Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-26 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on February 26, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN LSD 04-05.00: Large Scale Development (Clary Development/Harp's, pp 40 1) Forwarded Page 2 LSP 04-11.00: Lot Split (Logan's Roadhouse, pp 173) Approved Page 16 LSD 04-08.00: Large Scale Development Forwarded (Logan's Roadhouse, pp 173) Page 16 ADM 04-09.00: Fairfield Subdivision Approved Page 23 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Don Bunch Jill Anthes Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Suzanne Morgan Matt Casey Craig Carnagey Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Subdivision Committee February 26, 2004 Page 2 LSD 04-05.00: Large Scale Development (Clary Development/Harp's, pp 401) was submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Clary Development Corporation for property located at Lot 8 of Wedington Place Addition. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 4.61 acres. The request is to allow the development of a 31,118 sq.ft. commercial building with 125 parking spaces proposed. Bunch: Good morning, welcome to the Thursday, February 26`h meeting of the Subdivision Committee meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. This morning we have four items on the agenda. The fourth item is an administrative item that is not on the printed agenda that pertains to some sidewalk work in a subdivision. At this time I am going to turn the chairmanship over to Commissioner Jill Anthes as acting Chair and let her take care of the meeting and hopefully this well help in the future of the Planning Commission since we have quite a few people leaving here. Jill, go ahead and please conduct the meeting if you would. Anthes: Item number one is a Large Scale Development for Harps presented by Brian Moore of Engineering Services, Inc. Jeremy? Pate: The applicant is requesting this Large Scale Development to allow the development of a 31,118 sq.ft. commercial building with 163 parking spaces proposed. This location is located north of Wedington Drive east of Colorado Drive in the Wedington Place subdivision. The property is currently vacant with no existing trees and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, which is appropriate for this use. The applicant has submitted a request to the Board of Adjustment for a zero rear lot line to the east of the lot so that the future development to the east may adjoin this structure. The applicant also shall process an application to vacate the existing 35' drainage easement located in the northwest corner of the property and the 20' utility easement located along the eastern property line. These easements were dedicated with the approval of the original Wedington Place subdivision Phase II. Right of way currently is existing for this Large Scale Development therefore, none is required. The Design Overlay District boundary is close but it does not encompass any portion of the subject property. It does overlay a portion of the subdivision however and the approved Final Plat for the subdivision states that any signage for all lots within the subdivision shall conform to the Overlay District standards for monument signage. No freestanding signage is proposed at this time. However, I believe there is a condition here that says any freestanding signs shall conform to the Design Overlay District standards for monument signage. Staff is recommending to forward this Large Scale Development to the full Planning Commission with a number of conditions. Some of which are standard plat comments. A couple that I would like to mention for the Subdivision Committee to address today is item number one, Planning Commission determination and approval of Subdivision Committee February 26, 2004 Page 3 Commercial Design Standards. We do have elevations, I will pull those out in a moment. Staff finds that the proposed north and east elevations do not meet the ordinance requirements for design elements. Specifically, with regard to minimizing square, boxlike structures and large, blank, unarticulated wall surfaces. I believe the applicant will be able to address that somewhat. Item two pertains to this as well. If at the time of building permit approval the property to the east has not submitted a complete Large Scale Development application showing an adjoining structure to Harps the developer of Lot 8 shall construct an eastern facade that complies with the Commercial Design Standards. Items three and four apply to the Variance and Vacation that were mentioned earlier. I believe the rest of those are pretty standard comments. Anthes: Thank you Jeremy. Do we have any other staff reports? Casey: I just have a couple of comments. Brian, for the drainage easement that is going to be coming through the Vacation process, we will need to see on the easement plat or you can show it on the Large Scale also, an additional drainage easement that will encompass the proposed storm sewer. Hopefully that will be out of the way of construction of your gas facilities. Moore: Do you mean the main line or do you want the private, the interior? Casey: It doesn't need to include the private but where you show the graded inlet where it is coming off the street where it is now dumping into that ditch that has the drainage easement, that's where it needs to start and follow that pipe down to the existing detention pond. Moore: Not a problem. Casey: Forgive me for not finding it, the staff report mentions a 20' utility easement that is going to be vacated, is that in the same area? Moore: It is actually along the east property line. It is not shown on this drawing, there is a 10' on either side of the property line that we didn't catch in the Final Plat and we'll get it in there. It is actually just along this line. Casey: You are showing the future building adjacent to this which causes some discrepancies in the grades. You are showing some contours out here in the parking lot that go across onto the adjacent lot but there is going to be a 4' or 5' drop in there, I just need to see how that is going to be handled and also where this future building is going to be and how that grading is going to be done in the short term until that is underway. That could be shown on the grading plan. Subdivision Committee February 26, 2004 Page 4 Moore: In other words, you want me to go ahead and grade it on out and show the three to one slope that we'll have? Casey: Right, I think that will give us a more accurate picture of what we are going to see until they do that construction. Moore: Not a problem. Casey: That's all I have. Anthes: Thanks Matt. I will bring it to the applicant, would you like to make your presentation? Moore: Sure, I'm Brian Moore with Engineering Services and this is Jay Max Vanhoose with Harps Foods. This is on Wedington Drive and Colorado. It is their proposed building that I think is well needed in that area from everybody I talked to that lives over there. They say great, we are getting a new grocery store. We would be happy to answer any questions that you may have and will do anything that we need to do. Anthes: Thanks Brian. Now we will open it to public comment. Is there anyone here to speak on this Large Scale Development? