s support was if they have 24' of pavement all the way to here. Ostner: Number six talks about these two. Bates: Yes, because they are only about 15' wide or so. They wanted to at least make it wide enough so we could get two cars passing through there. Being the good natured developer he is, he agreed to increase that section so he could get annexed into the city. Bunch: Are there any other questions, comments or motions? I think we have described it enough to send it to the Planning Commission and whether or not we recommend it for approval? MOTION: Ostner: There have been some changes to the conditions, I will make a motion to forward with the recommendation for approval to the full Planning Commission, PPL 03-19.00 changing condition number three to say .15 acres of land and saying $23,125. Adding to conditions five and six the phrase "any areas less than these minimum widths shall be widened as per the annexation agreement." Is that adequate or do we need to add the Rupple Bridge assessment? Bunch: If you would please for the bridge and for sewer upgrades. Ostner: The offsite assessment of Rupple Bridge and the sewer upgrades wilt be included in the Planning Commission packets fully lined out. Bunch: One quick question before we get to the second. What about the street names being changed? Is that just on the cul-de-sac streets? Bates: It is all of them but Morning Mist. Morgan: Those will have to be approved by the 911 Coordinator. Bunch: In other words, condition of approval one and four could be combined? Morgan: Yes. Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 27 Allen: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Thank you. Bates: Thank you. Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 28 PPL 03-20.10: Preliminary Plat (Salem Heights, pp 284) was submitted by Landtech Engineering on behalf of John Alford for property located on Salem Road, south of Salem Village. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, with 89 residential lots proposed on approximately 30.96 acres. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is PPL 03-20.10 for Salem Heights submitted by Landtech Engineering on behalf of John Alford for property located on Salem Road south of Salem Village. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single -Family, four units per acre with 89 proposed residential lots. Jeremy, is this yours? Pate: Yes Sir it is. The applicant is requesting to create a residential subdivision of 89 single family residential lots on 30.96 acres. That yields a density of approximately 2.9 dwelling units per acre. Two lots are to be used for detention, preservation of tree canopy and existing wetlands. One of those lots is the large lot on the northwest corner of the site, it abuts the Clabber Creek parkland dedication. The other is across this collector street, I believe it is A Street. The location of the proposed subdivision is directly south of Clabber Creek, fronting onto both Salem Road and Rupple Road. A dedication of park land along Clabber Creek required by an adjacent subdivision development, abutting the proposed subdivision, will be accessed by way of a designated trail through the undeveloped lots. Prior to Final Plat, the trail location shall be coordinated with Parks and Recreation Staff. An original Preliminary Plat for Salem Heights was approved in March of 2003. Since that date, the applicant has decided to create additional lots and street infrastructure, thereby requiring the entire proposal to be reviewed again by Planning Commission. As I mentioned, there is a net density of 2.9 dwelling units per acre with these 89 single family lots. Rupple Road requires a 45' from centerline right of way dedication. Salem Road requires 35' from centerline and all of the interior streets require a minimum of 50' with the exception of the primary east/west A Street that connects Rupple and Salem Roads. That is considered a collector and requires 70' of right of way. A and C Streets are proposed to be constructed with 28' of width to include curb and gutter. All the remaining streets are proposed to be constructed to 24' width including curb and gutter. Connectivity is provided through the east and the west by way of a through street and to the south for a future street connection. The existing tree canopy is at 4.27%. The applicant is proposing to preserve 2.79% therefore, mitigation is required in the amount of $10,350 into the tree escrow account. Staff is recommending forwarding this project to the full Planning Commission with 17 conditions of approval. 1) Planning Commission determination of offsite street improvements to Salem Road. Staff recommends improvements to include 14 feet from centerline with curb, gutter and storm drainage. 2) Planning Commission determination of offsite assessment for Rupple Road construction from Mt. Comfort Road to the proposed subdivision. Staff recommends an assessment in the amount of $15,755. 3) Planning Commission determination of offsite assessment for the Rupple Road Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 29 Bridge. Staff recommends an assessment in the amount of $10,169. 4) The developer shall pay $6,192 pursuant to City Council Ordinance #3938 for connection to waterlines along Salem Road. Items one through four are also itemized in a memo from staff from Matt Casey that is included in your packets to show how those items were calculated. 