Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-12-30 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, December 30, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSD 04-1288: (LEGGETT AND PLATT, 519) Page 2 LSP 05-1348: (HOSKINS/VANTAGE SQUARE, 175) Page 10 LSD 05-1347: (ARENA VILLAGE #3, 521) Page 13 FPL 05-1351: (BRIDGEPORT PHASE 8, 360) Page 21 ADM 05-1363: (FIRE MOUNTAIN/RYAN'S) Page 27 MEMBERS PRESENT Candy Clark Jill Anthes Nancy Allen Forwarded Approved Approved Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Loren Shackelford STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Suzanne Morgan Jeremy Pate Leif Olson Renee Thomas Brent O'Neal Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 2 LSD 04-1288: Large Scale Development (LEGGETT AND PLATT, 519): Submitted by NEAL MORRISON for property located at 523 S Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 6.28 acres. The request is to approve a 22,000 sq.ft. office building. Anthes: Welcome to the Thursday, December 306 meeting of the Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. We have five items we will hear today. The first item is an item of old business, that is LSD 04-1288 for Leggett & Platt. Will the applicants come forward please? Olson: This Large Scale Development was submitted by Neal Morrison for property located at 523 Shiloh Drive. This property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and does lie within the Design Overlay District. It contains approximately 6.28 acres. The request is to approve a 22,000 sq.ft. office building. This is located north of 6th Street and south of Wedington Drive on Shiloh. Shiloh is a collector street that requires 35' from centerline to be dedicated by warranty deed. 6' sidewalks will be required along the entire frontage of the property at the right of way line. The Design Overlay District boundary does not encompass the subject property in it's entirety. Staff does find that the proposed building does meet the Design Overlay District commercial design standards. No signage is proposed at this time. The applicant is requesting a waiver for the distance between the proposed curb cuts. The minimum distance in the Design Overlay District is 200' and the applicant is requesting a distance of approximately 49'. Staff does not support that request. Tree preservation, no mitigation would be required on site. Staff does recommend forwarding this to the full Planning Commission. I think the report says table but that should be forward. There are some conditions to discuss, the distance between the curb cuts, the requirement is 200', the applicant is requesting a distance of approximately 49'. This plat has been revised from the last time when it was tabled. In speaking with the applicant, there are some issues in terms of parking. They are six spaces over the parking requirement. I have spoke with the engineer and then there are some issues with the dumpster pad depth, but I think those have been addressed. I handed out some elevations for you. Staff has worked with the architect for quite some time and I think that we have come a long way from where we began in terms of meeting the design overlay district design standards and staff does find that the building as proposed would meet those standards. Anthes: Thank you. Do we have other staff comments? Would you introduce yourselves and give us anything you would like to share. ??: My name is 79797 with Harrison French Architects. Snow: Jay Snow with Harrison French Architects. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 3 Morrison: I'm Neal Morrison with Morrison, Shipley Engineers. Brown: I'm Emery Brown representing Leggett & Platt. Snow: There is a monument sign proposed out near the entrance on the south side, which I believe is shown on the site plan on the last submittal. I just wanted to make that clarification. Anthes: Has staff reviewed that monument sign for compliance? Olson: I have not seen an elevation for that. Snow: Yes you have, we got that on the 12th of December. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address LSD 04-1288? Seeing none, I will close the floor to public comment. Clark: I still have the plat that I got that I received on December 3`d. Has this been changed significantly? Olson: No, this is the same plat that I have. However, in looking at this and speaking with the engineer, they are six parking lot spaces over. An amendment will need to be made to this plat. Clark: I also received this on December 3`d and kept it because we tabled this. Has the monument sign not been reviewed by staff? Olson: I just missed it. We need the dimensions for it. ??: It will be 5 sq.ft. less than the requirement and less than 6' in height. Morgan: That will be reviewed again when we issue a sign permit. Staff recommends forwarding this to the Planning Commission. They are requesting a waiver so that needs to be reviewed by the full Commission. Anthes: The first condition of approval has to do with commercial design standards so let's discuss those. It is quite a bit different than their original proposal. In our original Subdivision Committee meeting what we were concerned about is the box like nature of the structure and in the plan it is indeed a box. We were concerned that there wasn't enough articulation on the sides to meet the Design Overlay District requirements in particular. A lot of what we are seeing as texture on this facade is scoring and it is an E.I.F.S. material? ??: This will be an E.I.F.S. material. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 4 Anthes: That was a lot of the comment. The architects did go back and work on the project and so now we need to comment on this new design. Clark: ??: The term boxlike structure has bothered me for a long time. From where we have come from this is significantly different as far as I'm concerned. It is uniquely articulated I think. In terms of the corporate office, we have given up many of our core values in the design of this latest building that you see. The original building had an all glass front, which is the die cast aluminum business, has significant meaning. It is very similar to some of the buildings further out near the mall area where Proctor and Gamble is located. This is, in fact, a corporate office building and we will have numerous training sessions in this facility for all of our locations, which is the reason that the parking lot doesn't meet the requirements, or exceeds the requirements. When we bring customers in we certainly don't want to have this monstrosity that presents this unique position of Leggett & Platt making excessive amounts of money when, in fact, our margins are very tight. It is much tighter than some of our local budgets within our government. This is something that we have given up and I think will work well with the Design Overlay District. I think it exceeds any of the ordinance requirements, at least, in my interpretation. Anthes: We never saw that design with the glass front at this committee. ??: Yes, that was the first time. We had a masonry wainscoting, glass, and a band of E.I.F. S. Allen: I think you can tell that there has been significant change to the positive in terms of breaking up the boxlike structure in my opinion. Anthes: The second condition is the waiver of the curb cuts. 49' is quite close. Is there a grading issue? Olson: The issue is with Shiloh Drive and of course, it is one way going south. The off ramp merge lane comes into Shiloh Drive up here. To move that curb cut to meet the 200' requirement puts it up to a point where it could potentially be a dangerous situation there. Anthes: So you are recommending a shared drive? Olson: The optimal thing is to have a shared access with the property to the south. However, that didn't happen. Subdivision Committee December 30, Page 5 ??: Anthes: O'Neal: ??: Anthes: Olson: Anthes: 77• Clark: ??. Morrison: 2004 At the last meeting we pointed out that there is such a grade change between where this site is, and where the hotel sits, which is about 8' or 10' lower than our site, to get down there for a shared access drive we would have to have a real steep driveway to get down to their driveway. Also, the point I made last time was the 200' requirement for curb cuts I believe is more oriented to a two way street where you have conflicting left turn movements. Whereas, this one being one way, the only thing you have is right turns. It takes away that conflict. I think therefore, the distance separation doesn't become as much of an issue. The other reason we want to move it down there is to maximize the weaving area for the traffic coming off the interstate, getting onto Shiloh Drive and making a right turn into our site to