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. I guess we should start first with the zero rear lot line issue. Bunch: On the zero lot line you are saying that this easement here is to be vacated? Moore: Correct. Bunch: It's one that is not shown and that would accommodate the zero lot line? Moore: Yes Sir. Bunch: There is a proposed building to abut your proposed building? Moore: There are actually quite a few buildings in here that will end up but I'm not sure how they are going to end up with their configuration. If you looked at this building, there is not anything here but there is a drive that comes in right here that will actually end up being utilized by the Harps people. The buildings, it's almost like it's a front, the whole thing is going to be one building. They will all be connected, kind of like on Joyce Street if you will, on some of those buildings like Shoe Carnival or TJ Maxx, I think that is what they are striving for. Bunch: How is that in relation to this or is that just a stub out? Subdivision Committee February 26, 2004 Page 5 Moore: This drive actually will go all the way through. Vanhoose: I will just intersect just to give you a little background on the project. The whole development was being developed by Clary Development. This particular lot is owned by Consumer Thriftway. Between ourselves and the developer we are in the process of acquiring that property. Marvin's stores at one point had intended to build there. This had gone through Large Scale in the past and that project didn't go forward so the developer of this property, we are working with them so we will be essentially an acre tenant and once we move forward on this their intention is to move forward on the development of the rest of the site. Bunch: That has a bearing on this area right in here where you are showing this access spanning both properties. Are you planning on knowing that the adjacent property is going to be developed, are you planning on doing any actual construction of this aisle coming onto the adjacent property? Moore: We'll build that with the 24' and then they can connect onto it with their parking spaces. Warrick: Staff has added that as condition of approval number 13 in your items. Because it is shown to provide access we expect it to be developed with this project. Anthes: Staff, is there anything regarding the Vacation of the easement that needs to be processed before we can proceed here? Warrick: Item number four, Vacation of a 35' drainage easement and 20' utility easement must be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit so we do anticipate seeing those items come through the review process. They do have to go through Planning Commission and City Council before the Vacations can be finalized. We don't expect that they would hinder this layout and Large Scale the way that it is shown. The reason that, just to add some information with regard to the 20' rear setback, the orientation of this project really does face Wedington Drive. The east property line is considered the rear because this property does have frontage on Colorado. Therefore, Colorado becomes the front because anything that has right of way adjoining it is considered a front. We did see this project, well, a similar project, come through the Large Scale process and be approved for a Marvin's IGA and an attached strip center several years ago which was never constructed. The only hesitation that we have in looking at this building adjoining the lot line with the anticipation that in the future a building would abut against it is that we don't know that a future building will abut against it. We don't know that that's exactly what we'll see when the adjoining lot does come through the Subdivision Committee February 26, 2004 Page 6 review process for development approval. That's why we have included item number two in your conditions of approval and worded it the way that we have just so that in the event that the adjoining property owner, Clary Development, doesn't find a tenant who wishes to adjoin this building we will not end up with a structure that has a large, blank, unarticulated wall surface and not comply with our Commercial Design Standards. Anthes: Dawn, do we need to see that elevation today or can that go as part of the packet to the Planning Commission as an alternate? Warrick: I think that it would be appropriate to understand what it would look like as an alternate as this goes forward to the full Planning Commission. I think that merits some discussion because like I said, we've looked at a project on these adjoining lots in the past and they've never developed. I don't want to say that the developer is not going to go through with a development on that property but I know that it is going to hinge on whether or not they can find the proper tenants and get the deals worked out. That's something that we need to address and be understanding of what is going to happen on this particular lot as it builds out. Anthes: Thank you. Nancy, do you have anything that you want to add to the lot line? Allen: No. Anthes: Let's move to Commercial Design Standards. Is there anything that you want to say about these? Vanhoose: It's always a challenge to kind of balance what people want to see there. I think the concerns were on the east and the north elevation. I guess I will address the east elevation first. Anthes: Can you first tell us what all of these materials that you've indicated are? Vanhoose: We can go through that. Anthes: Can we also note to have those labeled going forward to the Planning Commission? Vanhoose: Ok. A couple of things, one on the board you can't see there very well and I've brought some of the materials and just some photos of another store. Subdivision Committee February 26, 2004 Page 7 Bunch: While you're looking for that, may I interject, can you re -label these? I think they are labeled incorrectly, the south is actually west and what is shown as west appears south. Pate: Staff wrote on this board the correct location I believe. Warrick: North and east are labeled properly, south and west just got inverted. Vanhoose: Sorry about that. When we were putting that together it was wrong and we addressed that and in the process of getting it here unfortunately, it appears the wrong file was printed. If there is one thing I can take care of today that's it. The skirt and the columns are a brick material. The band going around