5) Any lot platted so that a portion of the lot lies in the 100 -year floodplain shall contain a minimum of 6,000 square feet of buildable area outside the floodplain, or a minimum of one acre. Any lot platted so that the entire lot lies in the 100 -year flood plain shall contain a minimum of one acre. (At the time of Final Plat, a LOMR-F to adjust the floodplain map boundary must be approved and submitted with the application in order to plat lots less than 1 -acre in size when entirely within the 100 -year floodplain) Where that is applicable is these northern newer lots along Clabber Creek. Some of those are within the 100 -year floodplain entirely. 6) A note indicating the provision of maintenance for the detention ponds and open space shall be included on the plat. 7) All cul-de-sac radii shall be dimensioned on the plat. 8) The applicant shall pay into the Tree Escrow Account for tree canopy mitigation in the amount of $10,350. 9) Tree preservation fencing shall be shown on the plat and corresponding legend. 10) Parks fees in the amount of $49,395 for 89 single family lots shall be paid prior to Final Plat signatures. 11) The applicant shall coordinate with the Parks and Recreation Staff to provide pedestrian access to Salem Village Park, directly to the north of the proposed subdivision, along Clabber Creek. This connection shall be shown on the Final Plat. 12) All street names shall be approved by the 9-1-1 Coordinator. Items thirteen through seventeen are standard conditions of approval. Bunch: Thank you Jeremy. Are there additional staff comments? Parks and Recreation? Ohman: No Sir. Bunch: Tree and Landscaping? Camagey: No Sir. Bunch: Engineering? Casey: Just to clarify the assessments we were discussing in the last project. You have a memo in this packet. There are actually several assessments recommended for this project. One is the bridge we were discussing a little while ago. Also, the assessments for Rupple Road, the construction was done in 2000 to serve the school. The city is recouping the cost by assessing developments that tie into this. Also, in 1995 the waterline was installed along Salem and there was an ordinance passed assessing any developments connected to that line. That is set at $200 per acre. Bunch: Is Rupple Road constructed on the western boundary of this? Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 30 Casey: Yes Sir, that was constructed with Phase I of Clabber Creek subdivision. Bunch: That is what I wanted to make sure of. We have looked at several subdivisions with Salem in the name. Some of which have Rupple Road as future and some of which have it as present. What about sewer, is that going to be a factor here also? Casey: It does not go into the Clabber Creek subdivision that we discussed earlier. It goes into a lift station along Salem which we did request information from OMI, the company that maintains our waste water treatment plant and the lift stations. The data they provided showed that it actually needed more flow so this may help the situation. The pumps weren't running enough so there should be no capacity problems for this lift station. Bunch: Leonard, can you introduce yourself and tell us about your project? Gabbard: My name is Leonard Gabbard, I am with Landtech Engineering. The project kind of speaks for itself, we've pretty much covered it in detail. I will go into the reason why we came back with this plat. We originally thought floodway was affecting us to the north so I told the developer to leave it alone, we don't want to deal with that situation. Later it came to light that in fact the floodway was north of the property and we were in the floodplain. When you are dealing with floodplain it becomes quite easier to get the property raised and get it out of that. We are not disturbing any floodway. Therefore, when I revealed this information to him he said to go back and get this approved so he could have those lots. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address us for the Preliminary Plat for Salem Heights? Please come up to the podium and share your comments with us. Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for questions or comments. One question I have is on note six. Gabbard: Yes, that needs to be changed. Bunch: That seems to conflict with tree preservation. Gabbard: Yes, I looked at that too and I've got it marked through and we need to indicate that all lot areas are going to be disturbed but not where we've got preservation. Bunch: Note 18 "access shall be restricted from Salem Road and Rupple Road" Could that be elaborated upon to describe the individual lots? Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 31 Gabbard: Those lots right there are the only lots that we are going to access to A Street, all the lots will have to front the interior streets. No lots will allow to front Salem Road and Rupple Road. Bunch: I think we all understand what the intent of 18 is but someone who isn't familiar with the process to read it doesn't really tell. Meaning that these lots here must access from the interior rather than from Rupple. Gabbard: I will make that note read better. Bunch: Have it to where it has a little more clarity. Can you explain this configuration here, is this a little drainage way and then a paved parking, obviously this is to get the frontage length. Gabbard: That is correct. That is basically the gutter line of the road. We will put a paved, we are going to continue the curb line right through that area. The back of curb won't exist if you could envision a 3' wide concrete ditch where this first part blends with the curb lien over here and the next part just blends with the paving going into that cul-de-sac. That is to make sure we get good drainage around that cul-de-sac back there. That is actually a high point but it will look like the paving. Bunch: One here also? Gabbard: Yes Sir. Bunch: This is a question for staff. On the lots impacted by the floodplain do we need to have a finished floor elevation? Gabbard: Absolutely, that goes back to the last comment on five. "At the time of Final Plat a Letter of Map Revision based on fill the LOMR-F to adjust the floodplain map boundary must be approved and submitted to FEMA..." It will be approved from FEMA and be part of the attachment of the Final Plat and at that time the required finished floors that FEMA has made us put on there will be attached and put on those lots. Bunch: The people who are buying these lots will need to go back and look at the minutes of our meeting to see. Gabbard: Minimum finished floors will be required on lots affected by the floodplain. Bunch: Another question, on trees 10 and 11, which appear to be offsite, does this property line extend further to the south? Gabbard: Those do not apply, they are not our property. Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 32 Bunch: They are someone else's property? Gabbard: Right, right. Bunch: Commissioners, are there any additional questions or comments? Casey: Leonard, if you don't mind can you show how this lines up with the existing Morning Mist Drive of the Clabber Creek subdivision on the west side of Rupple. Just show it on the vicinity map or on one of your sheets the location so we can see how they line up. Bunch: In fact, here is a drawing from this project that shows, this is what we were looking at with our previous project. I think yours is over here from Morning Mist. Casey: Leonard, do you know if those line up? Gabbard: No Sir, I do not. At the time that we surveyed this and originally submitted it I didn't have that information. Warrick: That Final Plat document is on file now. Gabbard: Ok. Warrick: It is available information. Gabbard: If the road is built I can send my crew out there to shoot it. I will do that and show it. Like I said before, it would be very lucky if they do line up. Casey: I think it is important that it does. We are planning this as a collector street and it would be good not to have a jog across Rupple. Warrick: If we need an intersection in the future having them at a "T" intersection is really the only way that we will be able to control it adequately. Gabbard: I guess due to the way that this plat evolved and the length of time it has kind of caused this to happen. Bunch: Your vicinity map is difficult to read, here is one, I don't know where they are getting their information but it shows the road. On this one it is rather difficult to understand what's being shown. They are lifting this off of the Fayetteville web site. One like this is easy for non-technical people to look at and be able to figure out where everything is. Gabbard: I need to indicate to my draftsmen to show adjacent subdivisions and make lettering larger. That should work shouldn't it? Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 33 Bunch: I believe so. Matt, do you know if the vicinity map that was used on Wildflower came from your information on the website? Casey: I'm not sure if it does or not. Warrick: I'm not sure what Mr. Bates used. I think that they have taken the various Final Plat documents and pieced it together. Bunch: They have these drawings here for the one mile view. Staff pulls that up off theirs. These are quite helpful for us. We don't have these until later. If you could use a source similar to this for producing your vicinity maps it would be quite helpful. Gabbard: Would it be ok for me to Xerox that and sticky it to the drawing? Bunch: Sure, however you want to insert it. For future reference. Gabbard: I may just use that whole sheet right there. Bunch: That would work. Ostner: Right now we are not sure if this lines up with the other Final Plat to the west, is that it? Warrick: We are trying to do some measurements on that and we don't think that they line up. We will look into it a little bit more because that is important to at least understand where the two would come together. Casey: If we are measuring from the same point on the two maps, they are about 300' difference. Gabbard: There is no way for us to move into that. Casey: I think I agree with what Leonard is saying. I don't know how we could make that work being that far away. Gabbard: We would have to develop the property south to this to put that into this corridor. Casey: It looks like it fits this property if those are correct. It is just barely. Warrick: It is just right at the south property line. Casey: 300' would be an acceptable off set, it's not too close. Warrick: We just wanted to make sure it is not one lot separation so it wouldn't be a little S jog or something. Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 34 Casey: If you could still show that so we have a better understanding of how that lines up. Gabbard: I was more concerned about it being 250' or 300' than I was it being even close. I know that north school boundary is way to the south of where I'm coming out. Casey: Without the map to look at it it is hard to picture. Bunch: If there is no way to line it up how does that effect us as far as the drawing and forwarding it to the full Planning Commission? What impact does that have or what are your recommendations? Warrick: We are going to know a lot more once we have something to line it up. Our measurements are basically putting it at the south property line of this project or maybe even slightly south of that in an existing vacant tract. I can't give you an answer until we know more. We are just gathering more information at this point. This is an important connection between Rupple and Salem. This subdivision has two major streets on either end of it and having a through traffic collector street is certainly not anything bad. It is certainly going to get vehicles from one end to the next. We can certainly adjust that a little bit better when we have more information and know what we are dealing with about the connection to the west. Bunch: Ok, that is not something that we would need to hold a project at this level? We can go ahead and forward it? Warrick: I don't think so because I don't think it is going to necessitate major changes to the configuration of the plat that you are looking at. Bunch: Are there any additional comments, questions or motions? Ostner: Even if it doesn't line up with Morning Mist, are you calling that Morning Mist? Your main street east/west, does it have a name yet? Gabbard: No Sir, we call it "A" street until we get with Mr. Johnson, the 911 Coordinator. Warrick: It will very likely not be Morning Mist. Ostner: I am interested in how it aligns with these two streets whether they are collectors or not where the intersections fall seems to be very important safety wise because there again, if it is just a little bit off it can create havoc. Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 35 Warrick: Right. We don't want a slight offset. If there is going to be an offset it needs to be a significant enough offset to allow for stacking distance at both of the intersections and for visibility so that is really what we are trying to make sure that we are comfortable with based on those connections. Bunch: Not just Morning Mist but the other two streets to the west in the subdivision also. Warrick: Right. They are not as major intersections so there is different consideration for that. It is important for you to visualize that on a map. I was just actually writing down all of the other subdivisions in this area that were just constructed recently or under construction and there are about ten. There is a lot of activity going on. I am going to try to get a map put together with all of that information on it so everybody can see what is happening. The perspective is a lot different when you look at it one at a time. Bunch: In your estimation this is ready to go forward to the full Planning Commission? Warrick: Yes Sir. Bunch: Do I have a motion to that affect? MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we forward PPL 03-20.10 to the full Planning Commission. Allen: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 36 LSD 03-39.00: Large Scale Development (Smokey Bones Restaurant, pp 174) was submitted by CEI Engineering on behalf of GMRI Inc. for property located on Lot 17C of Steele Crossing, east of the intersection of Mall Ave and Van Asche Dr. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 1.81 acres. The proposal is to construct a 7,567 sq. ft. restaurant with 118 parking spaces. Bunch: The next item on our agenda is a Large Scale Development for Smokey Bones Restaurant submitted by CEI Engineering on behalf of GMRI Inc. for property located on Lot 17C of Steele Crossing, east of the intersection of Mall Ave and Van Asche Dr. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 16.22 acres without splitting off the lot. The proposal is to construct a 7,567 sq. ft. restaurant with 118 parking spaces. Suzanne, will you give us the staff report on this please? Morgan: Certainly. The applicant, as stated, proposing to construct a Smokey Bones restaurant within the CMN Business Park Phase IL The original tract of land has been split three times which is the maximum allowable. Due to the situation, the property for which the proposed LSD is located includes the remainder of the CMN Business Park II Phase IL This tract of land does contain 16.22 acres and the restaurant and associated parking are located on 1.81 acres. Smokey Bones is a 7,567 sq.ft. structure with 99 parking spaces and 118 parking spaces proposed. Parking in excess of the amount allowed by ordinance amount allowed by ordinance is requested by conditional use, which must be heard by Planning Commission along with the Large Scale Development. The land to the north is vacant, all of which is C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Fulbright Expressway is to the south. The proposed Red Robin is to the east and Olive Garden is to the west. Van