move it to the south to meet the 200' requirement then it cuts down on the distance that you have to make that weaving. Has staff reviewed this since our last meeting? I believe that this committee was supportive of your comments so I'm surprised to see that staff is again, not in support of this waiver request. Has engineering reviewed the turning distances and the grading? I was not aware that there was any change to the access. This is the same as the last time that we submitted it. Right, but we are still seeing a staff support that is not in support of the request and we need to understand what the alternative that staff is proposing is. The only other feasible alternative is to have your access much further to the north. Cross that drainage structure? We cross it anyway. That takes away our ability to have people access us from the interstate at this location. They would have to access up at Hwy. 16 and wouldn't be able to get to our building from this particular exit. I am remembering it the same way you are Jill. It would be impossible for you to share a driveway with the hotel because that grading is significantly steeper. We have gone over this. There was also a letter from one of the engineers that does a lot of work for ADOT that recommended that location. There was a letter from Ernie Peters that was attached to my submitted packet. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 6 Anthes: While staff is reviewing that, let's go on and look at the other conditions. We will come back to this one. There were several items that have been listed to be incorporated into the drawings, were those picked up Leif? Olson: Yes, in terms of landscape islands, sidewalk, the detention basin, there are just a couple of other issues in terms of parking lot spaces and the depth of the dumpster pad. Anthes: Parking spaces, you made a comment earlier that made me believe you guys wanted to keep those six spaces, are you going to be filing a Conditional Use to go with this? Morrison: This is a corporate office building and as such, we would be having corporate meetings from all of our locations. We will have vice presidents in attendance. We will also use this building as a training center. In order to accommodate all of the people that we expect to have in this vicinity we need the parking spaces as indicated. Anthes: Has staff advised you of the process that you need to go through to make a request for excess parking? Morrison: No. Morgan: Should you desire parking over the required amount more than 30% over it requires a Conditional Use. Typically we see those with the actual development proposal. Because this came in with the required parking at first we didn't see a Conditional Use. Due to the changes, if you did desire to have the six parking spaces over the allowable parking spaces, you would need to submit an application for a Conditional Use and then we would track both of these at the same time. Your Large Scale would be delayed slightly for those to come to the full Commission together. Morrison: Let's make it easier on ourselves, let's take out the six parking spaces and we will deal with that some other way. Anthes: Will you just shorten this lot by six spaces here? Morrison: Yes Ma'am. We are on a very tight time frame on this so we are trying to expedite this in any way possible. Anthes: The trash enclosure, I think that is the last major item on the conditions. Staff will work with you to locate the bike racks and the depth of the dumpster pad. That is not showing any screening at all, is that correct? Morrison: That is incorrect. The 15' dimension is this way and it needs to be the other way. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 7 Anthes: Our typical requirement is that all dumpsters and trash enclosures be screened from major roadways and obviously, Shiloh Drive and I-540 are major roadways. What about this location folks? Clark: I'm really surprised you put it where you did. Allen: It doesn't even seem very practical for you. Morrison: We looked at putting it closer to the building but there are some people there that don't want to look at a screened in dumpster area. Allen: A lot of people can see it from there though. Clark: That just seems like a suspicious place for it because of the visual line you are going to have from Shiloh and I-540. I'm not sure that the first thing Leggett & Platt wants people to think of is a dumpster. Morrison: I don't believe you will see it from there with a screen around it. Clark: It is at the end of the driveway. Anthes: It is not on the entrance drive. With the setback, what is your landscape area? Morrison: Shiloh Drive in that location is lower than the site also. Anthes: This will be screened in with gates? Morrison: It will be screened on three sides as stated by the ordinances Anthes: But you are not proposing gates on the front? Morrison: Not at this time. We may decide to put gates on it but we will screen it on three sides. Allen: I've never seen a dumpster not making a project go through. I bet we can get this worked out. We have discussed dumpsters more than once though. Morrison: Trash haulers don't like gates because they run into them. ??: As a facility manager I don't like to continue to fix the gates that get knocked down. I can understand the haulers issues there. As long as we can screen it completely from the building and the occupants then I could live with that. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 8 Anthes: A lot of time we request the gates when your entrance drive from the street terminates in seeing that. Of course, your main drive from your building would look at it too, particularly when this is six spaces down. Perhaps you can consider that. Morgan: I just wanted to point out in condition number six there is a condition that says access to the enclosure shall not be visible from the street. If you want to change that in any way, if you consider I-540 north bound, visible from there, you may want to change that or at least state what the intent is for screening. Morrison: I think our landscaping plan will address that because there is a difference in elevation. Anthes: I think the scale of that and the scale of being north bound on I-540 and all of these other things that are happening before here and there, I can't imagine that it is that significant. Commissioners, do you agree? Allen: Yes. Anthes: Are there any other comments? Clark: You all have made a lot of changes in this development, which I appreciate a lot. What I'm a little bit concerned is, and this has nothing to do with you all, but to staff, I don't think I have enough information today, we have had to kind of pull some stuff out, you are not keeping up with us and I'm kind of surprised. I don't have my updated information we have talked about the driveway and I do remember, but I can't go back and check the minutes. Staff was going to do some research on that and I'm not hearing any new information and I don't see the letter that you referred to with regards to the gentleman, Ernie Peters, I don't see that. Do we have a copy of that? Morgan: I looked through the file and do not see that. We would appreciate that and we will supplement your packet for Planning Commission for additional information and take a look at this access into this structure. 200' curb cut distance is the requirement and staff feels that any more compliance with that, whether it be 100' or anything, 49' just seems a bit small. We can go out to the site and look at the site constraints that they have mentioned. Anthes: Brent, did you have a chance to look at this and do you have any comments? Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 9 O'Neal: I still have no comment on it. I would appreciate a copy of the letter from Mr. Peters. Personally I don't see that there would be an issue. I know our minimums for the curb cut separation, I believe that this site is unique though. I think we do need to take that into consideration. I do believe we need to review the letter and review the site plan with staff additionally. Clark: This is a very unique location. The traffic out there on Shiloh is a zoo. I would sincerely hope that between today and the time that this comes to Planning Commission that staff will get with you all and look at the specifics of this to see if there are any safety issues. That is what I'm concerned about. I wish we had the letter. I'm sure we will have it before Planning Commission. I am not happy to be here at 8:30 in the morning and not have the information I need. I truly don't want that to happen again if that is possible. I will make the recommendation that we forward LSD 04-1288 with stated conditions. Anthes: Let me add to that that we need to be sure that we have a revised plat that shows the correct number of parking spaces, the correct dumpster pad depth and that staff provide a full review and recommendation regarding the drive. Clark: I will anticipate dialogue at Planning Commission based on this entrance and the safety issues there. That is the only thing that concerns me in the least and I'm not overly concerned about it given the lay of the land out there. Allen: I will concur. We will see you soon. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 10 Anthes: Under new business, our second item today is LSP 05-1348 for Hoskins Vantage Square. Will the applicant come forward? I believe this one is Suzanne's. Morgan: The applicant is requesting approval of two lot splits for the subject 0.30 acre tract. The applicant intends to split the tract into three tracts of 4.73, 2.06 and 2.16 acres with the remaining property to be dedicated as right of way. The subject property is currently vacant and zoned C-2 and R -O along the southeastern portion of the property. This property has been split previously and these two requested lot splits are the final lot splits permitted on this property with a waiver of Preliminary and Final Plat requirements. Dedication of an additional 15' of right of way is required along Joyce. Currently there is 40' of right of way from centerline with 55' required from the Master Street Plan. Also, at this time the city is overseeing the dedication of 70' right of way for Vantage Drive, which bisects the subject property. The dedication of this right of way will create Tract C as shown on the plat. Prior to recordation of this lot split the city will need to coordinate with the applicant to verify that the proposed property lines adjacent to this Vantage Drive correspond with the right of way description to be filed by Warranty Deed to dedicate that right of way. That is reflected in condition four. The applicant is proposing a shared access tracts A and B to Joyce Blvd. Staff would like to note that at the time of development access to Vantage Drive, as well as Joyce Blvd., will need to be evaluated to ensure safe access and traffic movements north and west of this future signalized intersection. Staff at this time is recommending approval of LSP 05-1348 at the Subdivision Committee level with a total of seven conditions of approval to include several conditions already stated with regard to coordination of access to the adjacent rights of way at the time of development as well as right of way dedication in accordance with the Master Street Plan. Staff has also listed some minor modifications that will need to be applied to the plat prior to recordation and will easily be accomplished. Also, at the time of development an assessment for the future traffic signal at the intersection of Vantage and Joyce will need to be required. Each tract will need to have access to public water and sewer mains prior to development. The extension of those mains will need to be required if access is not currently provided. Anthes: Thank you. Are there any other staff comments? Seeing none, will you introduce yourself and your project? Jefcoat: I'm Tom Jefcoat with Milholland & Company representing Tracy Hoskins. My only comments are that repeatedly staff refers to this property as being zoned R -O. If you will look at your plat you will notice that R -O only falls in the section in Kitty Creek, which probably only accounts for 10% of the entire site. My client is somewhat irritated in the Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 11 fact that 90% of the property is zoned C-2 and we are not referring to it as C-2. If that could be noted and we will coordinate the location of that R -O line. The entirety of the R -O zoning falls within Kitty Creek so it is almost a moot point. We would like to see the terminology changed to C- 2 since 90% of this property is C-2. In the past on projects, the most dominant zoning is what applies to building setbacks and things of that nature. Obviously, C-2 will be the use of this property and will be the dominant building setbacks and that is what we are proposing. There again, we will coordinate that with staff and show that line. Staff also says that the owner/contact information shall be added to the plat. Our contact information is always in the title block and his phone number and address is there. The reference book and page number is always in our title block and the plat page is there already. We will coordinate those things with staff and will make sure that staff understands and sees those. Other than that, all conditions are acceptable and we have no further comments. O'Neal: Can you redo the labels for Kitty Creek? They are labeled Mud Creek. Jefcoat: I will do that. Thank you. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this LSP 05-1348? Seeing none, I will close it to public comment. I guess my first question has to do with the zoning in this area. Suzanne, is there a reason we are calling this property R -O? Morgan: It is both R -O as well as C-2. If you look on this page you can see this line through the property. That is the zoning line. A portion is zoned R -O and the majority of it is C-2. With development however, we would need to ensure if, for instance, on tract C on the east side of Vantage, should a commercial business be located there, it would need to be contained within the portion that is zoned C-2. It does make a difference with development where that boundary line is and it is best to show it on this Lot Split so we have it accurately plotted. Clark: It looks like Tract A is all C-2, most of Tract B and some of Tract C? Morgan: That is correct. Anthes: I believe we need to revise the staff report though, it says the property is zoned R -O and C-2. Morgan: I apologize, we can change that description. Anthes: Are there any other comments? Water and sewer? Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 12 Jefcoat: We did coordinate with Mr. O'Neal where the water extension and how that works out. O'Neal: There is an existing water line along Joyce. It is not shown on the plat because it is new and that information is not available from as builts yet or on our GIS system but they do exist. Anthes: Can we add that note on the plat? O'Neal: That would be acceptable. With any future development they would be required to extend the water within their site. Clark: Should we add that to number three? Morgan: That would be acceptable. Anthes: Are there any other comments? Clark: Staff, do we have any idea when the signalization of Vantage is going to take place? Morgan: I'm not aware of that timing. Clark: It is needed. I will move that we approve LSP 05-1348 with the conditions listed including the addition to number three that the plat needs to show the location of water and sewer and other details that we discussed like changing Mud Creek to Kitty Creek. Allen: I second. Anthes: I concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 13 Anthes: The third item we will hear today is LSD 05-1347 for Arena Village. Will the applicant come forward? Honeycutt: I'm Don Honeycutt. Morgan: This Large Scale Development before you has been before the Planning Commission twice before. This was originally approved June 24, 2002 and again on October 30, 2003. The expiration for a Large Scale Development is one year from the date of Planning Commission approval, by ordinance, this Large Scale Development must be reviewed again for compliance with current ordinance requirements and just as a note, no significant changes have taken place in the Unified Development Code during this time period. Therefore, the plat remains compliant and is submitted in large part as approved in October, 2003. The proposal is to construct an additional building to the Arena Village site which is located south of 6th Street and east of Razorback Road. It is also north of Indian Trail. There are currently two buildings existing on the site which include several businesses. The addition is proposed to add a 9,200 sq.ft. building to the property which will bring the total building area to 23,000 sq.ft. on a 3.44 acre site. This third structure is proposed to architecturally compliment the other structures which exist on the property. Right of way to be dedicated includes additional right of way for a total of 55' from centerline along 6th Street and will need to be dedicated by Warranty Deed for this state highway. Street improvements include the removal of an asphalt strip on the curb and installation of a new 6' sidewalk along 6th Street. Also, all curb cuts within the 6th Street right of way will require proper AHTD permitting. Mitigation for this site is required in the amount of two trees