the building is an E.I.F.S. material and the top where the Harps is is also E.LF.S. the walls around the structure are concrete panels. This is not necessarily, this is the color but it is not a good reflection of the actual texture. It is more than just a flat surface, there is some texture to it. Then the roof material and the capping on the front is a metal material, hunter green. The window frames and door frames are just a store front bronze material. We'll get those labeled. Did that answer your questions? Anthes: Yes. Are these the same materials that you have on the building at Crossover Road? Vanhoose: No. The pictures I'm showing here are a facility on Hwy. 412, Butterfield Coach Road in Springdale. Anthes: How do they differ from what we've approved in Fayetteville? Vanhoose: I don't have, I can't sit here and tell you for sure. One of the things I was trying to do too is match the materials that had been used for the Bank of Fayetteville on that site on the front. The Crossover Road location, I wasn't with Harps when that was built but the metal is an evergreen. The brick material is just a different color. I don't know the name of it or have a sample of it with me. I was going to address the east elevation. I can appreciate staffs concerns given the history of the project and whether it will or will not be built. It is part of our process with the developer to provide some protection in our agreement with them as well that that project will move forward as ours will as well. It is in our interest that it happen. I guess I'm going to ask some direction from staff on how to approach that a little bit. It is certainly the intention that there will be something built up next to it. If there is not there is going to be some ramifications between ourselves and the developer. I wondered if there is some way I can do something that will provide a way to do this initially then I guess you are just wanting an alternative in case that gets built and it doesn't happen? Subdivision Committee February 26, 2004 Page 8 Warrick: I think a reasonable alternative would basically be to mirror the west elevation that you've proposed if that is acceptable to the Planning Commission. Another thing that we might be able to look at, I don't know if it is possible because I've not spoken with Clary Development, to see whether or not they would be willing to provide some sort of agreement as to their intentions and what will happen on the development of that adjacent lot. While I hate to see Harps go to the expense of making this a side fagade that is very visible when it may not be I also hate to think of it not going in as a side fagade that is consistent with our commercial design standards and then it staying that way forever and being out there exposed. I think to your benefit as well, it would be appropriate for the side to look like a side that is not going to be hidden if it ultimately isn't going to have that adjoining project. I don't know if you have a relationship with Clary Development that you could pursue that agreement. Vanhoose: Absolutely, I can't put words in their mouth but I am going to anticipate that there would be a willingness to do something to that effect. As part of this they are making some other commitments that might or might not happen regarding street lights and stuff, traffic signals if that is potentially approved in the future, and committing funds to that. I think they would commit to doing something like that. Warrick: I think to answer your first question with regard to an alternative, it might be appropriate to look at the west elevation and if that is acceptable to the Planning Commission to determine whether that would be a reasonable alternative to apply the same types of treatments to the east should there not be an immediately adjoining development. Vanhoose: That's fine. The only difference is on the west elevation there are the tilt up panels with brick and E.LF.S. and we are just showing a split faced concrete block verses even a flat concrete block down that side. There are some different materials there and I don't have a sample of that material. Maybe another alternative, I'll just throw this out, a smooth concrete block surface that could be modified fairly easily with the brick columns, the brick skirt and the textured material on E.LF.S. on a future date to get that same look as the west elevation along with a commitment from the developer to do something in the future. We will come up with another, with two other east elevations, an east elevation to be built, an east elevation if it doesn't go through, and possibly some sort of commitment from the developer. Would that be a suitable course of action moving forward? Warrick: I think it is reasonable to have all of those potentials addressed so that the Planning Commission can see what the alternatives might be. Subdivision Committee February 26, 2004 Page 9 Anthes: I guess we should talk about the north elevation. Are these downspouts that we're seeing here? Vanhoose: One thing that you don't see on this elevation that I assume will need to be there. The gray area is essentially the sloping roof and I assume that we'll probably have to put some shields up there at the back so there will probably be a green shield going across the top that would match the roof colors that were shown on the front. Right now we're pretty much showing this color textured material on the back and you know, I guess we could bring, I'm open to a few suggestions here. We could bring the skirt around. I'm just trying to be consistent with some other things I've seen in town. The green things you see are downspouts. We added a little awning over the backdoors. This wall you see here is just a capped enclosure for the compactor area. I guess we could bring that skirt down. I didn't think it would look well to extend the column idea that we had on the west and possibly the east elevation on the north side because of the downspouts, I thought it just got a little busy. We can bring that E.LF.S. stripe around the back and the skirt as well just to break it up some. Anthes: Could you run the downspouts on the brick columns? Vanhoose: We certainly could. With the green and the red and we get into about four different colors there and it just starts looking a little crosshatched so much. Anthes: That's the only place you have exposed downspouts right? Vanhoose: That is correct. Anthes: You could change the metal color of those to match the brick? Vanhoose: We could do something like that as well. Bunch: Either that or encase them in the brick and put some pilasters in, either way. There are a lot of options there to break that up. It is hard to tell from the drawing I this truck well extends all the way. It is only showing it going partially. Vanhoose: The drawing is probably a little inaccurate in the sense