Asche Drive at 70' of right of way is being extended to the east with an approved Preliminary Plat for Lot 17. Street improvements are required to be completed prior to issuance of building permits. Should the construction of Van Asche Drive not occur as approved with the Preliminary Plat, the applicant shall be responsible for constructing the extension. Adjacent Master Street Plan streets are Van Asche Drive, a collector and Fulbright Expressway. This is within the Design Overlay District and staff has included information regarding Design Overlay District requirements in the report. Tree preservation, the site for constructing the restaurant has no trees. A waiver for tree preservation was requested and approved by the Landscape Administrator. Staff's recommendation is to forward this project to the full Planning Commission with the following conditions: 1) The vicinity maps shall include the entire Lot 17 project area. 2) The developer of the subject tract shall be responsible for extending Van Asche Drive with a 28' width, with curb, gutter, storm drains and six-foot sidewalks, should the approved Preliminary Plat for Lot 17 not be constructed and platted. 3) Planning Commission determination and approval of Commercial Design Standards. Staff finds the submitted elevation drawings to be in compliance with Commercial Design Standards. 4) Planning Commission determination of a Conditional Use request for excess Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 37 parking. The applicant has submitted a detailed letter describing the reasons for the request. 5) Planning Commission determination and approval of Design Overlay District requirements. Items six through twelve are standard conditions of approval. Bunch: Thank you Suzanne. Are there additional staff reports? I guess with no trees there's not much to talk about from Trees and Landscaping is there? Camagey: No Sir. Bunch: What about the landscaping? Camagey: No additional comments on that either. Bunch: Matt with Engineering? Casey: No Sir. Bunch: At this time we will turn it over to the applicant. James, introduce yourself and tell us about the project. Koch: My name is James Koch with CEI Engineering representing GMRI, Inc. and the proposed Smokey Bones restaurant. As described, the restaurant as proposed is situated adjacent to the existing Olive Garden. The architectural review committee for the Steele Crossing subdivision has reviewed these color elevation boards here and are approved in general with the request for some more trees around the rear elevation of the building that is shown here. I think that was one of Craig's comments that we've already addressed and that is something that they are going to need to submit to satisfy the architectural review committee requirements there. Yes, they are in agreement with this as well. Warrick: James, can you tell me if the rear elevation of the structure that is shown on the board is the one that is facing west or the one that is facing south? Koch: I believe the entrance is going to be facing east. Warrick: Ok, so that would be the west elevation? Koch: I think it is the north elevation actually. Warrick: Then that is what would be facing Van Asche? Koch: Yes. Warrick: It would help if those boards could be labeled with directionals as opposed to just side of the building so that we've got a better understanding of what we're dealing with. Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 38 Bunch: Would it help when this goes to full Planning Commission if we had reduced size copies in the Planning Commissioner's packets and if they were also labeled? Koch: Yes. Bunch: Staff, is there anything else before we take public comment? At this time we will take public comment for the Large Scale Development for Smokey Bones Restaurant. Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for questions. I guess the primary question is the driveway access and how does that line up with the project that recently came through to the east for Red Robin? Is that being coordinated? Koch: Absolutely. I am working with McClelland Engineers on that coordination. I spoke with them yesterday as a matter of fact. The Van Asche Drive subdivision that has been approved as far as the Preliminary Plat is concerned will dictate the grades of those access drives and how we tie in there and we are working together. Bunch: Your drawing was like it was a shared access. Warrick: What do you all need us to do to make the boards more visible for you? Bunch: Why don't we just take a little break and get up and look at them. This one that is shown as a rear elevation, is that one that may have to look like a front? Warrick: That is one that I'm concerned about. If that is the one facing Van Asche it needs to look like a front and have a front fagade. Bunch: The one shown as a entry elevation faces Red Robin is that correct? Koch: That is right. Bunch: Which side is facing the Fulbright Expressway? Koch: I believe it is this side elevation. Warrick: This is facing the expressway and this is facing Red Robin? Koch: The entrance will be facing Red Robin, the east. Bunch: What is being called the front elevation is different than the entrance elevation? Koch: Yes, that is correct. Bunch: Ok. Commissioners, are there any comments? Dawn, if the rear elevation is the one facing Van Asche? Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 39 Koch: This is the rear elevation. You can see the doors. Bunch: That is facing Van Asche and that will need to look like a front. Warrick: We do need to address that a little bit more. Bunch: Which one is facing the bypass? Warrick: Normally, this would be the type of elevation we would have facing Van Asche. I'm not sure that we can just flip the building around but that is more of the type of treatment that we need to achieve on that visible street frontage. Koch: I think that is why the architectural review committee has requested that that be screened with trees that cover that entire area. Warrick: The screening is great. It does help but it doesn't address the architectural requirements that we have under commercial design standards. Bunch: Just from a stand point of somebody driving up Van Asche looking at some place to eat and they are looking at the dumpster of a building. It seems like from a business standpoint it would be more attractive to have an elevation like what they are showing as the front elevation or entrance elevation that is visible to people at the access point. Not just our standards but just from making it a successful business. That is not the best presentation to the first thing that the public sees. Koch: I will convey that to our client, your recommendations. Warrick: I would like to work with you a little more on this. Koch: That is something I will address with the architect and move forward with that in mind. Bunch: From the two adjacent restaurants it looks very inviting. Warrick: It really does have three nice elevations. It has two street frontages so two of those elevations need to be the ones that are addressing streets. Bunch: Just as a matter of clarity, James can you explain the lot 17 situation since I think the adjacent lot on the northeast was the last lot split for Red Robin. Is this not a split out one? Warrick: We don't have the ability to approve another lot split on Lot 17 of CMN. Because we don't, the applicant has chosen to do a Large Scale that encompasses all of the rest of Lot 17 because the Preliminary Plat hasn't been approved as a Final Plat each of these lots as we have been looking at them has not been created. Olive Garden, Marriott and Red Robin were Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 40 the three lots splits that we had the ability to approve. That is leaving a total of four tracts of land, those three lots plus everything else, which is what we are seeing in this. That does place a burden on this applicant because if for some reason the Preliminary Plat is never successfully finished, which I'm sure that it will be, those requirements for the street improvement and all of the rest of the development infrastructure wise lay on this particular applicant because this applicant is processing a project on all of that line. It is a little bit tricky. Because all of these projects are happening simultaneously we had to find a method of processing a project. We talked about possibly doing a lot line adjustment. The management company that owns Olive Garden also owns this project however, they did not feel like they wanted those projects on the same lot. This was the way we could do it. I feel sure that shortly we will see a Final Plat come through for Lot 17 that will create an individual lot for Stookey Bones in this particular location that will contain more like 2.0 acres of land as opposed to 17 or whatever it is that we are dealing with as the remainder. Koch: That is correct. Bunch: It will delineate the responsibility for building Van Asche and the cul-de- sac should the cul-de-sac be built? Warrick: It will be done when we look at the Final Plat it will be done. It is under construction now. Koch: Phase I is under construction and we have selected a contractor to do Phase II portion of this. I am just waiting on some particulars to satisfy the engineering requirements before we can start construction there. Everything is moving forward. I don't expect there to be a problem with Van Asche Drive extension whatsoever. Bunch: What about the ownership of Lot 17? Koch: When the plat is actually filed for this that will create several lots throughout this entire tract 17. That will also I think create two additional lots than what you've looked at currently here. Basically, a lot line will extend off that cul-de-sac over to this easement area here to provide sewer access to each lot with that proposed division. Bunch: One of my concerns is if something were to happen, who is actually the owner of this? Right now somebody would be building on someone else's land I guess. Koch: The building permit is not going to be released until the Final Plat is taken care of for Van Asche Drive. If they want to move forward that way that will be a decision that they have to make before making any progress. Bunch: That explains a lot there. One of the questions I have is on 2B, your air conditioner or transformer pad, was there any arguments about screening Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 41 for that? Koch: That was one of the comments from the architectural review committee was to screen all of that. That was the rear elevation. Bunch: If you do have any changes to the elevations then that