on site mitigation. Staff recommends approval of this LSD 05-1347 by the Subdivision Committee subject to a total of 13 conditions of approval. These conditions are pretty much the same as those which were placed on the project when it was approved previously and include Planning Commission determination of approval of commercial design standards. Staff does find that the submitted elevation drawings are in compliance with commercial design standards and as approved by the Planning Commission on prior submittals. Other conditions reflect those previously made for this site and include dedication of right of way. The applicant will need to work with the Arkansas State Highway Depai intent to get proper permits for curb cuts as well as installation of an 8' wood board privacy fence along the southern line. This is required in order to screen a commercial use from a residential district per previous Planning Commission requirements. Other conditions include setting a new GIS monument as well as the two mitigation trees. ??. Parks would like to comment. The Fayetteville alternative transportation and trails plan identified the Indian Trail as the number one priority. That is going to be located on the parcel south of this development also owned Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 14 by the same Mr. Trumbo. Parks staff would like to work with Mr. Trumbo to obtain a deed or easement on this property. I know Mr. Honeycutt has spoke with Steve Hatfield about this but we would like to continue discussions on that possibility for a deed preferably or an easement. O'Neal: On the water and sewer taps, before EB Landworks issues construction plans they need to contact me and we need to coordinate that with both water and sewer. Honeycutt: I'm Don Honeycutt, the contractor. This has been delayed two years. We got the grading permit and finished it all except the concrete structure for the detention pond. Because of business reasons Mr. Trumbo decided to hold up the project and we didn't proceed with a building permit. We had it turned in for a permit. Time went along and he decided to bring it back. We haven't made any changes since the initial proposal and we have been working with the Highway Department. I think the engineer got everything worked out with them over a year ago to take care of the highway dedication, which changes up all of the parking in front of the existing two buildings and sidewalks also with that 15' taken out. The Highway Department has taken it since initial approval and has worked out all the problems that they had with it. The only thing we have done really is a grading permit which we could do before we got a building permit. It has set there for a few months but for business reasons it sat there. I guess he is maybe looking for some additional tenants to take it. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this LSD 05-1347 for Arena Village? Seeing none, I will close the floor to public comment. Clark: We have a trail and then we have a fence, show me where the fence would go. Honeycutt: There is a fence noted. Clark: So the privacy fence would actually separate the building itself from the trail? Honeycutt: This is railroad property. It is all off this property for this development. Somewhere in the process different people have bought this railroad spur. Mr. Trumbo owns this but this is owned by three different people. They own all of that strip all the way down. Anthes: This is not your owner? Honeycutt: No, there is a street there. This is the property line for our development here. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 15 Clark: Maybe Parks needs to talk to me more about the trail. Anthes: Mr. Honeycutt is saying that this owner only owns to this line. Honeycutt: He owns this property in here but he doesn't own it back towards Razorback. Parks: Ok, I wasn't aware that there were smaller pieces. Honeycutt: Mr. Trumbo owned all of this to Razorback at one time. He sold off the corner first to the carwash and I don't know when the railroad came in and put the land up for sale but he bought some of it and then the other property owners bought some. Parks: I guess these pieces of property are somewhat land locked and therefore, we would like to negotiate something. Honeycutt: I talked to him about it but he said he didn't have any plans as far as this development, it was not made an issue a couple of years ago and nothing has changed since then. He would be willing to talk about it. Most of this is a ditch from the railroad track and it runs all the way down into the creek and we are taking our detention pond from down here and into the same creek. This water comes down through here and turns right here at Garland into the creek. This drainage from all the way back up to Razorback is coming through there. Clark: Where is the detention pond? Honeycutt: There is a culvert right here, the railroad spur ran through here and there was a ditch each side of it. This ditch on this side, this is the property line of the old railroad right here. There was a ditch on this side and one on that side of the track and then it came through a culvert down here and crossed under before it got to Garland and went into the creek. Now all of it comes through this ditch that we put in with a grading permit to go in and this property takes the detention pond and dumps it in. Clark: Your detention pond is going to handle this runoff and probably some off site runoff. Honeycutt: Yeah. There is some that is getting into the ditch back here coming all the way from Razorback and it has to be kept open through there. O'Neal: The pond does exist right now? Honeycutt: We did everything but the concrete structure coming from the parking lot. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 16 Anthes: Ok, that was accomplished with the grading permit. Clark: Where are we with the trails? I understand why that wasn't an issue a couple of years ago because they weren't an issue a couple of years ago. Honeycutt: He would like to talk about that property but it is not on this property. There is no easement that he can give back here on this property to the trails. There is a drive behind it that is essential to these buildings. Clark: That is what I was seeing because there is the rive and the fence and then here is the trail. If you will talk that is a good thing. Honeycutt: We will talk. I guess Steve Hatfield would be the one to talk to. I met him out at the site and talked about that. Anthes: Let's look at the conditions of approval. The first one is commercial design standards. I understand that this has gone through an approval process prior to this. However, I am a little concerned that we are not applying ordinances equally when I look at the south elevation of this building. We have, probably since approval on this building, required some articulation of rear elevations on these types of developments. This is basically just a metal building that we are looking at. Particularly I'm thinking of the Wal-Mart stock room that is an addition to the rear part of a Wal-Mart and yet it is going to be by the trail and because of the unique visibility with the trail system we actually required that building to look more like a building on four sides. I can think of other instances like that that we have done recently. Clark: I agree with you 100%, especially since we have residential that is going to be to the south of this. I wouldn't want to see just a back of a building. Honeycutt: You have an 8' fence that is hiding most of the rear. Clark: It is not hiding all of it. Honeycutt: There are utilities and heating and air condensers that the fence will hide. That is probably why it was put in before. This is a picture of the back of the existing building here. The other two have a metal facade on it. Clark: Case in point, ugly as can be. Anthes: The facades to this building is much preferable to the existing properties on the site which were probably built prior to our commercial design standard ordinances. Subdivision Committee December 30, Page 17 Allen: Honeycutt: Clark: Honeycutt: Allen: Morgan: Honeycutt: Anthes: Clark: Allen: Morgan: Allen: 2004 How do these relate to the other two buildings? These two buildings and then this is the back of Arby's here. It is dryvit, a straight wall I think behind it. I have a note that says color to coordinate. That is the dryvit. I'm not clear as to whether or not our extension process allows us to go back and revisit these things. Does it or does it not? This is a new project. It does require a review for compliance with commercial design standards. However, since this was approved before there was nothing in our ordinances that have changed. Therefore, staff