of that fence line. The truck well itself is not the whole length. Bunch: Another question I guess in association with this, the compactor, is that for compacting cardboard and such or is it a trash compactor? Vanhoose: It is a trash compactor. Subdivision Committee February 26, 2004 Page 10 Bunch: Where will your access be for a trash truck? Vanhoose: I think this drive right here will allow us, this shows two lines here but between us and the developer it is either going to just back up here or back up right there. Bunch: That will be how you load the trash onto the trash trucks? Vanhoose: Yes, it will be just to back up to one side of that and they just essentially pull that compactor onto the truck and haul it off. Anthes: Staff, is there any problem with that that the access to the compactor would actually be on an adjoining property? Warrick: I think that they have access until that is developed off of Colorado Drive. The trucks could come in and back up to the compactor location and exit. I think that we don't foresee that as a problem. Bunch: The wall would just be on the north face and it will be open on both ends? Vanhoose: On one of the ends to be determined. Bunch: Matt, is this one of the ones that requires a reinforced concrete pad where they actually do the pickup? I know most of our jobs that we see come through show on the location of dumpster loading and unloading rather than just asphalt surface there is usually a concrete pad, is there any kind of requirement on that? Casey: I will have to check on that for you and see what the ordinance reads unless Dawn knows that. Warrick: I believe anywhere they are going to have Solid Waste trucks traversing the site or actually doing their loading where they'll have to counterbalance against the surface of the concrete they require that reinforced pad. I don't know that that is the situation with a compactor because they are picked up differently than are the front loaded dumpsters. Our Solid Waste Division does review these projects and will also review it again prior to the issuance of building permits. Vanhoose: I know on previous projects we have a concrete pad. I don't know the exact specifications, 6" rebar or something, Brian and I talked about that and in fact, we visited the site and I think it would probably end up being on the construction drawings. Bunch: I know that this is somewhat digressing from what we were talking about on the building design of the north face but these are features that were Subdivision Committee February 26, 2004 Page 11 incorporated into that north face and there can be considered articulation because they do stand out from the wall and do break up a plain wall surface. Allen: I didn't hear the answer to the question about the store in Springdale. Was it completed after the one at Crossover Road? Vanhoose: Yes Ma'am. Allen: I just anticipate that both the north and the east elevations will be very problematic to the Planning Commission. I don't know how you could call this anything other than a box. Vanhoose: I guess we'll just try to provide an alternative for the east elevation that tries to address that concern. Like we were discussing earlier, we will just try to come up with some other alternatives there. Allen: I just wanted to kind of forewarn you that I know this will be a concern of the Commissioners. Anthes: The way to alleviate that concern would be to take the west elevation treatment and wrap the building. Vanhoose: I think we would be happy to do that. I need to address how we can accommodate that west elevation and see if there is some sort of provision we can put in there to not do that change unless certain time period goes without the other development occurring. Warrick: What we predicted and what we felt like we would have the ability to control in anyway is the time of a building permit. If at the time that your project is ready to permit, if we have in our development review process a Large Scale Development for the adjoining property then we know basically, that something is coming through the process and how it will address that eastern elevation of your project. At that point in time we would be fairly comfortable in permitting yours based on the originally proposed solid east elevation because something is coming through the process and it is going to, or it is seeking approval, to adjoin that wall surface. If that is not the situation when we issue a building permit for your development then we would need to use one of the alternatives as the approved elevation for the east side. That is something that is probably very important to talk to the Clary Development team about to understand what kind of time frames they are on. Anthes: On the north elevation that would stand? Subdivision Committee February 26, 2004 Page 12 Vanhoose: I guess if it is ok with you we will just put together another alternative and bring it back to the staff. Anthes: Staff, what do we need to comment on in terms of the gas station elevations and the pharmacy drive thru? Warrick: I think that with regard to staffs comments on those, the primary issue that we saw had to do more with the pharmacy and with that being an extension of the wall, the number of signs being proposed total. The materials were similar in nature to the materials proposed for the store building and they don't pose a problem with regard to Commercial Design Standards per say. It is solely just an overhang for the pharmacy and a canopy for the gas pump island. We do need to address the total number of wall signs on the structure. The maximum is four and so we just need to determine where and which ones might be reduced or eliminated, I should say, to get us down to that number. Allen: Does that include the signs like the delicatessen sign and the bakery sign and all of those too? Warrick: The strip that runs underneath the roof on the front, under our sign ordinance that can be calculated and treated as one sign. It has got four words on it or four statements on it but it is common information and of course, we would draw a box around the whole thing and calculate it to determine if they are still within the square footages allowed for a wall sign but we can count that as one. Of course the large Harps over the main entry is one. On the west elevation we have one so that is three. On the east elevation you have the pharmacy area and on the pharmacy there are three signs proposed for this little canopy area. The symbol, the enter sign and the one above the awning on the overhang. With those we exceed the maximum number allowed. When we look at the pump island canopy and the ATM those are considered separate structures and so I'm not calculating those into the wall signage allowance for the store building itself. They need to probably reduce by a couple of three the wall signage number. Vanhoose: We