would probably be incorporated? Koch: Yes, I expect to get in touch with the architect soon on that. Bunch: Commissioners, are there any other comments or questions while we are trying to digest all eleven of these drawings? Allen: This might hold the record for the largest map that I've seen. Koch: I apologize for the size. This is typically the size drawings that the architect uses for submittal of the actual building and it fits their requirement. That is what they requested originally so I just kept that same format. If you desire something different I would be happy to change it. Bunch: One of the things I liked was your ADA compliance plan where usually they show from a van accessible space into the building and you are showing how to access from the sidewalk. Koch: I would like to add to that. This is a requirement that Smokey Bones has. This is not just something that we just did as a standard issue to the City of Fayetteville. They have standards that appear to be in excess of what the minimums are for the majority of the development we've seen. Bunch: That is a very good policy because a lot of times that gets forgotten. It shows ADA access other from just the parking space. Koch: I think you can see how much more landscape material we have added on this particular drawing. I guess that I will receive a written response from the staff regarding the rear elevation so that I can give to the architect and tell them exactly what they need to do to adhere to the ordinances here? Warrick: It is going to be a really quick turn around because revisions are needed by Monday at 10:00 a.m. I don't know that we are going to have time to get you more than our discussion. We will certainly have minutes of this meeting but it won't be until early next week which probably won't help in that. We will be more than happy to participate in a conference call or speak directly with the architectural group if that is what you want to assist with that. Koch: Great, thank you. Bunch: In looking at your planting schedule, the trees that would normally help in Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 42 screening this elevation are the ones that seem to be somewhat deficient. These are deciduous trees so that is going to be losing their leaves in the fall so these won't make that much contribution year around. Ostner: The site lines really cut behind them anyway. In a perfect world if the screening were on the building it might help. Back here it is not that affective. Do you think you all can redo this in the time allowed? Bunch: If it doesn't make it, it can either come back to Subdivision or go to the next Planning Commission meeting. Ostner: I was just considering tabling it. I don't want to do that as a punitive measure. There are serious concerns that I have with the elevations. The elevations are not just one dimensional, they relate to the site. Koch: If allowed to stay on the current schedule we can get some things revised that our client's desires there of course. I will need to get in contact with staff as early as I can to make that happen. Bunch: Alan, since we are pressed for time, could you give him the benefit of your concerns so he can translate those to the architectural people? Let's not wait until Planning Commission to voice them. Ostner: Sure. I think currently the rear elevation, which we've established as the north elevation, is inadequate. I think it is obvious. It is more suited as a rear of a building that is rarely seen. That needs to be incorporated as a front. That is my biggest concern right now. Bunch: With the type of businesses on either side of this and with two streets of frontage it is almost like the whole building needs to have front facades. Koch: I don't think there is a problem with any of what you are asking for. Bunch: The same company that did the building next to it did a wonderful job. To place this right next to it I think it would be advantageous to carry on that type of theme. Koch: I don't think that we will have any problems at all with that. I think you will see by the submittal packet that their requirements are above and beyond the minimums. All we have to do is ask them and we will see how they respond. I can't speak for them at the present time. I will contact them immediately. We would like to stay on the current schedule. Bunch: Are there anymore comments for the architectural elevations? Ostner: There are no obvious gables, there are no windows, no doors. Obviously, if it looked like a front it would help. It doesn't have to act as a front, it doesn't have to be a front but it needs to look like a front. The other two Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 43 fronts you have. You have nice gables, windows, doors. For me that's my complaint is that it doesn't look like a front. Bunch: Commissioner Allen, do you have any comments on the architectural features? Allen: I agree with Alan but I think James has got the idea. Bunch: The main thing is if there were other comments that we could use. Are the other elevations more or less acceptable? Allen: Yes, I think they look real attractive. Bunch: Are there any other recommendations before this goes to the full Planning Commission? Are there other comments or recommendations as this moves forward? Warrick: If the committee has any other