is recommending approval. They are showing screening. There is an intervening property so the rear of this structure is not considered as a front to Indian Trail and it looks like there is about 80' between the proposed fence and where the street is. These big trees are along the street. The terrain, it would look best since this is a drainage structure through here from Razorback, if you move closer to the street with the trail then it would be closer to these. These big trees screen these residents that are up on the hill here. Our commercial design standards explicitly call out that landscaping is not a way to mitigate commercial design standards. That landscape screening is not a valid reason to approve a building with commercial design standards. My question is that we are being even handed with everybody and we are treating all the projects the same way. I believe we have been requiring more of these types of projects. Since I've been on the Commission we have. I have been here longer and I see a change. That is why I wanted to know whether we have the prerogative to have this discussion or whether since it has been approved and we are only talking about an extension if that was a moot point. This is already project. expired so this is coming before you as a brand new Maybe this is something that we need to show the whole commission and have a discussion about. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 18 Clark: I can sort of see the developer's point that there are two existing buildings right there that don't have anything. Honeycutt: We did go back and change the fronts two years ago. Clark: In a way if we require more articulation on the southern elevation it is going to stick out like a sore thumb by comparison. Anthes: These were both prior to our ordinances. Which is going to stick out like a sore thumb the one that is improved or the existing? Clark: I think that the one that is improved will look much better than the two existing of course. I am thinking that if this goes to the full Planning Commission that there will be an argument made that it is not necessary. Anthes: I think we need to decide here. Clark: I would like to see more articulation on the southern elevation simply because it is in the ordinance, it is an even handed application and it is fair. It is a fairness issue. Honeycutt: Some of that that you are seeing is the articulation of the front. The water runs off back here. This is all gutter from the whole building. Anthes: What we have been requiring on other projects is that the materials would wrap around so that the E.I.F.S. would be on the back and then usually some pilaster treatments that would be similar to what we have going to the roof drain so they would have this red. Clark: It is not major and is all aesthetic. Anthes: Just a little break in the expanse and the metal indeed would be covered, it would be an E.I.F.S instead of the metal siding. Clark: It is a breaking up of the metal siding. You could use the metal siding but dressing it up a little bit. Honeycutt: Dressing it up with some E.I.F.S. columns, right now structurally we are using that, I guess in the back there where all the E.I.F.S. can get damaged with what is going on back there with the storage of pallets and entry doors and people knocking into it. The metal panel would take a little more punishment. I think Mr. Trumbo would go along with some more columns there, I would just have to go back and ask him. If I have to resubmit it I don't want to speak for him but I'm sure that he would like to comply. It could be matched with the front as far as these. We have masonry on this and masonry comes to the side all the way to the comer. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 19 Anthes: I would like to see that masonry wrap the corner on the east too and then perhaps you can change the material. I am just trying to be fair with what we are doing with everybody else. Honeycutt: I think we can put dryvit on those column lines there between those missing walls for the tenants. They have a door and a little concrete stoop to store as they come in the door. Allen: I believe that would be an adequate improvement and a good concession. Anthes: I agree. Would staff be comfortable with that? Morgan: That would be fine if you wish to make a condition that that rear or south elevation change in that way should the applicant who is not here, I assume you are his representative. Honeycutt: Yeah. I can accept that and I guess he will have to resubmit if he does not. Morgan: We can hear that back at this meeting as an administrative item if there is a problem with that. Anthes: I personally would really appreciate that particularly because we will be having a trail hopefully going back behind there so right now it seems like it is just a back but there will be more visibility as we go forward for people, for all the citizens of Fayetteville that are enjoying that trail. I think it is even handed with what we are requiring with both of those developments. Honeycutt: I guess that inspection will be made by Planning at the end of the project when they accept it. They will inspect parking and everything else. Morgan: Correct and when you submit for building permits we will take a look at the elevations. Honeycutt: We can put that on the elevations with the permit. Morgan: Just to understand, in the motion you can make a clarification of what you would like to see on there. Anthes: I guess what we are doing is amending the condition of approval number one and I would move to amend condition number one to state that the north, east and west elevations are approved as shown with the south elevation to have the masonry column wrap at the corners and then provide dryvit pilasters at the demising walls to break up the south elevation and provide a shadow. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 20 Allen: I second. Clark: Absolutely. Anthes: Do we have any other comments or motions on the project? Clark: Especially with Aspen Ridge coming down this street this will be a needed commercial development in that area. I will move that we approve LSD 05-1347 with the stated conditions as amended. Allen: I will second. Anthes: I will concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 21 FPL 05-1351: Final Plat (BRIDGEPORT PHASE 8, 360): Submitted by GEOFFREY BATES for property located at BRIDGEPORT SUBDIVISION, S OF MT. COMFORT RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 8.5 acres. The request is to approve the final plat of Phase 8 of the Bridgeport subdivision with 11 single family lots proposed. Anthes: The fourth item we will hear today is FPL 04-1351 for Bridgeport Phase VIII. Morgan: The applicant is requesting Final Plat approval for Phase VIII of Bridgeport subdivision to create eleven single family lots on approximately 8.5 acres. This is located south of Bridgeport Phase VII. Just to note, the subdivision name was not changed to Bridgeport Estates. The Planning Commission approved the Preliminary Plat for Phases VII and VIII of Bridgeport subdivision on April 12, 2003. Water and sewer lines have been extended to serve this development and a final inspection has been done on infrastructure within this subdivision. Right of way being dedicated is 50' for internal rights of way as well as 70' for the length of New Bridge Road, a collector street. Within this subdivision the infrastructure does provide stub outs to the east and south for future connectivity. Staff recommends approval of FPL 05-1351 at the Subdivision Committee with a total of eleven conditions of approval to include condition one, payment of $6,105 in lieu of parkland dedication for eleven single family lots, due prior to signing the Final Plat. A sign indicating that the future extension of New Bridge Road shall be either posted at the end of this street or guaranteed prior to the filing of the Final Plat. There is a portion of property, it is defined as Lot 25 within this Phase and it is to be common property and maintained by the P.O.A. as reflected in condition number three. All other conditions of approval are standard conditions for a Final Plat. Anthes: Thank you Suzanne. Do we have other staff comments? Bates: I'm Geoff Bates, the engineer on the project. Helmer: I'm Bill Helmer, the project manager for Bridgeport. Bates: You just approved Phase VII a couple of weeks ago. We finished the other phase since then and hopefully you can approve it today. There was a question about between lots 16 and 17 there are some trees in here. We have taken the utility easement out and we have worked with the utility companies and they are not going to go up through there now. Helmer: We can just remove that utility easement in it's entirety. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address FPL 05-1351? Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 22 Stewart: My name is Karen Stewart and I represent Bernita King also. We have the property directly east of this development. I don't have any complaints at this time. It is just one of communication. I have asked staff to let me know several times about when things are coming up. We have developments also to the north of us and the whole thing was finalized before we even knew that the whole thing was going through and we had some complaints. We don't have any complaints with this one. That has been my problem. This paper that you handed out, I would like to have a copy of that because I'm a direct property owner, we share property lines. I just want to make sure that everything is up to the development code. One of the questions that I had was about easements. According to your development code, that 25' easement is allowed for utilities and that kind of thing unless it is on the property line and then the adjacent property owner should be notified and agreed upon. That was never done. It is just a request for communication. Bates: All of the easements will be on this property. Stewart: The other thing that I have is whenever easements and electricity and that kind of thing are put on when they come over on your property and they stake things don't you think that the property owners ought to be notified that that is going on? Also, when they first put out the development we are notified in writing but subsequent meetings we are not notified of. Therefore, unless we happen to fall upon it like today accidentally we don't know what is going on and we have no say because things are passed until it is finalized and then we don't have a say in it. It is not that I have an objection. I don't know who's problem it is to notify adjacent property owners or whether it is planning. I have asked several times for Planning to notify me and they haven't. Anthes: We will address all of your questions after the public comment period so if you have anything else. Stewart: No, that's it. Anthes: Would any other member of the public like to address this Final Plat? Seeing none, I will close it to public comment and ask some questions about Ms. Stewart's comments. The City of Fayetteville has specific requirements about notification of property owners during the process. Suzanne, could you talk to Ms. Stewart about this particular project and how that notification occurred? Morgan: Certainly. With the approval of the Preliminary Plat the developer is required to notify all adjacent property owners and the city will also notify as a courtesy, all adjacent property owners of the Subdivision Committee Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 23 and Planning Commission meetings of that Preliminary Plat. The Final Plat process is more an administrative type process in order to just approve the lots that were already preliminarily approved for infrastructure. Therefore, the city does not require notification to adjacent property owners for this meeting for Final Plats. Our meeting schedule and agendas are posted in the newspaper, and they are posted on the city's website for this last year. We will be welcome to give you any information that you need if you will come down to the Planning Division, we will be able to give you any information that you like. Anthes: To summarize, there is a notification process due at Preliminary Plat. That is when the subdivision of land is basically decided with street layouts and those sorts of things. Once that is approved when it gets to this level they have installed it and we are just going back and verifying that they installed what they said they were going to do at Preliminary Plat and therefore, there is not a public notification at that time. All of our meetings are posted in the newspaper and at www.accessfayetteville.org. You can check that from time to time as well. As far as the easements go, the property owner has stated that they kept all of the easements on their side of the property line and therefore, it was just in their land so I guess that is why there wasn't any kind of joint agreement that was straddling your property line. As far as walking their site for staking and so forth, what is our requirement there? Morgan: The city certainly hopes that the applicant, if they are to go out on the property and walk their site as well as adjoining sites in order to survey and such that there would at least be some coordination between that to at least let the adjoining property owners know what they are doing out there. We do not have specific regulations for notification of walking the site. Stewart: I appreciate what you just said but the problem is that is very hard to find out. The TV postings on the government channel, it takes 12 minutes for the thing to rotate you are a better reader than I am. Last night when I read that thing I went through 45 minutes to read it all to see if we were going to do that so I want to tell you that's not adequate. I think also yes, your meetings are to finalize things here but changes are made. When changes are made that affect other people I think we have a right to know that. Also, there was one more thing. I didn't hear anything said about fences. According to the development code whenever a LSD comes up against agricultural there should be safety fences or screening and I was wondering if you would address that. Anthes: We require screening when commercial uses adjoin agricultural and residential uses. Since these are residences to residences there is not a screening requirement. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 24 Stewart: There is a place in the code where when developing a Large Scale Development next to agricultural that safety fences are required. Anthes: Right, but that Large Scale Development is a commercial development, not a residential development. If you would like, our staff is extremely helpful. You are welcome to go and sit with them in the office. Stewart: I met with them in October. Anthes: You are welcome to call them anytime. You can come in and they will provide you copies of any of the drawings that you would like, it is all public record. All of our meeting minutes, and walk you through the ordinances too. Stewart: I know Bridgeport has contacted us about purchasing but we haven't reached any agreement. I am thinking about putting animals back there and for safety I would like to have a fence. Anthes: That is not something that we can require of the developer because it would be containing your animals so that would be more of your responsibility. Like I said, if you would like to come in and talk to staff they will tell you what all will be required. Stewart: Thank you. Anthes: Are there any other comments? I know that there have been issues with drainage on this particular Bridgeport, I just want to make sure that this Phase, Brent, that you are satisfied. O'Neal: Yes Ma'am. I believe the problem is further downstream. All of this development, I believe they did the study for the entire area. This was before I was here but they did show no detention. They are adjacent to the creek. They did show that the peak times of the runoff were not coinciding. Geoff, I know you have been involved in this a lot longer than I have. If you could please elaborate on the drainage. Bates: What are you looking for? Anthes: I am just wanting to make sure that the grading and drainage has been accomplished according to our city standards because I understand that we have had some issues on prior phases of this development. Bates: Maybe further down stream but this is such a small project it is a very minimal impact on the stream or any kind of runoff. The majority of the Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 25 runoff is not going to change that much because of the lot sizes and there is not that much impervious area compared to the overall basin. Anthes: How are we handling the water on this phase? Bates: There is an existing humungous ditch that goes all the way down through here. Anthes: Is that the humungous ditch that we have seen photographs of? O'Neal: No, it is a different ditch. Helmer: I would anticipate the problems that you referred to is a little bit further west there is some drainage that goes through an adjacent property owner and comes all the way back, there are three other subdivisions, behind Bridgeport and then goes through the park area. We made some attempts to detain that and obviously, those did not meet the adjacent land owner's expectations. Of course, he agreed with what we were doing at the time. I have letters to that effect. Here we are not going offsite on anybody. This is just maintaining the existing drainage that we have. Clark: I am trying to figure out how you get to Mt. Comfort from here. Helmer: You go back up to Bridgeport Drive. Clark: Ok, New Bridge Road back up to Bridgeport Drive. The map I have is not showing me what I need to see. Morgan: You may be able to look on this, this is the phase. This is New Bridge so they can come through New Bridge and over. Clark: So the only connectivity we have coming out of these eleven lots is to come down New Bridge to where? There is lots of stuff over here that's not a street. Helmer: The street runs right through here behind these lots. Clark: Ok. That is going to take me to Mt. Comfort? Morgan: They can also go south through several different means to Wedington. Anthes: Remember this is a Final Plat. Clark: Ok. Anthes: Are there any other comments or motions? Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 26 Clark: I will move that we approve FPL 05-1351 with the conditions as stated. Allen: I will second. Anthes: I will concur Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 27 ADM 05-1363: Administrative Item (FIRE MOUNTAIN/RYAN'S): The request is to approve additional lighting on the existing building Anthes: Morgan: The final item we will hear today is ADM 05-1363 for Fire Mountain and Ryan's. May we have the staff report please? The property in question is a 2.6 acre property that is located on Lot 2 of the Spring park subdivision Phase II. It is located west of Shiloh Drive within the Design Overlay District. The existing restaurant formerly known as Ryan's has been remodeled and updated to display the name Fire Mountain, Hot off the Grill. The remodeling of this restaurant included the replacement of the existing wall signs and the freestanding sign. On September 13, 2004 the Planning Commission approved the placement of two wall signs on the structure where only one was allowed. This was to allow greater visibility of this business. Additionally, the applicant replaced the non -conforming Ryan's freestanding sign with a monument sign located at the northeast corner of the property. The applicant is here today with the request for approval of red LED lighting on the eaves of the existing structure to increase nightly visibility. Commercial design standards for developments within Fayetteville are required to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Although accent lighting of the structure is not specifically addressed in these guidelines it is considered as part of the overall architectural design of the structure and acts as an identifying feature of these businesses. The ordinance further regulates that the exterior appearance of the structures within the Design Overlay District is to protect and enhance the distinctive scenic quality of the I-540 Highway corridor by providing for non- residential developments which will maximize preservation and the enhancement of the natural, rural and open character of the terrain and foliage. The recently approved restaurants in the design overlay district have a variety of external lighting just listed here, Red Robin and Smokey Bones have some backlighting on the structure to light the structure. Olive Garden is lit on parts of the roofline with low wattage bulbs. Fuddruckers has ground lighting with some back lighting on their yellow awnings. O'Charley's has one single band of green lighting along their roofline. Logan's Roadhouse has the most extensive lighting with red and yellow neon lights extenuated by metal building material on the top of the restaurant. The nearest restaurants to Fire Mountain are Dixie Cafe and Red Lobster. Dixie Cafe does have some red neon banding on the eave. Red Lobster is however, only illuminated by ground lighting. I have some pictures of these if you want to pass them around. The existing Fire Mountain restaurant is well illuminated from Shiloh and College by ground lighting. The applicant's request to place red LED lighting on all sides of the structure will give it more visibility during these evening hours. However, accent lighting, as requested, is not compatible with Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 28 some of the recently approved Large Scale Developments in the Design Overlay District. Staff recommends that the Subdivision Committee make a determination of the compliance with the Design Overlay District and commercial design standards for this proposed lighting. The location of their lighting has been marked in yellow on the handout showing that each elevation of that lighting, I believe there is a picture also attached of one of their other businesses that has this lighting on there. Staff recommends that the amount of lighting be compatible with surrounding commercial structures and compliant with the intent of the Design Overlay District in order to further protect and enhance the distinctive scenic quality of this highway corridor. Should the Subdivision Committee approve lighting in whatever configuration, staff does recommend one condition that the applicant obtain all required permits prior to installation of this additional lighting. Anthes: Are you recommending approval at this level or at the full Commission? Morgan: At this level. Clark: Are you recommending approval? That is the most politically correct statement I've ever read. Morgan: In looking at the other developments I am unaware, at the time that we look at Large Scale Developments we look at their elevations and it is unclear what they are going to look like at night. I am unsure if it was the intent of the Planning Commission to approve the type of lighting that some of these businesses have on them. In looking at what is actually out there and compliance, I believe that some accent lighting is compatible with the surrounding, whether the extent of and the amount is compatible. I believe that probably a lesser amount of lighting than what is shown would be more appropriate in this area. I would like a determination from the Subdivision Committee. Anthes: Thank you Suzanne. Do we have any other staff comments? O'Neal: No comment. Anthes: Seeing nobody else here, we will just talk about this amongst ourselves. When I am looking at this I'm looking at two things and that is first of all, we have the red issue. The second is that we already have allowed a second sign that wasn't allowed by ordinance and then I'm looking at the staff report saying that the lighting is considered as a part of the overall architectural design and acts as an identifying feature. Identifying features are sort of sign related to me. We are looking at this, we have already approved an extra sign and then we are going to be looking at additional identifying features keeping in mind that language an also the fact that it is Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 29 bright red. It does seem like a reduced amount might be more in keeping with what we have approved for other developments. Allen: Certainly I agree. Looking at the Fuddruckers and the Olive Garden, they are being found at night with this amount of lighting. This just seems excessive to me. Have you given some thought to ground lighting? McManus: No Ma'am. Anthes: The staff report said that there is some ground lighting at the location. Morgan: There are some pictures in there that show the front of Fire Mountain as it exists. McManus: You can't even see the monument sign it is so small. You turn right around and there is the Dixie Cafe which has red neon and you can see us. I was at the intersection, if I wouldn't have known it was Fire Mountain I wouldn't have known what was down there and I certainly wouldn't have drove down that dead end road where we're at to see what it was. We have all of that traffic out there on that highway and you don't know what we are over there. This is strictly a visibility thing. If you don't like the red I can go to green. We will do that. It will accent the building. We went from an 8x16 pylon sign to a 4x8 monument sign 6' off the ground and it is so remote from my store because there was nowhere to put it, you don't even know what it is. You don't even see it. We are just dead. To be honest with you, the store is dead. We have a mess of a problem there. We spent a lot of money on the remodel and it is just dead. It is my job to get them in there and it's operations to keep them through. We are not getting them into the store and I think a lot of it is visibility. We have 400 stores and this is one with the worst visibility in our whole system. The sign, there is no marquee and no pylon sign as Dixie Cafe has got next door. I realize that's probably grandfathered but we spent a lot of money there and we are just not getting any return whatsoever on it. You just can't see it. Allen: What direction is this coming from? McManus: That is the front of the building. Morgan: That is the eastern elevation so if you were driving north on College and you looked over that is what you would see. McManus: You've already passed the entrance by that time and then you have to go all the way through the town, turn around and go back and it is too late then if you don't catch us before that point you're gone. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 30 Clark: I agree with you. I think the restaurant is placed so poorly that you are fighting an uphill battle. I went back out and looked after the Planning Commission approved the new stuff and to me it didn't make a difference to be perfectly honest. McManus: My understanding is when that store was initially built that frontage road was going to be it. Morgan: I believe at one point it was on the fly by. McManus: In the summer time when those trees are next to it, coming out of town you will never see it and the little monument sign is just pitiful. Allen: I think you do have a visibility problem and if you've missed that turn you've blown it. Is there something that you can think of that would be a little Tess extreme than outlining the building in red? McManus: Like I said, we have that preferred color but we have used some green. We tried both when we first started doing it and of course, the management liked the red better. We would certainly use green if it meant that or nothing. We've just got to do something. There again, it is more of an accent decorative feature but it does give some lighting to the facilities around it and safety. If it is well lighted it looks like it is doing something. Some place with no lights and no cars, who wants to go there? Clark: One of the things that jumps to mind, it is totally out of our prevue, I'm looking at O'Charley's and they have got regular lights around the perimeter of their building, not neon, just regular lights. I don't think red neon honestly is going to help. McManus: We have got wall packs. Clark: They are not noted in this picture and I've not noticed one of them when I've driven out there millions of times. McManus: This is not that store. Clark: That is just dead. O'Charley's has minimal neon but a lot of light because they have used different types of light which are not under our jurisdiction. Morgan: The reason that this is before you is because of the substantial amount of accent red lighting. McManus: They have put wall packs on the wall and that should have some on. I don't know maybe they aren't on. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 31 Allen: I think we all agree that you have a problem an it is hard to manage it. We are just trying to come up with some other solution. McManus: Logan's Roadhouse has a double row of neon on top of that building, that is a lot more than we would have. Anthes: I think Suzanne pointed out a problem with our review process which is that we see elevations like this that we approve and the lighting is not called out. Sometimes we are not aware of how much lighting has been proposed and that is something that we need to pay more attention to. I do think it is interesting that the one that you almost can't see here at all is the Olive Garden and I believe that this is the number one grossing Olive Garden in the country and it has almost no signage at all and it is not directly on the freeway. You go past it and go by it to other shopping areas. I do think you are at a disadvantage with that dead end street. McManus: In the summer time coming out of Fayetteville with the trees right beside it just hides our business until you are directly in front of it and then you have to be looking that direction or you just go right on by. We wouldn't necessarily have to go all the way around on this side where that tree foliage is. It would just be facing the main highway and then down the entrance side. This store doesn't have the dormers. This is a remodeled store. Clark: I am inclined to approve some provision to give extra lighting. Allen: I agree but I have problems with this particular lighting. Clark: That looks like a Christmas decoration. Allen: It really does. I feel as though there should be a Santa sleigh or something on top. McManus: Would the green help? Allen: I think less or maybe some ground lighting or some combination things. McManus: As far as ground lighting, on the entrance side there is no where to put any because you have your parking lot there. That stack, we already have some spotlights on it as you can see here. Anthes: That really works actually. I was out the other night looking at it and this building lighting with your signage and those two peaks really works but that is about all you see. Subdivision Committee December 30, Page 32 McManus: Anthes: Allen: McManus: Clark: McManus: Clark: McManus: Allen: McManus: Anthes: Clark: 2004 You have to be looking to see that. The monument sign, we might as well not even have that. This is difficult for us because we don't necessarily need to be designing this for them and yet we want them to be able to leave today with a clear idea of what we will approve. What do you feel you could eliminate? If it would help instead of a double row here put a single row and only put a double row on our pitches here and the entrance. If we could just go with a single row that would cut out a lot. You won't have the dormers. If you don't put it on your dining room area what it looks like is neon, you have a big gap and then it picks up here and it looks disjunctive. I think these dormers are giving us a very bad misrepresentation of this. That is not what this building is. We could go a single stroke. We have even went to the green to match our fascia and our facade, the colors. In the daytime you don't even see this. It is completely gone. I think the LED is more tasteful than some of the other things. The safety value, it is 24volt, the same as your doorbell in your house. It is amazing. It is no maintenance to us. There are no high voltage transformers, there is one 20 amp circuit for 600 feet of this stuff. You are suggesting one band straight across and nothing on the dormers? Right. These are pitches, the dormers would normally be up here. I want to qualify my statement in that I don't think this is something that I want to set as a precedent for all restaurants in the area. However, I do think that there are some extenuating circumstances with this piece of property. That is that I'm sure when they purchased the property and built the building originally the City of Fayetteville was planning to extend that street. Because of that they are in a hampered condition based on some city decisions outside of their control. I agree with you 100%. No one should interpret my vote on this particular restaurant's issue as my stand on lighting on restaurants. You are in a very strained position. Allen: I think we need to be more careful about our lighting as projects come through. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2004 Page 33 Clark: Morgan: McManus: I don't think staff even knows the full extent of the neon that has come up. We can start addressing that with the building elevations. What has happened, I have been in the design business for 25 or 30 years, when you go back to a remodeled store like this one here, we are going to max out the codes whenever you build a store, when you go back 15 or 20 years from now if anything, the codes are worse, as in this situation. We are dealing with what's the alternative. LED lighting is an alternative. It is not a sign. Most cities say it is building accent lighting. You are going to see more and more of it because you have to illuminate your building at night because the signage is gone in 10 years. This is the alternative to getting some identification. Anthes: I was of the mind at first to let's do less of it, but now I'm seeing let's do less of it by not allowing the double light, just the single and change it to green and put it on the areas that are highlighted on this drawing to allow it in all of those areas. Clark: I will make a motion on ADM 05-1363 that we approve with an added condition of approval that we are restricting it to one row of the lighting with a preference to green on the highlighted items on the documents presented to us. Allen: I will second. Anthes: I will concur. I hope that helps you out. Everybody that is watching on television, go have a meal at Fire Mountain. Do we have any other announcements? If not, we are adjourned. Thank you. April 18, 2005 (SM) — Updated minutes to add Mr. McManus' name where there were originally question marks.