just put the elevations on the drive thru based on some things we've done before. There is certainly some flexibility there to try to change that. Warrick: We can work with you on that, or make some suggestions. It will ultimately be your choice as to which ones you choose to present. Anthes: Do we have any other comments from Commissioners? Bunch: Just a clarification from Matt. On this easement vacation instead of vacating all of it is what you're saying if I understand correctly, to go from Subdivision Committee February 26, 2004 Page 13 the junction box to the outfall into the detention basin to pick up that public segment of it? Casey: That will need to be encompassed within a drainage easement. If the existing easement overlaps onto that you can leave that portion. Whatever would be the cleanest way, if you need to vacate the entire easement and rededicate another one. Moore: I'd rather to just vacate the entire thing and go 10' on either side of the pipe after we put it in for an easement plat and that way we make sure we get it. Casey: As long as we end up with a drainage easement for that pipe that is going to be carrying the public water off the street. Anthes: Let's see if I've got all we talked about here. It looks like you need to coordinate the utility easement vacation and the drainage easement, the grading at the new building, the alternate east elevation, the alternate north elevation, material labels, direction labels on the two, the south and west elevations. Coordinate with staff about the possible requirement for the reinforced concrete pad near the dumpster and compactor and the number of signs. Does that sound like everything we've discussed? Are there any motions? Vanhoose: I have just a question. On the number of signs is that something that has to be completely resolved by the time of Planning Commission or is that an issue that is addressed when you get a building permit? Warrick: Kind of both. The Large Scale Development offers the Planning Commission the ability to look at this. Under our Commercial Design Standards there is a statement with regard to signage so we ask when a project is coming through Large Scale that we understand the signage package at the time that it goes to the Planning Commission. It will again be reviewed at the time of sign permit once the structure is either under construction or ready to have the signage applied to it. It is appropriate for us to understand what types of signage and I guess that if it is a matter of having to decide which ones might go away the Planning Commission can look at all of them and determine whether or not they are large, out of scale signs with flashy colors. I don't believe that you've got a problem with that particular requirement, just the number. Anthes: That will be something that we will discuss at the meeting. Warrick: Sometimes signage can help with articulating an elevation and making it a little more acceptable with regard to Commercial Design Standards and certain sides of the building having signage applied can benefit. Subdivision Committee February 26, 2004 Page 14 Vanhoose: It didn't seem like there were too many issues on the building itself, more so when you combine that with the drive thru kiosk. I am open to suggestions from staff on changes there. Warrick: We can look at that. Bunch: With respect to numbers and reduction of signs, have you considered a monument sign and if you do, please include any plans for it when it goes forward. Vanhoose: Any road or built road signage we are currently trying to work with Clary Development on and I think they are getting ready to have a conversation with city staff on some options there. I think the history of the project there is some stuff with Tahoe Drive, right now it is on the Master Street Plan as a street. I just asked one of the members of Clary Development to get with the city to talk about the options. That's why we don't show a monument sign right now. We are certainly going to want some signage and I apologize it is not on there right now but that's one issue I thought was premature to have on the site plan right now. Anthes: That probably would be good though to show on there and plan before you come to the Planning Commission so that we understand what you're trying to do if it is on this site. Vanhoose: The strategy is essentially I'm coming to Planning Commission knowing that you guys are saying we're approving the Large Scale without a monument sign and I might have to come back. It might be that there is not a monument sign on our lot that there is some other sign that is shared with the other host development. Bunch: If we approve it with a monument sign on your lot you can always elect not to build a monument sign and to utilize a joint identification sign that comes through at a later date and that would avoid having to come back in case you change your mind. We can approve it but that doesn't mean you have to build it. Anthes: That will save you having to come back numerous times. Vanhoose: We appreciate that. Would there be the risk that by showing the monument sign it would impact a monument sign somewhere else on the whole development? Warrick: We would have to look at it depending on the type of signs that the development wanted for a joint identification or something like that. It may eliminate certain possibilities for individual monument signs on Subdivision Committee February 26, 2004 Page 15 certain properties. It really depends on what the Clary development team wants to do with the overall signage for the project. I would expect that when we see a Large Scale maybe for the adjoining lot, if they are wanting to do some sort of joint identification signage they can do that at that time and we could review it through the Large Scale process with that project. It would not, I don't think that it would hurt for you to show a potential location for a monument sign for your project on your lot. Then kind of feel it out as decisions are made with regard to signage for the overall development. Vanhoose: We'll look at that. MOTION: Bunch: That being said, I will move that we forward LSD 04-05.00 to the full Planning Commission subject to staffs comments and discussions here today. Allen: I will second. Anthes: I will concur. Thank you very much. Bunch: Good luck. Subdivision Committee February 26, 2004 Page 16 LSP 04-11.00: Lot Split (Logan's Roadhouse, pp 173) was submitted by Tennessee Design and Engineering on behalf of Logan's Roadhouse for property located at Lot 16 in CMN Business Park II. The property is zoned C-2, Commercial Thoroughfare, and contains approximately 4.53 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 2.43 and 2.10 acres respectively. LSD 04-08.00: Large Scale Development (Logan's Roadhouse, pp 173) was submitted by Tennessee Design and Engineering on behalf of Logan's