comments or concerns about the request for excess parking if you could address those as well so we can take that to the full Commission. Bunch: It is on a case by case basis. This is similar to what we've done at other restaurants. It probably wouldn't hurt if we had the applicant do it or does staff, the comparison of some of the other parking that has been granted. Warrick: We can bring that chart that we keep adding to, to provide additional information. There have been Conditional Uses approved on both Olive Garden and Red Robin which front this project on either side. That is a request with specific approval that the Planning Commission will need to make on this Large Scale. Ostner: As another request, something that will help me is not exactly Conditional uses granted but usage. I don't know where to get this information but how utilized are parking lots of this nature. Warrick: I think that's got to come from the applicant as far as the vacancy rate of the parking spaces. We don't have the ability to determine how often someone is in a parking stall. Ostner: I'm not asking for that. Is there any national standard or regional research for vacancy rates? It would be helpful for me. Bunch: James, can you check with your applicant and see what kind of proposals they have with their use rates with their restaurant? Most of the time when we see a restaurant they come in and show their numbers they have with employees anticipated at peak periods for both seating and square footage Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 44 so we can look at it from both standpoints. Usually, restaurants of this nature have that information. Pate: There is a letter in your packet that has some additional information about that as well. Ostner: 99 spaces are allowed and you are requesting 118, it is not quite the 30% again so I would be willing to grant the variance if you are asking for my one of nine viewpoints. My issue with the neighbor to the west was that it went 30 and then another 30. I did vote against it and that is the only reason I voted against it. This is the 30% overage plus another 22 and I understand parking is important. Bunch: In this location where it is based on vehicle traffic although in the Overlay District we are looking at multi -modal as much as we can. I think that there on top of the hill there are some housing developments but unfortunately, it is based on car and vehicle type traffic. Lot 17 is a lot of parking. Koch: That's exactly right, maybe we will get something in there to help absorb some of that. Bunch: Are there any comments on signage? Warrick: James, do you know if the signage is internally lit or indirectly lit? Koch: No I do not. Warrick: Can you find out please? The Overlay District does require indirect lighting. Some provisions have been made in the past with other projects. Bunch: You are showing two signs with two frontages. Warrick: There is a monument sign shown on the plan do you have an elevation of that? Koch: No. Warrick: We need to get that please. Bunch: Is there anything else that we need to add to the list for forwarding? Do we have a motion? MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we forward LSD 03-39.00 to the full Planning Commission. Subdivision Committee November 13, 2003 Page 45 Allen: I second. Bunch: I concur with staff comments on things like the signage and architectural elevations. Are there any other questions that you have to take back to your sources? Koch: No, I think we have enough information to accomplish what we need to. If I need to get the staff involved with the architect I will call, we may be able to take care of it ourselves. Bunch: Staff, are there any additional comments before we adjourn? Warrick: I would just remind you of the retreat on Wednesday at 5:30. Pate: We do have new meeting schedules. Warrick: We have 2004 schedules put together for distribution. We have made a few changes. We have added two working days at the beginning of the process to allow us to get notification done a little bit quicker and to get the first review as complete as possible. We have also combined our schedule for zoning requests, annexations and rezoning, Conditional Use and Vacations had been on a separate schedule on a different time frame. We have added those into the development time frame. They are not going to go all of the reviews as a development item would but we need that amount of time in order to bring forward a complete recommendation on a zoning request. We added one week additional to the review time and submittal requirement for Board of Adjustment items and that is because we have been getting significant feedback with regard to the short time frame that people are getting notice on Board of Adjustment requests. We have been following the minimum requirements by state law, which is a seven day notice and we have been having a two week turn around for a very long time on variance requests. That is really just not enough time to do what we need to do and get the publication and notice out to adjoiners in a timely manner and for us to get the research done and the reports put together properly. I think those are all the changes that we have made. We will get those to you next week. Bunch: Ok, if there are no other comments or announcements we are adjourned.