Roadhouse for property located in Lot 16 of CMN Business Park II. The property is zoned C-2, Commercial Thoroughfare, located in the Design Overlay District, and contains 2.43 acres. The request is to allow development of 8,060 sq. ft. restaurant with 147 parking spaces proposed. Anthes: The next item is a Lot Split for Logan's Roadhouse. Let's go ahead and read this separately from the Large Scale. This is a Lot Split for Logan's Roadhouse submitted by Tennessee Design and Engineering on behalf of Logan's Roadhouse. Jeremy? Pate: This Lot Split request is within the Steele Crossing CMN Business Park II Subdivision. It is Lot 16 surrounded by Van Asche Drive to the north and Mall Avenue to the east and Shiloh to the south. This lot is situated at the northwest corner of Mall and Shiloh directly across from the existing Olive Garden restaurant. The site is currently vacant with the western portion of the property within the deed restricted area that is called out as tree preservation area, also within the 100 -year floodplain along that side. Surrounding properties are zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and 8" water lines and sewer lines do exist within utility easements in this location. Sufficient right of way exists along Shiloh Drive and Mall Avenue, which are collectors on the Master Street Plan. Staff is recommending approval of the Lot Split at the Subdivision Committee level with two conditions. I would also like to add that prior to Planning Commission approval of this, if they choose to do so, we do have an issue with the Large Scale Development that does impact the Lot Split so if we want to go over that now and come back to this to vote. It is really up to the Commissioners. Anthes: I was unaware of that so let's read them together. Pate: Basically, that issue has to do with on the Lot Split plat where it is showing the access easement, one of the issues with the Large Scale Development is staff is concerned with the Van Asche Drive proximity to the proposed driveway for the Large Scale Development along Mall Avenue. As you know, Van Asche Drive has now been extended to the east and that in the future will most likely be a signalized intersection. These are two collector streets meeting here which carry quite a high Subdivision Committee February 26, 2004 Page 17 volume of traffic. Within the Design Overlay District there is a minimum of 250' between an intersection and a curb cut. The Planning Commission has approved waivers in the past where it has been deemed appropriate. This location, however, if you will look on your plat as well, the Olive Garden existing curb cut is just south of the proposed curb cut for the Logan's Roadhouse restaurant. Of course, to the north is that intersection. That is something that came up when the Lot Split plat came through with the access easement shown. It doesn't really show on the Large Scale Development, it doesn't go that far north to show how close that intersection is. I will go over the rest of the items on the Large Scale Development though. The applicant is requesting to construct a Logan's Roadhouse restaurant on the 16A lot that is requested to be split. It is within the Design Overlay District. Along with the Large Scale Development the applicant is seeking a Conditional Use request for 147 parking spaces. A maximum of 106 are allowed by right. Therefore, this item is recommended to go forward along with the Conditional Use to the full Planning Commission. With regard to the Design Overlay District findings, I believe most of those findings have been met and comply with all of those, with the exception of the curb cut requirement of 250'. Staff is recommending this item be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with eleven conditions. 1) Planning Commission determination and approval of Commercial Design Standards. Staff finds that the building elevations are in general compliance with Commercial Design Standards and do meet the requirements to match existing developments surrounding. We believe that it does somewhat match the Olive Garden across Mall Avenue with the use of the stone in it's fagade. Also, Planning Commission determination of an associated Conditional Use request for excess parking. Again, that is part of the Conditional Use request but I just wanted to let the Commissioners know that will be on the agenda. Also, the waiver request of the Overlay District requirement of 250' between a curb cut and intersection. I spoke with Tennessee Design and Engineering yesterday and hopefully they conveyed that information to the applicant. Staff is recommending as a possible alternate to move the proposed curb cut south to line up with the existing Olive Garden curb cut so that potentially that would negate some vehicular accidents, turning movements, because you are then right across from another curb cut. It would also benefit the distance here going to Van Asche and would meet that 250'. I believe that's all we have unless you have questions. Anthes: Thank you Jeremy, are there any additional reports Matt? Casey: For the Lot Split the only comment would be that sanitary sewer will need to be extended to lot 16A at the time of development of Logan's Roadhouse Restaurant. Anthes: Do you have anything on the Large Scale? Subdivision Committee February 26, 2004 Page 18 Casey: For the Large Scale itself I do have some comments. When the CMN Development came through there was considerable wetlands mitigation and issues that were dealt with. I brought you just a portion of copies I made off the wetlands mitigation construction plans that shows this channel that is going to be discharged into. In the past for developments within CMN at the time of Plat Review and also at the time of construction review we've made comments about employing an environmental specialist to make sure that the 404 permit for this site, that the conditions were being met. I think it is appropriate that we start adding those as a condition of approval for the Large Scale Developments. This is the comment that is normally made, if we could incorporate that into our conditions of approval I would appreciate that. Just to read that, it says in accordance with the Milholland Company's Final Plat of CMN Business Park II each individual tract developer shall employ an environmental specialist to ensure that the spirit and letter of the 404 permit of the Corp. of Engineers will be complied with in the development of the lot. That will need to be submitted prior to the approval of the construction plans. Anthes: What you are proposing is that we add that language as condition twelve? Casey: Please. Holcomb: Is that something that has to be done throughout the construction or just a letter at the beginning saying that it is going to be met? Casey: Just a letter certifying that the plans have been reviewed and that those conditions have been complied with. That's all I have at this time. Anthes: Would the applicant introduce yourself? Holcomb: I'm Roberta Holcomb representing Logan's, I will be the construction project manager. Anthes: Is there anything that you would like to say? Holcomb: No, just looking forward to coming to the neighborhood. Anthes: I don't see any public here to comment so we will just start talking about it amongst ourselves. Let's start with the curb cut, that is the thing that is going to impact the Lot Split the most. Commissioners, do you have any comments? Subdivision Committee February 26, 2004 Page 19 Bunch: One comment right off the bat, if the curb cut is relocated then one of the things that we would have to show that would have to be replaced would be interconnectivity with lot 16B. Warrick: I think that they are still showing a stub out to 16B. It is not an access to the street but it is cross access within the development. We would expect that to remain. Bunch: I just wanted that on the record that the stub out portion would remain and the entryway would be relocated for interconnectivity purposes. Warrick: Staff felt that even with this design there is opportunity to shift this section of parking up to here and this access point down here and really numbers wouldn't necessarily change the access to Mall Avenue would shift. Jeremy was just confirming some calculations and the location of the access to Olive Garden is right at 250' south of that intersection so shifting that would eliminate the need for a waiver, it would line up the two intersections so that they are visibly directly across from one another which would help for people interacting at those intersections and it would also comply with the 250' rule and get that further away from the Van Asche Mall intersection. Bunch: Matt, have you had an opportunity to look at this proposal to see if there are any grade considerations if it makes for too steep a driveway or anything like that? Casey: I haven't done a full construction review of the project but the initial review didn't reveal any issues as far as grading is concerned. The only one that might come up would be the wetlands and getting a slope on the west or north side too close. It doesn't appear to be a problem but that would be the only potential one that I could see. Anthes: Ms. Holcomb, do you think that you would be in agreement with changing that access easement to line up with the Olive Garden? Holcomb: I don't see a problem. They are already working on it so I don't see a problem with it. Anthes: Staff, because of Matt's comments about the possible problems with the wetland mitigation can we act on this today? Warrick: Because this has a Conditional Use tied to it we need to forward it to the full Commission regardless. The Lot Split I think we can certainly act on. The Lot Split would not affect the grading, that comes with the Large Scale. The Lot Split of course, just creates the lot for the Large Scale. I think it is appropriate that we do that. The only change to the Lot Split Subdivision Committee February 26, 2004 Page 20 document that we would suggest would be removing that access easement at the originally proposed intersection so that it is off the plat and would not indicate that future development to the north would utilize that as a curb cut. We would just suggest that that easement be removed from the Lot Split document and approved as amended. Anthes: We wouldn't have to relocate it is what you are saying? Warrick: I don't think we need to relocate it. Anthes: Just remove it and then we will deal with the curb cut at Large Scale? Warrick: Yes. Bunch: Since this is a Lot Split would we need to add some additional language to reflect that access from Lot 16B would only be from Van Asche? Warrick: That would be appropriate because of the Overlay District requirements it would have to be a waiver if they accessed Mall Avenue regardless but I think that it would be appropriate that we limit access for 16B to Mall Avenue and then it is very clear when that development comes through in the future. We can add that as a condition to the Lot Split. Anthes: The parking spaces, I'm not sure if there is too much we need to say here. I'm sure there will be a conversation about it at the Planning Commission. I would ask the applicant or staff or both to provide the table that you generally do that is the comparison of this to other adjacent properties and the percentage of increased spaces requested. Does any Commissioner have comments about Commercial Design Standards? Bunch: Yes, I wish they were all this easy. Is this a metal fagade here? Holcomb: Yes. Bunch: I think one of our requirements is that metal facades not dominate the front. I understand this obviously does not. I just wanted to make that comment that even though there is a metal fagade that goes around the building it does not dominate any of the view and this definitely is not a minimalist approach to our design standards, it exceeds them quite well. Holcomb: It is not our normal building. Allen: It is very attractive. Bunch: Is this going to be the first one of this design? Subdivision Committee February 26, 2004 Page 21 Holcomb: We've had to do some brick work and some stone before but standardly speaking it is a wood building. Bunch: It is a very attractive building. I like the diversity of materials that still work together. Allen: I do too, I think this fits the area well. Bunch: Considering the designs that we have seen for the other buildings in the immediate area I think this helps create a diversity in design for the whole area and would definitely comment it. Anthes: I would ask if you could have those materials labeled on the drawings. I think that helps the Commissioners before they get to the meeting when they're here in the packet. It looks like all the things I had to follow along with. Does anyone else have any comments? Bunch: My only other comment is on the transformers. I'm not that sharp on how big various shrubs are but you have the transformer pad on the northwest corner of the building out in the island. The question I have is are the shrubberies shown sufficient to screen that? Holcomb: We usually like to hide it. Bunch: I guess all of the other mechanical equipment is roof mounted and shielded by your roofline? Holcomb: Yes. Anthes: Staff, did you have any comment about the screening of that equipment? Warrick: It looks like they've planted that island area pretty heavily with various types of shrubs and at least one ornamental tree. That is generally sufficient. Before we sign off on a final Certificate of Occupancy we will verify that in the field so I don't feel that that is a problem. Anthes: Thank you. Comments or motions? Allen: I'm very pleased with the looks of the building. MOTION: Bunch: It looks like we have everything we need to forward this to the full Planning Commission of course with the changes in access. That being said, I move that we approve LSP 04-11.00 with the added conditions that Subdivision Committee February 26, 2004 Page 22 the access easement is removed and that the access to Lot 16B is limited to Van Asche. Warrick: We also had the condition of sewer extension to serve the project, that really is part of the Lot Split. Bunch: Sewer extension to serve Lot 16A. The addition of three conditions of approval. Remove the access easement, limit access to 16B to Van Asche and extend the sewer service to 16A. Allen: I thought it was to Mall Avenue for 16B. Bunch: No, it would be access only to Van Asche, Mall Avenue is the one we are removing. I don't guess the environmental considerations will be so much of the Lot Split, they will come under Large Scale Development. I move that we approve it at this level with those conditions. Allen: I second. Anthes: I concur, thank you. Now on to the Large Scale, are there any motions? MOTION: Bunch: I move that we forward LSD 04-08.00 to the full Planning Commission with the additional conditions of approval that an Environmental Specialist be retained as per comments by Matt Casey in relationship to the 404 permit for the deed restricted area. Allen: I second. Anthes: I concur. Bunch: One other thing we need to add in there on the Large Scale Development is the relocation of the new driveway and that interconnectivity and cross access to lot 16B be maintained. I guess you second all of that too? Allen: Certainly. Subdivision Committee February 26, 2004 Page 23 ADM 04-09.00: Fairfield Subdivision was submitted by Phil Humbard of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Kevin Riggins for property located within the Fairfield Subdivision. The request is to modify the location of sidewalks on six lots within the approved subdivision. Anthes: We have one additional item today. This is a sidewalk relocation request. It is ADM 04-09.00. Who is going to read this one? Warrick: I am going to ask Chuck Rutherford, our Sidewalk Administrator, to introduce this. Those of you who have been on tour and driven around with us some have probably seen some of the driveways in the Fairfield subdivision that have very steep slopes on them and this is a proposal to mitigate that situation. Staff is recommending in favor of this. I will let Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Humbard tell you a little bit more about it. Rutherford: Here are some pictures, the driveways turned out to be extremely steep. Bunch: Usually things don't look as steep in pictures as they really are. One thing you could probably do with these is offer them to Hummer to incorporate as their test track. Humbard: There have been a lot of jokes made about them so we are trying to make the situation better out there. Rutherford: What the applicant is asking for is these are constructed the way our Master Street Plan requires them to be built as far as the greenspace width and the sidewalk width. New Bridge Road on the Master Street Plan is designated as a collector. It was built and constructed as a local street. What we have done in the past is try to build sidewalks at the right of way line so when and if any construction work is done on any project hopefully the sidewalks if they are built at the right elevation and at the right location won't have to be changed. That's our logic behind requiring them where we do with the Master Street Plan. However, with the way the elevation of the driveways turned out, they are asking to actually reduce the greenspace to 4' of greenspace on New Bridge, which is currently a 15' greenspace so the sidewalk would be moved 11' closer. The other street, Batsford Drive, actually moving the sidewalk adjacent to the curb whereas, originally there was 6' greenspace because it is a local street. Humbard: Just for those three lots, not the entire street. Rutherford: Six lots are involved. Bunch: Where are these others that you were speaking of? Subdivision Committee February 26, 2004 Page 24 Rutherford: The very steepest one that you see in the pictures is Lot 26 here. Sidewalks for Lots 25, 26 and 27 and coming back up here between 28 and 29 to meander the sidewalk. Humbard: One thing that we were looking at doing by leaving the greenspace 4' behind the existing curb, if the street did ever get widened then the sidewalk would still not have to be relocated because the new curb would be right at the edge of the sidewalk. Anthes: We need to finish with our staff reports first if you could hold off for just a moment. Matt, is there anything you need to add to this? Is there anything else from staff? Would you introduce yourself? Humbard: I'm Phil Humbard with Engineering Services. Anthes: Do you have a presentation that you would like to make? Humbard: Chuck pretty well made the presentation. The only thing I was adding to it is in the event that the street ever did get widened the sidewalk would still not have to be relocated because it would be right at the back of a future street. With that, I would request that we be allowed to do this. Anthes: Are you going to remove these driveways and re -grade and install new? Humbard: Yes. Anthes: Staff, can we approve this here or does this have to go forward? Warrick: I think it would be appropriate to approve this here. It is not typical that we see this kind of a change but it is appropriate that at least the Subdivision Committee can review. It is really a modification to the Preliminary Plat that was approved long ago and the Final Plat which was approved by this body confirming that more recently I think it was approved in the early summer of 2003. Of course, all the permits were issued in June of 2003 right before impact fees went into affect. Regardless, this body approved the Final Plat and this is a modification to the way that things were installed on that Final Plat document so I think that the Subdivision Committee may approve the modification at this level. Rutherford: I will add something to that. Since I've been with the city this same sort of thing has been asked for twice and it was approved at the Subdivision level. Anthes: I wanted to get that clarified before I opened it for public comment so that if you are here to speak you can understand that this is the hearing at Subdivision Committee February 26, 2004 Page 25 which we will probably approve or deny this. Is there any member of the public that would like to address this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to us. Does any Commissioner have a comment? Allen: It makes good sense to me. I will move for approval of ADM 04-09.00. Bunch: I will second it. Anthes: I will concur. Thank you very much. I don't know that we have any other items of business. Do we have any announcements? We stand adjourned.